Sanity appears to have prevailed. A man in Leicester who publicly tore pages from a Koran is not to be convicted of causing 'harassment, alarm or distress' to our religious friends. Phew!
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/01/jury-dismissed-in-leicester-trial-of-man-accused-of-ripping-up-his-koran--no-retrial-planned
But, obviously, why the hell did this go to court? What the hell was the CPS doing bringing charges? Why the hell were the police involved in the first place? Britain is no longer great if we cannot freely insult people who believe in medieval fairy tales. It really, truly is that simple. Religion is bollocks. And people who believe in it are... generally... idiots.
The reason this piece particularly caught my attention was that I too have interacted with the Islamic Information Centre. About 2 years ago in an idle moment I approached their stall in Leicester to peruse their wares. I came away with a couple of pamphlets explaining how cosmology and modern science proves the existence of God... the God of their religion, natch. The sort of rubbish that Jehovah's Witnesses will also hand you if you ask, but in that case the evidence apparently points to a different variant of God. Strange. Needless to say, the science and arguments in said pamplets are laughably childlike and prove only one thing - a major contributory factor in the propogation of the religion meme is utter ignorance of modern science.
While at the stall I had a quick chat with a nice chap from the IIC. When I mentioned my interest in science he started telling me how the evidence supported his religious views. When I demurred, he asked me something like 'so how do you explain how God created the Universe?' To which I responded words to the effect 'oh, I don't believe in that nonsense'. I didn't think much of it at the time, but in hindsight I could, at a stretch, have been charged with causing criminal offence. This latest case suggests it is unlikely that I would have been successfully prosecuted, but that is hardly the point, is it?
Another thing. At the same time as the IIC is handing out leaflets in the centre of Leicester, christian religious nutters can sometimes be seen and heard barking their dogmatic crap into a megaphone just across the way. Presumably this is a deliberate response to the presence of the IIC. Now, are these christians to be prosecuted for causing offence to their islamic competitors? Personally I find their rants far more offensive than the low-key approach of the IIC and infinitely more offensive than the chap who ripped up a copy of the Koran. So, an interesting idea - someone being prosecuted in an English court with causing criminal offence to muslims by publicly stating their christian beliefs. A very juicy prospect for the sane amongst us! Sadly unlikely to happen. If it did, the sheer idiocy of it would bring the whole 'respect for religion' conceit crashing down around our ears. And there are too many votes at stake for the current crop of spineless politicans to allow that.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Friday, 11 January 2013
Wednesday, 14 November 2012
Mutter
Apparently the Republic of Ireland would rather let a healthy young woman die than terminate a foetus of dubious viability.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
Ah, how I dispise all those bastards in the Catholic hierarchy that think this is an acceptable state of affairs. No country is perfect, but the imposition of medieval superstitions on a modern western country would be shocking beyond belief, were it not a widely recognised fact.
When will the Irish grow up and demand that abortion is legalised? Surely it can't be long, given the rapid decline in religious belief in Ireland and across the world. Tragically it will be too late for Praveen Halappanavar, whose young wife is dead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
Ah, how I dispise all those bastards in the Catholic hierarchy that think this is an acceptable state of affairs. No country is perfect, but the imposition of medieval superstitions on a modern western country would be shocking beyond belief, were it not a widely recognised fact.
When will the Irish grow up and demand that abortion is legalised? Surely it can't be long, given the rapid decline in religious belief in Ireland and across the world. Tragically it will be too late for Praveen Halappanavar, whose young wife is dead.
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Standing In The Way Of Control
I expect the blogosphere (i.e. the bits of it that other people actually read) is awash with outrage that Islamist Abu Qatada cannot be deported form the UK to Jordan.
Certainly that is my gut reaction. I despise what Qatada supposedly stands for - superstitious beliefs, enforced compliance with those beliefs on others, suppression of women, wearing silly clothes. I'd prefer that he wasn't in my country.
