Here's a demo of a setting of Pie Jesu I've written.
It should be for voice and piano but on this the soprano is played on a cor anglais!
Click here to download the sheet music.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
The Lord's Prayer - baritone & vibraphone
This is a demo version of a setting of The Lord's Prayer for baritone voice and vibraphone that I wrote for a friend of mine.
On this recording the voice part is played on a cor anglais (english horn).
If you'd like a copy of the music do message me.
On this recording the voice part is played on a cor anglais (english horn).
If you'd like a copy of the music do message me.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
COMMENT: Bank Holidays and Public Holidays
This weekend we, in Englsnd & Wales, have two bank holidays or public holidays), and, in quick succession, there's both May Day and Whitsun. In all, on a normal non-Jubilee and non-Royal Wedding year, we get 8 days off in this manner.
We're actually quite low in the league table of days off for public holidays compared to other countries around the world, and there is what feels like a interminable campaign to make the anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar into an extra day's holiday in the autumn (always good to celebrate historic military victories over what are now close political allies - NOT!).
People seem to like bank holidays; I guess people just like having a day off.
I find bsnk holidays both patronising and feudalist.
Yes, workers should have a number of days off each year and it is right that there is legislation to protect those days off from any unscrupulous employer, but, really, in the 21st century do we really want a government to dictate when we have to take those days off?
Isn't that a bit of an archaic approach to labour laws?
Surely we should be able, in negotiation with our employer, be able to choose when we have those days off?
As an atheist, I don't want days off to celebrate fictional events from 2,000 years ago, but I might want a couple of days off in September instead. And if I want to spend those days with my friends or family, is it beyong the wit of man for us to be able to organise our calendars in such a way that we are all off together?
Ok, some jobs have restrictions on when holidays can be taken. Teachers, for instance, can't take a couple of weeks off mid-term and that makes sense, but I don't see why any government has a right to choose my days off for me.
We're actually quite low in the league table of days off for public holidays compared to other countries around the world, and there is what feels like a interminable campaign to make the anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar into an extra day's holiday in the autumn (always good to celebrate historic military victories over what are now close political allies - NOT!).
People seem to like bank holidays; I guess people just like having a day off.
I find bsnk holidays both patronising and feudalist.
Yes, workers should have a number of days off each year and it is right that there is legislation to protect those days off from any unscrupulous employer, but, really, in the 21st century do we really want a government to dictate when we have to take those days off?
Isn't that a bit of an archaic approach to labour laws?
Surely we should be able, in negotiation with our employer, be able to choose when we have those days off?
As an atheist, I don't want days off to celebrate fictional events from 2,000 years ago, but I might want a couple of days off in September instead. And if I want to spend those days with my friends or family, is it beyong the wit of man for us to be able to organise our calendars in such a way that we are all off together?
Ok, some jobs have restrictions on when holidays can be taken. Teachers, for instance, can't take a couple of weeks off mid-term and that makes sense, but I don't see why any government has a right to choose my days off for me.
Saturday, 7 April 2012
OPINION: Christians should wear a cross
Tomorrow, in his Easter Sunday sermon, Cardinal Keith O' Brien, the head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, will call for all Christians to wear the symbol of the cross every day.
This is the latest from the various parts of the Christian church in their claims that Christianity is being marginalised in modern society, and a call to fight back against what church leaders call "militant secularisation and atheism".
Some religions, of course, require their followers to wear symbols (turbans, for instance), while others have become accepted as the norm but there is no requirement in the Bible for Christians to display their faith in this way.
And why would they? Do Christians really want to wear a badge that announces to the world that they are bigoted against homosexuals, or that their religion believes in the suppression of women?
I guess it will the rest of us to be able to identify those amongst us who believe superstitious mumbo jumbo instead of scientific fact. Indeed, why don't Christians just wear a dunce's cap instead of a cross?
Cardinal O'Brien will point out that a small lapel cross costs less than an Easter egg. Is that the motivation for his idiotic outcry? It's a way of flogging more Jesus merchandise and add to the, already obscene, amounts of money the tax evading church has?
This is the latest from the various parts of the Christian church in their claims that Christianity is being marginalised in modern society, and a call to fight back against what church leaders call "militant secularisation and atheism".
Some religions, of course, require their followers to wear symbols (turbans, for instance), while others have become accepted as the norm but there is no requirement in the Bible for Christians to display their faith in this way.
And why would they? Do Christians really want to wear a badge that announces to the world that they are bigoted against homosexuals, or that their religion believes in the suppression of women?
I guess it will the rest of us to be able to identify those amongst us who believe superstitious mumbo jumbo instead of scientific fact. Indeed, why don't Christians just wear a dunce's cap instead of a cross?
Cardinal O'Brien will point out that a small lapel cross costs less than an Easter egg. Is that the motivation for his idiotic outcry? It's a way of flogging more Jesus merchandise and add to the, already obscene, amounts of money the tax evading church has?
Monday, 12 March 2012
OPINION: Banning religious symbols in the workplace
It all started in 2006 with Nadia Eweida, the fundamentalist Christian, who wanted to be allowed to flaunt and advertise her religion at work, even though it broke BA's uniform policies.
Naturally, the dullards and religious extremists of the right wing press were up in arms and Christians up and down the country, including the then prime minister Tony Blair, weighed in saying that they were being victimised and that it was their right to display their faith. Even Boris Johnson supported Mrs. Eweida, and he ought to know better.
Similarly, a nurse who offered prayers for patients, as if superstition could intervene where medicine struggled, was rightly disciplined for imposing her faith.
More recently the same numbskulls have defended the right of a council to have prayers as part of their meeting and claimed that this didn't prejudice or favour anyone or any group! There has been a lot of whining and whinging about "militant atheism" and "creeping secularism" as if atheism and secularism are bad things.
Surely, if there is any sense, it is time for parliament to drop its prayers and for courts to abandon the nonsense of witnesses swearing on the Bible, a book so full of lies it throws into doubt every word sworn on it!
Although, through extreme pressure from religious groups, supported by the government, BA were forced to initially back down and allow employees to advertise their religion on their work uniforms, it is pleasing to hear that the case is not yet over and that the current Tory government, which many would have thought would have been on the side of the religious nut jobs, is supporting BA's original decision and saying that there is no right to wear religious symbols in the workplace.
Mrs. Eweida has continued to fight to be allowed to advertise her faith at work and, with financial help from a number of Christian fundamentalist sources, she has now taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The British government, in a rare moment of common sense, will oppose her petition - and rightly so.
Sadly, though, Ministers will only be opposing "optional" religious symbols such as the Christian cross, and not all religious symbols, some of which have a compulsory element, like headscarves, bangles, etc.
