SAMIZDAT.li

Don Giovanni (Part 1)

2011-12-23T03:29:00.001Z

I just felt the need to bash out some poorly versified prose at 3 in the morning, so you lucky folks get to read this piece of unedited crap:

DON GIOVANNI

He was young and keen when his first love

First stormed his heart and raised her flag

To flutter and soar upon the flagstaff of his soul;

It was his mood, his heart, his reason that she stole

He traveled far for her in word and deed

As winter turned to spring and in the sky

The moon rode roughshod on his path of light

And grew and faded as their passions did

In that same road as was their plane of love.

When she had all his being in her hand,

And all his fleeting thoughts hers to command

When he upon her shoulder limping leaned

And learning could no more his head upraise

She took his crutch away, before her heart

Was crushed beneath his weighty fears and woes

She left, looked back no more, and she was gone

No more the moon’s weak passion shone

And it was dark, the lights whose gilding rays

Had splashed the ground with bronze in former days

As he had watched her bicycle retreat

Into his mind from off the city street

They too extinguished.

Half hope remained, but sooner died

Than windfalls in the autumn brown and rot

A half remembered love did not sustain

Beyond the reach of summer’s earliest days

And was, besides, in later days betrayed

By half heard sounds that echoed in the half-lit room

As softly weeping drowned he in the gloom.

October brings fresh fruit forth from the fields

And from the trees, its bounty freely yields

As lightly as temptation seizes minds.

He would not say he loved, and not aloud

But then his heart, still doomed by former love

Tore madly at the sight of second chance

A beauty, colour in a blackened world

A sweet flower in the burning meadow

Sweet lips, sweet hands; his liking from inception grew

And soon he sighed, sweet child, be mine,

And let the world leave us alone a time

A lone thought leaving as the winds doth grow:

But wherefore says my love that she is young?

And wherefore say not I that I am old?

O, love's best habit is a soothing tongue,

And age, in love, loves not to have years told.

“Loves not to have years told”, but years were told;

And so the third was loved and lost, another heart grew cold.

He was a king of youth, in youth a king,

And sadly smiled again as winter grew

And aged him with its cuckoldry.

A lady, plain, but lovely, met his gaze

And in his desperation, seeing such a soul

As met his eyes with gentleness and wit

Again he sallied forth into the field of lovers’ combat

Whistling as he went.

His heart was cold, though surely he loved

That friendly one who comforted his pain

He could not love her as a lover loves,

Nor take her with sound mind into his bed.

Yet all his high regard for her, his guilty mind,

He could not find the words to end her trust.

Selfishly he kept, and selfishly he led

Until the hurt was multiplied, until their hearts were bled.

At last, the battle ended, he escaped

The field for a little time at least

And though his action cost her dignity

As silently temptation led him on

Yet she forgave him, held him graciously

Hid her thoughts and told him to be happy.

My first attempt at a narrative poem in the Lincolnshire Dialect

2011-11-24T16:46:00.000Z

Farmer Benton and the Boggart or The Wilksby Mystery

Of all of the beästs that live i’ the woäld,

Or lurk i’ the fen, or the barn or the foäld,

The fox i’ the spinney, the hob i’ the hearth

The elf or the badger that delve i’ the earth

The roe or the muntjac, the troäll i’ the beck,

The sheeäp that ‘scaäpe when the gaäte dursn’t sneck

Theer’s none that’s feärd moär by the foälk o’the sod

Than the mardy owd boggart that scrats i’ the squad

‘Is face is all mowdy, ‘is haäir’s all greeän,

‘a smells loike a swoine an’ ‘e’s iver so mean.

‘e beänt not picky whatever ‘e eäts,

‘e’ll as soon as eat barnes as a plaät o’ owd meäts

‘is feeät be webby and coöverd in boöils

an’ daäy nor noight will ‘e cease in ‘is toiöls

a’ keäpin the scaäly skin o’is back noice ‘an weät

An’ a nastier creäture thou niver ‘av meät.

On th’edge o’ the fen wheer the woälds hits the muöd

Tweän Maäreham le Fen a’th’edge o’ the flooöd

Theer once wur a feäld all feërtile an’ faiäre

But niver beeän stubb’d, it were whoälly baäre.

Fur ivryone knawed as the stoäny mowd

Were wheer an owd boggart ‘ad maäde ‘is aboäd.

So ivery seäson this meäder were cleän,

All falloöw an’ eämpty, wi’ niver a beän

Til a yeär, gaäy warram, whin a feller naämed Art’ur

Were gi’en the farm an’ the feäld to look arter.

A big man was Art’r, all aärms an’ thuümbs,

An a mum loike a nengine wheniver ‘e hums

A greät deeëp bass when he sung wi’ the choir

An a murderous ‘andshaäke when greeätin’ the squoire.

Now Art’r dursn’t moind any howry owd taäles

O’ boggarts nor fairies nor divils in aäles

‘E laughed like a draiän when ivryone saiäd

If ‘e planted out tonups i’th feäld ‘e’d be maäd.

‘E beänt a fooöl, oh no, not Art’r

An’ the fust thing ‘e did wur to climb on ‘is tra’tor

An’ taäke it dow’n to theer wheer the graäss

Were iver saw thick, ay, a proäper morass

An’ straiäght awaäy began to plough it

When froäm the landdraiän theer caäme a shouät

“Git oäf moi lond, thou narty owd varmit!

This meädow be moine an be damned if thou’ll haärm it.”

The boggart appeärt all drippin’ an sodden

An smellin abouät as noice as a midden

“Oi’ll smash up yon tra’tor, oi’ll poiöson thy croäps,

Oi’ll giv thee a kick roight in thy fat choäps.”

The boggart was daäncin an tha’ fit to buüst,

An Art’r were iver so startled äat fust

But as the greät boggart ‘e raäged it wur cleär

That really Art’r ‘ad nowät to feär.

‘E cloimbed fro’ th’ tra’tor an waäited theer

Till the boggart ‘e ‘ad to stoäp for aiär.

“Näthen, boggart, thou nowt of all nowts,”

Saiäd Arter advancin’ wi’ moäckin’ shouäts

“This feäld be moine, thy claiäm’s a sham

“Thy curses means nowt, an’ I doänt give a damn

“A man loike moisen caäres not a beän fur a threät

“Now stoäp tha raävin’ moi frieänd, ‘av a seat.

“I dursn’t not meän to ‘av all this feäld,

“Saw if thou’rt ameänable, ‘ere’s a deäl.

“Sin’ til to-yeär this ‘as beän thy hoäm

“an thou’st niver another plaäce to roam

“Oi reckons Oi’ll let you staäy ‘ere saäfe

“Oi’ll graäw moi crops, an Oi’ll let thou ‘ave haäfe.

“Now dossn’t that suiït? Oi’ll say thaw befoöre

“tha’if’n it dursn’t then owat tha mun gaw.”

Th’ boggart ‘e’s stannin an’ gawapin’ at Art’r

Who’s loookin saw narty an big boi is trarter

“Oi’ll gi’ a a troi” Saiäd th’ boggart ‘a Art’r

“Oi’ll leät tha remble the stoäns, an arter

Tha brings in th’ croäps, Oi’ll aäve moi shaäre

Haäfe exactly moind, thou’ll niver cheat ma theer.”

An Arter ‘e soighs wi’ a wink in ‘is eyn,

“Champion,” ‘e saäyn, “moiety foine.

Naw which’ll tha have, which haäfe o’ the croäp

The haäfe that’s below grouänd or the haäfe that’s o’ toäp?”

Th’ boggart ‘e grinned, greeädy loook in ‘is eyn

“Oi’ll taäke the haäfe beloöw grouänd, thayat’s moine.”

Saw Arter ‘e cloimbed baäck inter ‘is seät

An’ ‘e ploughed oop th’ fieäld til ealle wur neat

The boggart an’ he, they spreäd the seeäd

An’ paärted till time came fur what they’d agreeäd

‘Twur noät till spring ooop an coom

tha’th boggart could see that ‘e’d beeän done.

Fur Art’r were cleäver, an’ the seeäd they’d spreäd

Was barley, an’ oop coom’d its goölden heäd

When arvest coom’d the boggart wur leäft

Wi nobbut a pile of rooäts, bereäft

‘E screämed at Arter, but Arter just beämed

Fur th’ boggart had beeän as daft as ‘e seeämed

The barn at the farm wur all full o’ graiän

‘Cos Owd Arter Benton ‘ad uüsed ‘is braiän

“Th’as cheäted, tha bugger” the boggart ‘e whoined

“But oi’ll get tha baäck, oi think tha’ll foind.

Oi’ll see tha ‘ere when thou’rt plantin’ agean

Thou’ll pay fur this moi huäman frieänd.”

An’ inter the bouändery diätch ‘e fleäd

As Arter larfed an’ shoook ‘is owd eäd.

An when plantin’ toime ‘ad coomd abouät

Sewer enow, ‘e coom’d back ouät.

An Arter ‘e shoook o’ the boggart’s weät ‘and,

An’ then fro’ i’s trarter hindicaäted the land.

“Naw which’ll tha have, which haäfe o’ the croäp

The haäfe that’s below grouänd or the haäfe that’s o’ toäp?”

Th’ boggart ‘e grinned, greeädy loook in ‘is eyn

“Oi’ll taäke the haäfe aboöve grouänd, thayat’s moine.”

Saw the two on ‘em staärted, and planted th’ fieäld

An leäft again to waiät on it’s yieäld

An coom th’ summer they’a seed what they’d sowäd

An’ theer a greät croap ‘o taätes ‘ad growad.

O’ course the boggart wur iver soa mad

The wust o’all raäges ‘e iver ‘ad ‘ad.

When Arter coom’d down to gather ‘is shaäre

The boggart ‘e joomped on ‘is back: “That’s noät faiär!

“Thou’st tricked me ageän! Moi patience is shoät!

Tha’s niver ‘ad temper saw casselty hoät!

Oi’ll ‘ave naw moär tricks, nor be maäde a foool,

Tha’ll sooon rue th’ daäy tha caäme bya moi pool.”

An oäf ran th’ boggart oäf inter th’ foäg,

An arter weere suddenly afeärd of the doäg

An what suäch a boggart moight doa

Wheän someun loike arter put ‘em all in a tewa

The boggart ‘e niver coom’d back to the meäder,

An’ Arter nor onyone else iver seeäd ‘a

But Wheän the foäg ‘ad lifted and sun ‘a shoäne

The village o’ Wilksby ‘ad utterly goäne

An nobuddy knaws fro’ tha’ daäy, nor still

Why all but th’ choorch disappeared off th’ hill

But fur th’ boggart’s parting curse –

An’ sewerly beänt we lucky the punishment beänt not wooorse?

Distortion and Duplicity: Liveblogging the CICCU Friday Lunchtime Talks Autumn 2011

2011-10-07T16:42:00.004+01:00

The people at CICCU are incredibly lovely. They are always kind, welcoming, and ready to take care of your needs, or your soul. This always applies, even once I've made it clear that I begin from a critical perspective and have heard pretty much any argument you care to put for Christianity so many times before that I'm less likely to be swayed than a concrete palm-tree. Their speakers are often rhetorically skilled and quite as capable of wit as the next chap or chapess (though it is still nearly always a chap).

On the other hand, the speakers, whether intentionally or not, are nearly always quite disgustingly disingenuous, wielding weasel words which would make the most skilled confidence trickster grin with admiration.

Today's lunchtime talk was no exception. Entitled "Why bother with Christianity?" the speaker was supposed to be explaining why this ancient religion is still relevant today. He did not in any way fulfil this brief.

He began with the proposition that rather than being irrational, Christianity is, in fact, completely rational. Materialism, he said, denies Christianity, based on the idea that the mind is fallible, and beliefs uncertain.

But if materialism is right, wouldn't the mind be just as fallible in believing materialism as in Christianity?

To summarise that argument (which he never did, putting it in words that cunningly disguised such circular logic):

If rationalism is right, strongly held beliefs may be false.
Rationalism is a belief.
Therefore rationalism, if right, may be wrong.
Therefore Christianity.

Leaving aside for the moment the massive jump in logic between those two therefores, I'd like to point out that while Christianity itself is largely a priori, with the majority of its beliefs based on non sequiters, incredulity, and false assumptions, rather than evidence, rationalists today practise Empiricism, and have done since Locke.

Materialists do not rely on the infallibility of their own minds, as the speaker claimed, but on evidence.

There is NO evidence sufficient to justify a belief in the bible as truth. Because the bible makes massive claims about the nature of existence, unless you can be 100% and without a doubt certain of the legitimacy of the evidence you produce for it, it is more likely that the evidence is flawed than that everything we know about existence is wrong.

Not even 99% confidence will do - as long as there is room for doubt, doubt remains a better course of action that acceptance.

Furthermore, it is a universal truth, acknowledged by rationalists and this Christian speaker himself, that strongly held beliefs may be false. This is not a tenet specifically of rationalism. It is a Truth. This is precisely the reason materialists rely on material, not mind, and why no belief that requires absolute certainty is legitimate.

By the by, I've been very charitable here in kind of translating what the guy wanted to imply. His actual words were much, much stranger.

First, he attacked rationalism because rationality cannot be trusted. He implied that this ceased to be a problem if one was a theist - as though the belief that you could be certain of something (God's truth) made the fact that some people are certain of things, and also wrong, disappear. That's circular logic. Let me show you:

-I believe it's possible for me to be certainly right
-Therefore I am certainly right.

...or something like that - it makes so little sense, it's difficult to put into words.

The conclusion (belief in God is exempt from the idea that belief is fallible) is used as a justification for not regarding that same conclusion as fallible.

Frankly I was left confused by the whole thing - how he could keep up such sleight of hand, lying for Jesus, as much as how his argument was supposed to make any sense other than by bashing the audience's critical faculties into submission.

The only legitimate conclusion of his argument - that nobody can be certain their belief is right as long as other people hold their beliefs just as strongly - is that materialism is no stronger a metaphysical position as Christianity.

This, in fact, is true. It does not, however, allow that Christianity might have a stronger metaphysical position.

There is also a flaw in that Christianity also posits the existence of material. Materialism is part and parcel of Christianity, not its opposite. Materialism is the toast. Christianity adds an extra layer of existence - god, satan, and all his little gnomes. Christianity is the jam on the toast of existence. Jam for which there is no evidence.

Until evidence for jam is produced, I shall continue to make statements of certainty only about the toast.

Talking of food: the lunch, unlike the appetiser, was lovely. I had a very nice tuna mayo bun, and a jam donut, and picked up a book full of demonstrable untruths called "can we trust what the Gospels say about Jesus?"

It's full of lies. But that's a topic I've already covered. There is no historical evidence for Jesus, and we cannot trust what the Gospels say about Jesus.

The Black Dog and the Wolds Panther

2011-09-03T14:29:00.001+01:00

Anyone living recently in the Wolds will have heard of the strange black beast seen wandering the hills and fens, and the giant footprints found on the beach; and anyone who has read Harry Potter and the PRisoner of Azkaban will be aware of the folkloric legends of the evil black hound or barguest.

Just as once upon a time comets and other celestial phenomena were spoken of as dragons and angels, but now are more likely to be reported as UFOs and alien spacecraft, the reports which have consistently been printed in the Horncastle News and other local papers of a large black animal prowling the countryside in Lindsey recall the sightings of a phantom Black Dog once prevalent in the same area.

Whereas in other countries the dog is fearsome, foreshadowing death and misfortune, in Lincolnshire the apparition was always previously seen as a good omen, and a protector. E.H.Rudkin details one old story from North Lincolnshire, a sighting of 1912:

"One moonlit evening in the early spring of 1912, I was cycling alone from Goxhill to Barton-on-Humber. All the day I had been working at Goxhill with my men, and was riding to Barton about 9 p.m. I had about a mile and a half to go when I had a punctured tyre. As I pushed my cycle along I wished I had a friend to accompany me. I was not in the least afraid, as I knew every part of the way. I am not by nature a nervous fellow, but I had a premonition of evil. Quite suddenly I was aware that on my left hand side was heavy breathing and padding feet. I found that my companion was a large black dog; his coat curly and glossy. And as I looked down, two friendly eyes met mine. I did not speak to the dog because I felt that a strange voice might frighten him away, and I appreciated his companionship.

As I walked he kept close to my side and continued to pad heavily and pant loudly. PResently the moon became obscured by black clouds, but I could still see the dog clearly because his coat was so shiny and bright and his body so large. All at once I heard a rustle in the high hawthorne hedge which flanked the road, and a tall, broad-shouldered man sprang towards me and barred my way. His attitude was menacing and offensive. He quickly stopped short when he noticed the dog, and calmly asked if I could tell him the time.

I reached home safely, the dog seeming to hug my side more closely all the way. Outside my house there is a street-lamp, and here I could see the dog very clearly. Turning to leave my cycle on the house railing, I decided to take the dog indoors and give him a good meal and rest him until morning. When I looked back, he was disappearing, melting into thin air, as it were! I called, and coaxed, but there was no sound. I waited a while hoping he would return, but then realised in a flash that he had been no real dog. I lived in Barton all my life, and know that nobody in a wide area possessed such a large black dog, and I am sure in my mind that the faithful friend saved me from a would-be enemy."

There's really nothing new under the sun...

London Riots and Euripides

2011-08-15T11:28:00.000+01:00

Jocasta

My son Eteocles, old age is not a total misery. Experience helps. Sometimes we speak wiser than the young. [...] The worst of all; this goddess is Injustice. Often she comes to happy homes and cities, and when she leaves, she has destroyed their owners, she after whom you rave. It's better, child, to honor Equality who ties friends to friends, cities to cities, allies to allies. For equality is stable among young men. If not, the lesser force hates the greater force, and so begins the day of enmity. Equality set up men's weights and measures, gave them their numbers. And night's sightless eye equal divides with day the circling year. While neither, yielding place, resents the other. So sun and night are servants to mankind.

Yet you will not endure to hold your house in even shares with him? Where's justice then? Why do you honour so much tyrannic power and think that unjust happiness is great? It's fine to be looked up to? But it's empty. You want to have much wealth within your halls - much trouble with it? And what is "much"? It's nothing but the name. Sufficiency's enough for men of sense. Men do not really own their private goods; we simply care for things which are the gods', and when they will, they take them back again. Wealth is not steady; it is of a day.

Come, if I question you a double question, whether you wish to rule, or to save the city, will you choose to be its tyrant? But if he wins and the Argive spear beats down the Theban lance, then will you see the town of Thebes subdued and many maidens taken off as slaves, assaulted, ravished by our enemies. Truly the wealth which you now seek to have will mean but grief for Thebes; you're too ambitious. So much for you.

Your turn now, Polyneices: ignorant favours has Adrastus done you, and you have come in folly to sack your own city. Come, if you take this land - heaven forbid it - by the gods, what trophies can you set to Zeus? How start the sacrifice for your own vanquished country? And how inscribe your spoils at Inachus' stream? "Polyneices set these shields up to the gods when he had fired Thebes"? Oh, never, Son, be this, or such as this, your fame in Greece! If you are worsted and his side has best, how shall you go to Argos, leaving here thousands of corpses? Some will surely say: "Adrastus, what a wedding for your daughter! For one girl's marriage we have been destroyed."

You are pursuing evils - one of two- you will lose the Argives or fail in winning here. Both of you, drop excess. When double folly attacks one issue, this is worst of all.

-from The Phoenician Women, by Euripides, trans. Grene and Lattimore.

Delusional Disorder

2011-07-12T10:10:00.000+01:00

"Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. It therefore has no reality check. And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self- correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality... and extreme, grotesque immorality."

This is a fantastic article by a very clever woman, and you should read it.

Just to restate something I've pointed out before, and discussed with prominent psychologists: there's not a lot of difference between the kind of " belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces" held by the religious, and the " belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces" that holds those suffering from delusional disorder.

In fact I would go so far as to say there is no difference; religious belief is merely a delusion that is widely suffered and largely benign (causing harmful behaviours in only a proportion of its worst sufferers) due to its variable position on the spectrum of unproveable certainties and delusions.

Nice to see it restated here again.

http://www.samizdat.li/2008/07/ubiquity-of-paranoia-from-human.html
http://www.samizdat.li/2009/04/faith-unjustified-certainty-and.html

Ten Good Reasons the New Tesco Site is Bad for Horncastle

2011-06-28T15:07:00.028+01:00

The big topic at the moment in Horncastle and the surrounding area is the new Tesco. There is a little support for it, a large apathetic majority, and a not negligible opposition. The supporters of the New Larger Tesco are characterised by their detractors as ignorant, gullible, simplistic people who wish to be seen as "progressive", while they only succeed in erecting monstrosities and destroying our hard-earned heritage.

The supporters, in turn, characterise the opposition to the new Tesco site as ignorant, simplistic hermits, nostalgic troglodytes, NIMBY's, country bumpkins, and technophobes.

While I'm tempted to indulge in such cathartic insults, it's probably best if I can demonstrate the actual reasons for Horncastle to oppose 1) the current site proposed for the new Tesco and 2) having a new, larger Tesco in town at all.

The most common misconception on the side of the supporters is that the opposition are simply opposed to supermarkets in general, or Tesco in particular. This is where the claim of "ignorance" comes in, as the opposition is actually more nuanced. First and foremost, we oppose the site proposed for the new Tesco, not the idea of Tesco itself.

Why? There are many reasons the site proposed for the new Tesco is unsuitable.

Click image to see complete plan

1). Traffic and congestion.

The new site is just off Lincoln Road. Anyone familiar with Horncastle, and the arduous task of getting through town on a bank holiday weekend, will know exactly why this is so bad: on even a good day, the traffic is jammed as far back as Crowders, and as far afield as the Laurels garage on Spilsby Road, and all through town in between. This is merely the effect of the current holiday traffic - caravans, coaches, cars and all manner of trippers trying to get from everywhere else to Skegness, and back again.

Anyone who wanted to get to the new Tesco would have to sit in this line of traffic either on the way to, or on the way home from, the store car-park. In fact, because the traffic would consist of the holiday-makers AND all the people trying to get to and from the super-market, and everyone involved would have to pause at the entrance of the car-park as well as at the traffic lights, Jubilee Way and Lincoln Roadwould become one permanent, unbearable, noisy, smelly traffic jam.

Tesco are taking a traffic scenario that is already pretty bad and making it many times worse. And that's without taking into consideration...

2. Proximity to School & School Buses
According to the plans laid out by Tesco and presented to the ELDC planning division, school buses will no longer enter and leave Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School via the cramped entrance from Reindeer Close onto West Street (a situation that is, I admit, in need of remedy).

Instead, the buses will enter and leave the school through the middle of the new Tesco car-park.

But for the lucky disabled people, anyone wishing to park at the store, or leave a parking space, between the hours of 3 and 4.30 at night, and 8 and 9 in the morning, will be unable to do so. They will be prevented by a queue of twenty buses and coaches attempting to turn on and off an already congested Lincoln Road, through a narrow entrance shared by the supermarket carpark.