However, Qatada is clearly being demonised to satisfy a national craving for hatred of 'the other'. Reading the BBC's summary*, a slightly more balanced appraisal than you may find in most print media, Qatada:
"emerged as a key voice in the Islamist movement in London..." which, unless we want to restrict freedom of expression, is fine;
"... which advocated strict Islamic government in Muslim countries..." I have a problem with this, but again, freedom of speech;
"... and armed struggle against despots and foreign invaders." Sounds like a terrorist, right? But how would you describe the German or French resistance during World War II?
"He was tried and found guilty in his absence of terrorism offences in Jordan in 1999." It would be nice to hear some details around this, but I think it is safe to assume that the Jordanian courts are capable of passing political judgements as opposed to ones based entirely on jurisprudence.
So lets have a think about this. Qatada, as far as we can tell (and the British Government has not acted against him), has committed no crimes in the UK. He undoubtedly has some unpleasant beliefs and (I assume) would like to impose his backward, medieval superstitions on the rest of us. However, the only intelligent criminal objection we can raise against him is that the Jordanians want him. And we'd trust their legal system as far as we can throw it (how would YOU feel about facing a murder charge in Amman?)
Is outrage really the most appropriate response? Haven't the European Court and, most recently, SIAC actually made the right decision in ruling that Qatada may not get a fair trial in Jordan and, by extension, should not be deported?
Isn't it possible to despise what Qatada stands for and still be proud that British (and European) justice has prevailed in this case?
Or shall we just be angry that the black man is still in our country?
* some may say that the BBC is a leftist propoganda machine that 'is racist against white people'. Those people are morons. I actually read that the other day - 'racist against white people'. The writer appeared oblivious to the fact that the BBC is run by middle-aged, middle-class white men. Those who accuse it of left-wing bias have apparently never read The Times, The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express or The Sun. Or watched Dragon's Den, or the multitude of other programmes on the Beeb that implicitly or explictly support the capitalist status quo. I assume that, as sentient moral beings, John Humphreys and Jeremy Paxman have socially-liberal and economically-conservative leanings in their private lives, but to accuse them and their colleagues of left-wing bias in their professional lives is stupid and contrary to the mass of daily evidence.
Certainly that is my gut reaction. I despise what Qatada supposedly stands for - superstitious beliefs, enforced compliance with those beliefs on others, suppression of women, wearing silly clothes. I'd prefer that he wasn't in my country.
However, Qatada is clearly being demonised to satisfy a national craving for hatred of 'the other'. Reading the BBC's summary*, a slightly more balanced appraisal than you may find in most print media, Qatada:
"emerged as a key voice in the Islamist movement in London..." which, unless we want to restrict freedom of expression, is fine;
"... which advocated strict Islamic government in Muslim countries..." I have a problem with this, but again, freedom of speech;
"... and armed struggle against despots and foreign invaders." Sounds like a terrorist, right? But how would you describe the German or French resistance during World War II?
"He was tried and found guilty in his absence of terrorism offences in Jordan in 1999." It would be nice to hear some details around this, but I think it is safe to assume that the Jordanian courts are capable of passing political judgements as opposed to ones based entirely on jurisprudence.
So lets have a think about this. Qatada, as far as we can tell (and the British Government has not acted against him), has committed no crimes in the UK. He undoubtedly has some unpleasant beliefs and (I assume) would like to impose his backward, medieval superstitions on the rest of us. However, the only intelligent criminal objection we can raise against him is that the Jordanians want him. And we'd trust their legal system as far as we can throw it (how would YOU feel about facing a murder charge in Amman?)
Is outrage really the most appropriate response? Haven't the European Court and, most recently, SIAC actually made the right decision in ruling that Qatada may not get a fair trial in Jordan and, by extension, should not be deported?
Isn't it possible to despise what Qatada stands for and still be proud that British (and European) justice has prevailed in this case?
Or shall we just be angry that the black man is still in our country?