This is a shame. There has already been a hearing in which Justice Stephen Sedley threw out Mrs Eweida’s case for discrimination, accusing her of following a “sectarian agenda”. Given that, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Mrs Eweida will probably argue, in Strasbourg, that her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a cross in the same way that another female employee may well argue her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a burka. But that is simply a nonsensical argument.
BA have acted both reasonably and proportionately in the way it dealt with Mrs. Eweida and its time that all religions were prevented from flaunting their beliefs in public. It is time that religious faith, a clear mental illness and a display of ignorance and stupidity, was forced to be a private matter at worst, and educated out of society at best.
As a society we mustn't fall into the trap of thinking the only fundamentalists are Muslims and they're all suicide bombers. To adhere to a religious faith in the 21st Century, denying science, reason and all rational thought, is a ridiculous position to hold and good governments must act to prevent the cancer of religious faith spreading any further.
The banning of religious symbols in the workplace is the act of a courageous company standing against the would-be oppressors of the Church. The government and the European Court of Human Rights now need to stand up for sanity.
Naturally, the dullards and religious extremists of the right wing press were up in arms and Christians up and down the country, including the then prime minister Tony Blair, weighed in saying that they were being victimised and that it was their right to display their faith. Even Boris Johnson supported Mrs. Eweida, and he ought to know better.
Similarly, a nurse who offered prayers for patients, as if superstition could intervene where medicine struggled, was rightly disciplined for imposing her faith.
More recently the same numbskulls have defended the right of a council to have prayers as part of their meeting and claimed that this didn't prejudice or favour anyone or any group! There has been a lot of whining and whinging about "militant atheism" and "creeping secularism" as if atheism and secularism are bad things.
Surely, if there is any sense, it is time for parliament to drop its prayers and for courts to abandon the nonsense of witnesses swearing on the Bible, a book so full of lies it throws into doubt every word sworn on it!
Although, through extreme pressure from religious groups, supported by the government, BA were forced to initially back down and allow employees to advertise their religion on their work uniforms, it is pleasing to hear that the case is not yet over and that the current Tory government, which many would have thought would have been on the side of the religious nut jobs, is supporting BA's original decision and saying that there is no right to wear religious symbols in the workplace.
Mrs. Eweida has continued to fight to be allowed to advertise her faith at work and, with financial help from a number of Christian fundamentalist sources, she has now taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The British government, in a rare moment of common sense, will oppose her petition - and rightly so.
Sadly, though, Ministers will only be opposing "optional" religious symbols such as the Christian cross, and not all religious symbols, some of which have a compulsory element, like headscarves, bangles, etc.
This is a shame. There has already been a hearing in which Justice Stephen Sedley threw out Mrs Eweida’s case for discrimination, accusing her of following a “sectarian agenda”. Given that, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Mrs Eweida will probably argue, in Strasbourg, that her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a cross in the same way that another female employee may well argue her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a burka. But that is simply a nonsensical argument.
BA have acted both reasonably and proportionately in the way it dealt with Mrs. Eweida and its time that all religions were prevented from flaunting their beliefs in public. It is time that religious faith, a clear mental illness and a display of ignorance and stupidity, was forced to be a private matter at worst, and educated out of society at best.
As a society we mustn't fall into the trap of thinking the only fundamentalists are Muslims and they're all suicide bombers. To adhere to a religious faith in the 21st Century, denying science, reason and all rational thought, is a ridiculous position to hold and good governments must act to prevent the cancer of religious faith spreading any further.
The banning of religious symbols in the workplace is the act of a courageous company standing against the would-be oppressors of the Church. The government and the European Court of Human Rights now need to stand up for sanity.
Sunday, 11 March 2012
OPINION: The Tyranny of Tolerance
Over the past couple of years the religious faiths, particularly the Christians, have become more and more shrill in the defence of and support for their "beliefs" and if, or more often when, they look like losing the debate they scream that those who oppose them are being intolerant.
Tolerance is, to an extent, a good thing. Of course it is. But the way that the faiths use it as a club with which to batter opponents is nothing more than a Tyranny of Tolerance.
Tolerance isn't a right. Just because someone says or believes something doesn't give them the right to say it and have it defended by the law. Look at the racism of extreme far right parties. Their racism should never be tolerated in a modern society and while they have a right to say their views (as long as they stay within the race hate laws that protect minorities), and they have a right to stand for public office and see if others support their views, but they do not have the right to have their views uncontested, and they do not have the right o impose their beliefs on others.
This is, or at least should be, the case with religious faith too. Just because somehow has a religious faith doesn't mean it should be protected or tolerated. Far from it.
When religions display bigotry they must, of course, be challenged and their bigotry highlighted. Currently many oppose the Christian stance against gay marriage and feel it is an affront to civilised society. Some of us think it comes quite close to breaking the law.
There is no way that Christian bigotry should be tolerated and yet, because it's their "faith" that's what many Christians want and demand.
Ultimately, why should ANY faith that has, at its core, an imaginary superbeing and all sorts of unproven, unprovable "facts" that are used as mind control on its adherents?
Religious faith, the denial of science, reason and logic, is, at best, stupidity and ignorance and, at worst, a form of mental illness and madness. If I suddenly announced that invisible superbeings were talking to me I'd, quite rightly, be licked up for my own safety and the safety of others but Christians think that such nonsense should be tolerated if it's their lunacy - because that's faith and should be beyond normal society.
What utter nonsense.
Religious faith should not be tolerated as a matter of course. It should be challenged at every turn. It should be shown to be a nonsense. It should, when appropriate, be ridiculed. It should, when it breaks the laws that the rest of use have to follow, be prosecuted. It should be brought to book in every way possible so that people know the facts about religion.
Tolerance of religion is a bad thing for society - it allows churches to abuse and control the vulnerable and leads to a society divided by superstition, which has to be a bad thing.
Should horoscopes be tolerated and not mocked for their blatant nonsense? Of course not.
Should all who speak out homophobic ally, as Christian leaders have on the issue if fat marriage, be tolerated? No of course not, and the churches must not be above the law and treated differently.
Religious faith is a bad thing. It is a nonsense in modern society and yet Liz Windsor sits as Head of the established church being praised for her leadership for 60 years over ridiculous superstitions, and Rowan Willuams, the Archbishop of Bigotry, fuels the fires being intolerant of reason and fact whilst demanding tolerance for his own nonsense.
The Tyranny of Tolerance, the last line of defence for the abusive religions, must be smashed.
Tolerance is, to an extent, a good thing. Of course it is. But the way that the faiths use it as a club with which to batter opponents is nothing more than a Tyranny of Tolerance.
Tolerance isn't a right. Just because someone says or believes something doesn't give them the right to say it and have it defended by the law. Look at the racism of extreme far right parties. Their racism should never be tolerated in a modern society and while they have a right to say their views (as long as they stay within the race hate laws that protect minorities), and they have a right to stand for public office and see if others support their views, but they do not have the right to have their views uncontested, and they do not have the right o impose their beliefs on others.
