Caution over Cherie Blair’s religious ruling
Cherie Blair/Booth apparently gave someone a lenient sentence because they were religious:
I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.
Admittedly, "based on the fact that" seems damning. But I think it's worth waiting for the full transcripts to become available, as this has the feel of something that could be explained. Maybe there were unreported circumstances, or maybe this is the kind of thing judges say to get through to supposedly religious people. While it's possible she crossed a line, I'm skeptical it's this clear-cut.
The National Secular Society have made an official complaint, so hopefully they have all the facts of the case. But they do, um, take a hard line sometimes, and I'd like to see more evidence before jumping the gun.
Befrocked brats in the news
The Pope's rubbish, isn't he? He thinks there's a 'natural law' against gay people. The Archbishop of Westminster agrees, which was news despite that being his job. Mind you, Muttley mostly went on and on about Dastardly's right to speak out, which - from the reactions I saw - was an argument he was having entirely with himself. But while their bigoted drivel was widely reported, the dynamics of the criticism meant the media were surprisingly hostile - he was criticising 'our' equality laws, so it became a nationalistic thing. Outside of the usual circles it was only a few lefties who decided they agreed, which was a bit bloody weird: they seemed to fall for the 'why would you want to work for homophobes anyway' trick.
It's really quite easy: there are human rights, and that's it. No 'natural law'. No 'natural justice'. No religious rights. You get the human right to hold whatever beliefs you like. You get the human right to be treated according to your ideas, where they are relevant, and not your biology. There are more. The equality bill puts these transparently correct ideas into law. It's not difficult, yet the Pope still struggles.
He's coming to the UK later this year. I say we do our best to annoy him so he doesn't bother visiting at all, but, failing that, protest him when he arrives. Protesting is a tricky business, as you don't want to seem anti-religion and generally unpleasant, but I think it needs to be done. You can't let people claim condoms aggravate the spread of aids, or that equality laws don't apply to religious people. When people say things like that, there's a duty to point out that they're a dick.
And the only acceptable reason not to move with the times is…
If you need to file a VAT return, you'll soon be required to submit it electronically. Well, I say 'required' - there are two ways you can avoid it. Currently, if you turnover £100k+ you don't have to file online if you're subject to an insolvency procedure. Or if:
HMRC is satisfied that your business is run entirely by individuals who have a religious conscience objection to using computers
Sure - maybe you're an Amish-ish businesspeople who doesn't do electronics. But there's no paper submission if you simply don't want to use computers. So HMRC distinguishes between "I think" and "I believe". I am forced to conclude the latter is a spell.
(via WA)
Unwavering conviction
Says the Bishop to the armed forces:
The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.
There's apparently been uproar. Good. It's 2009, after all, and expressing admiration for unwavering conviction to a faith is a ridiculous and medieval...
...oh, no, wait. The uproar is because saying anything relating to warfare that isn't 'soldiers are brave' apparently means 'I want soldiers to die'. Sigh. Can we not just put 'I support people not dying' in the same category of the blindingly-obvious as 'you have the right to your opinion' and stop wasting time saying it / demanding people say it? It's like we still believe in spells.
Quotes of the day
Both from Ben Goldacre's latest:
“I am talking about a long-standing discipline—an art and a science—that has been with us since ancient Egyptian, Roman, Babylonian and Assyrian times. It is part of the Chinese, Muslim and Hindu cultures… Criticism is deeply offensive to those cultures,” says Tredinnnick: “and I have a Muslim college in my constituency.”
That's Conservative MP David Tredinnick defending his view that the moon is evil. To cleanse:
The honourable Member for Braintree cited evidence from The Sun, so I want to refer to a recent edition of the British Medical Journal.
That's Evan Harris, Lib Dem MP for Oxford West & Abingdon (from a different debate).
The BHA takes out the Daily Mail
Friday: The Daily Mail publish an article essentially describing the British Humanist Association as a bunch of Christian-hating nutbags.
Today: The BHA publish a line-by-line refutation, demonstrating how the DM is wrong about almost everything. It's pretty funny.
Coventry Telegraph on non-religious naming ceremonies
This week's Coventry Telegraph has a feature on non-religious naming ceremonies, and they interviewed my sister about her choice of Humanist naming ceremony. They're on page 4:
“I really had no idea you could do anything like that,” said Jane, 23, from Claverdon. “But it is a great idea because otherwise you are stuck with having a christening in a church and making promises which you don’t really believe in or otherwise doing nothing.
Go Jane. The BHA's naming ceremonies aren't as well known as they could be, and it's great to see them getting some publicity.