* some may say that the BBC is a leftist propoganda machine that 'is racist against white people'. Those people are morons. I actually read that the other day - 'racist against white people'. The writer appeared oblivious to the fact that the BBC is run by middle-aged, middle-class white men. Those who accuse it of left-wing bias have apparently never read The Times, The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express or The Sun. Or watched Dragon's Den, or the multitude of other programmes on the Beeb that implicitly or explictly support the capitalist status quo. I assume that, as sentient moral beings, John Humphreys and Jeremy Paxman have socially-liberal and economically-conservative leanings in their private lives, but to accuse them and their colleagues of left-wing bias in their professional lives is stupid and contrary to the mass of daily evidence.
Monday, 12 March 2012
Religious Idiots
Tony Nicklinson has suffered from locked-in syndrome since 2005. He is asking the courts to rule that any doctor who in the future assists with his clearly expressed and carefully considered wish to die will not be prosecuted. A High Court judge has today ruled that there can be a full hearing on the issue. That's all. It is a long, long way from assisted dying become legal in the UK. The judge has simply said 'let the arguments be aired'.
As a consequence, the following carefully considered and constructive comments have been posted against the article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774?postId=111960902#comment_111960902
Susan: "The judge should be arrested for such an irresponsible decision"
Ayoade Oluwasanmi: "Everything now seems to ba a "right". Now we have the right to die. Whats next? The right to get get high? Be an addict? To kill?"
'Antiochean': "A sad ruling - refusing medication is allready legal - if this goes any further at the next stage, it would be taking steps that are dangerous and ethically blind."
'rainbowww82': "No one has a say whether they want to come to this world or not, similarly no one has the right to decide their death! He is not the only person in this world who is suffering, this life is a test not paradise so sufferings are to be expected. And no one lives eternally, his turn to die will come too. I strongly disagree with this kind of murder to be legalized. No excuse is good enough!"
'Balloon Rake': "This now means that anyone accused of murder can say in court "They asked me to murder them" and they will then be acquitted.
Taking another person's life is muder, no matter of the circumstances, the high court judge who passed today's ruling should never be allowed to work again."
Susan (again): "The govt will be happy. It keeps the economics of such a vile ruling in the new Little Switzerland that the UK has become. Or will it be done on the NHS?"
What each of these contributors fails to mention is that they are religious zombies intent on imposing their ludicrous, childish, ignorant beliefs on everyone else. Infantile fascists, if you will.
As a consequence, the following carefully considered and constructive comments have been posted against the article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774?postId=111960902#comment_111960902
Susan: "The judge should be arrested for such an irresponsible decision"
Ayoade Oluwasanmi: "Everything now seems to ba a "right". Now we have the right to die. Whats next? The right to get get high? Be an addict? To kill?"
'Antiochean': "A sad ruling - refusing medication is allready legal - if this goes any further at the next stage, it would be taking steps that are dangerous and ethically blind."
'rainbowww82': "No one has a say whether they want to come to this world or not, similarly no one has the right to decide their death! He is not the only person in this world who is suffering, this life is a test not paradise so sufferings are to be expected. And no one lives eternally, his turn to die will come too. I strongly disagree with this kind of murder to be legalized. No excuse is good enough!"
'Balloon Rake': "This now means that anyone accused of murder can say in court "They asked me to murder them" and they will then be acquitted.
Taking another person's life is muder, no matter of the circumstances, the high court judge who passed today's ruling should never be allowed to work again."
Susan (again): "The govt will be happy. It keeps the economics of such a vile ruling in the new Little Switzerland that the UK has become. Or will it be done on the NHS?"
What each of these contributors fails to mention is that they are religious zombies intent on imposing their ludicrous, childish, ignorant beliefs on everyone else. Infantile fascists, if you will.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
BNP
Tricky things names. I bet the founders of Banque National de Paris never contemplated that their company acronym might one day be a homonym for a marginal but vocal English racist movement. And I bet the founders of Electricite de France never contemplated that their company might one day be a homonym for a marginal but vocal English racist movement. C'est la vie.
[Update 7/2/11 - I have pointed out to myself that EDF is not a homonym for the EDL. Shame.]