Anyone trying to get between cars and the store will have to dart between waiting buses.

There are many parents in Horncastle whose routine is usually to pick up their child from school - one of the primaries or secondaries - in the car, and then proceed to go shopping, in these exact hours. They will be prevented from entering or leaving the store without an infuriating half-hour wait in traffic, unable to turn in or out of any spaces but those reserved for disabled parking.

Not a good plan. What with holiday traffic, shoppers, delivery lorries, school-buses and -taxis trying to use one entrance and exit from Lincoln Road all at once, I'm loathe to lend my support to Tesco unless they also fund a bypass around the town. The Town Plan Action Group found that:

"The circulation of service vehicles, school busses [sic] and customer cars all sharing the same limited length access road, immediately off the Lincoln Road, is unsafe and will cause even greater traffic congestion, and compromise safety within the site."

The store is also too close to school. It will encourage students to shop there before, during, and after school hours, incurring acquisitiveness; a divide between richer and poorer students; increased truancy; and greater, easier consumption of junk foods and drinks. All these things were fuelled merely by the presence of a garage across the road during my own time at the school, and clearly this will make the situation worse.

The school does stand to get new classrooms out of the deal – two of them – but as these will merely replace two classrooms and a store-room which do the job just as well already, this is not a substantial argument for the Tesco to be built.

3. Distance from Town Centre

The proposed site for the new Tesco is a long walk from the centre of town. While the current site allows people to park at the store and cross the river directly into the market square of Horncastle, less than a minute's walk away, the new site will entail a more than seven-minute walk (which is longer than it sounds) entailing the crossing of two very busy and dangerous roads, several times.

People for whom it would formerly have made sense to park and shop at Tesco and while they were at it, pop to the post-office, a market-stall, or one of the High Street or North Street shops, will no longer do so.

They will buy their groceries and newspapers at Tesco, and buy their books, gardening implements, craft-goods, and everything else, online.

I remember very clearly when I attended the Grammar School that on lunch times I had to make what I considered to be an "arduous trek" into town to go to the supermarket for drinks and snacks the school had banned from their vending machines, and as I was in town, popping into Jabberwock's books, Achurch, Mantles, Perkins, and the bank.

The important point is that I would NEVER have made the trip into town specifically to patronise these businesses, but I did so because they happened to be close to a supermarket selling Pot Noodles. Had the supermarket not been in the middle of town, I would not have used the smaller shops. The town-centre supermarket made these shops viable.

Nobody in their right mind parked on Lincoln Road will think it convenient to "pop" into the town centre for anything else. The small shops and bank branches will close, their business will move online; Horncastle will be left with a desolate and characterless Town Centre.

If Tesco need a larger store, it must be in a central position in town, NOT on Lincoln Road.

4. The community.
The planned site for the new store & car-park overlooks several private properties which have hitherto been secluded in the private Reindeer Close (named for a lost pub, the Reindeer, which once stood nearby).

These dwellings will, if the store is built, become noisy and depressingly public. Drivers attempting to avoid the inevitable jams on Lincoln Roadwill begin to cut across the unadopted close from West Street to get to the car-park and the school, and their gardens will be in full view of this large increase in traffic, especially from the top decks of double-decker buses which are used for school transport.

The poor souls who will have no say in this new development will be given few concessions to their right to privacy, and will be left with heavily devalued, noisy, and properties polluted by smog and noise to a greater extent than before; those, that is, who have not already had their houses knocked down to make way for the stretch of new tarmac itself.

Property values will also fall on Lincoln Road due to the increased traffic.

5. Employment prospects (negligible)
The new Tesco will NOT create a significant number of new jobs for the town. The majority of its staff will be drawn from those already working at the Watermill site, and, besides, how many employees does a supermarket need compared to, say, a factory? We'll be lucky if the new store creates ten new minimum wage jobs for the town - not nearly enough to benefit a community with rapidly rising unemployment.

This is especially the case as a greater number of jobs which stand to be lost when Tesco’s move puts the smaller shops and banks in the town centre out of business, robbing local business-owners of their family incomes.

6. We don't need a bigger store.
We already have a Tesco (which is why it's ridiculous to claim that the opposition are "just anti-Tesco", rather than against the Lincoln Road site).

The store we have now on the watermill site has a much larger car-park, has never itself flooded, and stocks as many products as anyone in Horncastle or the surrounding area actually needs. Anyone who complains that they "have" to travel to Lincoln, Grimsby, or even Hull to do their weekly shop, is a disingenuous and wasteful and self-indulgent reprobate. Plenty of people manage to do their shopping at the Horncastle store without travelling ridiculous distances to get precisely the right brand of washing powder. If you can't get by on the same resources and shops that my family does, day to day, then that is YOUR problem, not Tesco's or the town's.

Tesco has petulantly threatened to close their existing store on the Watermill site if their planning application is turned down. If this were their actual intention, then it would be their loss: some new supermarket would move onto the site and the only effect would be a loss of profits for Tesco.

The existing Tesco site is already extant and is not going to be demolished even if Tesco move to Lincoln Road. It will merely be occupied by another store, notwithstanding its location on a flood-plain.

7. The new Tesco will not stock a significantly greater array of goods anyway.
A common argument for having a more conveniently sized Tesco in Horncastle is that we currently have to travel a long way to buy things like children's clothes, which Tesco will stock in their new store.

Pay close attention, because people still don't seem to get this: the new Tesco will not be stocking clothes. Nor will there be curtains, sheets, towels, etc. They have publicly stated this both in the Horncastle News and at their public meetings. Their range of goods will be substantially similar to that in their existing store.

A far better solution to the problem of clothes shopping in Horncastle is to actually shop at the few small clothing businesses we DO have, to encourage more. Either way, you'll still have to travel to larger towns where it's economically viable to sell cheap clothes.

They may sell an increased range of foods, such as take-away food (introducing competition with local restaurants and take-aways); electronics (competing with local electronics stores, when we have already lost Yates & Greenough); and other things which are already sold in town. They will not stock anything we do not already have.

8. Tesco lied about the Environment Agency ruling about Watermill Site.
Tesco claim they cannot expand the store they already own on the Watermill site, due to the Environment Agency denying them permission to do so, due to flood risk.

In fact, what the Environment Agency actually told them was that they couldn't expand it there until the Flood Alleviation Scheme was complete. The scheme in question would progress much faster were Tesco to donate part of their budget towards its implementation rather than to the construction of an entire new store.

The Watermill Centre has never itself flooded in more than 21 years of existence.

9. Lincoln Road site is not big enough
It has been amply demonstrated that the size of the new Tesco on Lincoln Road will not be significantly larger than the present store, and that the size of the proposed site is too small, not permitting for expansion. Planning officials found that Tesco are quite aware of this fact, and their plan for the future is transparent: eventually noise, stress, and lack of privacy will force the residents of Reindeer Close to move away, allowing the store to knock down these houses and make way for more asphalt.

"The site area and shape is inadequate to segregate commercial and private traffic and provide for adequate landscaping buffer zones to the residential properties."

The Reindeer Close dwellings are not listed, nor are they exceptional architectural examples. However, the residents are very closely attached to the houses, several of which were built to order for them by my great grandfather and others. They are not merely bungalows, they are homes, and Tesco must not be allowed to intimidate their residents from the site.

10. The Lincoln Road site does not comply with Tesco's own Community Policies.

"We want to be a good neighbour in all the communities in which we operate. This means being in tune with the needs and values of local communities, engaging positively on the issues that matter to them, and making lasting contributions that improve local areas. [...] We are committed to talking and listening to local communities, to ensure our developments meet their needs and expectations."

Clearly, from the amount of opposition there is to the construction of a new store in a ridiculous location, they're failing at this.

"open stores in areas which other businesses, including retailers, have abandoned or neglected. These stores provide access to quality fresh food at affordable prices in communities that are often otherwise isolated. They also bring much-needed jobs and resulting income to the local area. We are particularly proud of our Regeneration Partnership programme in the UK. [...]

In the UK, we believe that our stores, which are often located at the heart of local communities, can help revitalise a town centre by bringing back customers who might otherwise have shopped out of town."

The new site proposed by Tesco is further away from the area in which other businesses are operating, will be even more in direct competition with them, and will result in less business for them, as shown above.

"We are reducing our impact on the environment, including energy use and waste."

Constructing a whole new store, rather than renovating and extending the old one, is by its very nature less environmentally friendly, using lots of evil concrete and stuff.

This concludes our lecture. The reasons for being against any Tesco at all - including such relevant criticisms as their widespread bribery, corruption, and deliberate construction of a monopoly, will have to wait for another day.

Dogdyke: Installment 2 of ?, 2nd Draft (Work in progress)

2011-06-20T13:56:00.002+01:00

“Indeed?” the professor’s interest was immediately aroused. “I was most interested in the few little things you sent down for me. Nothing especially unusual, as you said in your letter – but if there are more to be found where they came from...”

“There’s a rich seam of the stuff here,” agreed the priest, “They continually bring me more. Half of it rubbish – old pieces of horseshoe and iron bedsteads, bits of oddly shaped rock, and such – but they cover far more ground than I ever could. I barely have time to sort through the collection as it is, what with visiting and sermons...”

“Ah. Yes. The curse of the clergy. Parochial duties getting in the way of the real business of polymathy. You should have stayed a scholar!” he jibed. “You’re not prepared to give me any clue as to what it is you want to show me, I suppose?”

“Not a word more about that. I swear it will be worth the wait! Now, have you had hold of a copy of your colleague’s new book, yet?”

Although the professor’s interest was piqued by his friend’s cryptic promise, he reluctantly accepted the change of tack; it was obvious that the cleric did not wish to reveal too much too soon, and so he would not press any further and risk spoiling a surprise. They quickly fell into more trivial conversation, gossiping and reminiscing as though they had never been apart. It wasn’t unusual for the priest to make such harmlessly playful gestures, and this added element of mystery to the planned excursion was, on the face of it, quite in character. Yet the twinkle in his eyes was somehow not as bright as it ought to be; behind the jovial mask the professor sensed a nervous caution in this refusal to discuss.

What had his friend discovered? Perhaps he was not sure himself, and wanted another scholar’s opinion; possible, if it was so important, odd or unbelievable that he did not wish to jump to any conclusion. King John’s lost treasure... a Saxon hoard? He found himself growing as anxious to leave the house as his friend, who now sat on the edge of his chair, clearly frustrated at the gilded laws of hospitality which forced him to delay the expedition until after dinner. And wait, they must.

The urgency of the situation had evidently been made clear to the housekeeper, his only servant, who, used to the unusual ways of a frivolous and learned man, had followed her instructions to the letter in preparing a hearty stew which was ready not long after the guest’s arrival, and which could be bolted by the distracted bachelors with the barest pretence of gentility. She did not raise an eyebrow as her master craned his neck about between bites, neglecting conversation in favour of scanning the fen landscape beyond the window’s rattling sash; nor at his friend the intense-looking scholar as he stared in turn at the priest.

As soon as it was possible, the vicar and the scholar wiped their mouths, donned their hats and overcoats and stepped out into the chill wind of the evening. The rain had ceased, but the wind was still enough to pierce their clothes and redden their cheeks as they paced along the road, towards a farm outside the village. They made an attempt to speak at first, but soon fell silent, blowing warm breath up over their own faces instead of out into the air.

The farm yard, when they reached it some way along another straight lane, lay lurking in the enclosing shadow of a tall brick wall, fortified against the wide open space that surrounded it on all sides. Close by, the squat cone of a windmill stood, its blades turning gently against the grey sky with a barely audible swish of wood against wind; within there was an ivy-covered farmhouse, along with barns and tumbledown sheds. The cleric led the way through the double front gate with proprietary steps, and had rung the iron bell hanging high on the eaves when the tenant appeared from the stable, dirty face hidden behind a tangle of ugly side-whiskers. He wiped his hands on a dirty kerchief and smiled respectfully at his guests.

“Na’then rev’rend . This’ll be tha friend, an’ all.”

“Good evening, Michael...” the cleric was excited; distracted. The farmer saw he meant only business and dispensed with the pleasantries.

“Evurathing’s as tha left it i’the back field. I’d locked oop the spaäde an’ tooäls, thouägh. I’ll bring it ower.”

“Thank you. We’ll meet you there.”

Another gate between the barn and a jerry-built pigsty led out of the opposite side of the yard; down a track and one field over they came to a place where the tilled earth was broken by a shallow excavation. The priest stopped to look on for a moment in thought, and then, taking his fellow by the sleeve, tugged him on to where they could both look down into the pit. With ceremony, he removed a few stones and wrenched back a soaking sheet from the object it had protected.

Immediately, the scholar felt his heart leap into his mouth at what he saw. Not caring for the damp earth or the fate of his travelling gear, he scrambled down the bank of earth removed earlier in the day, and threw himself down upon his knees on the flinty ground. The priest had been watching his face intently; at such a reaction his breathing seemed to become easier.

“You see what I meant?”

“If it’s not a hoax, it’s extraordinary.”

“Nobody’s seen it but I and Michael back there. The poor man can’t even write his own name, and I doubt he knows enough to put together such a thing as this unless he’s had me fooled from the beginning. And I hope you wouldn’t begin to suspect me of such dissimulation.”

“All the same,” the scholar replied, running his fingers along the grooves carved into the surface of the stone slab on which he knelt, “We can’t be too careful. It’s a very important discovery. Somebody else could have placed it here. Your friend may have been paid off, for instance, by a third party. Did he discover it?”

“The upper end, there, where those fresh gouges are, was caught on the plough,” he gestured, “and he uncovered most of it by his own hand before sending for me.”

“The carvings are only here on the top end – I suppose until he saw them he thought he’d just found an old floor slab.” The young man stood again to examine the discovery from a new angle. “But those are certainly runic; unmistakeably ancient.”

“I take it you see already what’s most extraordinary about it?”

He looked again, examining what he saw with a critical eye. A long, narrow slab of what was probably a local sandstone, perfectly smooth on top but for where the plough had caught it; there were carvings at the top – one or two lines, worn away from a thousand years’ of neglect – and along the side a careful excavation had shown it to be nearly an inch thick, and resting on top of another stone of unknown dimensions. It took another second for the scholar to see for himself.

“Oh!” He exclaimed, “The dimensions – they’re typical for a kyst or a grave. Astonishing! You think it may not be solitary? There may be others?”

“You know better than I it would be an odd place for a cemetery. Out of character. If there is a body beneath – or even if it has been removed – the inscription will give us a clue as to what he’s doing here. I believe it’s the only one.”

“I expect you’re desperate to get it up.”

“You can have no concept of how slowly the afternoon has passed; I wanted you to be here when we lifted it. I have recorded everything so far, in great detail; we can lift it when Michael returns with the crow-bar.”

“He’s coming now, leading the horse. Good - by the size of it the three of us won’t lift it.”

“The Lord only knows how they got the thing here in the first place. The effort that was involved makes one hope for a high-status burial, but for the lack of any obvious monument or mound. All well, Michael?” he called, as the horse and man ambled unhurriedly over the field.

“Aye. All ready. Thouägh I beänt shuär why tha’s saw keeän to ‘ave ‘er up tonight.”

“We’re in a fair stew about this I’m afraid. I’m most grateful for your humouring us.”

The farmer stroked the mare’s neck thoughtfully. “I doän’t see all that mooch ‘umour in it Revurn’d. But if it’ll keeäp tha ‘appy...”

“No. I suppose not.” The priest looked over at his fellow. “By the way, can you make out any of the inscription? More your subject than mine. I’d cope if it were Hebrew or Coptic. Other than ruling those out, I’ve no idea.”

“It’s quite worn,” replied the scholar, “and recognisably Danish. This here,” he indicated, “says wolf-skin. Here is the name of Twr – the Germanic god – and what translates roughly as a curse or a warning. The rest I can’t make out.”

“I took a rubbing earlier before it had begun to rain.”

“Good. I’ll have it looked over in the department when I return next week. In the meantime, now Michael is here – I’m as eager to have this thing out of the hole as you and see if anything’s underneath. Shall we?”

The farmer wordlessly handed over one of the crow-bars he had slung over one shoulder, thrusting his spade into the pile of earth, and the two learned men prised it beneath the slab at one end, while Michael took the other. On a count of three, they heaved together; with a scrape, the slab moved an inch, revealing a cavity beneath. They heaved again, and this time levered it into a position where the priest could pass a chain which hung from the heavy horse’s harness beneath it, and back on itself; with red faces, it was finally allowed to drop back. Even for the muscle-bound farmer, it had been an effort, and he reached a dirty hand across for the scholar to shake in congratulation.

Finally, both bars were moved to one place, to act as a makeshift track; apprehensively the men stood by as the horse took the strain and began to drag its monolithic burden out of the shallow depression. The wind blew hard in their faces as they all three gathered about the open grave, and looked down as one at their prize, down into the pit where so long ago a fellow human being had been laid to rest, imprisoned in death, and beneath the immovable stone. There was no instant gleam of gold or silver; a few iron belt rivets could immediately be glanced, laid out across the centre of it, visible as rust-red patches in the soil that covered all but a few glimpses of the skeleton to which they belonged. But clearly there was a body; this was enough to renew the friends’ excitement, and the rude mechanical’s curiosity. They stood for a moment in appreciative reverence, feeling for all the world as though they had uncovered the resting place of Arthur himself; the scholar spoke first.

“It seems you were right, old boy.”

“That’s certainly a body. I hope it is a Dane. The only way to see is to uncover it all.”

With that, they set to work again with trowels and a small brush the farmer had brought along with the other tools requested. Michael was less sure of himself in joining the more meticulous style of archaeological excavation, and looked over nervously to ensure he followed the formula which seemed second nature to the learned men, who sunk their hands into the earth of the grave without reservation or disgust, carefully dug around the bones, and brushed them off. The sky was darkening further still, but progress was fast. Each limb and rib appeared from out the dust like the birth of Adam; the buried man’s pelvis and vertebrae emerged, one by one. But it was clear quite soon that the body was not right, but grotesquely, piteously deformed: the ribcage flared, widening out to hunched, apelike shoulders; the fingers of both hands and all ten toes were hideously long and pointed, while the arms were far too long for a man’s. Worse than all this, where the diggers should have found the man’s head resting, they found instead only the skull of a large canine, a dog or a wolf, sabre-like teeth protruding over its jaw, bared at its unsettled discoverers in a skeletal growl, resting across the hands.

“What is it?” asked the farmer, drawing back from the terrible, unnatural combination of man and beast.

“It’s bizarre,” answered the priest. “He must have been an ugly fellow; but terribly strong. And human. I wonder what they did with his head?”

“In all my career thus far,” whispered the scholar, voice full of awe, “I have never seen, or heard, of such a thing.”

Dogdyke: Installment 1 of ?, 2nd Draft (Work In Progress)

2011-06-19T16:52:00.005+01:00

The young professor stared impassively through the rain that lashed the rattling windows of the first-class compartment, straining to catch a glimpse of the featureless fen country beyond, made mysterious, and somehow almost beautiful, by the dim, white reflected foglight which penetrated the mizzle and mist and smoke from the engine - strangely ethereal light, like snowfields reflecting the sun. He had been alone in the compartment since Boston, where his only companion, a tweedclad ruddychopped country lawyer, had alighted headdown from the train into the howling late September storm which strafed the platform, rain and wind channelled mercilessly between track and dripping station canopy overhead. “Nasty, casselty weather,” the man had said, and since his departure it had only worsened.

It had not affected the young man’s mood; for the hundredth time that day, while his gaze remained fixed on the galloping fields beyond the glass, his left hand strayed to the little case on the worn crimson cushion beside him, and a small self-satisfied smile passed across his face. Never mind the rain, he thought. I’ll have what I’m after. The snap of a catch deposed the reigning silence, and his fingers intruded carefully into the satchel’s warm, womblike interior, to play softly over the smooth rounded objects lying within. A weathered bone, marks of primitive butchery etched along its length; a well-knapped flint knife, smoothed by decades of loving use and millennia of subterranean rest; shards of ancient pot, ground, burned and blackened until nearly indistinguishable from the fertile earth whose folds had concealed it for so long. The diverse relics, sent to him by an old school-friend, now a cleric in one of these windswept northern parishes, excited him with their prospect of a fruitful few days’ delving into the living earth, a working holiday.

The friend had not come by them himself, however. Rather, knowing him as a man of learning, the working men and busy children from the surrounding farms had brought each item carefully to him, as reverently as an offering to the country gods, wrapped in neckerchiefs and carried in battered hats, receiving in return a shilling or a slab of crusty bread from the rectory kitchen, a kind word and the happy twinkle of anticipation in the pastor’s eye, until the trickle of antiquities became a torrent beyond his ability to catalogue. At school, the pair had shared a passion for the classics, the violent stories of Hengest and Horsa, and above all for archaeology and anthropology in general, and so it was that a few choice specimens had been dispatched to the professor’s rooms at the university and, enclosed, an invitation to visit whenever it may prove convenient. So it was that the young man found himself cocooned in a comfortable carriage, looking forward fondly to a small indulgence before the beginning of term should call him back to his students and his more scholarly research.

The wind had abated somewhat when the train pulled shudderingly to a stop in the small country station that was the young man’s destination, though it siled as hard as before. The name, DOGDYKE, hand-painted on the wall of the signalbox, welcomed him, shining through the steam as he descended to the deserted platform, the only passenger to do so. The irregular hiss and sizzle of raindrops striking the locomotive boiler, and the rivulets running in cast iron gutters, were the only sounds, as he looked around in vain for a porter, before lifting down his own valise, watching his erstwhile steed pull away, and splashing before the wind, across the tracks, to the inviting glow of the wooden waiting room sitting midway along the opposite platform.

With luck, he thought, the clouds would part before long; he planned to hire an open cart from the inn to carry him from there to his friend’s home, and he did not relish the idea of a slow, lengthy journey exposed to such elements. Yet at the worst, he could always stop a night at the inn itself; he was youthful and justly unpretentious, and a country hotel would do well enough for him, unlike some of his older colleagues who would have balked at the idea. Strange, given the Spartan and decrepit nature of many of the fellows’ ancient apartments at the university, that they should be so snobbish and unpractical.

As if to chide him for his optimism, a peel of thunder rumbled ominously in the distance as he stepped at last beneath the hanging gas lantern and into the waiting-room, where three other passengers sat, glassy-eyed, in funereal silence, staring into the glowing embers of a low-burning fire as though long study would reveal great secrets.

The young man paused at the door to consider them, and remove his hat, then stepped between the three rustic oracles and their object, placing his back close to the fire, so that steam began to rise from his damp clothes in the fusty heat of the waiting room.

“Excuse me,” he apologised in a low voice, designed not to break the spell; indeed it did not, and his companions may as well have been carven idols for all that they acknowledged him. “...The weather, you know.”

A flash of light, and a second clap of thunder tolled, this time closer; a toothless grin played among the wrinkles of the eldest lady’s face, and she was chuckling as she answered it, “A drum - a drum!”