The Bible is not a science book
There was a wonderful moment in this evening's Christianity: A History, when Colin Blakemore asked a Vatican astronomer why he doesn't think the Earth is only 6000 years old. Said astronomer replied that the Bible doesn't have to be taken completely literally, because it's not a science book. How do we know it's not a science book? Because science books need to be updated, while the Bible doesn't.
Srsly. This actually happened. I have no idea what he meant, but it only applied to the old testament - the new testament is obviously completely true, and we know so because it says so in the Bible.
The Vatican dude was a bit rubbish, to be honest - a Creation Museum 'astrophysicist' was better, as he was intellectually honest enough to admit that when evidence defies scripture, he chooses scripture. It's ridiculous, but at least it's not couched in desperate justifications.
It was a decent documentary, actually. These shows often go a bit Robert Winston, and end up all wishy-washy we wouldn't-want-to-offend-religious-people, and trying to find some line between 'the two extremes'. Not this time: Colin Blakemore ended by expressing his opinion that science will eventually explain the religious impulse, at which point Christianity, along with all religions, will be dead in the water. I'm not entirely sure about that, but it was good to see someone expressing a proper opinion rather than trying to 'start a debate' by lobbing potshots from safe ground.
Christian comebacks to the Atheist Bus Campaign
The Atheist Bus Campaign adverts are coming down in the next few days, after an amazingly successful month. They've been a remarkable talking-point1, similar adverts are going up all around the world, and they annoyed, then embarrassed, Christian Voice. All great results, but they're also apparently the vanguard for a wave of god-related banners:
A trinity of Christian groups have created their own series of advertisements to run across London buses
Fair enough, let's see what they've got. Here's the first, from the Christian Party:
There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life.
Quite the non-sequitur. A double helping, in fact. Why would the existence of god mean I should join the Christian party? And are the last two clauses linked? Will joining the Christian Party2 help me enjoy my life? How? It's easy to see why 'stop worrying and enjoy your life' would make sense, but this? It's a little cultish. And pretty tacky: using 'god exists' to advertise your political party is just cheap. Next?
There IS a God, BELIEVE. Don't worry and enjoy your life.
Reports differ on the wording and formatting: the Telegraph says it's "There is God, believe! Don't Worry. Enjoy your life!". Whatever. As a comeback, it's (ahem) godawful.
Really, that's the best you could do? No kind of logical rebuttal? Admittedly this is only a bus poster, but the atheist campaign said a lot in the word 'probably' - that was really something to get your teeth into, as it led into the philosophical arguments and the nature of reasonable belief. This banner just says 'no no no. we win'. And if the Guardian is to be believed, resorts to shouting like a street-corner evangelist. Weak. And the last one?
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.
My irony meter. You has broken it.
Seriously? After all that complaining over the horrendously insulting "now stop worrying and enjoy your life" you're calling atheists 'fools'? And with a quote from your magical book, no less? That's certainly authoritative. Well done. Maybe your follow-up campaign can be 'I AM A REAL BOY'. That'll do it.
Overall, not impressive. And these are all marketing criticisms - don't even start me on the philosophical objections. Elsewhere, the BHA's response has a lovely air of amused we-have-better-things-to-do, and Nullifidian.net ponders whether the new banners will - hide your irony meters - break advertising rules. I think the best response is to point and laugh.
- sometimes a bit disappointing: did anyone see Adrian Childs on The One Show saying they promote amorality? wtf? [↩]
- incidentally, their website weirdly says: "Christianity is not a religion as such, it is a dynamic relationship with God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit." Right then. [↩]
My house, my rules
What's this drivel about 'my house, my rules'? Where does this idea come from?
There are currently bonkers people on the radio, discussing how their 20-year-old daughter isn't allowed boyfriends in her room when back from university. 'My house, my rules' is the usual explanation, which of course isn't an explanation at all, but doesn't even make sense in itself. You don't own your kids. Maybe you can impose rules while they're effectively grown up but still under 18, but 20? Get a grip. If there are actual reasons, spell them out. But you don't get to declare yourself sovereign of your own little territory - who said you could do that? How silly.
I suspect the real reasons are 'sky-fairy says no' or 'I don't want to acknowledge my daughter is growing up'. Not brain surgery. Here are some of the other meaningless justifications:
- It's about decorum.
- My parents never let me.
- I was brought up this way.
- I just don't think it's appropriate.
- I don't want to think about it.
- I'm a single mother and I'm very aware what people think of me. (srsly)
I also like the mother who, when she visits her daughter's house, demands the boyfriend sleep in another room. 2009, people.
And this is all discussed on Radio 2, at midday. The daughter in question must be mortified - poor woman.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