I just watched 'Tommy Robinson', leader of the EDL (the English Defence League, not the French power conglomorate) defending their cause. Scumbag, right? Well, maybe. But I think he made a decent hand of stating his case in a geezer'ish kind of way. He has obviously learned from the politicians and did a damn fine job of sticking to his points while largely ignoring Paxman's questions. So what are his points?
Well, most dubiously he claims to be concerned about elements of the (male) muslim community that are supposedly abusing young white girls - grooming them, raping them, pimping them. He's obviously riding on the crest of a tabloid wave, following the case of a group of men (who happened to be muslims) in Yorkshire found guilty of systematically abusing young girls. The fact is that it is probably no more of a problem amongst muslims than any other group, but 'Tommy' obviously appreciates the sentiment that it arouses and he did a great job of pointing out the differences between Paxman's sheltered middle class upbringing and the "reality" of living in deprived neighbourhoods with significant muslim populations.
But his second point, and the one that I have deep sympathy with, is his description of the Koran as (and I paraphrase) a wicked, violent, medieval work, which muslims are bound to believe in literally. Of course, this is all true, but Paxman was indignant. And this is my problem. The BBC, the media in general and all our institutions (legislature, judiciary, executive) all kowtow to nonsensical religious beliefs. Why are they so reluctant to speak the truth? Why not admit that the Koran (and the Bible) are nonsensical works of fiction, written for an entirely different historical epoch, and filled with the most vile, sexist, racist, homophobic, hatemongering shite. Incidentally, all things that are supposed to be outlawed these days.
[Update 2, 7/2/11 - a journalist in The Guardian made much the same point on 5/2/11, after I posted this. Obviously she doesn't read my blog, but I just wanted to stress that my post is not copied from her comments.]
While Paxman stressed that most muslims are law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, he failed to accept a deeper point. If those same muslims are true to their faith, then in fact it is their number one goal to convert all of us to Islam. The "Inams" (as Tommy called them) may disagree on the details (hmm, how's that considering the Koran is God's direct holy words and not subject to human interpretation?), but ultimately force is to be used if we resist. Atheists, be afraid, be very afraid. And not just of the white supremacists.
[Update 7/2/11 - I have pointed out to myself that EDF is not a homonym for the EDL. Shame.]
I just watched 'Tommy Robinson', leader of the EDL (the English Defence League, not the French power conglomorate) defending their cause. Scumbag, right? Well, maybe. But I think he made a decent hand of stating his case in a geezer'ish kind of way. He has obviously learned from the politicians and did a damn fine job of sticking to his points while largely ignoring Paxman's questions. So what are his points?
Well, most dubiously he claims to be concerned about elements of the (male) muslim community that are supposedly abusing young white girls - grooming them, raping them, pimping them. He's obviously riding on the crest of a tabloid wave, following the case of a group of men (who happened to be muslims) in Yorkshire found guilty of systematically abusing young girls. The fact is that it is probably no more of a problem amongst muslims than any other group, but 'Tommy' obviously appreciates the sentiment that it arouses and he did a great job of pointing out the differences between Paxman's sheltered middle class upbringing and the "reality" of living in deprived neighbourhoods with significant muslim populations.
But his second point, and the one that I have deep sympathy with, is his description of the Koran as (and I paraphrase) a wicked, violent, medieval work, which muslims are bound to believe in literally. Of course, this is all true, but Paxman was indignant. And this is my problem. The BBC, the media in general and all our institutions (legislature, judiciary, executive) all kowtow to nonsensical religious beliefs. Why are they so reluctant to speak the truth? Why not admit that the Koran (and the Bible) are nonsensical works of fiction, written for an entirely different historical epoch, and filled with the most vile, sexist, racist, homophobic, hatemongering shite. Incidentally, all things that are supposed to be outlawed these days.
[Update 2, 7/2/11 - a journalist in The Guardian made much the same point on 5/2/11, after I posted this. Obviously she doesn't read my blog, but I just wanted to stress that my post is not copied from her comments.]