Confusion must have shown on the professor’s face, as the lady seemed to notice him for the first time, and spoke directly to him, gazing empty-eyed from beneath her grubby cap.

“List on, young ‘un: Now o'er the one halfworald, naäture seems deäd, an’ wicked dreäms abuse th’ curtain'd sleep; we celebraäte pale Hecate's off’rings...”

There was a sound at the door, and a uniformed man stepped in and laid his hand on the woman’s shawlbound shoulder with gentle finality.

“Na’then, Maudie,” he broke in, in a soft fenland burr, “n’more o’ that now. I’m sorry for her, sor. She bean’t hersen naymore, she’s a tad... soft I’th’ead. Hallus cot up in’r theatercal days.”

The professor nodded at the station-master’s reassurance, though he was already shaken.

“I’m sorry I warn’t aäble to meeät tha train, sor, loikewise. Fust’n I’ve missed sin I bean ‘ere, but I’d to see the Squoire awaäy.”

“It’s quite alright. There was only myself to help down, and I would have received a wet in anycase.”

“Onyroad, I’m moighty sore o’er that, sor.” The station-master smiled at him. “Can I help tha w’owt else mayhap?”

“The rain doesn’t show any sign of stopping, I don’t suppose?”

“Ay, it’s right remblin an’ silin, an’ will forra woile yit, sor.”

“Then you might allow me the use of your umbrella while I go over to the public house.” The professor indicated the dripping bundle in the station-master’s hand. “I wish to engage a conveyance.”

“Cert’nly sor, moi pleäsure.” He nodded, “Jes tha leäver a th’inn ‘n I’ll coom o’er f’r tanight.”

“Er... thank you. That’s very kind of you.” Taking the proffered umbrella, the young man passed out of the waiting room, not looking back at the three crones, raised the already sodden cloth above his head, and walked down the platform to its meeting with the road and the brick tower of the ticket office, where he crossed back over the tracks.

Rain still splashed the suitcase under his arm, and the leather bag of curiosities, and the puddles in the inn’s yard, unavoidable, leaped and slapped at his trouser legs as he crossed it, soaking each leg to the knee and filling his boots; yet his face and torso were protected from the mauling of the weather. To the south, the sky lightened again, suggesting the storm might soon abate. The inn’s shelter beckoned.

Stepping inside the door to the public bar, the man was once again met by a draft of warm, stuffy air from the large open fire. One or two drinkers had already settled into their positions by the bar, but it was as quiet here as it had been in the station, but for the rhythmic tap of raindrops at the window, begging for admission, and the noisy tick, tick, tick of the clock on the mantle. The heavyset publican pushed his dirty dishcloth into another glass and forced it back and forth, producing a tortured squeak, as he regarded the outfit of his newcomer with an analytical eye.

“Na’then, sor, what can I do tha for?” he enquired as he set down the grease-streaked glass by the pumps. “a glass of aäle an’ a hoät meäl?”

“Thank you. I’m very wet”, he said, stating the obvious, “a scotch if you please. And I’d like to engage your carrier if possible, as far as...”

“Not possible, guvnor, I’m afraid.” He measured out the drink. “Our lad’s just this minute taäken the Sqouire in dog-cart, oop Reävsby way. He’ll not be back tonight.”

“Ah. That’s unfortunate. I’d counted on its being available, my friend said I might.”

“You’re verra welcoom t’ taäke a room wi’ us futhe noight, if you need. We charge a reäsn’ble raäte.”

Looking around, the scotch had not made this prospect any more appealing than he would have found it perfectly sober, though the fire was inviting after the storm outside. He made a decision on the spot, and asked the publican the approximate distance to his friend’s residence.

“There are a few hours left until dark after all.”

“It’s nobbut a few miles oäff, that’s true.”

“Ah; well, I am an alpinist. I’m quite used to walking.” He drank the small glass of whisky in a few sips, steeling himself for the unprotected foray into the countryside he was committing himself to, and dropped some coins on the counter-top, but hesitated to go. It was not until the optimistic barman offered another drink and a tab that the professor finally shrugged back into his overcoat, picked up the case, and left the warm pub and the borrowed umbrella behind him. Thankfully the rain had reduced to a light mizzle in the meantime, barely noticeable except as an irritating tingle on the face and hands; the visibility was poor, but the walk would not discomfort him too much. He quickly left the little village behind him, and when he stopped ten minutes later to look back the way he had come, it had entirely disappeared from view. It seemed as if he were enclosed in a small globe containing only the air he breathed, the road he trod, and himself, all surrounded by an infinite mist. Odd weather.

It was long after he had followed the direction indicated by the Dogdyke fingerpost when he reached the edge of the settlement wherein his friend’s home lay. Clearly he was not as fit as he had been. His feet ached, and the gloved fingers of both his hands were numb from the damp and cold, and from the constant swapping of the heavy case from side to side. His right shoulder ached from the weight of the satchel which had slung from it, bouncing against his thigh with each step until he was convinced he would bruise. Pausing to take his breath leaning on a field gate, he regarded the few poor houses in sight through the thinning mist, whitewashed farm cottages, and what must be a smithy, all spread out along the straight road to either side.

A dog barked somewhere close by; meant as a warning of his approach, undoubtedly, but comforting to him somehow as a sign of civilisation after a bleak and, if he was honest, somewhat unsettling tramp in unpleasant weather. His friend had always praised the unmatched beauty and big skies of the fens he had made his home, but so far he felt it had not deserved such high consideration. A few moments would bring him to a warm and welcoming refuge, fire, food and drink, not to mention good conversation and welcome reminiscence; yet his experience since leaving the train had left him with an odd sense of foreboding. No doubt, he comforted himself, the result of primitive instincts in the face of poor weather. Conscious reason led him to seriously doubt the presence of circling predators just out of sight, but humanity has yet to tame their outmoded stone-age nerves.

Nevertheless, he did not wish to rest too long, so near to his destination. With protesting legs he stood himself up with the aid of the gatepost, picked up his belongings, and made his way half a mile further down the road, towards the little church and rectory beyond. The red-brick Victorian house was set back from the road, beyond its well-kept flower garden, and enclosed by rough hawthorn hedges that had long since attacked and overpowered the iron bars of the fence, weaving its branches about the rigid form. It was a relief to swing shut the squeaking gate behind him, pad at long last to the bell pull where it protruded from the wall, and pull it jerkily from its socket.

Somewhere within, a bell rang, and nearly instantly the door was opened not by the housekeeper, but by the reverend himself. He was a man as tall and dark as his friend, though he was thinner-looking, with greying, diminishing hair, and more jovial by far – his exuberant personality had always been a foil to the more sedate manner of the professor, more suiting him to a public life than a scholar’s. His receding hairline and overlarge eyes leant his wan face a comical appearance totally absent from the professor’s, and yet in their student days they had often been mistaken for brothers. Reunited, they now shook hands energetically and slapped one another sharply on the back.

“My dear fellow!” ejaculated the priest, beckoning him inside, “At long last! I was beginning to think there must have been some accident. Was there a delay with the train?”

“Not at all, the journey was quite surprisingly prompt,” the professor answered. “No – I’m afraid I had difficulty getting transport any further, from the inn you suggested.”

The priest looked mortified. “Do you mean to say you have walked all the way from the station? In this awful weather? Oh, Lord, old boy – I’m most dreadfully sorry. Here – come into the drawing room. My housekeeper will take your luggage up. But to leave you to walk – that was a great dereliction of duty on my part as a host, I -”

“As a matter of fact I rather enjoyed the walk. And all worth it – ‘a straight way leads to the good friend’, and all that. Now, how have you been? How are you? Clark sends his regards.”

“It is beautiful, the country up here, isn’t it. An awful lot of atmosphere!” the priest chortled as they sat down, on opposite sides of the fire. “And how is Clark? I for one am in splendid fettle, a very light mood, indeed – which reminds me, I have something you must see this evening, if you are prepared for another foray after dinner! Too soon, I know, but it really won’t wait. You’ll thank me for taking you directly.”

“And what is it I must see?”

“You’ll see, old chap!” He clapped his hands together and almost leaped to his feet once again to ring for service and pour each of them a drink from decanters resting by the window-seat. “It’s an extraordinary find.”

Installment 2

Oh those wacky Jews and their animal cruelty...

2011-06-18T22:49:00.000+01:00

Now; the confusion between criticism of judaism as a religion and judaism as a race is a highly charged one, so let me first clarify for the hard-of-thinking that as always I'm attacking ideas and their consequences, not people or races.

Here's the story. 20 years ago, a secular lawyer insulted judges at a rabbinical court in Jerusalem, who cursed his soul to pass into a dog on his death. Honestly. The lawyer has since died.

Last week, a "large dog" wandered into the court and "refused to leave". Conclusion? The curse worked and the lawyer had come back for revenge.

Of course, being respected semitic judges, they responded to this by sentencing the dog to death by stoning - stoning by children, specifically.

Luckily, the innocent hound escaped the court before the sentence could be carried out. The judges then ordered the children to hunt it down and kill it at all costs.

"They didn't think of it as cruelty to animals, but as an appropriate way to 'get back at' the spirit which entered the poor dog."

These are crazy, crazy people who not only tried to cruelly murder a defenceless animal, but acted as such from positions of authority in the community, at the same time providing a terrible role model for children.

Religion. Mostly harmless.

A New Proposal

2011-06-15T23:27:00.007+01:00

In Horncastle, we've got two papers: the Louth and Wolds Target (which writes mainly about Louth and ignores much of what goes on in Horncastle) and the Horncastle News (written by illiterate, unambitious journalists who don't give a poop). They're both awful.

What I would like to propose is an independent paper "club" - an amateur society devoted to publishing a weekly paper. Interested members of the community would sit on a committee and run the paper on a charity basis, and people would be able to submit articles for publication.

Since just about any professional in Horncastle is more literate and cares more about the town than the cast-off journos we have to put up with - who only write for our paper based on their inability to get better jobs with more prestigious papers because they're bad at what they do - this would lead to an instantly improved quality of journalism.

The paper would also have an extended pool of writers, with fingers in many different pies, rather than a limited group of overstretched professionals.

The paper could be funded by advertisements - which, due to its assured popularity would easily keep it afloat - as well as by subscription and sales.

Finally, the most literate students of both QEGS and Bannovallum could be encouraged to submit articles to the paper, and engage in journalism in their spare time, and paid a nominal fee for anything that is printed.

Any townsperson of any political persuasion would be able to submit articles, making the paper as apartisan as possible.

The Horncastle Independent would be devoted to a high standard of reporting, good written English, articles relevant to local interests, value for money, press exposure for local groups (taking precedence over groups from, say, Lincoln and Skeg), aiding young writers' development, and generally not getting people's names wrong in three different ways per article (especially not when it's their obituary).

If you're interested in getting involved with setting this up, I'm about to leave the area, but we could get together and get organised if there are enough of us.

RESOURCES
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/time-to-start-a.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_2095935_start-newspaper.html
http://www.newspaper-info.com/
http://www.newspaper-info.com/more/smallbig.htm
http://www.newspaper-info.com/more/news1.htm
Etcetera

You're more Lincolnshire than you think, mayat.

2011-06-07T14:48:00.007+01:00

"Still firmly rooted in its solid agricultural past, Lincolnshire has maintained old words and ways which in many other parts of England have been swept away by industrialisation and mechanisation. Some of these of course are known elsewhere, but others are peculiar to the county and are essential to its distinctiveness."

I'm planning on doing some looking into the Dialect poems of Alfred Lord Tennyson sometime in the next year, and in the process I've done some reading up on Lincolnshire dialect. I'd talked with friends before of expressions we were surprised to find could not be understood outside the county - "mardy cow" being one example - and the difference between our "accentless" speech (actually "Town Lincolnshire" for the most part, but watered down) and those to the north and south. I've also heard it said that to anyone outside the county, we appear to talk very slowly.

For the record, since we say "bath" and not "barth", "grass" and not "grarse", the Lincolnshire accent counts very definitely as "Northern" (and I've always contended that we certainly are not a part of the Midlands, which conjure up an image in my head of greyness, dullness, and Birmingham).

I thought it'd be interesting to compile a short list of the words, phrases, and beliefs that you already use but may not have realised were specific to Lincolnshire - delineating a distinct oral tradition and culture in Lincolnshire that continues to this day.

Chunter, chuntering, chuntering along: (v) to mutter, muttering, getting along
Clot: (n) an idiot
Duck: (n) informal term of address
False Roof: (n) Loft or attic
Fine Fettle: all that remains of the old expression 'fettle', meaning 'order'. CF, "how's't fettle?" and the German "alles in ordnung?".
Flit: to flee or steal away
Give over!: shut the fuck up.
Jiffle: (v) to wiggle or move about
Mardy: (adj) grumpy, sullen, or bad-tempered
Mud and stud: a building style similar to Wattle and Daub
Now then: Hello
Scrimmage: a scrum or fight
Tate: (n) a potato
at the end of my Tether: Exhausted, worn out, extremely tired; also "at wits end".
Wash the pots: wash the dishes
Whitter: (v) to whine

I also read that the tradition of it being bad luck to place a new pair of shoes on a table is specific to Lincolnshire.

Here are a few you might like to start using to express your local pride (and save an interesting part of the English language from death):

Battletwigs: earwigs
Broggle: to poke
Burning daylight: to light lamps before it is dark
Casselty: (from casualty) adj; nasty. Example: Casselty weather.
Clarted: (from clotted) Muddy. Or, "soft as clarts", meaning sensitive.
Clotty: Silly
Couldn't stop a pig in a passage: bow-legged
Dog Shelf: The floor
Farweltered: In difficulty
Get up backside first: to get up on the wrong side of bed
Gone Out: surprised
Gradely: excellent, thorough, great
Grufty: Grubby, horrible
Kelter: junk, trash, rubbish, the stuff covering my bedroom floor
Marrer: (from marrow) a term of address, similar to mayat (mate)
Mizzle: light drizzle
Muck afore t'shovel: the opposite of ladies first! Also 'shit afore t'shovel'.
Puggle: to stir (and a puggling stick is used for stirring)
Sally slapcabbage: a slattern
Sile: heavy rain, as in, "it's siling".
Larroped: drunk

Anyone have any more?

Sell Your Cassock: Feed The World

2011-06-05T19:20:00.006+01:00

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
—Luke 22:36, NIV

A £1,135.00 Thurible

(45 african children fed
& educated for one year)

Last year, while still at uni, I was so angered by the hypocrisy I saw in the churches, that to make a point, I wrote a series of letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the time, I was told off by several people, for being unreasonable. One person told me that the chasubles and cassocks I had referred to were actually made "for nothing" and donated by seamstresses and dress-making schools (strangely, they fell silent when I asked where the dress-makers got their free material from).

Others told me that it was small fry. Still others just became unreasonably offended on the Church of England's behalf (because, of course, it is more important not to offend anyone than to think critically, or expose hypocrisy).

As I was fiddling with facebook just now, a couple of singularly inappropriate advertisements were shown to the right of my screen. No - this was not for porn or a dating website. This was for Watts & Co. of London, "the world’s foremost purveyor of fine ecclesiastical designs, textiles, furnishings and accessories. Its long and rich history is a narrative of refined taste, historic grandeur, and cutting edge style."

Never mind that this company accepts as read the institutionalised preference for pharasaical "grandeur" over Christian charity. This can act as a demonstration of exactly what I was talking about when I wrote those letters.

Let's take a look at their stock, advertised online.

For the price of one double-breasted Bishop's cassock (£568), the bishop could feed and educate 23 African children for a whole year.

In addition to this, a bishop may have a "rochet" (this crowd aren't elitist at all!), a "chimere", a "preaching scarf", wristbands, sleeve ruffs, and preaching band - adding up to £464.50, or another 18 children.

There are currently (as far as I can tell from the internet) more than 285 bishops in the anglican church alone.

And that's just the Bishops. There are also deans, priests, rectors, vicars, choirs (£195/gown), canons, vergers, organists, lay readers, and any number of other posts, in multiple churches. A regular stock cassock for a priest is £260 (kindly reduced by Watts and Co. to only £225, giving a priest an additional £35 to spend on charity). A priest will not only use a cassock, but a large array of clerical-wear, from surplices (£85) to dog-collars (£4.91), all adding up to a ridiculous amount potentially spent on clothing rather than charity, or even on the ubiquitous Church Roof Fund.

"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
---Luke 18:22

Anyone who claims to be a disciple of Jesus, and yet who, given the choice between spending £225 on a new cassock, and doing the service in his old gardening clothes, giving the money saved to the poor, is a hypocrite.

In anticipation of criticisms may I say that I, on the other hand, may buy as many cassocks as I like at the expense of poor people, because I don't claim to follow the bible's teaching. It's not necessarily moral, but neither is it hypocritical. I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. Sometimes.

The Street that Cut Everything as an experiment in Anarchy

2011-06-04T13:00:00.000+01:00

Although the BBC's programme broadcast on May 16th was supposed to be an eye-opener in terms of government cuts and how they effect the man on the street (and his neighbours), the sadistic experiment presided over by a gleeful Nick Robinson in which one street in Preston was persuaded to cut all council services for six weeks was interesting to me for an entirely different reason - as a demonstration (albeit imperfect and contrived) of how anarchy is supposed to work.

Reminding me of the Paris Commune and other revolutionary secessions, the residents were forced to take control of all aspects of their public life, redistributing their wealth as each household saw fit, and succesfully organising amongst themselves to fulfil the duties previously performed by the elected city council.

Had Robinson and the BBC not turned this whole programme into a reality-TV fiasco in which the residents were played off against one another and pushed far beyond breaking point in the name of "good" viewing (how many streets have to face the level of graffiti, fly-tipping and other crimes which were suddenly and artificially dumped upon the collective by the producers?) it would have been far more interesting.

Despite the residents' differences, and the sick, destructive influence of Robinson and crew's gleeful interference in otherwise pleasant neighbourhood relationships, it was clear to me that the businesslike response of the Street to the situation in which they found themselves indicated they could have managed more than adequately to pull together and govern, especially were their situation real and not contrived.

Far from a collapse into apathetic, clumsy lower-case anarchy, a state which had to be artificially induced by the programme makers, the people's interactions and moderating influences on one another showed that an equilibrium could eventually be reached. Were it not for the BBC's ridiculous rules (residents forbidden to spend their own money to buy torches or batteries?? Really?) and the other strictures under which they were placed, they would have managed just fine.

The Telegraph prints:

Thing is, this has all happened before. It’s called history. In order to find out what happens when there’s no public services we need look no further than the local library or a history documentary. It’s squalor and chaos and that’s why public services were introduced in the first place. The issue of cuts to public services is indeed a serious one, but this sensationalist documentary was not an effective way to highlight it.

They're right that the documentary was crap. But squalor and chaos did not result, and would not result. Maybe for a short time - but people have a way of organising themselves to come to terms with their situation. Watch The Postman. Things are not the same without Government, but government will always appear and Anarchy need not lead to anarchy.

Ha Ha Ha, Stoopid Fundies and their Failed Rapture! Oh, wait...

2011-05-22T13:06:00.001+01:00

So, the rapture predicted to occur yesterday didn't happen. Nobody was sucked bodily into heaven, and the seven years' tribulation will not be beginning this October. Surprise, surprise. Now it's time for us all to laugh at the stupid people who believed this crock of crap!

But, wait. This is actually not that funny.

For starters, the guy who began this prophecy - after his earlier 1994 prophecy failed to come true - is still around. And, it turns out, he made a shit ton of money out of this, convincing thousands of Christians to send him money in order to advertise the coming rapture. Besides the fact this rather ruled out the rapture coming "like a thief in the night" as promised - everyone on Facebook seemed to be atwitter with expectation of the fundies' humiliation - it's also made this a successful scam, and Harold Camping a very rich man - he's already head of a $120,000,000 radio station.

Then there's the gullible people who have ripped their families apart through their donations to Camping's campaign and an expectation of the end times.

Followers are typically viewed as harmless proselytizers. But their convictions have frequently created the most tension within their own families.

Kino Douglas, 31, an agnostic, said it was hard to be with his sister Stacey, 33, who “doesn’t want to talk about anything else.’’

In 1994, Camping said the rapture would probably be that year, but he now says newer evidence makes the prophecy for this year certain.

But the Haddad children worry about money for college.

“I don’t really have any motivation to try to figure out what I want to do,’’ said Joseph Haddad, 14, “because my main support line, my parents, don’t care.’’

And do you think that's bad? Watch this.

Then there's this suicide in Nairobi. Why are these people only recognised as delusional and insane once they've done something like this? She was not acting irrationally - she was acting completely in line with her beliefs. Millions hold equally ridiculous beliefs, insane beliefs, and it is impossible to distinguish the dangerous from the benign as long as irrational convictions are regarded as normal.

Still pissed off with my incessant atheist ranting? Yeah, you are. But fuck, this makes me so incredibly angry you cannot believe. To say nothing would be abominable. Religion can be very, very dangerous and destructive. People like Camping should be locked up in an institute before they can start things like this.

That goes for all the similar sects who, while not subscribing to Camping's prophesied date, still revel in their predictions of an immediate bodily rapturing of all good Christians and children (who, nevertheless, continue to sign up for 30 year mortgages, grow fat on their riches without giving more than a scrap away to the poor because that would be "socialism", etc.). People like the authors and followers of the Left Behind series. (A hilarious, lengthy exploration of this series can be found here).

Finally, the moderates. The people who shake their heads in sorrow at the Campingites and fundamentalists giving up everything because they believe the end of the world is coming. "Oh, those poor stupid people," they say, "they've misinterpreted the bible - they give us a bad name with their ridiculous beliefs."

Sure. Yes they do. But it's a bad name they deserve. Ha ha ha! The second coming of Jesus, tomorrow? That's just silly.

"But don't you believe Jesus is coming back?"

Yeah, but not in the immediate future. That's just ridiculous.

Pray tell (pun intended) what, exactly, the difference is between a fundie's belief that the world will end on a specific, predictable date, and a moderate's belief that the second coming will occur without warning? Beyond the obvious, subtle one, that is.

No. They're both wrong. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A SECOND COMING. You are all ridiculous. Show me one good reason to believe this, and I'll hush. Until then, I scorn (and fear) people who believe what an ancient book written by shepherds tells them, simply because they can't tell the difference between an unlikely coincidence and an impossible miracle, or between an indisputable historical fact and a largely fictional legend about a philosophical zombie. They are unpredictable - particularly when they actually cease the hypocrisy and begin acting in accordance with their professed faith.

Peace out.

Venting my petty frustration at the unreasonable nature of a minor part of the UK driving practical test

2011-04-19T16:11:00.004+01:00

So. My second driving test today. Went perfectly. Avoided suicidal pedestrians, indicated, selected correct gears and obviously (in the examiner's words) was a good driver.

Only problem was I was slightly out of the space when I was asked to reverse into a parking bay, at the very end of the test. This was not really a problem. I could easily have corrected my slight error by pulling out of the space, straightening up, and reversing more exactly into it - as I have done on many occasions.