This is, or at least should be, the case with religious faith too. Just because somehow has a religious faith doesn't mean it should be protected or tolerated. Far from it.
When religions display bigotry they must, of course, be challenged and their bigotry highlighted. Currently many oppose the Christian stance against gay marriage and feel it is an affront to civilised society. Some of us think it comes quite close to breaking the law.
There is no way that Christian bigotry should be tolerated and yet, because it's their "faith" that's what many Christians want and demand.
Ultimately, why should ANY faith that has, at its core, an imaginary superbeing and all sorts of unproven, unprovable "facts" that are used as mind control on its adherents?
Religious faith, the denial of science, reason and logic, is, at best, stupidity and ignorance and, at worst, a form of mental illness and madness. If I suddenly announced that invisible superbeings were talking to me I'd, quite rightly, be licked up for my own safety and the safety of others but Christians think that such nonsense should be tolerated if it's their lunacy - because that's faith and should be beyond normal society.
What utter nonsense.
Religious faith should not be tolerated as a matter of course. It should be challenged at every turn. It should be shown to be a nonsense. It should, when appropriate, be ridiculed. It should, when it breaks the laws that the rest of use have to follow, be prosecuted. It should be brought to book in every way possible so that people know the facts about religion.
Tolerance of religion is a bad thing for society - it allows churches to abuse and control the vulnerable and leads to a society divided by superstition, which has to be a bad thing.
Should horoscopes be tolerated and not mocked for their blatant nonsense? Of course not.
Should all who speak out homophobic ally, as Christian leaders have on the issue if fat marriage, be tolerated? No of course not, and the churches must not be above the law and treated differently.
Religious faith is a bad thing. It is a nonsense in modern society and yet Liz Windsor sits as Head of the established church being praised for her leadership for 60 years over ridiculous superstitions, and Rowan Willuams, the Archbishop of Bigotry, fuels the fires being intolerant of reason and fact whilst demanding tolerance for his own nonsense.
The Tyranny of Tolerance, the last line of defence for the abusive religions, must be smashed.
Friday, 10 February 2012
OPINION: Time to change the National Anthem
Today's ruling that councils cannot have prayers as part of their official business has seen a number of rabid dog loonies defending Christian's "right" to pray when and where they want and bleating on about the oppression of their "faith" (mental illness).
One particular Christian on BBC Radio Five said that if the ruling is applied it would mean that councils wouldn't be able to ever sing the national anthem. Hurrah! Oh wouldn't it be good to get rid of this deeply offensive, divisive dirge which, quite likely, isn't even of British origin (it's more than likely an adaptation of a French folk hymn!).
God save the Queen isn't suitable as the national anthem of a democracy in the 21st century - even if we do carry on paying £200+ million per year to allow the Windsors to be the biggest benefit scroungers in the country.
What a load of absolute bollocks!
This verse, if you're Scottish things get worse and much more offensive in later verses (it says that "rebellious Scots" should be crushed), isn't a national anthem at all - it's a paean to a fictional superbeing to look after one person. What has that got to do with national identity?
I have no problem with a national anthem - if we HAVE to have nationalities (something I've often questioned), then there's nothing wrong with a song but it should be inclusive, positive and be about the nation, not just the parasite with privileges at the top.
I disagree that our current monarch is "gracious" or "noble" = she is the head of a business which, in order to operate, restricts the freedoms and rights of the vast bulk of the rest of the people who live in the same country, and who is propped up through pointless, outdated titles and baubles and other bribery.
And why do we want her to be "victorious" - I'd rather we lived in a peaceful world, not one that had wars to be won and battles and victories.
And why, even if we wanted a song about the nation's figurehead, should we be praying to a "god" - which god? Why any god at all? The vast majority don't attend church regularly and aren't "religious" in any meaningful way. Although many still put "C of E' on the census or on forms in hospital they are cultural Christians, or social Christians, whose only links to the church are for weddings, funerals, attending the odd Christening and, of course, a carol service at Christmas.
It is time the "national anthem" was abandoned and replaced with something which has words that are inclusive, non-denominational, non-sectarian, positive and, come on, with a good rousing tune.
There are some fantastic national anthem melodies around the world - the French and American ones are particularly rousing, but our one is just snoresville. Maybe we look at other, existing melodies and songs and see if there is something that could be adopted as a new anthem, or maybe we hold a competition for a new anthem.
Whatever we do, we need a new national anthem - and soon!
One particular Christian on BBC Radio Five said that if the ruling is applied it would mean that councils wouldn't be able to ever sing the national anthem. Hurrah! Oh wouldn't it be good to get rid of this deeply offensive, divisive dirge which, quite likely, isn't even of British origin (it's more than likely an adaptation of a French folk hymn!).
God save the Queen isn't suitable as the national anthem of a democracy in the 21st century - even if we do carry on paying £200+ million per year to allow the Windsors to be the biggest benefit scroungers in the country.
God save our gracious Quuen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen.
Send her victorious,
Happy and Glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.
What a load of absolute bollocks!
This verse, if you're Scottish things get worse and much more offensive in later verses (it says that "rebellious Scots" should be crushed), isn't a national anthem at all - it's a paean to a fictional superbeing to look after one person. What has that got to do with national identity?
I have no problem with a national anthem - if we HAVE to have nationalities (something I've often questioned), then there's nothing wrong with a song but it should be inclusive, positive and be about the nation, not just the parasite with privileges at the top.
I disagree that our current monarch is "gracious" or "noble" = she is the head of a business which, in order to operate, restricts the freedoms and rights of the vast bulk of the rest of the people who live in the same country, and who is propped up through pointless, outdated titles and baubles and other bribery.
And why do we want her to be "victorious" - I'd rather we lived in a peaceful world, not one that had wars to be won and battles and victories.
And why, even if we wanted a song about the nation's figurehead, should we be praying to a "god" - which god? Why any god at all? The vast majority don't attend church regularly and aren't "religious" in any meaningful way. Although many still put "C of E' on the census or on forms in hospital they are cultural Christians, or social Christians, whose only links to the church are for weddings, funerals, attending the odd Christening and, of course, a carol service at Christmas.
It is time the "national anthem" was abandoned and replaced with something which has words that are inclusive, non-denominational, non-sectarian, positive and, come on, with a good rousing tune.
There are some fantastic national anthem melodies around the world - the French and American ones are particularly rousing, but our one is just snoresville. Maybe we look at other, existing melodies and songs and see if there is something that could be adopted as a new anthem, or maybe we hold a competition for a new anthem.
Whatever we do, we need a new national anthem - and soon!
Monday, 6 February 2012
COMMENT: Ian Paisley
I often say that all death is sad for someone, but I will struggle to find anything to mourn should Ian Paisley pass away, as expected, in the next few days.