While Paxman stressed that most muslims are law-abiding, upstanding members of the community, he failed to accept a deeper point. If those same muslims are true to their faith, then in fact it is their number one goal to convert all of us to Islam. The "Inams" (as Tommy called them) may disagree on the details (hmm, how's that considering the Koran is God's direct holy words and not subject to human interpretation?), but ultimately force is to be used if we resist. Atheists, be afraid, be very afraid. And not just of the white supremacists.
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
The Choice Is Yours
A jolly little piece on the BBC today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12075931 proves a great advert for Islam. Of course, like any supernatural belief system, Islam is almost certainly wrong in its fundamental tenets - God, life after death, a timeless and universal moral code and so on. Well, OK, let's not split hairs - it is wrong.
But apart from this failing (which some like myself may see as a fatal flaw) perhaps it has much to offer in the way of personal fulfilment. As convert-to-Islam Aisha says "now I don't have to prove myself to anybody out there... when I became Muslim, I sort of calmed down... And I'm more happy than I was - I'm proud of who I am, I've got a certain identity."
Well, good for you. It was your choice and it appears to have worked out well for you. I'll assume you aren't speaking with forked-tongue and that this is a heartfelt assessment of your state of mind. I honestly have little reason to doubt it. Of course, there is the psychological angle that when one adopts a set of beliefs (for example that Gary Numan is the greatest muscial artist alive today or that Islam is the route to personal fulfilment) it is extremely hard to abandon those beliefs. I am also mindful that it may be difficult for someone who has been embraced by a community (as Aisha apparently has - she lives with her Bangladeshi husband and in-laws) to appear to turn on that community by professing unhappiness (I'm assuming Mr Aisha et famille are also muslims). Having said that, I do assume that Aisha's statements are broadly truthful.
Sure, one persons testimony does not prove a case, as those of a scientific bent are well aware (as an aside, most muslims do not truly understand that - Muhammed's little book anyone? - but that is not the point here). However, Aisha makes a strong case that we should not ignore. Perhaps Islam, and religion in general, does have the power to make certain people happier. Presumably people who's grasp of reality is a little challenged, but there are plenty of those around, so why gripe?
But getting to my point, finally, isn't it wonderful that our socity gave Aisha the freedom to choose to become a muslim? And how wonderful that she will be free in future to choose not to be a muslim any more, should she have a change of heart.
Indeed, even the Koran apparently says - 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Unfortunately, that verse goes on to say that 'truth stands out clearly from falsehood' and some nutters seem to have taken this as a nod that no right-minded person could possibly give abandon Islam and therefore there is nothing wrong with killing them. Hopefully this would not deter Aisha is she wished to renounce Islam at a later date.
“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” [http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2007/09/renounce-islam.html].
"Apostasy, or renouncing the faith, is one of the gravest sins in Islam and a very sensitive issue in Malaysia where the Islamic courts have rarely allowed such renunciations and have also jailed apostates." [http://puteri.us/2008/05/08/siti-fatimah-tan-allowed-to-renounce-islam/]
"In Islam, apostasy is called ridda (turning back) and it is considered by Muslims to be a profound insult to God, which deserves harsh punishment. The nature of the punishment, however, provokes passionate debate between scholars, with most believing that it should attract the death penalty for men and life imprisonment for women.
Apostasy is punishable by death in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan. In other parts of the world they can be shunned by family and friends." [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/uk-new-group-for-those-who-renounce-islam.html]
Strangely the BBC failed to mention these minor points. I would have thought they were fairly fundamental when discussing (encouraging?) conversion to Islam.
But, never mind, hurrah for Aisha! She goes on: "I wanted to stay at home studying on the internet or reading books." Hmm. I wonder what sort of books. Maybe some of the scientific ones that I picked up recently that prove beyond any scientific doubt (science doesn't do that, but never mind) that God caused the Big Bang and that evolution is a lie. Ah, you can't beat a good bit of book learnin'.
To conclude, another muslim, Sarah, says: "British converts have a vital role to play in explaining two sides - Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim communities - to each other.