Unfortunately, my instructor had told me I wasn't allowed to leave the space to straighten up once I was half way in, on several previous occasions. This is not the case. You can pull in and out of the space as many times as you like to get straight. Apparently.

So I failed. Even though my instructor pointed out it was his fault to the examiner.

Had I been that examiner, I would perhaps have turned a blind eye and allowed the driver another go. Perhaps - since it was so patently obvious that I could as easily control the car safely into a more central position over the space as tie my own laces - just ignored the fault. But this would have been technically against the rules. Hence I have no right of appeal.

The true injustice here lies in the regulations themselves. For one, why is slightly wonky parking, that I could have easily corrected had I not been given misinformation, reckoned to be a serious danger to other motorists and an indication of my complete inability to drive? Why, exactly, does it constitute a 'major fault' and an automatic fail? Surely the accuracy of the maneuver is a minor thing, and should be marked separately from any danger I posed to pedestrians, brick walls, other cars, or the one I was driving?

Especially when he could easily have satisfied himself that, had I not said "yes" when he said "finished?", I could easily pull out of the space and back in again. But, no, he'd ticked his little box, and technically I had failed.

How meaninglessly, unreasonably, infuriatingly arbitrary. How heartlessly ridiculous and hurtful, to be forced to pay out another £65 and wait several months, for a technicality.

None of us - examiner, instructor, driver under examination - were under any illusions. We all agreed I *should* have passed. "It doesn't come any closer than that." This is in large part a personal grudge against a minor injustice, unimportant and even laughable, in the grand scheme of things - but it makes me really, really, really pissed off. And for about an hour or two, miserable. Because I have been hard done by, humiliated, and robbed, through no fault of my own other than slightly wonky parking.

In conclusion, GGGGGRRRRAAAAAARGH! YOU B**T*RDS!!!!!! Who comes up with these fricking rules? Were they thought through for more than five minutes before printing them off and handing them out to every grumpy examiner in the country? DSA, f**k you. It's not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair :(

Moneychangers in the temple

2010-12-12T19:01:00.004Z

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. - Matt. 21:12

The Church of England has announced that it will be encouraging people to start shopping in their local churches, which will soon be host to groceries and ATMs as well as the usual spiritual books and tacky souvenirs.

Ignoring the words of their holy book once again, the document they have released, titled Guidelines and Best Practice for the Provision of Community Shops in Churches and Chapels, claims "There is no moral or spiritual reason why a community shop cannot be hosted within a place of worship," and also suggests it might be a 'bad idea' for these shops to operate during funerals.

Frankly, despite how much it makes me "lol" at the irony (although not the first time - there was that story about some fundamentalists who went and prayed to a golden calf for money on Wall St.) I support this move - when the buildings' congregations of worshippers have dwindled to nothing, it is heartening to think that there will be an alternative use for the historic, often listed, spaces in these villages.

...is this a good time to point a finger at the recent involvement of the official Vatican Bank in Mafia money laundering? Hypocrites.

Why I support the continuation of Student Loans and Tuition Fees

2010-12-11T16:42:00.004Z

As a student (albeit currently of the honourably suspended variety), I'm apparently supposed to oppose the changes and increases in the current system of tuition fees and student loans. Tertiary education, I am told, must be made free, or at least heavily subsidised, in order to prevent inequality of access to university study and the creation of vast debts to hang over graduates' heads.

As far as I can tell, this does not make complete sense, and I'd like to tentatively state why this is so.

Charging large fees will put off poorer people from going to university because they don't have the money.

This argument doesn't make sense. Poorer people will not have to pay the tuition fees up front at all. They will not have to pay the debt back, either, until they are no longer poorer people - until, in fact, they are earning at least £21,000 and are in effect on an equal footing with all other graduates.

In fact, because the government has been pressured into giving people who are less well off before they go to university their first two years' tuition free of charge, people who are poorer when starting university will actually have an unfair advantage over those of the middle class who are neither rich nor poor, due to the greatly reduced debt they will have despite graduating with the same earning power as the "better off".

Non-repayable hardship funds and grants (some of which I have been the beneficiary of) are available even to quite well-off middle-class students, let alone poorer students, to cover living costs at university, which I have found to be more than adequate despite neither working to support myself during term time, nor sponging off my parents (although accommodation and feeding arrangements at Cambridge colleges, during short terms, make it a cheaper university to attend than many other less prominent establishments).

Increasing tuition fees is also a bad idea because students will have an even greater debt at the end of their course - nearly £38,000 in some cases - than at present, with no increase in earning power.

Again, bollocks. Graduates will not have to pay more as a consequence of having a greater debt, in any sense. We will not have to pay anything until we can afford to do so, and we will not be paying a greater fraction of our wages each month than at present either (in fact, I believe it will be less). As the debt will still be wiped out after 30 years since graduation, being paid back at the same rate, there is no actual increase to what we pay, and we've really got the long end of the stick here (because we don't have to actually pay back the full nominal debt we "owe" on our loans).

The rich kids

Then, there are those whose parents can afford to pay their children's tuition fees up front, without incurring any debt at all. These fortunates will not avoid paying their fees, and will in fact pay exactly the same as their non-rich counterparts, only excluding the small amount of interest (0-3%) accrued on the debts. When earning enough to be eligible to pay their fees back, those who have taken a loan pay back the fees, in small, manageable installments, and the interest on those fees. The rich kids do not pay the small amount of interest.

In fact, as those who do not earn up to £21,000 a year will not have to pay their loan back at all, and many earning above that watershed will never pay back the full amount in the 30 years before the debt is erased, the rich kids are at a disadvantage, as by paying up front they actually end up paying more out of their own pocket, or at best the same amount, as those who choose to pay for their education after it has begun to benefit them, and not for the full duration required to pay it back in full.

Besides this, frankly, the fact that high-earning parents will naturally wish their children to be favoured in schools and universities is just something we will have to learn to live with, as the only real solutions I can see would be to remove all children from their parents' influence at birth, or legislate against the use of parents' money to help offspring. Both of which are ridiculous.

The Real Problem

The real problem is that for all these changes, there may yet be no increase to the amount of money received by critically underfunded universities, who have already had to cut their budgets for teaching and so on. The students are not losing out here - particularly not those from poorer backgrounds - but the universities certainly are. This can only be tackled by increased subsidies and a reduction in the number of students taking ridiculous Mickey Mouse subjects - possibly by the introduction of some legally mandated restrictions on what subjects can be taught. Out with David Beckham Studies, in with more History and English please.

The Scots are also a problem. If they want to charge less and subsidise more, they should be made to fund themselves the sponging b*stards.

Graduate tax is also an awful idea, as there would be nothing to stop a brain drain - get educated for nothing in England, then move to a country after graduation where graduates are not specially taxed. Sorted.

Have I made any gratuitous errors or brutally misunderstood anything here? Please tell me. I'm completely open to having my mind changed on this..

Response to Lord Carey and the Not Ashamed campaign

2010-12-02T22:43:00.000Z

I need not point out that whatever happens with the "Not Ashamed" campaign, we are all going to laugh at Christians and other people with odd beliefs, regardless. The ineffectiveness of such a campaign, the unlikeliness that it will buck the downward trend in church attendance which all denominations are trying to deny has occurred, go without saying.

Some things that come out of the various justifications for the ridiculous campaign could be restated, however, and Lord Carey's comments in particular demand a good giggle.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey claimed Christians of "deep faith" faced discrimination.

1. They are not being discriminated against; they are merely having their unjustifiable privileges gradually eroded. Can you point at any examples of this so-called "discrimination", Lord Carey?

Christianity IS being removed from its prominent position in many publicly-funded events. This is not "discrimination". It would be discrimination against non Christians to unfairly privilege one religion over the others, to imply that one faith is more important than the other, non-Christian beliefs. Only tax-money contributed by Christians may be used to promote or pedestalise Christianity. This is common sense.

Nobody is banning any element of Christian worship; nobody is forbidding the celebration of Christmas as a Christian holiday. The fact remains that not everyone is a Christian, that these events promote and privilege Christianity, and thus that it is unfair, prejudicial, and discriminatory use of public funds to explicitly lean towards that religion.

I can't think of any clearer way to say it; it's common sense. How about an analogy? Everyone likes analogies.

There are five people, a muslim, a hindu, an atheist, and two Christians. They all put money in a pot to organise a party in midwinter. The party organiser makes the party explicitly Christian, organising a nativity play, singing carols, and a bunch of explicitly Christian symbols. The other three people object to their money being spent in this way, when it could have been spent on something they would all enjoy equally, without prejudice, before going on to celebrate the holiday in their own homes in their own ways.

Who was right? Would the party organiser have been better off putting up some generic, secular decorations and party games that everyone could enjoy - or were they within their rights to pander to the largest faith group? Like hell were they. It's just fucking antisocial. Now scale up, Lord Carey.

Campaigners say a mounting number of cases of workers being disciplined over their beliefs show Christianity is being "airbrushed" from UK society.

It is not being airbrushed from society. Imagine there is a little boy with a penchant for building airfix models. He demands that he be allowed to build his models on a table in the middle of the living room, blocking the family's view of the TV. The hapless lad is asked not to do it just there, but rather to confine himself and his unfortunate addiction to glue-sniffing to his bedroom. Fair enough? I think so. The spoiled kid demanding privileged access to the living room is Christianity.

Now imagine the kid is demanding the rest of the family pay for his huge quantities of airfix, rather than for boardgames the whole family can enjoy.

You see? The boy isn't being airbrushed from the living room. He's still allowed to build airfix. He's just asked not to do it at the expense of everyone else having equal access to a public space. He's having a tantrum about nothing.

Next, let us contrast two statements made by Lord Carey:

Campaigners say a mounting number of cases of workers being disciplined over their beliefs...

In recent years, Lord Carey said Christians had been penalised for activities such as wearing crosses and offering to pray for other people.

Notice the difference? Yes. Lord Carey is correct to say people have been penalised for certain activities. The Campaigners in question seem to extrapolate from this a Ministry of Truth-style punishment for beliefs.

Is this true? Is there such a thing as thought-crime in the UK? Has anyone been disciplined for their BELIEFS? Actually? Can you point to a single case of it? No. This is a bald lie. An exaggeration. A misleading and offensive implication.

No. People have been disciplined for their actions. And which actions? Simple, harmless actions? No. People are not punished for harmless actions in a country such as this. What benefit would it do anyone? No example can be found of anyone being unjustly punished for their harmless religiously-motivated actions.

If a company has a "no jewellery" policy, and you come into work wearing a giant golden crucifix, who gives a damn if it's in keeping with your beliefs? Murder is in keeping with the Serial Killer's beliefs, yet he is not given the privilege of being allowed to murder because his conscience demands it. Burglary is in keeping with the kleptomaniac's beliefs - even demanded of them. Does this mean he should be allowed to do it where others are not? Belief in the rightness of an action is not justification for its allowance under the law. And wearing a crucifix is not demanded by Christianity, just as the Burka is not demanded by Islam, and the Shotgun is not strictly demanded by Farmerism.

If Christianity is persecuted or attacked in this country today, it is only in the same way that Theft and Murder and Race Related Violence are attacked. You are within your rights to believe in the righteousness of religion, murder, racism, or kleptomania; you are within your rights to vocally advocate such things, even in public. You are not within your rights, necessarily, to act on your beliefs, and nobody is within their rights to demand privileged access to public funds for beliefs which are not held by a majority, let alone by consensus.

That's what it all comes down to: whether in the private or public sector, nobody is entitled to exemption from certain rules and regulations because of their claimed beliefs. If there were not a good reason for the rules and regulations, if they could merely be bypassed by claims of personal preference (which is what religious convictions are, when all's said and done), then there would be no need for them at all.

You may be punished for your actions. You may be forbidden from certain actions in certain circumstances. You certainly should be prevented from using taxpayers' money or public spaces to fund or promote acts of religious worship, intent, or nature to the exclusion of other belief systems or preferences.

I could just repeat what the rest of what this particular article says: impartial judges have found claims of discrimination baseless; nobody is forcing people not to go to church; discrimination against non-Christians is more widespread than discrimination against Christians. But somehow, I really want to make Lord Carey and Co. understand why their viewpoint is ridiculous... and not fooling anyone. It's not very likely, though, is it...?

Yet Eric Pickles still demands that "Councils shouldn't allow politically correct Grinches to marginalise the importance Christ's birth plays in Christmas". Really, Pickles... I'd have more respect if you actually used logic than pandered to the Daily Mail.

Morality, War, and Kohrian Micronationalism (part three)

2010-11-20T20:40:00.004Z

Although my reflections on what it means to be a Kohrist have taken a backseat recently, I've just (gratifyingly) come up with what sounds to me like an even clearer illustration of "optimum size" than Kohr's own "giant farm" analogy, upon which I elaborated last time.

A long while ago (not that I expect anyone to remember) I wrote a post explaining my problems with getting decent tech support from Dell, and it was subsequently explained to me that Dell no longer have to provide good computers or good customer service because they are so well established and so cheap.

"... DHell doesn't do any engineering on their systems anymore and that includes the BIOS and other system software. That task has been sloughed off on Chinese subcontractors, who could barely spell "software," let alone write it. Why did they do this? Well, ever since about September 2004, DHell has been on a slow, steady effort to save as much money as they can, in order to maximise profit, even at the expense of product integrity.

That is the biggest reason why their reliability and customer satisfaction has gone straight down the loo. The cost-cutting philosophy even extends to tech support and customer care. Bottom line, they're too cheap to pay for producing a quality product and they figure that any lost customers would be replaced by the lure of low prices. "

People barely think any more about where to get their computers, and they don't know enough about them for the most part (even the computer-literate like me) to know that Dells are cheaply mass-produced in such a way that a certain quantity will be defective - an acceptable risk to a company making such products. Like a monopoly, the route to profit does not necessitate the maintenance of the highest standards.

In future, I will buy all computers from small, reliable British companies like Novatech - companies still with everything to prove - in short, a vested interest in the quality of their products as opposed to just keeping them barely acceptable to the mass market.

The same applies to government. Small governments with small populations are in serious competition with other neighbouring governments. Such governments and companies are not monopolistic. They are not overly weighed down with generalisations and all-encompassing policies designed to reduce their citizens or employees' exercise of their own initiative.

Sheer scale means that standardisation of possible scenarios, not the close examination of each individual case, is the only practical solution. It is the difference between the hand-crafting possible in a small cobblers' or tailor's business, and the off-the-peg solutions of large chains.

Off-the-peg solutions are, of course, not a terrible thing. They may not fit as well, or last as long, as high-quality tailored apparel - just as an off-the-peg computer will not be individually tailored to the user's own needs - but they are efficient. Streamlined. In the case of clothes, the occasional dropped stitch or faulty product is easy to spot, and is usually found before it reaches the shop, or soon after it is bought, in which case a refund is easy to get.

In cars or computers, the fault is in a more complex piece of equipment and may take time to manifest, and it is often tempting (for the inexperienced user like myself) to attempt to fix it or continue without seeking a solution. This may pay off, or it may result in a melt down. The solution is usually not to seek a refund, but to either phone an ineffective, bureaucratic help-line, or buy a new computer. So naturally quality-control cannot be as effective as in clothes.

Computers cannot be made entirely bespoke, either - it would make them prohibitively expensive. Similarly with government - the cost, financial and otherwise, means that individuals, families, and small populations below a certain size, cannot hope to self govern. In the modern world, living in close proximity to one another, we must be organised in larger units than the tribal village.

But the solution is not to make government ever more "mass-produced" and generalised - in which attempts to appear more tailored to voters' individual needs only result in ever more bureaucracy and QuaNGOs - but something in between. Not the completely bespoke - which cannot provide the support and inter-dependency we need in an industrialised society - but not the completely centralised, generalised monopoly either. Something, in fact, in between, drawing on elements of both the bespoke and efficient mass-production.

It is plain in fact, that a proliferation of medium-sized companies and governments with only a degree of standardisation is superior to one central monopoly which is unable to tailor its services or products to local tastes and needs. Forcing intrinsically different people to meet artificial standardisation of needs is very bad practice, and will inevitably result in increasing homogenisation.

We have already seen this in the growing loss of, first minority languages, later local dialects, and more recently still, local accents. In future we will see homogenous culture, and increasing dominance of particular languages. This would be a great tragedy - I for one do not want to see these languages and cultures forcibly standardised in the name of efficiency and 'modernisation'.

The only way to prevent it from happening is to reduce the size of cultures, not to federate states into a global unit. What we have in modern government is a temporary solution, and if it is to change, we must oppose attempts such as the Eurozone, the European Union, the United Nations, to make every culture like every other culture, to treat every place and person like every other place and person.

Just as Dell has nearly outgrown itself and exceeded its optimum size - an optimum size and approach more exactly represented by Novatech and similar concerns - the United Kingom and other such nations are only barely able to support themselves and can only become increasingly unstable, increasingly fat, lazy, inefficient, bureaucratic, and ridiculous.

They are supported and continued only in the same way that the former USSR was perpetuated - through habit, through the bare-acceptability of conditions only slightly above that required to foment revolution, through the support of the rich and priveleged, through corruption and laziness. They are kept only for the same reasons that I keep my less-than-optimally functional PC - because it is still, barely, functional, because changing them for new ones would be expensive, unpopular, and take an effort I am unwilling to make while it is not actually crashing every five seconds.

But one day, as my last PC outlived its usefulness, as the USSR became unsustainable, my Dell will crash at last and the UK and other large nations will prove unsustainable. Smaller nations - and the breakdown of existing states - are the way forward to a happier political state. Will we get them? Leopold Kohr says "no". I say "I don't know".

Morality, War, and Kohrian Micronationalism (Part Two)

2010-09-28T23:54:00.002+01:00

To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements; for none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or two small, but they either wholly lose their nature, or are spoiled. - Aristotle

In order to begin our account of the "efficiency of the small" - as Leopold Kohr called the concept that micronations were inherently more effective units of government than great or federal nations - it is necessary to go back to the economic basics.

Imagine that there is a farmer, working a small plot of land. On his own, he produces 10 bushels of wheat. Interested in increasing the productivity of his land, he hires a second worker, and between them they are able to produce 22 bushels from the same plot.

He attempts to add a third worker, and raises productivity to 27 bushels. But a fourth worker only increases production to 28 bushels of wheat, and when he employs a fifth, productivity on the plot actually declines as the workers begin to get in one another's way.

Productivity per person rises from 10, to 11, to 13.5 bushels; then decreases again. This is because there is an optimum number of workers to a given field area - the Law of Diminishing Productivity means that growth is only profitable up to a point, and no further.

The farmer decides that in order to put his four workers to best use, he should buy a second, identical plot of land, and put two hands to working each. Although productivity per field drops from 28 bushels of wheat to only 22, the number of bushels each labourer can produce rises to 11 from 6.

The farmer thus thinks he's onto a good thing, and adds more plots of land, and more workers. Eventually he has a large-size farm. Looking ahead to a profitable future, he considers the obvious option - to continue growing his farm, and growing ever more profitable. Things look sunny.

But there's a catch.

While the area farmed was only one plot, the farmer was able to keep a close eye on his labourers, inspect each grain of wheat minutely, and maintain good discipline and high standards. As his land grew larger, he was still able to survey the land himself, help personally with any problems that presented themselves, and generally keep the place ticking over smoothly, as well as keeping the workers under control.

But there will come a time when the farm is so large he cannot control the workers as well; he cannot know every inch of his land in a highly personal, careful way; his ability to govern the farm declines. And the borders of his land, growing ever farther from the silos at its centre, become ever harder to service, sow, and harvest.

Clearly there is an optimum size for a farm, as well - a point at which it makes more sense for us to have two farms, and two farmers, and separate centres, working the large area of land, rather than one. Obviously developments in technology increase the amount of land farmable by a single worker, and the distance the wheat can be transported to silos - but eventually, this optimum size will be encountered.

Having more than one farm offers advantages in other ways. If all the land is under the thumb of one farmer, and the farmer happens to be careless, or drunk, or inefficient, all of the land is wasted to some extent by his workers. If the land is shared between two centres of power, with two different approaches, at least half of the land will be farmed in a superior manner.

The two areas can be compared and one farm can make changes based on the other's succesful practices. And if one farmer is a terrible employer, the farm hands can desert him and go over to the other local farmer, without experiencing a massive upheaval or having to move vast distances to another, vastly different farm.

This principle applies equally to states.

It is true that a state the size of the United Kingdom can operate, even largely succesfully, especially in a modern industrial environment. Although it can be argued that it is in decline as a society, it works to an extent great enough to avoid outright revolution. However, it does not follow that it is the optimum size, and the great myth perpetrated by people such as advocates of the EU or world government that "bigger is better" is certainly false.

It could be argued - and I intend to argue, backed by Kohr's intriguing theories and evidences - that the optimum size for a nation state is significantly smaller, both geographically and in population, than England. In smaller states, we can state the obvious facts, which can be covered in greater detail later on:

A greater ratio of representatives to the represented, means that democracy is purer.
National leaders have to know a smaller number of people, a smaller geographical area, and a lesser range of circumstances, meaning that there is greater access to the leader/s by the people, greater specialisation and less harmful generalisation possible, and much less bureaucracy and centralisation necessary.
The nature of corrupting power (as discussed in Part One) means smaller states are less likely to result in war or warcrimes.
As population increases in a geographically limited state, offices and guides put in place to rule them naturally become less and less effective. A government that sufficed for a few hundred thousand centuries ago, cannot be expected to work equally as well for tens of millions. Size of government must be relative to size of population, not area, governed. Geographical boundaries are misleading. As population increases, government must be duplicated to return to optimum ratios.

I'll get to this all later on. Meanwhile I'll continue to gather my thoughts.

Part Three

Catholicism: Years Ahead Of Us Morally

2010-09-25T14:40:00.002+01:00

As Stephen Fry pointed out, if the morality and actions of the Catholic Church can only be judged by the standards of its own time, and not by a timeless standard, what good is it, precisely? For instance, we have been encouraged to overlook the awful treatment of children within the Catholic care system, schools, and churches because it was a widespread problem in society as a whole at the time.

Even if this were true - and there is much to suggest that even in the past the problem has been more endemic in the distorted atmosphere of Catholic celibate life than elsewhere - if the morality of the Catholic Church is based on an absolute, and not a relative, standard, God's standard, then it should not only be timeless and unchanging, but obviously superior to other contemporanious standards.

Fat chance.

In another unsurprising story, we're now told of another example of moral wrongs obvious to any sane person, and objected to by the good, being ignored and even implicitly condoned by the Catholic establishment. In 1871, Mary MacKillop, an Australian nun, was kicked out of her nunnery and excommunicated. Why? For making a fuss about a priest who was abusing children.

Just as we have seen in more recent cases - even up to the present, even after all this mess has come to our attention - the church was more interested in silencing and punishing anyone who dared think about the welfare of children in its care, than about punishing paedophiles within its ranks and protecting the children.