A man of hatred, who made the situation much worse with his evil diatribe and bigotry.
A man who gave himself the title Rev in order to be able to stir the religious divide in Northern Ireland and whose ignorance and inste violent tendencies embarrassed the UK in the European Parliament.
A man, promoted by Cameron to the House of Lords, who is a fundamentalist, creationist loon with an irrational hatred of Roman Catholicism because it doesn't fit with his own dogmatic bigotry. It seems HIS bigotry, including outspoken opposition to gay rights, is good, but the Pope is the anti-Christ.
I am sure Ian Paisley's family will mourn his inevitable passing, but I wonder how many lives his words cost and how much damage his entrenched and moronic views caused to the people of Northern Ireland.
Good riddance, Ian Paisley. Your type will hopefully not be seen again. You are a truly evil and ignorant man.
A man of hatred, who made the situation much worse with his evil diatribe and bigotry.
A man who gave himself the title Rev in order to be able to stir the religious divide in Northern Ireland and whose ignorance and inste violent tendencies embarrassed the UK in the European Parliament.
A man, promoted by Cameron to the House of Lords, who is a fundamentalist, creationist loon with an irrational hatred of Roman Catholicism because it doesn't fit with his own dogmatic bigotry. It seems HIS bigotry, including outspoken opposition to gay rights, is good, but the Pope is the anti-Christ.
I am sure Ian Paisley's family will mourn his inevitable passing, but I wonder how many lives his words cost and how much damage his entrenched and moronic views caused to the people of Northern Ireland.
Good riddance, Ian Paisley. Your type will hopefully not be seen again. You are a truly evil and ignorant man.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Monday, 12 December 2011
OPINION: Skeptics - stop preaching to the converted
Over the past few years, the rise of the skeptics, and the acceptance of rational thought as the norm, has slowly been witnessed on tv, radio, best-selling books, magazine articles and, of course, in theatre shows (mostly, it seems, hosted by Robin Ince and featuring Brian Cox). This is good; it is right and proper that science and fact and knowledge should be given more coverage.
Robin Ince and Brian Cox
There is, though, a little problem.
I think I've witnessed this change not because there has been a widespread media change but only because of the types of television programmes I watch, the brand of newspaper I get my headlines from and the books I read.
I fear that skeptics and rational thought are becoming ghettoised - and largely of their own making.
When Richard Dawkins writes a new book or fronts a new television series, who watches it? I strongly suspect that most of his audience is made up of people who already agree with him. I very much doubt that many creationists tune in to watch RD rip their beliefs to pieces.
And the same can be said of the "Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless people" and the "Uncaged Monkeys" shows - the audience is made up of those for whom rational thought is, well, rational! These events are, to all intents and purposes, rallies of supporters.
Now, there is nothing wrong with a bit of self-congratulation at times, but there comes a point when it becomes, well, pointless.
Stephen Fry has become, in recent years, a "National Treasure" as well as a "professional skeptic", and there are many others, some of whom I've already mentioned. They address meetings of skeptics, they write articles that get published in the more intelligent magazines and periodicals that tend to be read by skeptics, they... well, quite simply, they make a good living from being a skeptic.
I'm not going to protest at writers earning an honest crust from their views - far from it - but I do wish the skeptic movement (if there is such a thing) and the school of rational thought would stop contemplating its own belly button and smugly slapping each other on the back in congratulations.
Yes, we're right.
No, as the London Bus said, there almost certainly isn't a God.
Yes, Creationism and Intelligent Design are both nonsense.
Yes, homeopathy is a con.
The list could go on and on.
It's time to stick our heads above the parapet more. It's time to help others understand why we're right and why they're wrong. It's time to challenge the lies put out by religion and the anti-science lobby, not just in an amusing panel game shows that can be considered a bit naught and a bit tongue-in-cheek, but in a more serious way, and in more prominent fora.
An amusing panel game show
We need skeptics on BBC1 and ITV1, not just tucked away on BBC2 and Channel 4. We need to find ways of making rational thought attractive, interesting and entertaining. We need easy to understand articles in the red tops and in popular magazines. We need to achieve a balance.
For every "my house is haunted" story in a popular magazine there really should be something publilshed pointing out that ghosts don't exist, that they defy the laws of thermodynamics and, to be honest, there is always a better and a more obvious explanation.
For every documentary about extra-terrestrials visiting earth we need a programme that shows that, while this is an interesting and comforting idea that we're not alone in the universe, the chances of aliens from other planets having visited earth is just not worth the time calculating - they haven't visited, it's fun in a science fiction novel but it must be remembered that it's fiction.
There are many other things we, as skeptics, need - some are significant changes to the constitution of our country, others require the media to ensure a proper balance.
For starters, we, as skeptics, should demand that church and state are separated and that the head of state isn't the head of a established church. We need to rid the House of Lords of the unelected bishops. We need religion of all hues removed from state affairs and the official public arena as is the case in both France and the USA. In the 21st century there is no reason or logic for any nation to be anything other than secular.
Schools in England and Wales are still required BY LAW to have a daily act of worship of a largely Christian nature and the teaching and study of R.E. is compulsory up to the age of 16. R.E. in the curriculum does cover religions other than Christianity but the is little time for rational thought. Why do schools have to help the churches recruit?
A school assembly
The school curriculum should, instead, have philosophy or a study of world cultures rather than the horrendous child abuse that is R.E.
And yes, a daily act of worship? That's blatant indoctrination. The times I've taken assembly there have been no prayers involved. I guess there are militant Christians who think I should be locked up for that!
Anyone or any company who make a scientific claim should be forced to publish the science behind that claim in peer reviewed publications. That would, instantly, put homeopathy out of business. Or homeopathic treatments should carry large warnings on them: "YOU MAY AS WELL BE FLUSHING YOUR MONEY DOWN THE TOILET AS TAKING THIS SNAKE OIL"
Then there's smaller things. Balance in the media. Here's an example:
It is time that BBC Radio 4's Thought for the Day had regular atheist, or antitheist, contributions. On the Today Programme, of which Thought for the Day forms part, it would be expected that political coverage is balanced, so that when a government minister appears saying me thing, a member of the opposition can give their view too. Why doesn't his apply to religion, faith and rational thought?
Radio 4's The Today Programme
I cringe every time that breakfast television shows or other daytime television give over airtime to a priest - they get to say their piece but there is never (well, very rarely) a balance. If a priest is allowed on, given soft questions and able to get away with saying anything he wants, the a skeptic should be allowed to challenge every point and show what rubbish the priest is saying.
The problem is that the establishment as is relies on the lies and superstitions of the majority. Without the blind faith of the masses that inexplicably support church, monarchy and quackery, the current kakistocracy would collapse. We need to help that collapse.