'[Converts have] authentically belonged to two traditions and should act as a conduit to show each side that we share far more than we differ.' " Right, at this point I will give up the sarcasm and just state the bald facts. Muslims do not see both sides. They are right and you are wrong. Have a conversation with a practising muslim and see just how open they are to different points of view. I'll give you a clue - they aren't.
But that's religion for you.
Footnote - I appreciate that I am open to allegations of hypocrisy here. I say that Muslims will not consider both sides of an argument and yet I state as fact that they are wrong. Ah, but you see I have evidence and rational argument on my side. And that evidence and argument could be the subject for a later post? Damn Dawkins et al for getting there first!
But apart from this failing (which some like myself may see as a fatal flaw) perhaps it has much to offer in the way of personal fulfilment. As convert-to-Islam Aisha says "now I don't have to prove myself to anybody out there... when I became Muslim, I sort of calmed down... And I'm more happy than I was - I'm proud of who I am, I've got a certain identity."
Well, good for you. It was your choice and it appears to have worked out well for you. I'll assume you aren't speaking with forked-tongue and that this is a heartfelt assessment of your state of mind. I honestly have little reason to doubt it. Of course, there is the psychological angle that when one adopts a set of beliefs (for example that Gary Numan is the greatest muscial artist alive today or that Islam is the route to personal fulfilment) it is extremely hard to abandon those beliefs. I am also mindful that it may be difficult for someone who has been embraced by a community (as Aisha apparently has - she lives with her Bangladeshi husband and in-laws) to appear to turn on that community by professing unhappiness (I'm assuming Mr Aisha et famille are also muslims). Having said that, I do assume that Aisha's statements are broadly truthful.
Sure, one persons testimony does not prove a case, as those of a scientific bent are well aware (as an aside, most muslims do not truly understand that - Muhammed's little book anyone? - but that is not the point here). However, Aisha makes a strong case that we should not ignore. Perhaps Islam, and religion in general, does have the power to make certain people happier. Presumably people who's grasp of reality is a little challenged, but there are plenty of those around, so why gripe?
But getting to my point, finally, isn't it wonderful that our socity gave Aisha the freedom to choose to become a muslim? And how wonderful that she will be free in future to choose not to be a muslim any more, should she have a change of heart.
Indeed, even the Koran apparently says - 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Unfortunately, that verse goes on to say that 'truth stands out clearly from falsehood' and some nutters seem to have taken this as a nod that no right-minded person could possibly give abandon Islam and therefore there is nothing wrong with killing them. Hopefully this would not deter Aisha is she wished to renounce Islam at a later date.
“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” [http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2007/09/renounce-islam.html].
"Apostasy, or renouncing the faith, is one of the gravest sins in Islam and a very sensitive issue in Malaysia where the Islamic courts have rarely allowed such renunciations and have also jailed apostates." [http://puteri.us/2008/05/08/siti-fatimah-tan-allowed-to-renounce-islam/]
"In Islam, apostasy is called ridda (turning back) and it is considered by Muslims to be a profound insult to God, which deserves harsh punishment. The nature of the punishment, however, provokes passionate debate between scholars, with most believing that it should attract the death penalty for men and life imprisonment for women.
Apostasy is punishable by death in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan. In other parts of the world they can be shunned by family and friends." [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/uk-new-group-for-those-who-renounce-islam.html]
Strangely the BBC failed to mention these minor points. I would have thought they were fairly fundamental when discussing (encouraging?) conversion to Islam.
But, never mind, hurrah for Aisha! She goes on: "I wanted to stay at home studying on the internet or reading books." Hmm. I wonder what sort of books. Maybe some of the scientific ones that I picked up recently that prove beyond any scientific doubt (science doesn't do that, but never mind) that God caused the Big Bang and that evolution is a lie. Ah, you can't beat a good bit of book learnin'.
To conclude, another muslim, Sarah, says: "British converts have a vital role to play in explaining two sides - Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim communities - to each other.