After raising her concerns about one Father Keating, MacKillop was punished severely, and left homeless and penniless, while Keating was moved on to another parish in Ireland where nothing was known of his dangerous predilictions, and was not unfrocked, excommunicated, fined, reprimanded, treated or punished in any way.

This kind of treatment, for both whistle-blowers and guilty priests and monks, raping children and nuns and other vulnerable souls all over the world, this complete lack of perspective and priority, continued until recently, indeed, continues to this day.

The Catholic Church is, and always has been, sick at heart.

Shameful violation of rights - Quran burners arrested in Gateshead

2010-09-24T14:06:00.004+01:00

Six men from the northern English town of Gateshead have been arrested for use of "threatening words and behaviour" that could stir up "religious hatred", after posting a video of themselves burning the Quran on Youtube.

Although the men are suspected to be involved with the violent English Defence League (EDL) and have links with the BNP and other far-right organisations, the burning of books - any books - is not a crime. Neither can any speech be a crime.

This particular act may have been perceived as offensive by many Muslims, but it is one which - provided the men burned their own copies of the books and violated no fire safety regulations - they cannot rightfully punish.

The men in question, while they may be fascist idiots, did not overtly or implicitly threaten Muslims in the video. The actions for which they have ostensibly been apprehended were not criminal. It is legal to burn books; it is legal to film such acts. Freedom of belief and groups at risk of violence may require legal protection; books do not. They are not sacred; they do not deserve respect (though I do, of course, personally deplore the destruction of knowledge, even symbollically).

If Muslims believe otherwise, that is their right; it is not the place of the government, or the right of the Muslims, to enforce compliance with this belief in the rest of us.

In a joint statement, Northumbria Police and Gateshead Council said: "The kind of behaviour displayed in this video is not representative of our community as a whole. Our community is one of mutual respect and we continue to work together with community leaders, residents and people of all faiths and beliefs to maintain good community relations."

They mocked beliefs, not people; and they burned books, not people. Beliefs and books do not automatically deserve "respect" at all. Pandering to minority religious beliefs in this way - denying other members of society their freedom of conscience in matters which do not harm others - is unacceptable.

By all means, arrest the guys when they're actually threatening or attempting violence. Arrest them when they plan to bomb the London underground or a Bradford mosque, or flown a plane into a skyscraper.

This, however, is far too flimsy a 'crime'. The law in question is arbitrary, equivocal, woolly, and bad legal practice. A slippery slope. Because any act or word which may be interpreted as offensive can be labelled 'inciteful of religious hatred', this unjust law could be used to deny even free speech and freedom of the press. It is merely an updated, and similarly indefensible, Blasphemy Law, and must be repealed.

Pope Starts UK Visit With Usual Seditious Lies and Misinformation

2010-09-16T19:12:00.000+01:00

Not a lot surprises me about the depths to which Ratzinger and the other members of Catholic Church hierarchy are willing to stoop. This is not even the worst they have done. But to begin an already unpopular and expensive visit to the UK with blatant slanderous, libellous hate speech against another belief group does not strike me as sensible.

In his speech to the Queen and assembled faithful, Ratzinger said:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29). (source)

On this occasion, Ratzinger is merely guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi; but the implication of his speech is clear - and matches what he has claimed explicitly in the past: that Nazism was a result of godlessness, that Hitler was an atheist, and that aggressive atheism will inevitably lead to tyranny.

These are, demonstrably, base and inexcusable lies. A stretching of the truth beyond anything that is acceptable. Has Ratzinger even attempted to read Mein Kampf? Has he studied the history of the Nazis' rise to power? As a German, you'd think it in his interest to do a little research before making such disgusting comparisons.

In fact, Hitler was a CATHOLIC. The first treaty the Nazis made was with the Vatican. Hitler came to power largely with the help of the Catholic Zentrumspartei. Hitler and the Nazis supported Catholicism as the state religion, denied the truth of Darwinian evolution, and actually sent most open atheists to concentration camps as probable Communists.

Hitler's own words echo Ratzinger's own sentiments on most subjects, far more than they do any atheist's:

"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God." - Hitler, Stuttgart, February 15, 1933

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." - Hitler, Berlin, October 24, 1933

"National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles." - Hitler, Koblenz, August 26, 1934

and during negotiations for the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of April 26, 1933 Hitler argued that

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Anyone need any more proof that Ratzinger is one of the most evil subverters of truth and justice alive today, or that the organisation of which he is head is at its heart sick and revolting, as these lies? Frankly this is equivalent to antisemitism, and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

The Independent and Chris Hitchens - Great Minds Think Alike

2010-09-08T16:47:00.000+01:00

I've read two articles today, which agree with one another and are strikingly similar in theme, as well as echoing my own longstanding thoughts on the subject of religious freedom. Basically, that there are flaws in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and similar documents) article 18 of which states

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Nobody can possibly have the right to "manifest his belief...in practice" - and self evidently so - because this would effectively give license to anyone to justify any action on the grounds of conscience: murder, rape, human sacrifice, cruelty to animals, slavery, etc. Clearly, the right to manifest belief in practice can only extend as far as that point at which it begins to affect others - at which point it must cease to exist.

Of course, Article 30 does state that this article does not exempt anyone from following the other rights laid out in the declaration. This does not prevent idiotic argument over whether it does or not.

The Catholics and others long claimed the right to actively discriminate against other religions and non-heterosexuals in employment, adoption, and any number of other areas - not to mention verbal abuse. Their actions routinely affect the developing minds of young children, and their condemnation of condoms as a defence against HIV AIDS borders on genocidal.

As another atheist quipped recently, religion is a bit like a penis. It's fine to have one, it's fine to be proud of it, and it's even fine to boast about how yours is bigger and better than everyone else's. But don't whip it out and wave it around in public, and don't shove it down kids' throats (another practice institutionally protected by the church until recently).

Just as the United States forcibly changed the mormon practice of marrying multiple wives, and nobody any longer allows the practice of human sacrifice (for how, in all honesty, could the bloodless Christian faith compete with such showmanship as actual ritual murder?) it is high time that definite and final, incontrovertable barriers were drawn in law that tell the populace clearly, that while thought-crime can never be a reality, and free speech (no matter how repugnant) must be protected, anywhere that inappropriate thought spills over into action, public or private, must be cauterised by serious punishment.

Instead, the administration continues to pander to public opinion, and compromise. When Herr Ratzinger, ringleader and accomplice to an immensely wealthy, international, child-raping, HIV spreading conspiracy, is not only allowed to escape trial, but recieve £20 million of public money to visit the country, on the grounds that he believes himself to be in direct contact with a God, something is terribly wrong.

Religion is not an exception to the rule of law. All must abide.

Lessons from Nettles

2010-08-01T20:16:00.003+01:00

I've just had the encouraging thought, that life is fundamentally optimistic. I was cutting back some nettles on the drive, thinking what a waste all that growing had been for the plant, only for me to brutally hack it to death with my shears. Then I thought, well, what a good thing the grass doesn't know that or the cows would be fucked.

This got me going. If all the plants thought "well, I'm just gonna get eaten by herbivores, so I may as well not bother growing", we'd all be completely screwed. Past experience has taught them all what might happen - they grow and grow and grow and one day a bloke in paint-spattered trainers chops them off at the root (not that they went down without a fight) - but they grow anyway. Well, it's survival of the fittest, not failure of the least fit. The plants and everything else keep growing, aiming high, despite the risks. Life is evidently about trying.

Plants and all, strive to be the fittest, to grow as best they can, just on the offchance they do survive. They don't assume the risk of failure is too high and stay hiding under the covers in their flower-beds all day. They ignore the worst case scenario and grow anyway. They can't help themselves. If they don't try, don't grow, they don't have any chance to be the fittest. They increase the risk of failure to 100% instead of decreasing it. By not trying in order to avoid failing, they automatically and paradoxically fail.

I could learn a lot from a nettle.[bxA]

The Problem With Catholicism

2010-06-05T14:50:00.001+01:00

I should really just rename this blog "lists of bad stuff Catholics do", because really, the Catholic Church is like a fish in a barrel at the moment - a really ugly, gothic, child-raping fish with millions of followers who pay for its upkeep and will forgive it any indiscretion, admittedly, but in a barrel all the same. Just waiting to be shot at short range with a large-calibre anti-tank missile of some variety.

You remember perhaps two stories which outraged me, relating to the Roman church's attitudes to abortion? A nun in America was immediately excommunicated for approving an abortion on a woman who would have otherwise died; similarly, the doctors who performed an abortion on a nine year old rape victim who would otherwise have died and taken her unborn children with her (so that nobody would have won) were also immediately excommunicated.

Well, you might say, at least they're putting their filthy desecrated money where their mouths are. Frankly I'd rather they were hypocritical, preaching against abortion while encouraging safe-sex practices and abortions for those in need, than that they try to force people to sign death warrants of children and adults alike.

What should really apall you, however, is that while the nun in question, and the doctors, were all immediately excommunicated, for doing nothing more than saving lives, child abusing priests and child-abuse enablers in the priesthood remain frocked, active, and unexcommunicated.

Take the monstrous example of Oliver O'Grady (I refuse to give him the honorific of "Father" in the circumstances).

O'Grady has admitted abusing many children of various ages, boys and girls, and said he slept with two mothers to get access to their children. He was convicted of child sexual abuse in 1993 and spent seven years in prison.

Even after all this, the church has not defrocked the rapist, let alone excommunicated him, but instead persuaded him to voluntarily retire provided they give him a monthly pension of $788 for ten years - $94,560.

Yes, you have read that right. They happily and instantly excommunicated a respected, well-meaning nun who took a difficult decision to save a woman's life; yet when a priest is convicted in secular courts of multiple sexual iniquities, they pay him off.

Priorities - they ain't got none.

Catholics Further Demonstrate Their Enlightenment

2010-05-27T11:21:00.000+01:00

I don't know anyone (except for the Catholic hierarchy themselves) who wasn't shocked and appalled at the story last year that doctors and others had been excommunicated by Rome for saving the life of a 9-year-old rape victim by aborting her doomed pregnancy. I had hoped that the Catholics might learn from the experience, however, and perhaps think about updating their policy on the subject in order to compare favourably with the would-be child murdering Jehovah's Witnesses.

Evidently not.

A new story came to light a while ago, which has just developed further.

Sister Margaret was a senior administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. A 27-year-old mother of four arrived late last year, in her third month of pregnancy. According to local news reports and accounts from the hospital and some of its staff members, the mother suffered from a serious complication called pulmonary hypertension. That created a high probability that the strain of continuing pregnancy would kill her.

“In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy,” the hospital said in a statement. “This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee.” [source]

Sister Margaret has just been excommunicated (unlike all those paedophile priests and paedophile-protecting bishops who haven't even been defrocked...). Perhaps now the kindly nun will realise that a church which favours religious dogma over the life of an adult woman is not the right place for someone who actually wants to help people, as opposed to just dabbling in charity to provide evil deeds with a veneer of respectability.

Read more here.

Historical Representations of Muhammed by Muslims

2010-05-07T13:35:00.000+01:00

Muslims today claim that it is, and always has been, against their religion to depict Muhammed in any form; they have even gone on to act violently towards anyone suspected of attempting to depict him.

This is, of course, despite the fact that while we must all respect the Muslims' right to believe such a thing, we are under no obligation ourselves to act in accordance with their beliefs. This subject has been touched and expounded upon many times by more skilled writers than I.

Nevertheless, there exist large numbers of pictures of Muhammed, from all ages, by Muslims. Representations of him are far more widespread in non-Muslim works than just those which have caused retribution. There is no reason for anyone to become violent about another person's refusal to adhere to one's own beliefs.

Thusly, here is a depiction of Muhammed speaking to his followers (circa 1489) by the Persian scholar al-Biruni. Enjoy.

Religions! All about Love.

2010-05-05T12:30:00.000+01:00

Everybody knows that religions are all about love - it's their first priority. There may be hiccups with bombs, wars, discrimination and hate-speech occasionally, but when you get down to it, aren't they all just about loving your neighbour, loving your family, loving your world?

Hell no.

If it comes to a toss-up between the life of a child and protection of their own vile beliefs, the majority of the world's religious (although admittedly a minority of the UK's) are going to pick the latter. Fuck the child (figuratively... for the most part) and protect the irrational tenets.

Because faith is a virtue.

On April 25th, a boy was admitted to hospital in Ghana with severe anemia, in desperate need of a blood transfusion. His father, a jehovah's witness, would rather have let the kid die than allow anyone to help him in such a disgusting fashion. So he and his friends blockaded the emergency room and had to be forcibly removed by police.

And when the kid got his transfusion and survived, his parents disowned him and gave him up for adoption. And this is a common occurrence with JWs. Way to go religion! You'll never catch an atheist priveleging a faith-based belief over the life of a child.

Live-blogging Richard Dawkins

2010-05-04T18:28:00.012+01:00

I recently picked up a pretty nifty bit of kit that enables me to be far more mobile with my browsing and blogging - something which in a world where laptops and netbooks have been floating around for ten years or more is hardly groundbreaking to most people. Nevertheless, I popped my equipment in my bag this evening in the hope of having something to occupy me for the hour and a half - yes, that's how long the already full auditorium of people will now have to wait for Professor Dawkins - before the Greatest Show On Earth, the great man himself, enters and begins to thrust relentlessly at the gathered throng with his meaty arguments.

What on earth Dicky D is going to talk about in our evening with him, I have no idea, but you can follow along here. Unless, you know, it's either so deadly boring my fingers drop off, or so riveting I can't look down and type.

__

Half an hour now! Damn.

___

I should really have thought about battery-life. Damn. Not sure I'll be able to keep this up. I'll power down for a while.
___
19.29: the tension is so great I might just wet myself.
____

19.32:

____

Well, so far this is fairly uninspiring. He's just reading from his book. The creationists in the audience (if there are any) will be listening intently, but for those of us (the majority) who are not fools, or who know all the rebuttals to common creationist canards, this is boring as hell. Perhaps if, for those of the audience who don't often debate creationists, he talked about the dangers and identified the canards themselves, I might be a little more enthralled.

Bring on the questions. They'll get straight onto God and religion, and I can correct Dawkins' characteristically poorly thought-through responses.

I'll take this moment to note that the book itself is pretty poorly written as well. His descriptions of selective breeding and geology lead much to be desired.

Ha! He just said we won't find any creationist biologists in Cambridge - I know at least one at Christ's. Just goes to show even highly intelligent people can hold balmy ideas.
___________________

Why do I find the image of an eagle attacking a child so inexplicably amusing? Is it the straight face with which Dawkins read out his hilarious description of the poor kid?
_______________

OK, now he's got into his comedic stride. His timing is perfect. I haven't got to this part of the book yet.
_______

Dawkins' hands are shaking. Quite a lot. Is this age affecting the old sage... surely it can't be nerves in such a seasoned campaigner. He's getting regular laughs and still making original (to me) points. And he's nearly reached the questions.
______

QUESTION TIME!! And we start with an impossible question about the future of human evolution.

Are immoral people less likely to survive in modern evolutionary terms? Probably more so than before efficient (ha!) policing. He certainly thinks we'll get smarter.
----
2. And it's Denis! Pointing out that there are creationists even in Cambridge Colleges. Why don't you reply to our e-mails. What do we do about Creationists?

Not a lot more than we already are doing. If people are afraid their minds will be changed they won't read the books. Certainly don't be accomodationist. Perhaps we need a balance of ridicule or

3. On to the religion. Does Dick think that there will ever be a world without religion? She sounds quite angry.

He hopes so. He doesn't know. There does seem to be evidence that mor eintelligent people like religion less. There would not be anarchy if religion disappeared. Anyone who thinks they're only refraining from immorality on God's account is delusional.

4. Oh no, it's the Speech Impediment Christian.

Dawkins gives a sensible answer. I was so busy thinking of a politically correct term for the guy's disability I missed the question. Don't listen to bronze age sheep herders.

5. The star debater asks about the Pope's visit, and is Dickie really going to arrest him. Can you give us an update?

It isn't true that Dawkins will personally arrest the Pope.

Power's out. byebye/

And they dare claim Moral Authority?

2010-05-01T19:44:00.001+01:00

Ratzinger's right hand man, Cardinal William Levada, has been directly accused of allowing an abusive priest to stay in his job and continue in his illegal, disgusting activities. Levada protests that he did nothing wrong.

in a 2005 deposition obtained by The Associated Press [he said] that he did nothing and didn't contact police because he trusted the Rev. Milton Walsh would not re-offend and his predecessor handled the case adequately.

There were no known allegations of later abuse by the priest and a Vatican attorney says Levada acted appropriately under standards of the time. [...] The Vatican's lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, says Levada handled the case properly by the era's norms, which have evolved significantly in recent years.

The Holy See told bishops this month they should report abuse to police rather than keep cases quiet as had been the practice for decades.

"One thing the law teaches: it is fundamentally unfair to apply standards of conduct retroactively," Lena said. [source]

At this juncture, I'd like to repeat Stephen Fry's criticism of such a statement: legal matters aside, if the church "can't" be expected to be any more advanced than any other organisation in its own time, what precisely is it good for? If they by their own admission know no better than anyone else "of the time", then where do they get off claiming moral authority? Their wisdom is supposed to be timeless - not dependent upon and parasitic of the progress of secular ethics.

In law it may be unfair to judge historic actions by modern standards; in religion it's perfectly fair. So much for infallibility.

Three More Cheers for Lord Justice Laws!

2010-04-30T13:40:00.000+01:00

Religious people seeking freedom to defy anti-discrimination laws have been in the news a lot recently.

Recently Lord Justice Laws presided over a case and found that, quite sensibly, subjective personal beliefs, whether labelled religious or not, and no matter how strongly held, cannot excuse one from obeying the law, even in grey areas.

The religious right are claiming that forcing them not to discriminate against people in their jobs creates "a religious bar to office ... whereby a Christian who wishes to act on their Christian beliefs on marriage will no longer be able to work in a great number of environments."

Of course this is utter crap. You can't be refused a job on the grounds that you are of a certain belief, gender, race or sexuality.

You can on the other hand be refused a job for refusing to do your job. Which is precisely what somebody who refused to marry homosexual/interracial/Muslim couples when that is their job.

This whole situation is as though I went for a job in a slaughterhouse but refused to do any work because I was a vegetarian. Would you expect them to keep me on? Would you expect them to accomodate me? Or would you expect me to find another profession that didn't offend my sensibilities, regardless of any expensive training?

This isn't really much of a grey area - it's very clear cut. So bravo for Laws:

"In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content." While the Judaeo-Christian tradition had exerted a "profound influence" on the judgment of lawmakers, "the conferment of any legal protection of preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however long its culture, is deeply unprincipled." [source]

Bishop Mixa Resigns - for the Wrong Reasons

2010-04-22T09:54:00.000+01:00

News reaches us at Samizdat today that Bishop Mixa, a Catholic clergyman accused of beating and abusing children at the Schrobenhausen children’s home, and misusing church funds to buy "art, wine and jewellery", has written his letter of resignation.

To be honest, I thought art, wine and jewellery were what the Catholics most liked to buy anyway.

Of course, as is common to all these Catholic cases, he's done it for entirely the wrong reasons. He and the rest of the church are still more bothered about the reputation of the church than they are about culpability or justice:

Bishop Mixa, 68, sent a resignation letter to the Vatican to avoid further damage to the Church’s reputation, Mixa's office confirmed Thursday morning.

“I am taking this step in the unshakeable faith in God’s mercy and confidently hope that the Father in heaven will lead the Church of Augsburg to a good future,” he wrote, according to daily Augsburger Allgemeine. [source]

What about to avoid beating more children? Or to show his profound regret for his former actions?

The Pope still has to accept the resignation before it is final.

Catholics Oppose Child Abuse Legislation

2010-04-12T11:59:00.000+01:00

The state of Connecticut wants to remove their Statute of Limitations on child abuse. Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

Strangely, the only party to oppose the bill are the Catholics, who are the only people more concerned about the cost to their organisation than all the CHILD ABUSE.

Why is that? Do they have something to hide? Like, say, some elderly pædophiles they've continued to hide despite the current furore?

Oh, why would we think that?

In other news, it seems likely that we'll be able to have the Pope arrested should he set foot in the UK. Good for Dickie Dawkins and co.

Prejudice and Homophobia more important to Catholics than Charity

2010-03-25T16:33:00.002Z

Remember how Catholics in these debates on whether their religion is a force for good in the world always cite the amount of charity they do, as if nobody else could or would ever give to charity without their help? Well, bollocks to that. Here's some evidence that secularists are more effective at being unjudgementally charitable than the Catholic Church: we don't withhold funds on the basis of belief. We particularly don't penalise charities for not being homophobic enough. But that's exactly what the Catholics have done:

Preble Street's Homeless Voices for Justice program has lost $17,400 this year and will lose $33,000 that it expected for its next fiscal year.

Officials with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland and the Washington-based Catholic Campaign for Human Development say that Preble Street violated its grant agreement by supporting Maine's "No on 1" campaign last fall. No on 1 opposed a ballot proposal to overturn the new state law legalizing gay marriage. Voters approved Question 1 on Nov. 3.

Homeless Voices for Justice, a statewide advocacy group, is led by people who have been homeless. It works on issues that affect the homeless, such as supporting affordable housing and preventing violence against the homeless.

Portland-based Preble Street, which runs a dozen programs to provide housing and other services for the poor and the homeless, provides staff support for Homeless Voices for Justice.

[...] In December, Catholic Charities Maine, which is led by Malone, sent a letter to Preble Street asking it to return $2,400 that the diocese had granted for the Homeless Voices for Justice program.

"We regret the collaboration must end at this time," wrote Sandra Thompson of Catholic Charities Maine, who coordinated the distribution of the church's local anti-poverty funds. "Accountability to the Catholic community requires this."

This is exactly why the argument that "religion is responsible for charity" is balls. Secularists do good works too, and they put the good works before their dogma, not the other way around. Organised religions have ridiculous priorities. Name one good thing that a religious person can do that a secular person cannot. Here's yet another bad thing only a religious person could do. Without religion in the mix, the homeless would be enjoying their money by now.

It's only fortunate that some people are very bad at being Catholics (if a shame that they don't recognise the discrepancy between their reality-based ethics and those of the religion they claim to follow):

Catholics for Marriage Equality has begun an effort to replace the lost funding by raising $17,400 for Homeless Voices for Justice. Anne Underwood, a co-founder of the group that advocates for same-sex marriage, said Bishop Richard Malone is punishing the homeless because of politics.

"This is petty vindictiveness," she said. "After the election is over, suddenly the money is revoked from poor people because of a political opinion held by the bishop."

Underwood said that many Catholics in Maine will now think twice before donating money to the church to help fight poverty. "People who are homeless should not be used in political games," she said.