I'd strongly support a more militant skepticism.
Why should "faith" be respected? Surely such lunacy deserves pity but nothing else? Those with "faith" should be considered mentally ill or poorly educated. When someone spouts nonsense they need to be challenged - and not in an apologetic way, using simple facts that demonstrate the error.
The judgmental so-called "moral majority", all wrapped in their New Testaments, have happily protested outside Jesus Christ Superstar and, more recently, Jerry Springer - the Opera - why don't skeptics protest outside some churches? Protests could highlight the church's hypocrisy with its huge investments in stocks and shares, or the massive wealth the church accrues but still has exemption from paying taxes.
Jerry Springer - the Opera
I find it sad how many people will be attending church over the next couple of weeks and genuinely think that there is any evidence of any part of the nativity story. There is barely an iota of truth in it (there may well have been shepherds in the fields near Bethlehem, but that's it). And those who justify Jesus as "well, I'm sure he existed but was probably a spiritual leader" - no the is no contemporaneous evidence of any Jesus within two generations of his supposed existence. Jesus simply didn't exist, and those writing about him were, attest, grandchildren of eyewitnesses but, in reality, were religious activists out to prove a point and gain notoriety - and, of course, like the current religious leaders, power.
I would like to hope that, in 2012, we witness the rise of rational thought and skepticism beyond the back slapping of those who already accept science and fact and into the mainstream.
I fear that the frauds that control society will get in the way, but it is a battle that is worth fighting and it is a war to which all skeptics should subscribe.
Stop the back slapping and self congratulations. Stop being nice to the frauds and con men of anti-science and religion. Start fighting for what is right on a bigger scale.
There is, though, a little problem.
I think I've witnessed this change not because there has been a widespread media change but only because of the types of television programmes I watch, the brand of newspaper I get my headlines from and the books I read.
I fear that skeptics and rational thought are becoming ghettoised - and largely of their own making.
When Richard Dawkins writes a new book or fronts a new television series, who watches it? I strongly suspect that most of his audience is made up of people who already agree with him. I very much doubt that many creationists tune in to watch RD rip their beliefs to pieces.
And the same can be said of the "Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless people" and the "Uncaged Monkeys" shows - the audience is made up of those for whom rational thought is, well, rational! These events are, to all intents and purposes, rallies of supporters.
Now, there is nothing wrong with a bit of self-congratulation at times, but there comes a point when it becomes, well, pointless.
Stephen Fry has become, in recent years, a "National Treasure" as well as a "professional skeptic", and there are many others, some of whom I've already mentioned. They address meetings of skeptics, they write articles that get published in the more intelligent magazines and periodicals that tend to be read by skeptics, they... well, quite simply, they make a good living from being a skeptic.
I'm not going to protest at writers earning an honest crust from their views - far from it - but I do wish the skeptic movement (if there is such a thing) and the school of rational thought would stop contemplating its own belly button and smugly slapping each other on the back in congratulations.
Yes, we're right.
No, as the London Bus said, there almost certainly isn't a God.
Yes, Creationism and Intelligent Design are both nonsense.
Yes, homeopathy is a con.
The list could go on and on.
It's time to stick our heads above the parapet more. It's time to help others understand why we're right and why they're wrong. It's time to challenge the lies put out by religion and the anti-science lobby, not just in an amusing panel game shows that can be considered a bit naught and a bit tongue-in-cheek, but in a more serious way, and in more prominent fora.
We need skeptics on BBC1 and ITV1, not just tucked away on BBC2 and Channel 4. We need to find ways of making rational thought attractive, interesting and entertaining. We need easy to understand articles in the red tops and in popular magazines. We need to achieve a balance.
For every "my house is haunted" story in a popular magazine there really should be something publilshed pointing out that ghosts don't exist, that they defy the laws of thermodynamics and, to be honest, there is always a better and a more obvious explanation.
For every documentary about extra-terrestrials visiting earth we need a programme that shows that, while this is an interesting and comforting idea that we're not alone in the universe, the chances of aliens from other planets having visited earth is just not worth the time calculating - they haven't visited, it's fun in a science fiction novel but it must be remembered that it's fiction.
There are many other things we, as skeptics, need - some are significant changes to the constitution of our country, others require the media to ensure a proper balance.
For starters, we, as skeptics, should demand that church and state are separated and that the head of state isn't the head of a established church. We need to rid the House of Lords of the unelected bishops. We need religion of all hues removed from state affairs and the official public arena as is the case in both France and the USA. In the 21st century there is no reason or logic for any nation to be anything other than secular.
Schools in England and Wales are still required BY LAW to have a daily act of worship of a largely Christian nature and the teaching and study of R.E. is compulsory up to the age of 16. R.E. in the curriculum does cover religions other than Christianity but the is little time for rational thought. Why do schools have to help the churches recruit?
The school curriculum should, instead, have philosophy or a study of world cultures rather than the horrendous child abuse that is R.E.
And yes, a daily act of worship? That's blatant indoctrination. The times I've taken assembly there have been no prayers involved. I guess there are militant Christians who think I should be locked up for that!
Anyone or any company who make a scientific claim should be forced to publish the science behind that claim in peer reviewed publications. That would, instantly, put homeopathy out of business. Or homeopathic treatments should carry large warnings on them: "YOU MAY AS WELL BE FLUSHING YOUR MONEY DOWN THE TOILET AS TAKING THIS SNAKE OIL"
Then there's smaller things. Balance in the media. Here's an example:
It is time that BBC Radio 4's Thought for the Day had regular atheist, or antitheist, contributions. On the Today Programme, of which Thought for the Day forms part, it would be expected that political coverage is balanced, so that when a government minister appears saying me thing, a member of the opposition can give their view too. Why doesn't his apply to religion, faith and rational thought?
I cringe every time that breakfast television shows or other daytime television give over airtime to a priest - they get to say their piece but there is never (well, very rarely) a balance. If a priest is allowed on, given soft questions and able to get away with saying anything he wants, the a skeptic should be allowed to challenge every point and show what rubbish the priest is saying.
The problem is that the establishment as is relies on the lies and superstitions of the majority. Without the blind faith of the masses that inexplicably support church, monarchy and quackery, the current kakistocracy would collapse. We need to help that collapse.
I'd strongly support a more militant skepticism.
Why should "faith" be respected? Surely such lunacy deserves pity but nothing else? Those with "faith" should be considered mentally ill or poorly educated. When someone spouts nonsense they need to be challenged - and not in an apologetic way, using simple facts that demonstrate the error.
The judgmental so-called "moral majority", all wrapped in their New Testaments, have happily protested outside Jesus Christ Superstar and, more recently, Jerry Springer - the Opera - why don't skeptics protest outside some churches? Protests could highlight the church's hypocrisy with its huge investments in stocks and shares, or the massive wealth the church accrues but still has exemption from paying taxes.