'[Converts have] authentically belonged to two traditions and should act as a conduit to show each side that we share far more than we differ.' " Right, at this point I will give up the sarcasm and just state the bald facts. Muslims do not see both sides. They are right and you are wrong. Have a conversation with a practising muslim and see just how open they are to different points of view. I'll give you a clue - they aren't.
But that's religion for you.
Footnote - I appreciate that I am open to allegations of hypocrisy here. I say that Muslims will not consider both sides of an argument and yet I state as fact that they are wrong. Ah, but you see I have evidence and rational argument on my side. And that evidence and argument could be the subject for a later post? Damn Dawkins et al for getting there first!
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Fahrenheit 451
A teenager has reportedly been arrested in the West Midlands for burning a copy of the Quran and posting the video footage on YouTube. This, apparently, is the crime of "inciting religious hatred".
It is silly to burn a book given the symbolic significance of such an act. However, the Quran is exactly that - a book. Burning it is no worse than burning a Dan Brown novel. Well, intrinsically no worse. Obviously, the consequences for the burner may be somewhat different, given the world-renowned tolerance of the faithful. But that is their problem, not ours. I am horrified that the police could consider this a crime.
Presumably if I declare the Guinness Book Of Records to be a holy text it will become a "hate crime" to burn a copy. After all, there is no difference between me doing such a ridiculous thing and Muslims believing in the devine provenance of the Quran. Or perhaps the West Midlands police believe that the Quran is the actual word of god? If so, we should be told. I wasn't aware I was living in a theocracy.
But you may say that this is different. Burning a copy of the GBOR simply says: "people who believe in that are idiots" whereas burning the Quran says: "kill all muslims". And I would disagree.
Saying "kill all muslims" is arguably a hate crime in the same was as saying "kill all tutsis" or "kill all bald people" are (arguably) hate crimes, at least if said with conviction and not satire. At most, burning the Quran says "I'm angry that something that is so obviously a work of fiction is treated with such reverence and that its rather unpleasant instructions are treated as a guide to life for many people (many of whom wish to impose it on everyone else on the planet)." That's just common sense.
It is silly to burn a book given the symbolic significance of such an act. However, the Quran is exactly that - a book. Burning it is no worse than burning a Dan Brown novel. Well, intrinsically no worse. Obviously, the consequences for the burner may be somewhat different, given the world-renowned tolerance of the faithful. But that is their problem, not ours. I am horrified that the police could consider this a crime.
Presumably if I declare the Guinness Book Of Records to be a holy text it will become a "hate crime" to burn a copy. After all, there is no difference between me doing such a ridiculous thing and Muslims believing in the devine provenance of the Quran. Or perhaps the West Midlands police believe that the Quran is the actual word of god? If so, we should be told. I wasn't aware I was living in a theocracy.
But you may say that this is different. Burning a copy of the GBOR simply says: "people who believe in that are idiots" whereas burning the Quran says: "kill all muslims". And I would disagree.
Saying "kill all muslims" is arguably a hate crime in the same was as saying "kill all tutsis" or "kill all bald people" are (arguably) hate crimes, at least if said with conviction and not satire. At most, burning the Quran says "I'm angry that something that is so obviously a work of fiction is treated with such reverence and that its rather unpleasant instructions are treated as a guide to life for many people (many of whom wish to impose it on everyone else on the planet)." That's just common sense.
Friday, 12 November 2010
Don't Pray In My School And I Won't Think In Your Church
Two news stories today with a whiff of the metaphysical about them.
Confirming the conviction of a woman who killed her severely disabled and brain-damaged son, Lord Judge said ".... however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11742526
Hm? I wonder how many people would whole-heartedly agree with that when obliged to consider it rationally. Of course, we don't all think rationally all of the time. I gather Igor Judge is a catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Roman_Catholics)
And good old Iain Duncan Smith is at it as well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/11/coalition-backlash-hardship-payments-scrapped).
IDS kindly informs us that it is a "sin" for people to fail to take up work. Well, that may be true in a broad, vague'ish sense, but it may not be the most considered thing the former leader of the Conservatives has said. But then again, he too is a catholic.