...perhaps they ought to be thinking about leaving their church altogether. After all, the bishop's decision has papal endorsement, and official dogma is still that he is infallible. If they've been wrong about that since 1870, what else have they claimed divine inspiration for that isn't true? There is no such thing as an entirely sane Catholic - they either follow the papal line of twisted ethics, or are hypocritical and ill-advised in refusing to accept it.

Full Text of the Pope's Letter - Annotated to highlight duplicity

2010-03-24T17:08:00.003Z

1. Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Church in Ireland, it is with great concern that I write to you as Pastor of the universal Church. Like yourselves, I have been deeply disturbed by the information which has come to light regarding the abuse of children and vulnerable young people by members of the Church in Ireland, particularly by priests and religious.

Ratzinger knew all along. It hasn't "come to light". And he doesn't mention the abuse in numerous other nations.

I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealt with them.

No. You can force the bishops involved to resign, and turn yourself into the police.

As you know, I recently invited the Irish bishops to a meeting here in Rome to give an account of their handling of these matters in the past and to outline the steps they have taken to respond to this grave situation. Together with senior officials of the Roman Curia, I listened to what they had to say, both individually and as a group, as they offered an analysis of mistakes made and lessons learned, and a description of the programmes and protocols now in place. Our discussions were frank and constructive. I am confident that, as a result, the bishops will now be in a stronger position to carry forward the work of repairing past injustices and confronting the broader issues associated with the abuse of minors in a way consonant with the demands of justice and the teachings of the Gospel.

I'm not.

2. For my part, considering the gravity of these offences, and the often inadequate response to them on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities in your country, I have decided to write this Pastoral Letter to express my closeness to you and to propose a path of healing, renewal and reparation.

The problem was not inadequate response in their country. The problem was deliberate covering up, directed by the highest echelons of the Vatican and enforced on pain of excommunication. Ratzinger is shifting the blame and minimising again.

It is true, as many in your country have pointed out, that the problem of child abuse is peculiar neither to Ireland nor to the Church.

"But all the other boys were doing it too!" isn't even an admissible defence in the playground.

Nevertheless, the task you now face is to address the problem of abuse that has occurred within the Irish Catholic community, and to do so with courage and determination. No one imagines that this painful situation will be resolved swiftly. Real progress has been made, yet much more remains to be done. Perseverance and prayer are needed, with great trust in the healing power of God's grace.

No, prosecutions and positive changes in the way you operate are needed. Some of the paedophiles are still at large and unprosecuted, let alone those like Brady who protected them. That isn't real progress, is it?

At the same time, I must also express my conviction that, in order to recover from this grievous wound, the Church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children. Such an acknowledgement, accompanied by sincere sorrow for the damage caused to these victims and their families, must lead to a concerted effort to ensure the protection of children from similar crimes in the future.

The Church as a whole must begin by acknowledging that this was a complete, centrally-directed balls-up from the start. Not just a few bishops in Ireland.

As you take up the challenges of this hour, I ask you to remember "the rock from which you were hewn" (Is 51:1). Reflect upon the generous, often heroic, contributions made by past generations of Irish men and women to the Church and to humanity as a whole, and let this provide the impetus for honest self-examination and a committed programme of ecclesial and individual renewal. It is my prayer that, assisted by the intercession of her many saints and purified through penance, the Church in Ireland will overcome the present crisis and become once more a convincing witness to the truth and the goodness of Almighty God, made manifest in his Son Jesus Christ.

"Forget about this horrible abuse - just think about fluffy clouds and ponies, and it'll all go away!"

Prayer won't undo the abuse. Although - you'd think that would be within the power of an omnipotent magic skyman...

3. Historically, the Catholics of Ireland have proved an enormous force for good at home and abroad. Celtic monks like Saint Columbanus spread the Gospel in Western Europe and laid the foundations of medieval monastic culture. The ideals of holiness, charity and transcendent wisdom born of the Christian faith...

Oh, I'm sorry. And there was me thinking that charity, "holiness" and wisdom were attributes found in a diverse range of religious and non-religious societies and communities, not exclusive to Christianity. I guess I must just be a complete idiot then.

... found expression in the building of churches and monasteries and the establishment of schools, libraries and hospitals, all of which helped to consolidate the spiritual identity of Europe. Those Irish missionaries drew their strength and inspiration from the firm faith, strong leadership and upright morals of the Church in their native land.

At the time of the Irish missionaries, the "upright morals of the Church" still allowed arranged child-marriage, burning apostates at the stake, and "holy" war. Not to mention the still-treasured misogyny and homophobia. Lovely anachronism there.

From the sixteenth century on, Catholics in Ireland endured a long period of persecution, during which they struggled to keep the flame of faith alive in dangerous and difficult circumstances. Saint Oliver Plunkett, the martyred Archbishop of Armagh, is the most famous example of a host of courageous sons and daughters of Ireland who were willing to lay down their lives out of fidelity to the Gospel.

Wait...is this a virtue? A memory we want to revive and revere just when we've got over the largest part of the "troubles"? He'll be beatifying Catholic suicide bombers next...

After Catholic Emancipation, the Church was free to grow once more. Families and countless individuals who had preserved the faith in times of trial became the catalyst for the great resurgence of Irish Catholicism in the nineteenth century. The Church provided education, especially for the poor, and this was to make a major contribution to Irish society.

So did numerous other faiths and secular groups. What's your point, Ratzi?

Among the fruits of the new Catholic schools was a rise in vocations: generations of missionary priests, sisters and brothers left their homeland to serve in every continent, especially in the English-speaking world. They were remarkable not only for their great numbers, but for the strength of their faith and the steadfastness of their pastoral commitment. Many dioceses, especially in Africa, America and Australia, benefited from the presence of Irish clergy and religious

... "benefited" being code for "eventually contracted HIV in greater numbers"...

who preached the Gospel and established parishes, schools and universities, clinics and hospitals that served both Catholics and the community at large, with particular attention to the needs of the poor.

Unlike all the other faiths and nations who just stood and laughed at the poor stupid savages.

In almost every family in Ireland, there has been someone – a son or a daughter, an aunt or an uncle – who has given his or her life to the Church. Irish families rightly esteem and cherish their loved ones who have dedicated their lives to Christ, sharing the gift of faith with others, and putting that faith into action in loving service of God and neighbour.

4. In recent decades, however, the Church in your country has had to confront new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularization of Irish society. Fast-paced social change has occurred, often adversely affecting people's traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values.

Hmm... claiming that protection of the abusers was a secular decision and not mandated by the Vatican. Here comes the part where he shifts the blame for paedophilia onto secularisation and the lack of enforced theocracy...

All too often, the sacramental and devotional practices that sustain faith and enable it to grow, such as frequent confession, daily prayer and annual retreats, were neglected. Significant too was the tendency during this period, also on the part of priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel. The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it.

Because it was becoming increasingly apparent the number of things the Vatican was clueless about.

In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations.

Because the Vatican ordered the Bishops to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations, which they were aware of for decades. The Rev. Gerald M. C. Fitzgerald, founder of the order, Servants of the Paraclete, delivered advice, in person, to Vatican officials in Rome in 1962 and to Pope Paul VI a year later, and in letters dating back as far as 1952, that paedophile priests were uncurable and should be removed from contact with children immediately. His advice was ignored.

It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.

Too right it has: it's exposed a church that favours self-preservation, money and reputation over moral rectitude.

Only by examining carefully the many elements that gave rise to the present crisis can a clear-sighted diagnosis of its causes be undertaken and effective remedies be found.

No; you can do it now. We've done the analysis for you. Sack Brady and company, who were all too cowardly to risk their jobs by going to the cops, and then resign in favour of someone without a history of insanity.

Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life;

Yep.

insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates;

Well, no: paedophilia is a biological phenomenon in many cases. It can't be cured and more than homosexuality. No amount of anything-formation in seminaries will help. Just get them under observation quickly. The remainder of your clergy do need to be reminded that any god worth worshipping would have more respect for people who risk excommunication or demotion to do the right thing, than cowards who act only to save their own arses, even if it involves putting kids at risk.

a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures;

...because this is what the Churches have always encouraged - they are supposed to be moral authorities.

and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person.

"misplaced" by order of the Vatican. And Ratzinger himself, in fact. Catholic dogma has always been "church first, congregation second." Ratzinger himself gave the orders to hush up the victims, as ordered by Pope John Paul in 2001.

I would also argue that they fail to notice that certain things about the church itself are to blame. Celibacy makes the priesthood attractive to those who wish to conceal or avoid their sexual preferences, and exacerbates it in others (ignoring the attractiveness of a church with a reputation for giving abusers a helping hand to wannabe rapists, or the way in which these policies reduced the appearance of risk to those who finally felt the urge).

Urgent action is needed to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families, and have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing.

"Centuries of persecution"? The Catholic Church has been the largest religious denomination in the world for nearly the whole of the last two thousand years. They have nearly always, until the last few centuries, been the persecutors of others.

5. On several occasions since my election to the See of Peter, I have met with victims of sexual abuse, as indeed I am ready to do in the future. I have sat with them, I have listened to their stories, I have acknowledged their suffering, and I have prayed with them and for them.

And prayer is supposed to do what exactly? Better to take statements and help them find their abusers.

Earlier in my pontificate, in my concern to address this matter, I asked the bishops of Ireland, "to establish the truth of what happened in the past, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected, and above all, to bring healing to the victims and to all those affected by these egregious crimes" (Address to the Bishops of Ireland, 28 October 2006).

Strange how concerned he is now to address the matter, considering he spent 20 years at the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith receiving reports of every single case of abuse, without ever once respecting the "principles of justice" by actually reporting a case to the police or seeing an abuser actually punished.

With this Letter, I wish to exhort all of you, as God's people in Ireland, to reflect on the wounds inflicted on Christ's body, the sometimes painful remedies needed to bind and heal them, and the need for unity, charity and mutual support in the long-term process of restoration and ecclesial renewal. I now turn to you with words that come from my heart, and I wish to speak to each of you individually and to all of you as brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Frankly, Jesus had a pretty easy time of it. He was alive on the cross for less time even than the thieves he accompanied, and knew already that it wasn't permanent. A bit of a crappy afternoon for him, but his wounds pale in comparison to years of abuse by an old man in a dress followed by decades of fear, depression, and ridicule from any authorities to whom you attempted to report it. Now that's pain.

6. To the victims of abuse and their families

You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry.

Prove it. You've told so many lies before and in this letter that I really have a hard time believing you.

I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen.

Because you had personally ordered them not to listen in the 1962 document and your letter to bishops in 2001.

Those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape from your sufferings. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel.

At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope. It is in the communion of the Church that we encounter the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself a victim of injustice and sin. Like you, he still bears the wounds of his own unjust suffering. He understands the depths of your pain and its enduring effect upon your lives and your relationships, including your relationship with the Church. I know some of you find it difficult even to enter the doors of a church after all that has occurred. Yet Christ's own wounds, transformed by his redemptive sufferings, are the very means by which the power of evil is broken and we are reborn to life and hope. I believe deeply in the healing power of his self-sacrificing love – even in the darkest and most hopeless situations – to bring liberation and the promise of a new beginning.
Bollocks. There's no such person.

Speaking to you as a pastor concerned for the good of all God's children, I humbly ask you to consider what I have said.

I am. If it weren't so grave and disgusting I'd be rolling on the floor laughing at its inadequacy.

I pray that, by drawing nearer to Christ and by participating in the life of his Church – a Church purified by penance and renewed in pastoral charity – you will come to rediscover Christ's infinite love for each one of you. I am confident that in this way you will be able to find reconciliation, deep inner healing and peace.

"infinite love" is a bit of a sensitive phrase in this context, I think.

7. To priests and religious who have abused children

But not to the priests and religious who protected the abusers, silenced the children, perverted the course of justice, and made sure that there was nothing to stop the abuse continuing? Or to the priests and religious who knew that this was going on but said nothing?

You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals.

That's the Pope calling the kettle black...

You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres. Those of you who are priests violated the sanctity of the sacrament of Holy Orders in which Christ makes himself present in us and in our actions. Together with the immense harm done to victims, great damage has been done to the Church and to the public perception of the priesthood and religious life.

And of course, Ratzi would have continued to be silent on the matter and encouraging people to cover these things up if he had not been outed, necessitating this new approach to improve the public perception of the priesthood. It's telling that it's only since the reputation of the church has come under fire, not since child-abuse became a recognised problem in the church, that steps have been taken to do anything but keep it quiet.

I urge you to examine your conscience, take responsibility for the sins you have committed, and humbly express your sorrow. Sincere repentance opens the door to God's forgiveness and the grace of true amendment.

Unfortunate that all the victims require a little more than just dubiously sincere repentence.

By offering prayers and penances for those you have wronged, you should seek to atone personally for your actions.

By resigning and bringing the abusers to justice, you mean.

Christ's redeeming sacrifice has the power to forgive even the gravest of sins, and to bring forth good from even the most terrible evil. At the same time, God's justice summons us to give an account of our actions and to conceal nothing.

But for the last half century, the Church has been doing exactly that. Hence the 1962 document.

Openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God's mercy.

BRADY AND RATZINGER, this means YOU, TOO! You sickening, slimy hypocrites. You were both directly responsible for failing to keep children safe. Ratzinger both ordered that paedophile priests be kept secret and moved to new parishes where they could abuse again, and was personally responsible for such practice during his time as Archbishop of Munich. Brady even admits to his part in forcing victims to sign vows of silence (again, in accordance with Ratzinger and John Paul's instructions) but refuses to be submitted to even a tiny bit of justice.

And the Papal Nuncio in Dublin is still exploiting its diplomatic immunity in refusing to cooperate with the public enquiries.

8. To parents

You have been deeply shocked to learn of the terrible things that took place in what ought to be the safest and most secure environment of all. In today's world it is not easy to build a home and to bring up children. They deserve to grow up in security, loved and cherished, with a strong sense of their identity and worth. They have a right to be educated in authentic moral values rooted in the dignity of the human person, to be inspired by the truth of our Catholic faith and to learn ways of behaving and acting that lead to healthy self-esteem and lasting happiness. This noble but demanding task is entrusted in the first place to you, their parents.

The ease with which you recount these pieces of common sense suggests that you were in possession of them long before the press suggested that it might be a good idea not to keep covering up these cases of abuse.

I urge you to play your part in ensuring the best possible care of children, both at home and in society as a whole, while the Church, for her part, continues to implement the measures adopted in recent years to protect young people in parish and school environments. As you carry out your vital responsibilities, be assured that I remain close to you and I offer you the support of my prayers.

You aren't qualified to be urging this kind of thing when you yourself failed manifestly in this respect.

9. To the children and young people of Ireland

I wish to offer you a particular word of encouragement. Your experience of the Church is very different from that of your parents and grandparents. The world has changed greatly since they were your age. Yet all people, in every generation, are called to travel the same path through life, whatever their circumstances may be. We are all scandalized by the sins and failures of some of the Church's members, particularly those who were chosen especially to guide and serve young people. But it is in the Church that you will find Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today and for ever (cf. Heb 13:8). He loves you and he has offered himself on the cross for you.

...allegedly...

Seek a personal relationship with him within the communion of his Church, for he will never betray your trust! He alone can satisfy your deepest longings and give your lives their fullest meaning by directing them to the service of others. Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus and his goodness, and shelter the flame of faith in your heart.

Together with your fellow Catholics in Ireland, I look to you to be faithful disciples of our Lord and to bring your much-needed enthusiasm and idealism to the rebuilding and renewal of our beloved Church.

10. To the priests and religious of Ireland

All of us are suffering as a result of the sins of our confreres who betrayed a sacred trust or failed to deal justly and responsibly with allegations of abuse.

Take some responsibility, Ratzinger. Everyone involved in protecting the abusers, or aware of the practice, is just as guilty of betraying sacred trust as your confreres. Including you.

In view of the outrage and indignation which this has provoked, not only among the lay faithful but among yourselves and your religious communities, many of you feel personally discouraged, even abandoned. I am also aware that in some people's eyes you are tainted by association, and viewed as if you were somehow responsible for the misdeeds of others.

"somehow"? You all either helped, or did not speak out against, the protection of abusers and endangering of minors, which you knew to be occurring. That's responsibility.

At this painful time, I want to acknowledge the dedication of your priestly and religious lives and apostolates, and I invite you to reaffirm your faith in Christ, your love of his Church and your confidence in the Gospel's promise of redemption, forgiveness and interior renewal. In this way, you will demonstrate for all to see that where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more (cf. Rom 5:20).

I for one will not be impressed by a long overdue and unconvincing display of penitence.

I know that many of you are disappointed, bewildered and angered by the way these matters have been handled by some of your superiors.

Including the infallible Popes.

Yet, it is essential that you cooperate closely with those in authority

NOW he tells them. Frankly, most people could work this out for themselves, had you not instructed them otherwise.

and help to ensure that the measures adopted to respond to the crisis will be truly evangelical, just and effective. Above all, I urge you to become ever more clearly men and women of prayer, courageously following the path of conversion, purification and reconciliation. In this way, the Church in Ireland will draw new life and vitality from your witness to the Lord's redeeming power made visible in your lives.

11. To my brother bishops

It cannot be denied that some

...all, in fact...

of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse.

The 1962 document demonstrates that the "long-established norms of canon law" were to hush everything up, guilt the victims into secrecy, and move the paedo on to fresh and unsuspecting children.

Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations.

We, too, have been taught that the passive voice is effective in avoiding personal liability for things. A more honest approach would be to be more specific in the active voice - "We made serious mistakes".

I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred.

Which was entirely the fault of senior Vatican officials and the Popes. Again, dissociation is achieved through the passive voice, indicating a reluctance to accept or place any blame.

All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness. I appreciate the efforts you have made to remedy past mistakes and to guarantee that they do not happen again. Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence.

No! Don't implement canon law...look where it's got you so far! It's no use pretending this wasn't the fault of canon law - you signed the fricking letter yourself.

Clearly, religious superiors should do likewise. They too have taken part in recent discussions here in Rome with a view to establishing a clear and consistent approach to these matters. It is imperative that the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland be continually revised and updated and that they be applied fully and impartially in conformity with canon law.

Just Ireland again? What about Germany? And the rest of the world?

Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church to which we have consecrated our lives. This must arise, first and foremost, from your own self-examination, inner purification and spiritual renewal. The Irish people rightly expect you to be men of God, to be holy, to live simply, to pursue personal conversion daily. For them, in the words of Saint Augustine, you are a bishop; yet with them you are called to be a follower of Christ (cf. Sermon 340, 1). I therefore exhort you to renew your sense of accountability before God, to grow in solidarity with your people and to deepen your pastoral concern for all the members of your flock. In particular, I ask you to be attentive to the spiritual and moral lives of each one of your priests.

You mean they weren't trying to do all this before? If they've been failing for the last fifty years, what makes you think they'll succeed now?

Set them an example by your own lives, be close to them, listen to their concerns, offer them encouragement at this difficult time and stir up the flame of their love for Christ and their commitment to the service of their brothers and sisters.

The lay faithful, too, should be encouraged to play their proper part in the life of the Church. See that they are formed in such a way that they can offer an articulate and convincing account of the Gospel in the midst of modern society (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) and cooperate more fully in the Church's life and mission. This in turn will help you once again become credible leaders and witnesses to the redeeming truth of Christ.

Blah, blah, blah....

12. To all the faithful of Ireland

A young person's experience of the Church should always bear fruit in a personal and life-giving encounter with Jesus Christ within a loving, nourishing community. In this environment, young people should be encouraged to grow to their full human and spiritual stature, to aspire to high ideals of holiness, charity and truth, and to draw inspiration from the riches of a great religious and cultural tradition. In our increasingly secularized society, where even we Christians often find it difficult to speak of the transcendent dimension of our existence, we need to find new ways to pass on to young people the beauty and richness of friendship with Jesus Christ in the communion of his Church.

New? Like, not attempting to indoctrinate them, by threatening to burn them forever, before they're even old enough to work out that Santa isn't real?

In confronting the present crisis, measures to deal justly with individual crimes are essential, yet on their own they are not enough: a new vision is needed, to inspire present and future generations to treasure the gift of our common faith. By treading the path marked out by the Gospel, by observing the commandments and by conforming your lives ever more closely to the figure of Jesus Christ, you will surely experience the profound renewal that is so urgently needed at this time. I invite you all to persevere along this path.

Because treading the path of the Gospel has worked out so well for you during the last two millenia... I mean, ignoring all the executions, wars, abominations and spreading of misinformation...

13. Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, it is out of deep concern for all of you at this painful time in which the fragility of the human condition has been so starkly revealed that I have wished to offer these words of encouragement and support.

It is out of dire necessity and the investigation of the world's media that you are forced to offer insubstantial and insincere promises of change we've heard before to no effect, while minimising and refusing to acknowledge your own fault in the matter.

I hope that you will receive them as a sign of my spiritual closeness and my confidence in your ability to respond to the challenges of the present hour by drawing renewed inspiration and strength from Ireland's noble traditions of fidelity to the Gospel, perseverance in the faith and steadfastness in the pursuit of holiness. In solidarity with all of you, I am praying earnestly that, by God's grace, the wounds afflicting so many individuals and families may be healed and that the Church in Ireland may experience a season of rebirth and spiritual renewal.

Prayer! It's proved to work so well thus far...

14. I now wish to propose to you some concrete initiatives to address the situation.

At the conclusion of my meeting with the Irish bishops, I asked that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God's mercy and the Holy Spirit's gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country.

So in return for one little insincere apology, you want presents?

I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace.

"Look, we're really really sorry so will you please add pointless prayer and self-denial to the misery already caused? " When the congregation has to intercede on the Church's behalf, something's gone seriously tits-up with the clergy.

Particular attention should also be given to Eucharistic adoration, and in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose. I ask parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part. Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.

You have still failed to provide a single shred of evidence that prayer is effective. Do something proven to work instead: leave the church and let it implode under the weight of its own corrupt, black heart.

I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God's own truth, for it is the truth that sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32).

Furthermore, having consulted and prayed about the matter, I intend to hold an Apostolic Visitation of certain dioceses in Ireland, as well as seminaries and religious congregations. Arrangements for the Visitation, which is intended to assist the local Church on her path of renewal, will be made in cooperation with the competent offices of the Roman Curia and the Irish Episcopal Conference. The details will be announced in due course.

I also propose that a nationwide Mission be held for all bishops, priests and religious. It is my hope that, by drawing on the expertise of experienced preachers and retreat-givers from Ireland and from elsewhere, and by exploring anew the conciliar documents, the liturgical rites of ordination and profession, and recent pontifical teaching, you will come to a more profound appreciation of your respective vocations, so as to rediscover the roots of your faith in Jesus Christ and to drink deeply from the springs of living water that he offers you through his Church.

"Please don't leave me! I have so much riding on this!"