I find it sad how many people will be attending church over the next couple of weeks and genuinely think that there is any evidence of any part of the nativity story. There is barely an iota of truth in it (there may well have been shepherds in the fields near Bethlehem, but that's it). And those who justify Jesus as "well, I'm sure he existed but was probably a spiritual leader" - no the is no contemporaneous evidence of any Jesus within two generations of his supposed existence. Jesus simply didn't exist, and those writing about him were, attest, grandchildren of eyewitnesses but, in reality, were religious activists out to prove a point and gain notoriety - and, of course, like the current religious leaders, power.
I would like to hope that, in 2012, we witness the rise of rational thought and skepticism beyond the back slapping of those who already accept science and fact and into the mainstream.
I fear that the frauds that control society will get in the way, but it is a battle that is worth fighting and it is a war to which all skeptics should subscribe.
Stop the back slapping and self congratulations. Stop being nice to the frauds and con men of anti-science and religion. Start fighting for what is right on a bigger scale.
Saturday, 3 December 2011
OPINION: Councils and prayers
This week, the National Secular Society has taken a case to the High Court calling on Bidedord Council to end its practise of having prayers before council meetings.
I just had to check my calendar - it is the 21st century and not 1511. What on earth is any state, government or council institution doing having prayers before meetings?
It's bad enough that their are elected officials who believe in such superstitious nonsense and believe that praying to a fictional super being will help them, it's another matter entirely that the concil endorses such behaviour by making time for it.
Sure, Bideford Council doesn't "take a register" until after the prayers are over, attendance at them is not compulsory, but what a waste of time and what an awful and bigoted message it sends out to their constituents.
The can be no justification for maintaining this tradition - and saying its a tradition is. I defence, traditions and customs change over the centuries.
In France and the USA, to name but two nations, the state and education has, by law, to be secular. "Faith" and all religious mumbo-jumbo isn't allowed. Schools aren't allowed to indoctrinate children with the daily acts of worship that we, in the UK, have by law; state occasions don't have priests, vicars, rabbis, etc. at them; and council meetings don't have prayers before them.
France and the USA, both very religious countries, realise that "faith" is a private matter and has no place in state or educational matters.
It is time we left the Dark Ages and moved to having a secular society - and when that's achieved we can look more closely a why so man still believe the lies of the churches and see if improved eduction might cure them of their "faith" illness.
I just had to check my calendar - it is the 21st century and not 1511. What on earth is any state, government or council institution doing having prayers before meetings?
It's bad enough that their are elected officials who believe in such superstitious nonsense and believe that praying to a fictional super being will help them, it's another matter entirely that the concil endorses such behaviour by making time for it.
Sure, Bideford Council doesn't "take a register" until after the prayers are over, attendance at them is not compulsory, but what a waste of time and what an awful and bigoted message it sends out to their constituents.
The can be no justification for maintaining this tradition - and saying its a tradition is. I defence, traditions and customs change over the centuries.
In France and the USA, to name but two nations, the state and education has, by law, to be secular. "Faith" and all religious mumbo-jumbo isn't allowed. Schools aren't allowed to indoctrinate children with the daily acts of worship that we, in the UK, have by law; state occasions don't have priests, vicars, rabbis, etc. at them; and council meetings don't have prayers before them.
France and the USA, both very religious countries, realise that "faith" is a private matter and has no place in state or educational matters.
It is time we left the Dark Ages and moved to having a secular society - and when that's achieved we can look more closely a why so man still believe the lies of the churches and see if improved eduction might cure them of their "faith" illness.
Thursday, 1 December 2011
COMMENT: The Pope and World AIDS Day
Today is December 1st and, across the globe, there will be television programmes, newspaper articles, talks, marches, etc. to mark World AIDS Day. HIV/AIDS, whilst mostly under control in Western society, is still a major epidemic in the Third World and, perhaps most notably, Africa.
Not that Western society should be becoming complacent - there has been a noticeable increase in cases in the UK over the past 12 months.
In the Vatican, however, the Pope, who could do so much to help stop the spread of this killer disease, sits and does nothing. Mind you, Pope Benedict has a busy day of urgent and important work....
Instead of marking World AIDS by encouraging that people practise safe sex and saying that condoms are essential in the battle against HIV/AIDS Pope Benedict, the old Nazi, will be marking December 1st as the feast day of Saint Edmund Campion (an English martyr hanged, drawn and quartered in 1581 for practising catholicism in a protestant country) but not canonised until 1970 (because canonising 16th century priests was the most important thing in the world in 1970).
If that doesn't keep the Pope busy enough then December 1st is also the feast day of Saint Eligius who is the patron saint of goldsmiths and coin collectors (clearly he'd missed Jesus teaching about wealth man's money!) who lived from 588 CE - 660 CE. he's also the patron saint of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers - yes, an army corps with a patron saint! - wasn't there something in the Bible about peace, not killing and not fighting?
If, having spent time marking these two important and relevant feast days, the Pope has any spare time he could, of course, talk about HIV/AIDS or, more likely, he will celebrate the feast day of Saint Castritian, a mid-3rd century saint that little or nothing is known about. Yes, he's much more important than hundreds of thousands dying of AIDS in Afica.
The Pope's failure to support actions like World AIDS Day speak volumes for both him and his "church": it shows that the Catholic church is not a caring or loving institution and puts into the spotlight the blatant hypocrisy and bigotry of one of the most powerful organisations in the world.
Pope Benedict is an evil man. I hope that, one day, the Catholic church will help the poor and suffering rather than sit in luxury, praying about pointless saints and counting the profits that the church makes annually.
Not that Western society should be becoming complacent - there has been a noticeable increase in cases in the UK over the past 12 months.
In the Vatican, however, the Pope, who could do so much to help stop the spread of this killer disease, sits and does nothing. Mind you, Pope Benedict has a busy day of urgent and important work....
Instead of marking World AIDS by encouraging that people practise safe sex and saying that condoms are essential in the battle against HIV/AIDS Pope Benedict, the old Nazi, will be marking December 1st as the feast day of Saint Edmund Campion (an English martyr hanged, drawn and quartered in 1581 for practising catholicism in a protestant country) but not canonised until 1970 (because canonising 16th century priests was the most important thing in the world in 1970).
If that doesn't keep the Pope busy enough then December 1st is also the feast day of Saint Eligius who is the patron saint of goldsmiths and coin collectors (clearly he'd missed Jesus teaching about wealth man's money!) who lived from 588 CE - 660 CE. he's also the patron saint of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers - yes, an army corps with a patron saint! - wasn't there something in the Bible about peace, not killing and not fighting?