IDS is entitled to his opinions and I suppose he is entitled to voice them in his role as a member of Government. But we should be very wary of these opinions when it comes to the next General Election. Obviously the same went for Blair in spades.
However, Lord Judge's catholicism quite possibly disqualifies him morally from passing judgement on matters of life and death. The Vatican's ex-cathedra pronouncements in this area makes it impossible for any observant Roman Catholic to make rational decisions here. And without rational thought, what is left of our society? Might as well hand it over to the mullahs or the bishops.
Confirming the conviction of a woman who killed her severely disabled and brain-damaged son, Lord Judge said ".... however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11742526
Hm? I wonder how many people would whole-heartedly agree with that when obliged to consider it rationally. Of course, we don't all think rationally all of the time. I gather Igor Judge is a catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Roman_Catholics)
And good old Iain Duncan Smith is at it as well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/11/coalition-backlash-hardship-payments-scrapped).
IDS kindly informs us that it is a "sin" for people to fail to take up work. Well, that may be true in a broad, vague'ish sense, but it may not be the most considered thing the former leader of the Conservatives has said. But then again, he too is a catholic.
IDS is entitled to his opinions and I suppose he is entitled to voice them in his role as a member of Government. But we should be very wary of these opinions when it comes to the next General Election. Obviously the same went for Blair in spades.
However, Lord Judge's catholicism quite possibly disqualifies him morally from passing judgement on matters of life and death. The Vatican's ex-cathedra pronouncements in this area makes it impossible for any observant Roman Catholic to make rational decisions here. And without rational thought, what is left of our society? Might as well hand it over to the mullahs or the bishops.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Dope
The Pope is coming, lock up your children!
Alright, I admit it, I'm not a fan. After all, the Pope apparently believes in 'God', so it would be somewhat difficult for me to be an admirer. I don't generally hero worship the mentally ill.
I could go on about how El Papa's visit to the UK is going to cost me and my fellow taxpayers £10m plus all the policing costs. But so what? We frequently host vile heads of state (although I note that Joe Ratzinger's status as such is highly debateable - something to do with an illegal agreement signed by Mussolini). Anyway, £10m is nothing in the scheme of things. What is it compared to, say, the molestation of nine boys by a priest in one case in one diocese in one country (the scale of paedophilia in the Catholic church is such that Wikipedia lists 10 separate cases involving hundreds of children in the UK alone - not even a catholic country. I refer specifically to the case of Father Michael Hill, jailed for abusing nine boys over 20 years, so take your own guess at the true number he abused.)
Actually, most of the things worth saying were summed up slightly obliquely by Ben Goldacre a few days ago in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom), so I leave it to him:
"You will have your own views on the discrimination against women, the homophobia, and the international criminal conspiracy to cover up for mass child rape. My special interest is his role in the 2 million people who die of Aids each year."
Alright, I admit it, I'm not a fan. After all, the Pope apparently believes in 'God', so it would be somewhat difficult for me to be an admirer. I don't generally hero worship the mentally ill.
I could go on about how El Papa's visit to the UK is going to cost me and my fellow taxpayers £10m plus all the policing costs. But so what? We frequently host vile heads of state (although I note that Joe Ratzinger's status as such is highly debateable - something to do with an illegal agreement signed by Mussolini). Anyway, £10m is nothing in the scheme of things. What is it compared to, say, the molestation of nine boys by a priest in one case in one diocese in one country (the scale of paedophilia in the Catholic church is such that Wikipedia lists 10 separate cases involving hundreds of children in the UK alone - not even a catholic country. I refer specifically to the case of Father Michael Hill, jailed for abusing nine boys over 20 years, so take your own guess at the true number he abused.)
Actually, most of the things worth saying were summed up slightly obliquely by Ben Goldacre a few days ago in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom), so I leave it to him:
"You will have your own views on the discrimination against women, the homophobia, and the international criminal conspiracy to cover up for mass child rape. My special interest is his role in the 2 million people who die of Aids each year."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)