In this Year for Priests, I commend to you most particularly the figure of Saint John Mary Vianney, who had such a rich understanding of the mystery of the priesthood. "The priest", he wrote, "holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods." The Curé d'Ars understood well how greatly blessed a community is when served by a good and holy priest: "A good shepherd, a pastor after God's heart, is the greatest treasure which the good Lord can grant to a parish, and one of the most precious gifts of divine mercy." Through the intercession of Saint John Mary Vianney, may the priesthood in Ireland be revitalized, and may the whole Church in Ireland grow in appreciation for the great gift of the priestly ministry.

I take this opportunity to thank in anticipation all those who will be involved in the work of organizing the Apostolic Visitation and the Mission, as well as the many men and women throughout Ireland already working for the safety of children in church environments. Since the time when the gravity and extent of the problem of child sexual abuse in Catholic institutions first began to be fully grasped, the Church has done an immense amount of work in many parts of the world in order to address and remedy it. While no effort should be spared in improving and updating existing procedures, I am encouraged by the fact that the current safeguarding practices adopted by local Churches are being seen, in some parts of the world, as a model for other institutions to follow.

A little late, unfortunately.

I wish to conclude this Letter with a special Prayer for the Church in Ireland, which I send to you with the care of a father for his children and with the affection of a fellow Christian, scandalized and hurt by what has occurred in our beloved Church. As you make use of this prayer in your families, parishes and communities, may the Blessed Virgin Mary protect and guide each of you to a closer union with her Son, crucified and risen. With great affection and unswerving confidence in God's promises, I cordially impart to all of you my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of strength and peace in the Lord.

From the Vatican, 19 March 2010, on the Solemnity of Saint Joseph

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

What a bunch of self-righteous insincere crap.

Good Independent article:

2010-03-24T13:32:00.000Z

What can make tens of millions of people – who are in their daily lives peaceful and compassionate and caring – suddenly want to physically dismember a man for drawing a cartoon, or make excuses for an international criminal conspiracy to protect child-rapists? Not reason. Not evidence. No. But it can happen when people choose their polar opposite – religion. In the past week we have seen two examples of how people can begin to behave in bizarre ways when they decide it is a good thing to abandon any commitment to fact and instead act on faith. It has led some to regard people accused of the attempted murders of the Mohamed cartoonists as victims, and to demand "respect" for the Pope, when he should be in a police station being quizzed about his role in covering up and thereby enabling the rape of children.

Read the rest here.
I don't agree with everything in the article - Hari seems to contradict himself when he later suggests "Muslims are inherently violent [is] an obnoxious and false idea." The cartoon he talks about depicted Muhammed, not N.E. Muslim: and Mo was certainly a violent character who wrote a violent book which makes Islam inherently violent. The punishment for apostasy is death. Most Muslim theologians still hold by that - and how can they refute the direct word of their prophet and still be called Muslims? Islam - true Islam - is inherently violent. Comments like these made to protect against accusations of Islamophobia or racism can be ignored.

Islam is not a race, and of course I'm scared of Islam - the fastest growing religion in the world, proportionally (and the portion that's growing is the ignorant portion that stones rape victims and simply has a lot of unprotected sex) and the one with the most violent and literally interpreted holy book. I'm scared of religious fundamentalists generally: but in Europa, the majority of these are Islamic.

And another incriminating detail on Ratzi, who "demanded every case had to be referred directly to him for 20 years. What happened on his watch, with every case going to his desk? Precisely this pattern, again and again." Now he claims he never knew about it. Sick.

Ratzinger should be prosecuted too

2010-03-21T16:06:00.002Z

The Pope has repeatedly claimed that he had no knowledge of child abuse by priests being silenced or moved around to avoid bad publicity. He has the temerity to accuse

bishops in Ireland of "grave errors of judgment" in their handling of thousands of "sinful and criminal" cases of abuse spread over decades [and,] rather than blaming abuse on an oppressive, conservative environment within the Irish Catholic church, Benedict singles out the creeping influence of liberal, secular society for weakening resolve against it. (source)

We may leave aside for the moment that it was his department, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that under the then-Pope's orders issued a document asking bishops to make abuse-victims sign vows of silence to protect the abusers. Not only was Ratzinger himself involved in this, he is guilty of personally protecting a child-rapist and placing him in a position to abuse again:

In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing "abuse"?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for "therapy" by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger's deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to "pastoral" work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault. (source)

Joseph Ratzinger knowingly enabled child abuse. Joseph Ratzinger is a sex-criminal. Unfortunately, since he's now the head of state in the State of the Vatican City (where the age of consent is, after all, only 12), he is above the law. There will be no justice for Ratzinger, Brady, or any other member of this church who knowingly either enabled abuse to continue.

And all the cardinals, archbishops, bishops and clergy who knew of the existence of documents from the Vatican ordering this enabling of child-abuse, but did not speak out or resign over the matter - there will be no justice for them either. They all get off scot-free.

In my eyes, anyone who abused children or enabled the abuse of children either through knowing silence or through direct action (that is, every single ordained member of the Catholic establishment) is a detestable criminal in need of correction - at the very least, morally inferior to the vast majority who would have had the courage to stand up and say something.

So what if they all acted on orders? If the penalty for protecting children is excommunication - then the establishment you're being excommunicated from can't really be that moral, mate. Get the hell out of that abominable organisation.

Anyone who thinks the Catholic Church is a competent moral teacher is certifiably insane

2010-03-18T23:44:00.002Z

The idea behind the existence of the Catholic Church is to worship Jesus and God, and to steer their congregations on the correct moral path towards heaven. They claim to hold the only correct interpretation of morality - that they are, in fact, the authorities on morality.

This has never been the case. In fact the Catholic Church has consistently held moral standards below those of most other comparable institutions in the developed world. We don't know why such a high proportion of Catholic priests end up as child abusers - 1 in 20 is the church's own figure, indicating that in actuality it is probably twice that - but it's obviously something they're doing wrong, because they have simply the highest proportion of abusive clergy in any religion. Personally I think that the link between celibacy and child-abuse is probably the most likely - not just because of sexual frustration, the position of trust priesthood allows them, but because people can see it as a way of denying their sexuality and an escape route.

But this figure is also high because the Church has always not only turned a blind eye to paedophilic abuse within the ranks of the clergy, but actively forbidden anyone from doing anything about it. If the priest looks like getting found out, they move him to somewhere he can once again abuse freely. It's just like a huge front for child abusers. Then-Archbishop Ratzinger, on John Paul's orders, issued an instruction in May 2001 (viewable here) which was still being followed recently, damning a "certain crime" and threatening its perpetrators with excommunication. The crime? Reporting abusers to the police or helping with inquiries. The abusers themselves are protected from punishment of any kind, even keeping their jobs in most cases.

There is everything to suggest that despite promised reforms, this attitude is still the one held by the Vatican. Had they not been leaked to the press, these confidential documents would still be in force today. Brady, the man I spoke about before, is not even being forced to resign for acting in such a negligent manner - when in actuality, as a knowing and deliberate paedophile enabler who actively aided another man in abusing more children he ought to be in prison. For a long, long time.

And more, the Vatican ought to be forcibly investigated. Because what Brady said was true: he was only acting on orders. He should have risked excommunication to do the right thing, but the fault is as much the Pope's and the rest of the hierarchy's as his. John Paul XXIII signed the document requiring victims to be forced to sign vows of silence.

It is high time the Catholic Church:
1) admitted it is fallible and no more competent to act as an instructor and role model on morality than any other organisation
2) apologised in the strongest terms
3) completely overhauled its attitude to crimes committed by those in its employ, and began acting in a way more in tune with the teachings of the man it claims to deify - actually focussing on possible self-sacrifice rather than going so far as to cover up abuse to save its own name. This kind of thing always comes out in the end, always backfires. Best never to compromise on morality for short term gain.

I'm just shocked that this mediaeval organisation is still being allowed to act in this way with impunity. They're far more of a dangerous cult than Scientology ever was.

Catholic Church knowingly silenced abused minors.

2010-03-16T13:12:00.000Z

Considering how the bad press piles up against the Catholics, and the amount we can say about them in the past, I become more and more certain every day that within my lifetime the Catholic Church will, if not die, then change unrecognisably from the tyrannical establishment it now is. I'll clarify one more time that my grievance is with the church, not its parishioners - most Catholics are good people, if tragically misled. But as my list of criticisms grows against this church with its ongoing and past problems with child abuse, holocaust allowance and denial, retardance of science, mediaeval attitudes to sex, intolerance, and shameful hypocrisy - the more I wonder how these good people can continue to ally themselves with such an obviously and unreservedly evil entity.

Not long ago I decided against re-publishing a story about the ex-Catholic priest Bill Carney, who after abusing children in his parish for years is still free, unprosecuted and at large after ten years - and running a "family friendly" guest house in Scotland. Purely because of the way his case was dealt with by Rome.

But this new story adds yet another damning aspect to the child abuse scandals rocking the Catholic Church in multiple countries (and probably failing to rock it in those where the establishment still turns a blind eye).

Not only were the priests who abused children protected from the police, moved to new parishes where the parishioners didn't know they couldn't be trusted, etc. The children were also forced to sign oaths of silence, to promise that they would not bring the Church's name into disrepute by seeking justice for their abuse.

Cardinal Sean Brady was at meetings in the 1970s where two abused teenagers signed vows of silence over their complaints. Cardinal Brady said he had been following his bishop's orders and there were no guidelines for dealing with such investigations at that time.

"I believed in doing so, I was following the most effective route to get this stopped. That is my concern and always was - the safety of children." [source]

How could forcing the children not to speak out against their abusers possibly be anything but a scheme to protect the good name of the church, a self-serving move to avoid bad press? How could swearing the kids to secrecy be an effective route to stop the abuse? Brady's first concern was always preventing anyone from discovering the fact they later admitted - that as many as 1 in 20 Catholic priests is a child abuser.

A campaigner for victims of clerical child abuse in Ireland, Colm O'Gorman, said Cardinal Brady should resign.

"He believed that this out of control paedophile [Smyth] had abused children and he did nothing to report this crime to the police either then, or it would appear, at any point over the next 20 years during which Smyth continued to rape and abuse in parishes across the world with near impunity," Mr O'Gorman said.

It's notable that Brady says he was just acting on orders. We've heard that somewhere before, haven't we?

One of the most notable points in the televised debate between Anne Widdecombe, Stephen Fry, and Christopher Hitchens was that at which Widdecombe claimed the Catholic Church could not be blamed for its past crimes, because back then nobody knew any better. To which the opposition retaliated - if the Catholic Church doesn't know any better than the anyone else at a particular time in history, what exactly is the point in it, and how can it claim to have superior god given morality when all the evidence points to the fact that they have always been wrong about this in the past?

Do yourself a favour. Demand change or find yourself a different religion. Or none at all...

Catholicism: outdoes (and undoes) itself again

2010-03-05T20:31:00.002Z

Really, any kind of commentary on these stories has become superfluous. It's a mad, homophobic, misinformation-spreading, hypocritical, lying, delusional old man running the world's richest organisation which happens to brand atheists untermensch, tolerate Holocaust deniers within the ranks of its clergy, sponsor and protect child abusers, sell children, oppose legal equality for all, encourage self-harm, and force raped children to bear the children of their abusers with fatal consequences.

Is anyone still under the illusion that the Catholic Church is a healthy organisation?

Oh, well, if not, here's a story about how vatican officials have been running a gay prostitution ring in the Vatican City.

They still haven't beat the Brazilian abortion excommunication case, though.

Open Letters to the C of E

2010-03-04T13:53:00.003Z

Dr Rowan Williams
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU

Dear Dr Williams,

As an atheist blogger, President of Cambridge University Atheist and Agnostic Society, one of your (several, kindly) imitators on Twitter, and therefore an extremely partial critic of Christianity, I am perhaps not the most persuasive person to comment on the current state of the Anglican Communion. On the other hand, as an outside observer, perhaps I am.

I will come to the point quickly: I understand it isn’t your only, or even your most important, aim to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera (to paraphrase the popular hymn) but it seems to me you could be doing a lot more in this respect, with relative ease.

I am, it is true, no great expert on the precise theological differences between the Anglicans and other communions. However, I cannot for the life of me work out what you actually need all those robes for. If you no longer outfitted your priests with special costumes, but sold the existing ones and had everyone kitted out in bog-standard, unadorned Marks-and-Sparks polo-shirts and jeans, you could feed/educate/clothe/house quite a number of people.

Then take this photograph as one small example:

Here, a group of you are shown wearing robes, on a tiered stand, before a professional photographer. Had you forgone each of these three things – robes, stand, and the hire of a photographer – and simply met and departed without posing, how great a change could you have made, even if only to one person’s life?

Even if you just sell that one cross – you could feed someone for a day. Every little helps, and its loss would be no great impediment to your organisation.

I know you must hear it a lot, and I’m just a stupid, theologically-naïve layman, but didn’t Jesus have a thing about the showy Pharisees or something? The people who cared more about dressing up than charity? What have you become, Mr Williams?

I was prompted to write to you, ineffectually in all likelihood, by a story about the threatening decay of our churches’ fabrics. As a great lover of church-architecture, I would be perfectly happy for my tax money (if I currently paid tax) to go towards church-upkeep. I did feel it was a bit much, though, that this plea has been made before the Anglicans have stopped wasting money on superfluous pomp-and-circumstance in order to divert money to more worthwhile causes – architecture, charity, etc.

How much would church services be damaged by plain-clothes vicars, a Primate who lives in a tatty bedsit living off ready-meals instead of port and swan, or Bishops driving themselves in broken-down Skodas instead of being chauffeured in expensive cars? Would your relationship with Rome be that damaged if you talked to the Pope on Skype instead of flying over there to say hi for just a couple of hours? (In this age of information technology, you don’t need to meet everyone in person, you know).

How much would your church’s image improve, how much would people and church buildings benefit, if you cut the luxuries, took a leaf from the Dalai Llama’s book, and sorted out your financial priorities?

It’s hard. I know. Oh, so hard. To give up Lambeth palace, the cars, the Port, the swan, the London clubs. The photographers. All the little optional extras that add up into a lack of funding for the things that actually matter, and lead to embarrassments like the Aston Cutlow case, world poverty, less AIDS relief.

But you have a unique opportunity, before your aging and dwindling congregations disappear entirely and you are forced to disestablish (believe me: that, at least, is inevitable) to make a difference and show what Christianity should be but rarely is. Selfless, simple, efficient, and maximally charitable. I’ll ignore the bits about Jesus coming “not to bring peace but a sword” if you agree to actually abide by the nice bits of scripture you so like quoting.

But, this time next year, or in ten years, I’m willing to bet you will all still be prancing about in golden robes and jewel-encrusted mitres because some spoiled little old lady somewhere might miss the “ceremony”. Surely you must have had some youthful enthusiasm for changing the world when you were in my position? Where did it go? You’ve done a lot for this country and for your church, but there’s so much more…

You might also say, that for the cost of printing and sending this letter I could have given something to charity, or ditto for a dozen other little gadgets and time-wasting superfluous actions and possessions. I am, however, a materialist and naturally devoted to living a relatively comfortable life. I do not hypocritically encourage simplicity, poverty, and holiness in others. I don’t claim to preach the reported words of Jesus but fail to apply them to my own life and business dealings. I only claim to be muddling along as best I can in a harsh world – you claim so much more.

Yours frustratedly, and with little expectation of actually changing the way your organisation works,

DJH
President, Cambridge University Atheist Society (this is not an official letter and does not necessarily represent the views of CUAAS or other of its members)

P.S: I’m deeply sorry if this came across as snide, insulting, or condescending.

Dr Rowan Williams
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU
Dear Mr Nunn,

Thank you for your reply of the 16th of December (“Our Ref: -----”); I’m sorry it has taken me so long to reply, as it made me chuckle and I wished to address your and Dr Williams’ “rebuttal” in greater detail. I’d like to apologise, first, though, for the somewhat strident tone of my last letter. If you remember, I apologised (if a little sarcastically) at the end for having written whilst in a bad mood; I don’t blame you for the terseness of your reply.

It does, however, seem that you missed my point a little. Clearly, my criticisms were not so “wide of the mark” at all. You picked immediately on my obviously rather caricatured point about the Archbishop eating swan - and I never intended to imply that this was a regular occurrence. I am sure, however, that he has, at some point eaten expensive foods, travelled first class, or similar, at the Anglican Communion’s expense, when cheaper options were available. This is beside the way, though, as my main criticism was not of obvious extravagances so much as small ones.

I was particularly amused, for instance, to note that your reply arrived on high-quality letter writing paper, which I imagine cost “a few bob”, while my own is, you will notice, written on bog-standard value printer paper. The price difference per sheet must add up to quite a bit, especially if the quantity of correspondence is enough to necessitate the employment of a Correspondence Secretary. I’m sure this is not the best way this money could be spent.

As regards the photograph from the Lambeth Conference, yes, I am aware this is a rare event, and that some of the visiting Bishops “labouring away in Sudan” feel it’s of “enormous value and importance”. Precisely my point. They should not be concerned about getting a “souvenir of the occasion” when even the small amount spent on the photographer and staging could have bought a few meals or school materials for those less privileged. One would have thought African bishops especially would have been cognizant of this hypocrisy. The Church had a toss-up between spending a few quid on having a special photo taken, or spending the money on something slightly more essential, and you chose the former. This does not, to put it mildly, look great. ”It seems a bit mean to deny” the bishops their photo? It seems more than ‘a bit mean’ for a humanitarian organisation to spend money on such superfluities.

And, yes, now “for the clothes themselves”. I understand their origins were in common dress; however, the fact is that in the present day these robes are far more expensive than the ones common people are wearing (not to mention their maintenance). So what, if the bishops want to “look their best in church”? Earthquake victims want fresh water and shelter at night. For the cost of buying and maintaining a few hundred robes for clergymen and women, a greater amount of aid (even if only a slightly greater amount) could be provided. The bishops need to have some perspective.

The soldiers outside Buckingham are indeed excused on grounds of “tradition” - but they don’t preach the gospel of poverty. The Anglicans bear far more resemblance to the Pharisees of the New Testament than to Jesus himself - all show and not as much charity as there could be. Though I do, absolutely, appreciate the church already does a huge amount, it could always do more. Giving up the colourful dressing-gowns would be at least a small gesture towards this. It is not a lack of charity I am appalled at, but the hypocrisy of an institution which siphons off even a penny of its parishioners’ donations to superfluous, and ultimately meaningless, ceremonial materialism for the sake of conservative Grandmothers.

Of course I’ll let the bishops wear what they want. I merely wanted to point out that when an institution like the church makes even the tiniest financial decision, it needs to think, “is this expenditure really necessary?”

Some people who are trying to give up smoking have a little pot where they put all the money they would otherwise have spent on cigarettes. Perhaps you could do something similar, placing an “extravagance pot” in your vestries - and next time you’re tempted to buy a robe or a group photograph, put the money there instead. By the end of the year, I bet you’ll be surprised by how much you’ve raised. If on the other hand your ministry is seriously damaged by a refusal to wear robes or take photographs of yourselves, I’ll admit I was wrong and you can take it all back. But surely a trial period is worth the heartache and withdrawal symptoms?

It’s easy now to point back at me and say, well, aren’t you hypocritical too? Yes. I have nice clothes, a few gadgets, quite a few luxuries. I lie to people collecting for charity in the street. But this is somewhat different; I’m a student, and poor, and openly selfish. You’re a humanitarian organisation that preaches “it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven, yada yada yada”. Even if I am just as hypocritical, this doesn’t excuse you. “But [x] was doing it too” was not a good excuse even in primary school. Please, think seriously and tolerantly about what I’m saying.

I’m sorry, again, if my over-polemical writing style has caused offence. Even if I were not writing ‘petulantly’, it would be difficult to frame this suggestion in a manner you would not instinctively reject. There are many things wrong with the Anglican church; this will not fix all of them. It just seems so terribly and unfairly inconsistent, that when people are starving, when churches are falling into disrepair for lack of funds, when there are so many good ways to spend money, your church is wasting even a few pennies on things it does not need to spread the word of its faith. The question of whether your faith is the correct one, I think, is a topic for another day.

With best wishes,

DJH

Faith - not worth your Grandma's comfort

2010-02-27T10:11:00.001Z

Sometimes, sometimes I'm tempted by the idea that, really, we could afford to tolerate religion. After all: my Grandma's a christian and she's never once been tempted to stone a child or fly a plane into an office building. I'm sure many of your grandmas are similar.

But even if many people come to different conclusions through their religion, the possibility that they will come to a harmful conclusion is a very real one - and in most of the mainstream religions they would be able to back up any harmful conclusions they came up with, from holy books and personal gnosis.

After all, what's the difference between Poor Old Grandma's religious belief, and that of a murderous fundamentalist? Neither have any justification for it - only faith. The only actual difference, is the content of the belief itself. You can't get rid of fundamentalism, without somehow discouraging moderation as well - there's no grey area, only black and white, only religion or no religion. And religion brings with it horror stories.

Like this one.

As a child, Liz’s Christian Scientist parents saw that she had a bone infection. Instead of getting her the medical help she needed, they just sat there and prayed for her, accomplishing nothing. The infection got worse and Liz had to live with it for decades.
Yet I never saw a doctor. I never received any medical treatment. I was a third-generation Christian Scientist living in Lexington, Massachusetts, within twenty miles of the Mother Church in Boston. My parents treated the sudden infection in my knee the same way they treated every illness: by having a Christian Science practitioner pray. Christian Scientists believe that mortal life is unreal: they believe that understanding the spiritual universe created by God results in physical healing. All injuries and illnesses are treated this way — from paper cuts to cancer.

"The year before, in 1974, federal regulations were enacted by the Nixon Administration that protected the rights of parents to choose religious treatment for their children even if it meant denying them urgently needed medical care. In 39 states and the District of Columbia, these exemptions are still in place even though in 1984 the Reagan Administration stopped mandating that states exempt parents from charges of religion-based medical neglect. "

...

"Orthopedic specialists were unable to replace my fused knee. By the time I reached my forties, my foot and ankle had deteriorated until I could barely walk. Three years ago today, February 26th, 2007, I chose an above-knee amputation. "

"I remember clearly the agony and anguish I felt as a child. I remember that no adult stepped forward to end it. The law authorized my parents’ decision to leave me untreated, and the sanction of the law discouraged others from doing what is right. But refusing to act on the pain a child feels is criminal. " [full story]

If God exists... why didn't he heal her? Did he know she would eventually become an atheist? She only did because of her injury. Look, guys: religion = bad. I don't want to have to tell you again.

Religion proves divisive again in Haiti. What a surprise.

2010-02-26T23:25:00.000Z

Many people would choose to point at the Christian aid organisations working in Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake as an example of the good things that religions do (of course ignoring the atheist groups also at work in the disaster zone as just too damned inconvenient - if you'll pardon the pun). But look: as the secular groups prove, you don't need religion to be charitable. In fact, in Haiti, it's the religious groups causing the problems.

For instance, the Church of Scientology wasted valuable money and cargo-space on flying dozens of e-meters and 'fixers' or whatever the hell they're called, instead of medical supplies and doctors. Christian groups sent bibles, including one group who sent solar powered electric bibles.