If, having spent time marking these two important and relevant feast days, the Pope has any spare time he could, of course, talk about HIV/AIDS or, more likely, he will celebrate the feast day of Saint Castritian, a mid-3rd century saint that little or nothing is known about. Yes, he's much more important than hundreds of thousands dying of AIDS in Afica.
The Pope's failure to support actions like World AIDS Day speak volumes for both him and his "church": it shows that the Catholic church is not a caring or loving institution and puts into the spotlight the blatant hypocrisy and bigotry of one of the most powerful organisations in the world.
Pope Benedict is an evil man. I hope that, one day, the Catholic church will help the poor and suffering rather than sit in luxury, praying about pointless saints and counting the profits that the church makes annually.
Sunday, 6 November 2011
COMMENT: The UK is still a medieval country with modern nick-nacks
Most living in the UK would say that it is a modern nation, with modern politics and freedoms, with a modern world view and with a modern outlook.
I'm one of those who disagree.
I think the UK is still little better than a medieval country with a population that is being conned.
Yes, we don't have an absolute monarchy but the monarch and heir to the throne are given vetoes over new laws. Elected officials bow down to the Royals who have done nothing more to be given their position of privilege than pass through a particular vagina.
We still have umpteen unelected peers in the House of Lords, including umpteen unelected bishops, who oversee what laws are passed. The bishops ensure that the church has a voice way beyond the size of the nation's "faith community". Quite why any superstition is given legal powers is beyond me.
The UK has a large aristocracy, headed by the Royal Family, for whose benefit society is organised. "The Establishment" isn't just a silly Hale and Pace joke but a real strata of society who look down on the rest of us while they reap the benefits of passing through various birth canals or licking up to the right people.
Don't be fooled by our democracy - it is tokenism. It is a fraud. It is electing different flavours of the same crisps.
And then there's the UK's foreign policy. Surely it's to just me that sees recent involvements in Afghanistan, Iraq and, in particular, Libya as nothing more then modern day Crusades - spreading "our" way of life because "we" know best - oh, and, of course, oil!
Commentators and newspapers often look at other nations and refer to them as "third world" or "medieval" in the way things are organised - the UK is hardly different. Yes, in the UK we have a wealth and have developed in many ways - the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution enabled this, plus the evils of the Empire which, thankfully, has now ended - but this is nothing more than a generous dose of blusher on the bad skin of our society.
The UK needs fundamental change: we need a genuinely democratic system of government; we need to remove the powers of the Royal family (and their numerous hangers on and yes men) completely; we need to stop the insanity of religion from imposing it's nonsense to the rest of use; and we need to have a more sensible, caring and grown-up world view.
The UK is ready for change. Stop being conned!
I'm one of those who disagree.
I think the UK is still little better than a medieval country with a population that is being conned.
Yes, we don't have an absolute monarchy but the monarch and heir to the throne are given vetoes over new laws. Elected officials bow down to the Royals who have done nothing more to be given their position of privilege than pass through a particular vagina.
We still have umpteen unelected peers in the House of Lords, including umpteen unelected bishops, who oversee what laws are passed. The bishops ensure that the church has a voice way beyond the size of the nation's "faith community". Quite why any superstition is given legal powers is beyond me.
The UK has a large aristocracy, headed by the Royal Family, for whose benefit society is organised. "The Establishment" isn't just a silly Hale and Pace joke but a real strata of society who look down on the rest of us while they reap the benefits of passing through various birth canals or licking up to the right people.
Don't be fooled by our democracy - it is tokenism. It is a fraud. It is electing different flavours of the same crisps.
And then there's the UK's foreign policy. Surely it's to just me that sees recent involvements in Afghanistan, Iraq and, in particular, Libya as nothing more then modern day Crusades - spreading "our" way of life because "we" know best - oh, and, of course, oil!
Commentators and newspapers often look at other nations and refer to them as "third world" or "medieval" in the way things are organised - the UK is hardly different. Yes, in the UK we have a wealth and have developed in many ways - the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution enabled this, plus the evils of the Empire which, thankfully, has now ended - but this is nothing more than a generous dose of blusher on the bad skin of our society.
The UK needs fundamental change: we need a genuinely democratic system of government; we need to remove the powers of the Royal family (and their numerous hangers on and yes men) completely; we need to stop the insanity of religion from imposing it's nonsense to the rest of use; and we need to have a more sensible, caring and grown-up world view.
The UK is ready for change. Stop being conned!
Sunday, 16 October 2011
OPINION: The Occupy movement - are they going for the right targets?
A few weeks ago, when the Occupy Wall Street protests began in New York, I felt a sympathy for their cause - the anger at corporate greed, the world financial crisis and, the increasingly pantomime villains, the bankers.
This weekend the movement has moved its protests beyond lower Manhattan and had "occupations" in many of the world's major cities - certainly in most of the world's financial centres. On the whole, these protests were peaceful and well organised (Rome being the main exception). In the City of London the protestors "occupied" the London Stock Exchange. well, no, they didn't they stood outside the London Stock Exchange to shout slogans and wave banners on a day that the Exchange is closed. Indeed, as is the case most Saturdays, very little of the Square Mile that makes up the City of London was open for business. The chances of a single banker hearing the chants or reading the banners was minimal unless they happened to watch the television news on Saturday evening.
So, having rather shot themselves in the foot with a silly and pointless attention-seeking protest, #OccupyLSX decided they need to camp out for the big, to continue their protest today. It wasn't long before the organisers announced on their Twitter account that they were now "occupying St. Paul's". There are many who, I'm sure, will consider this odd. maybe they were just seeking a safe haven, protection from the authorities, the sort of thing that the Christian church has done in the past for those who need a place of safety.
It made me wonder, though. Why protest at a closed Stock Exchange but only seek a pitch for your tent in a cathedral yard?
Then I realised, the protestors were actually attacking the wrong target.
The churches, of all denominations, are huge corporations. They have billions of pounds/dollars in real estate throughout the world. They have incredible investments in stocks and shares. In many pension funds some of the biggest investors are various churches.
Aren't the churches, in fact, the fat cats that we should be protesting about?
And, worse still, because they do some charitable work (and it is only some) they pay very little on nothing in taxation on huge swathes of their income. massive tax avoidance on a scale that would put most bankers to shame.
Take a look at the Salvation Army, just down towards the Millennium Bridge from St. Paul's overlooking the Thames towards the Tate Modern. I'm sure many see them as friendly, nice folks who wear slightly odd Toytown soldier outfits, play Christmas carols outside Tesco and rattle their tambourines. They are, though they cover it well, dangerous fundamentalists, loony creationists who believe the Bible word for word (and ignore the various nonsenses and contradictions that it contains). Their International HQ, built in recent years, wouldn't look out of place as the head office of a firm of accountants or an investment bank. It's on a piece of prime real estate and, in the open market, would have cost millions to build. It is plush and very comfortable. Some might say it was luxurious. I'm sure the hundreds of homeless they help each week are glad that so much was spent to make their pen pushers and senior churchmen work in such luxury. The Army get donations of billions of pounds/dollars each year - a small percentage is spent for anything most people would consider a good cause - most is spent on promotion, publications and indoctrination - but they pay little in tax despite being such a huge global corporation.
The Church of England and the Roman Catholic church also avoid tax on a major scale despite uh of the money donated for good causes gong into investments of stocks and shares.
Yes, those who camped outside St. Paul's cathedral last night needed somewhere to camp. Yes, they sought safe haven so the authorities couldn't round them up, arrest or move on - though there was no evidence that was happening. But, while they're there why not properly Occupy St. Paul's.
* We need an openness, currently not happening, about the funding of religious organisations.
* We need an openness about the tax paid by religious organisations.
* We need an openness about how donations to religious organisations is used and how much is in stocks and shares and bonds.
To my mind, the churches are corrupt international corporations that have been allowed to have a position above the law.
This must stop.
OCCUPY ST. PAUL'S!
This weekend the movement has moved its protests beyond lower Manhattan and had "occupations" in many of the world's major cities - certainly in most of the world's financial centres. On the whole, these protests were peaceful and well organised (Rome being the main exception). In the City of London the protestors "occupied" the London Stock Exchange. well, no, they didn't they stood outside the London Stock Exchange to shout slogans and wave banners on a day that the Exchange is closed. Indeed, as is the case most Saturdays, very little of the Square Mile that makes up the City of London was open for business. The chances of a single banker hearing the chants or reading the banners was minimal unless they happened to watch the television news on Saturday evening.
So, having rather shot themselves in the foot with a silly and pointless attention-seeking protest, #OccupyLSX decided they need to camp out for the big, to continue their protest today. It wasn't long before the organisers announced on their Twitter account that they were now "occupying St. Paul's". There are many who, I'm sure, will consider this odd. maybe they were just seeking a safe haven, protection from the authorities, the sort of thing that the Christian church has done in the past for those who need a place of safety.
It made me wonder, though. Why protest at a closed Stock Exchange but only seek a pitch for your tent in a cathedral yard?
Then I realised, the protestors were actually attacking the wrong target.
The churches, of all denominations, are huge corporations. They have billions of pounds/dollars in real estate throughout the world. They have incredible investments in stocks and shares. In many pension funds some of the biggest investors are various churches.
Aren't the churches, in fact, the fat cats that we should be protesting about?
And, worse still, because they do some charitable work (and it is only some) they pay very little on nothing in taxation on huge swathes of their income. massive tax avoidance on a scale that would put most bankers to shame.
Take a look at the Salvation Army, just down towards the Millennium Bridge from St. Paul's overlooking the Thames towards the Tate Modern. I'm sure many see them as friendly, nice folks who wear slightly odd Toytown soldier outfits, play Christmas carols outside Tesco and rattle their tambourines. They are, though they cover it well, dangerous fundamentalists, loony creationists who believe the Bible word for word (and ignore the various nonsenses and contradictions that it contains). Their International HQ, built in recent years, wouldn't look out of place as the head office of a firm of accountants or an investment bank. It's on a piece of prime real estate and, in the open market, would have cost millions to build. It is plush and very comfortable. Some might say it was luxurious. I'm sure the hundreds of homeless they help each week are glad that so much was spent to make their pen pushers and senior churchmen work in such luxury. The Army get donations of billions of pounds/dollars each year - a small percentage is spent for anything most people would consider a good cause - most is spent on promotion, publications and indoctrination - but they pay little in tax despite being such a huge global corporation.
The Church of England and the Roman Catholic church also avoid tax on a major scale despite uh of the money donated for good causes gong into investments of stocks and shares.
Yes, those who camped outside St. Paul's cathedral last night needed somewhere to camp. Yes, they sought safe haven so the authorities couldn't round them up, arrest or move on - though there was no evidence that was happening. But, while they're there why not properly Occupy St. Paul's.
* We need an openness, currently not happening, about the funding of religious organisations.
* We need an openness about the tax paid by religious organisations.
* We need an openness about how donations to religious organisations is used and how much is in stocks and shares and bonds.
To my mind, the churches are corrupt international corporations that have been allowed to have a position above the law.
This must stop.
OCCUPY ST. PAUL'S!
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Faith and the election
As a result of a tweet, I was asked by @thesamosa to write a response to this article.
Here is my response:
“Faith” and the election
Religion has been sidelined in the current UK general election in a way that Americans, for example, could probably never understand. In the USA the idea that someone running for President could, publicly at least, be an atheist is just not conceivable to many and yet, at this election, we do have one party leader who is openly non-religious. This is a major breakthrough and has, perhaps, been one of many reasons for the sidelining of religion in political matters in recent months.
Personally I find it scary that the most powerful man in the world, a man who has his finger on the nuclear button and who controls the biggest economy in the world, also believes in a superbeing for which there is absolutely no evidence. Shouldn’t he be offered help, guidance and psychotherapy instead of being given the ability to blow up the world? Isn’t this putting the crazy man in charge? Isn’t “faith” in such matters simply a lunacy?
And yet the religions, despite their blatant lack of sense, fact and evidence, want to be taken seriously and want to hold sway at election time. To me this is wrong and dangerous for a number of reasons.
It seems, many people of “faith” abandon their “faith” when it gets to an election. We’ve all seen those little bracelets with WWJD on them – “What Would Jesus Do?” – well, let’s be honest, Jesus, had he existed (and there’s no contemporaneous evidence – but that’s another whole article!), would not be voting for any right-wing/capitalist party and yet few in the Tory ranks would say they are atheist or agnostic – most would say they are Christian. Jesus WOULD have voted for some sort of socialist party – the communists even.
The most religious parties are often the most bigoted and extremist parties. Take a look at parties like the British National Party (BNP_ and the English Defence League (EDL); these are both parties who many consider to be fundamentally racist, xenophobic and highly bigoted. Does this fit with the “love your neighbour” message of Christianity? Of course it doesn’t. And yet it is these extremist parties who, as well as the national flag, often proclaim their support and defence for the national religion. Why? Is it because religion is also fundamentally bigoted and divisive? I would say yes.
So why do people of “faith” struggle to see the contradiction that so often exists between their belief and their politics? This is harder to explain but, in my opinion, it is because they are confused, ignorant of the facts, brainwashed or simply lunatics. Take your pick!
Faith may have been justifiable in the 14th century when society as a whole was ignorant of so much about the universe but today, in the 21st century, it has no place.
It is right that, in this election, “faith” has been sidelined. We need to grab politics back from the mad men, the ignorant, the bigoted and the confused, and bring it into the modern world – a rational world of fact and the principle of genuinely loving your neighbour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)