One big story was a bunch of ignorant evangelicals stealing a group of children and running across the border with them into the dominican republic.

And do you really think that looking for someone to blame for a natural disaster is helpful, or moral? Taking advantage of an unfortunate catastrophe to spread the word of Jesus H Lies-a-lot?

But there's a final story which just proves my point about religion and the superfluous risks it brings with it. A group of evangelicals stoned - actually stoned - a group from a rival religion during one of their ceremonies, causing the other group to "declare war". They have caused actual physical harm, and threaten more, because they disagree over the exact nature of Magic Invisible Friends.

Police said a pastor urged followers to attack the ceremony, resulting in a crowd of people throwing rocks at the voodoo followers.

If there were no religious groups in Haiti now peddling their expensive conjuring tricks - only secular groups actually doing what they can to help with medical supplies and their bare hands, not wasting time and resources on sending wishes to the magical sky people, or taking advantage of the vulnerable as a proselytising opportunity - then violent, unnecessary things like this would not happen.

This is just a microcosmic example of how religion only makes bad situations worse - it may make people think again about doing charitable things, it may give a nice warm feeling or some hope, but these things come at the terrible price of irrational acts done for irrational reasons. When people listen to their pastor and follow a book that demands the killing of just about everyone, this type of thing is only to be expected.

Damn that awkward equality legislation! Says Pope

2010-02-02T14:22:00.005Z

The Pope has once again criticised anti-burglary and anti-murder legislation in the UK, claiming that these and certain other laws impose "unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs".

During his address, the Pope urged the bishops to ensure the Church's moral teaching was always presented in its "entirety" and "convincingly defended".

He said: "Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

The head of Britain’s Catholics, the Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, defended the Pope’s comments, saying the Pontiff was simply sharing his concerns that equality legislation encroaches upon religious freedoms.

"I think his words will find an echo in many in our country who are uneasy that perhaps one of the unintended consequences of recent legislation is to drive religious belief and practice into the sphere of the private only," he said.

And, after all, Herr Ratzinger has a point, doesn't he? People should be entirely free to act upon their sincere religious convictions, even at the expense of others. If somebody's interpretation of the bible leads them to believe that they must murder small children, or rob the homes of those engaging in nefarious homosexual acts, how dare the government work to protect said children and gays?

Obviously, this aggressive secularism and its oppression of those who sincerely believe that murder and theft are divinely mandated has to stop. If I am ordered by Azothoth (pictured below left) to grind the heads of living scotsmen into a fine paste to forcibly spread upon the genitals of certain minority groups, then that is my right as an Azathothean. It is high time this country realised that its Azathothian heritage means that those who are not Azathothians must be subjugated and forced to obey the wills of those who are. Materialist secularism is a disgusting and unholy, subhuman kind of conviction. Really.

So, listen here, British Government! The religious are rising, and you'd better give them what they want. If the Christians want the right to affect the lives of others with their beliefs, you have no right to stop them. If we Azathotheans hold the sincere conviction that our Scotsman-murdering-minority-pasting activities are truly divinely blessed, then they must therefore be good, and we must be allowed to continue. If the Catholics sincerely believe that their God wants them to discriminate against Gays, then the equality legislation must be repealed. There is no difference here: sincere religious belief should always signal that a special case must be made under law, and that the religious people who hold it should be allowed free reign to impose their hate-filled bile on those who do not.

In conclusion, I'm going to murder a scotsman because the Pope says that's A-OK provided it's my truly held religious conviction, and murder laws "impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs".

_________________________

No, but really; religious conviction is not a good excuse for making yourself an exception to the law. The practice of religion must have limits and those limits fall precisely between the religious believer and those with different views. Any kind of physical or actual intrusion or discrimination across this border - for we cannot ban even hate-speech with a clear conscience - is out of the question.

I cannot believe we are still having this debate, Herr Ratzinger. Das ich kann nicht glauben.

If the Catholic Church was campaigning against racial equality, there would be an international outcry; he would not be allowed into the UK, let alone have his £20,000,000 security bill footed by the taxpayer. Why is this still attracting so comparatively little attention?

NSS petition against taxpayers footing the bill for the Pope's visit. Sign it!

A little-known Dickens quotation

2010-01-27T11:45:00.001Z

There have been numerous lists compiled recently of famous people who are rather of the opinion that science has outdone religion which is, frankly, a little old-fashioned. Einstein. Thomas Jefferson. Brad Pitt. Richard Dawkins. Philip Pullman. Etc. And, yes, I know the argument from authority is fundamentally a fallacy, but if these lists can make atheism a little more acceptable to fence-sitters otherwise afraid of its malign influences, no problem. And most often they can provide a quotation inspirational to Atheist Spirituality.

I don't recall having seen Dickens on any of these lists, but have just come accidentally across a quote of his that would not have looked out of place on a Bus Campaign tube card (yes, it excited me that much):

"Science, truly expounding Nature, can, like Nature herself, restore in some form whatever she destroys; [and] instead of binding us, as some would have it, in stern utilitarian chains, when she has freed us from a harmless superstition, she offers to our contemplation something better and more beautiful, something which, rightly considered, is more elevating to the soul, nobler and more stimulating to the soaring fancy." - Charles Dickens, 'The Poetry of Science', The Examiner, December 9,1848

Culture! All your famous personage are belong to us.

Church Fabric: the cost of heritage

2009-12-02T22:29:00.005Z

Over the last centuries, thousands of churches have been built up and down the country, marvels of architecture of all kinds. They are beautiful and valuable buildings, regardless of their practical use.

Now, though, they are threatening to become a burden. They cannot pay for themselves, and with dwindling congregations neither can the Church organisations. The Anglicans now want taxpayers to pick up some of the bill for maintaining the church fabric. Is this acceptable?

Personally, I have no problem with paying to maintain the fabric itself, provided it was absolutely guaranteed I would not be funding religion, the same as I would be for any other historic building. But at the same time, this is not the first or only avenue to pursue. I have some other solutions:

The first, and least practical, is to charge entry into the buildings. Some Cathedrals already do this - although many simply ask for donations, and ticketing would decrease visitor numbers somewhat.

The second, is to divert funds from religious practice, towards fabric repair. Sell Lambeth palace; provide uniform salaries to all of the priestly hierarchy; no more port, swan dinners, foreign travel (what do you think skype is for, Canterbury?), or episcopal membership of fancy London clubs; sell the robes and banners; strip everything down to the bare necessities. Do you need self-agrandising robes and palaces to do your jobs properly? Do you actually need - need - to visit the Pope in person, or travel to other countries? Do you need a driver, and a smart car, or can Bishops manage just as well as country parsons at driving themselves about in a battered Skoda?

When the priests are living at a meager standard befitting their role, and have stopped acting like bloody pagans and pharisees parading around in expensive, superfluous dresses, and have started giving the excess cash to the church fabric committees, THEN they can ask the taxpayer to cough up for the vast array of now-useless temples they overzealously built in a former age.

Pomp and circumstance? Fancy incense? Robes? Would Jesus really have approved (were Christianity an accurate representation of a historical person)? Or would he want you to forget the material - certainly the theatricals, if not the material structures of the buildings - and focus on the poor?

Churches were built at great expense, when there were billions all over the world starving. They should never have been constructed in the first place - bread before temple tryptichs - but now we're stuck with them, at least make them top priority above your fancy dress and fancy dinners. How many poor people could the priests shown in this picture (right) feed if they sold their robes and did services in marks-and-sparks polo shirts? How many churches could they preserve? How many could they have fed for the price of a professional photographer and tiered seating? How many children could they have educated by holding their conference in a ploughed field, or Hyde Park, instead of hiring a massive hall?

They don't seem fit to be preaching the doctrines of charity and poverty to churchgoers, to be honest - they are no more charitable than anyone else, even though they have the perfect excuse and opportunity to be so. Don't get me wrong - they're hardly Catholicism Ltd. - but still... it's cringeworthy.

Proof there is no God

2009-11-30T22:55:00.000Z

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_insemination

Traumatic insemination, also known as hypodermic insemination, is the mating practice in some species of invertebrates in which the male pierces the female's abdomen with his penis and injects his sperm through the wound into her abdominal cavity (hemocoel).

The sperm diffuse through the female's hemolymph, reaching the ovaries and resulting in fertilization. The process is detrimental to the female's health. It creates an open wound which impairs the female until it heals, and is susceptible to infection. The injection of sperm and ejaculatory fluids into the hemocoel can also trigger an immune reaction in the female.

Bedbugs, which reproduce solely by traumatic insemination, have evolved a pair of sperm-receptacles, known as the spermalege. The spermalege reduce the damage to the female bedbug during traumatic insemination.

The evolutionary origins of traumatic insemination are disputed. Although it evolved independently in many invertebrate species, traumatic insemination is most highly adapted and thoroughly studied in bedbugs, particularly Cimex lectularius. Traumatic insemination is not limited to male-female couplings, or even couplings of the same species.

Both homosexual and inter-species traumatic inseminations have been observed. Traumatic insemination has been likened to human sadomasochism, stabbing, and rape behaviors. However, such coercive sex practices are common in nature and provide sperm competition, enable bypassing the mating plug, and overcome female resistance to being mated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_plug

A mating plug, also known as a copulation plug, sperm plug, vaginal plug, or sphragis, is gelatinous secretion used in the mating of some species. It is deposited by a male into a female genital tract and later hardens into a plug or glues the tract together. In either case, it prevents the female from being successfully bred later. The mating plug is functionally similar to the chastity belt used in some human cultures.

The mating plug plays an important role in sperm competition and may serve as an alternative and more advantageous strategy to active mate guarding. In some species, such a passive mate guarding strategy may reduce selection on large male size . Such a strategy may be advantageous because it would allow a male to increase reproductive success by spending more time pursuing new female mates rather than active mate-guarding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Coercive_sex

Controversial interpretations and implications aside (see Sociobiological theories of rape), sex in a forceful or apparently coercive context has also been documented in a variety of species. A notable example is bottlenose dolphins, where at times, a herd of bachelor males will 'corner' a female.

Furthermore, in a zoo where it is common practice to put newly captured dolphins in with dolphins who are established in their enclosures, other species of dolphin are never put in together with bottlenoses because the bottlenose dolphins frequently torment and rape them.

The behaviour is also common in some arachnids (spiders), notably those whose females eat the males during sex if not tricked with food and/or tied down with threads, and in some herbivorous herd species or species where males and females are very different in size, where the male dominates sexually by sheer force and size.
Thanks a lot, Dinosaur Comics. Least Fun wikipedia trawl -ever-

Would Switzerland's Possible Ban on Minarets Violate Religious Freedom of Expression?

2009-11-29T14:05:00.000Z

No. Religious freedom of expression must be to some extent limited - otherwise people could get away with burglary and homicide by claiming it was part of their religion.

It is arguably not necessary to ban minarets - but as with any country, the distinctive architectural heritage must be preserved. This is nothing but a building law, designed to prevent unsightly, inappropriate and eye-catching structures which would dominate the skyline if allowed to proliferate.

Furthermore, minarets are not mandated in the Quran. They are not a necessary part of the practice of Islam - merely an aid. Muslims will lose nothing but a little pride through this.

A fantastic article: "Why I Want to Turn Religious People Into Atheists"

2009-11-26T12:00:00.001Z

Greta Christina, a great atheist thinker, has produced another excellent article to which it is my duty to link:

Religion is not a subjective opinion, an ethical axiom or a personal perspective. (These things can be connected with religion, of course, but they're not what make its unique core.) Opinions, axioms and personal perspectives can be debated, but ultimately, they're up to each person to decide for themselves. Religion is none of these things.

Religion is a hypothesis. It says, "Things are the way they are because of the effects of the immaterial world on the material one." Things are the way they are because God made them that way. Because the Devil is making them that way. Because the World-Soul is evolving that way. Because we have spiritual energy animating our consciousness. Because guardian angels are watching us. Because witches are casting spells. Because we are the reincarnated souls of dead people. Whatever.

Seeing religion as a hypothesis is important for a lot of reasons. But the reason that's most relevant to today's topic:

If religion is a hypothesis, it is not hostile to diversity for atheists to oppose it.

It is no more hostile to diversity to oppose the religion hypothesis than it is to oppose the hypothesis that global warming is a hoax; that an unrestricted free market will cause the economy to flourish for everyone; that illness is caused by an imbalance in the four bodily humors; that the sun orbits the earth.

[...]

Historically, we pretty much have two models of dealing with religious beliefs that are different from ours. We have (a) intolerant evangelism and theocracy -- forcing religious beliefs down other people's throats, through social pressure at best, and legal strictures and even violence at worst. And we have (b) uncritical ecumenicalism: The idea that all religions are part of a rich, beautiful spiritual tapestry and they're all at least a little bit true -- and that even if they're not, it's religious bigotry to criticize them or try to persuade people out of them.
[...]
Atheism is offering a third option.

We're offering the option of respecting the important freedom of religious belief, while retaining the right to criticize those beliefs, and to treat them just like we'd treat any other idea we think is mistaken.

Read the full article here

Separation of Church and State

2009-11-24T22:15:00.000Z

There have been a glut of articles recently about the so-called fundamentalist secularism of the war on Christmas. I'd like to examine a few of the complaints and the actual rational solutions.

"Councils are banning reference to Christmas"- and a good thing too. Councils are secular institutions whose funding comes from Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Apatheists, and so on. We have no problem with their lighting up the streets prettily at a dark time of year - even if they switch on shockingly early - but I have no desire for MY tax money to go towards the promotion of a belief system I disagree with. Tax money is for the essentials only, and is to support people of all faiths equally or not at all. Ditto for faith schools - taxpayer money cannot be used to support any religious ideology over any other.

How would Christians like it if Councils started favouring Muslim or Jewish festivals in the way Christmas is favoured? Or began funding Atheist Schools? I guarantee there would be uproar. You wouldn't want your tax-money to pay for it. It doesn't matter that Britain was historically Christian - it isn't any more. Just because you're the majority doesn't give you the right to disregard the minority.

"Companies are trying to come up with secular reasons for keeping a Christmas holiday but making non-Christians use up their holidays to celebrate their own festivals" - well, not a lot of work will be done over the Christmas period, so it makes business sense to close up for a week or two at this time. Furthermore, it's not discrimination, because it's not Christians getting more time off work than other people - it's just a holiday, for everyone, that happens to overlap with the Christian holiday. It's perfectly sensible and practical.

"Companies and Councils are banning people from wearing symbols of their faith" - which is wrong, if they are small and unobtrusive. If they interfere with the job, or you proselytise on top, then you're asking for trouble - remember that when at work, you represent your company, not yourself, and your company's policies and impartiality, not your own ideals. Be professional, for goodness' sake. Would it be appropriate for atheists to push their lack of faith on people they worked with, or on customers, during the course of their jobs? You need to drop this idea that religions - particularly Christianity - are somehow priveleged.

Talking about religion at work only creates tensions and decreases productivity. Leave your faith - or lack of it - at the door.

It's all about teh quantum - Varsity's dalliance with the paranormal

2009-10-30T13:40:00.000Z

Since it's come under new editorial by Dan Hitchens (son of the crackpot Peter Hitchens) Varsity's comments section has become a sounding board for any kook or conspiracy theorist to air their preposterous views, it seems. We have already had that doyenne of daft Mary Midgeley this month on Creationism; now we have John "the psychic" Poynton giving us his hilarious views.

Before I address the meagre substance of the essay, can I just ask (rhetorically) why the hell Hitchens is publishing this shite? It's Cambridge - we aren't this stupid. We will not fall gullibly for Poynton's lies.

Substance:

CLAIM: "The vast evidence for the paranormal is highly sophisticated"

No... it isn't. There just isn't any. Evidence for the paranormal would have to be observable and predictable, and strangely enough it is never either of these things when not being observed by people who already believe in it, nor produced conclusive results. This is why it never passes peer review. I cannot find any non-anecdotal evidence whatsoever.

CLAIM: "Identical twins will probably know what I'm talking about, like a hospital worker who unnacountably felt sudden pains in her left leg and had bruises developing on the eft side of her body. It turned out that he twin sister was involved in a car accident t the same time some 400 miles away, and was injured along her left side in the same places."

What a convincing anecdote. Not. I couldn't find any reference to this story on the internet whatsoever, despite googling for a good fifteen minutes with the various facts we are given about it. This story is entirely based on perception and memory: since presumably the girl found out about her sister much later on after she felt the bruises appear, her memory of when precisely this happened is not exactly trustworthy.

Because it wasn't a predictable or controlled event, there is absolutely no reason why she shouldn't have completely made up the story - and yes, it happens. People do lie about this kind of thing. Or make mistakes. Or experience very odd coincidences. Because of this, Poynton is only harming his own case by including recognisably unreliable stories like this in his 'vast' store of evidence. It's interesting that he doesn't give us any more convincing examples, either.

"Attempts to explain psychic phenomena in physical terms fail: how can one physically account for the experience of the hospital worker with a sore left side?"

At this point, I'm almost certain this has to be a parody (especially with the comments about Hallowe'en as a time for trickery in the opening paragraph) but I'll run with it. Poynton asks this as a rhetorical question, apparently thinking this is will have us stumped... but really, it's so simple I shouldn't have to explain to you:

COINCIDENCE.

A woman *just happens* to have leg pain at around the same time her twin is in an accident. This is not impossible, or even unlikely. I bruise myself unexpectedly and get cramps in my feet all the time. Occasionally it's quite likely this coincides with one of my family members having an accident of some kind. It happens so often (especially to overworked hospital employees) that it's practically bound to happen to one set of twins out of millions, over the course of their lifetimes. The twin then unconsciously exagerates the story to make it more interesting (as we all do all the time...) and, voila, you have your anecdote.

It may be unlikely, but it's more likely than psychic powers.

CLAIM: the history of science shows it undergoing numerous paradigm shifts and people refusing to change their ways for security. Soon it will change again to incorporate the paranormal.

TRANSLATION: You'll see! You'll all see! I'll show you!! Mwahahahaha!

CLAIM: it was the quantum wot dun it

Oh dear. Poynton, just invoking the mysteries of quantum does not release you from the bond of having to provide evidence for your assertions. And so far the most convincing one you could find was an anecdote about an anonymous hospital worker who bruised herself once at an inopportune moment.

Poor guy.

Morality, War, and Kohrian Micronationalism (Part One)

2009-10-25T09:30:00.012Z

This post is one that I have started several times, and never completed enough to publish; yet it is possibly the most important topic I have yet covered. It certainly concerns two of the most important books of the twentieth century: The Selfish Gene and The Breakdown of Nations.

The first part of this series will attempt to answer the question that has been posed by philosophers throughout the ages, from Plato to Marx, many of whom attempted to answer it.

What is human morality?

I believe that this question has now been answered adequately, and in a way which simplifies our view of human nature. The book which should be read first, to get an idea of this, is Dawkins' Selfish Gene, which explains how a selfish gene can produce an unselfish animal.

Essentially, the premise is this: as can be observed in animal populations, the most stable 'societies' are those in which

members can remember who has "scratched their back" (sometimes literally) and only reciprocate with these other members. If members did not return the favour, the altruistic animals would reduce in number - meaning the exploitative ones who refuse to return the favour (are immoral) also reduce in number because they can't cooperate, and none of them are honest. A society made up entirely or nearly entirely of dishonest members cannot survive.
members are occasionally dishonest. It wouldn't pay for members to be entirely dishonest, as they would then be shunned from the process of reciprocality, or otherwise shunned. But it does still pay, evolutionarily, for them to use a wildcard and get a free ride if the opportunity presents itself.

Morality is a behaviour we are designed by evolution to prefer, because of its ability to ensure our genes' survival when it is the dominant (but not exclusive) trait. Guilt is a mechanism for decreasing our willingness to act in contravention of this instinct. Morality is not that action which best assures our own survival, for that would make society fall apart, defeating its own object. A world of selfish animals is far more dangerous than one of generally altruistic animals.

Of course, like any other instinct, people can be conditioned to surpress it, or ignore it, or to mentally class certain actions as "amoral" or "moral" which would generally be recognised as "amoral".

The inevitable end result of evolution, as can bee seen in all animal societies, is that the majority of members will be moral most of the time, but given the opportunity will almost always give into temptation. But it is not that simple.

What is an opportunity? An opportunity is where the otherwise honest member feels they are in a position in which their action cannot be checked - i.e., when they feel their power exceeds the risk. If their judgement is correct, they succeed; if they were wrong and the risk was higher (or their power less) than they thought, they do not succeed.

It is evolutionarily ordained that humans will be strongly instinctually drawn towards immoral acts which benefit them, provided it will not risk their life, health, or the likelihood of social reciprocity. We are constantly making power/risk judgements as to whether a particular act is
a) useful to us
b) socially acceptable
c) possible and
c) likely to be detrimental to us because of retribution

Heavily antisocial animals in a social population are less likely to be attractive to the opposite sex; while the immoral wildcard increases the chance of survival - making 'bad boys' (though not habitual criminals) slightly more sexually attractive. But in general, immorality will lose us trust, liberties, possibly even the opportunity to reproduce - this is what makes it bad and relatively rare.

In what other circumstances are we likely to take risks? Obviously, yobs are perfectly willing to commit immoral acts which have a high likelihood of detection and retribution. How can this be explained? Well, quite simply, socially dysfunctional actions can be the result of
a) desperation (a material or psychological need that can drive one to immoral acts even when risk is very high)
b) low risk perception (yobs perceiving the fact that legal actions brought against them will neither kill them nor otherwise prevent them from growing old and reproducing)
c) apathy toward risk (children of poorer homes today have less to hope for: they are taught that social mobility no longer exists, that they will never amount to anything. So what are they risking? Wealthier children, however, do not want to jeapardise a potential career)

as well as other miscellanious secondary reasons (i.e., tribal or aggressive instincts).

Is this truly inevitable? No. As rational animals, our thoughts can quite often trick or circumvent our irrational instincts - contraception, for instance, is an example of the human mind committing an action which is nevertheless bad for the genes. Man may, through will-power, prevent himself from giving into temptation. But for the majority of bad acts, the only reason you do not commit them is that the swift, hard retribution of society would then bring you low, endangering your genes' reproduction.

This is a fear hard-wired into your system and you are designed by evolution to feel moral and good, and undesiring of immorality - until an opportunity presents itself, at which point you will happily cheat the public transport system, make up an excuse for your late essay, steal films from the internet. Probably by rationalising this action, or minimising its scale in your mind. We can justify anything - even if only because another human asked us to do it (armies, spies, Auschwitz guards...)

The Domesticated Frontal-lobe

'Moral' humans are very rare in the face of opportunity, despair, or desperation. Despite the fact I believe we are all well intentioned ), nearly always do what we think is right as opposed to what we think is evil (I find the idea that Hitler acted as he did because it was evil risible; he clearly meant well) our instincts are not well intentioned. They are callous, changeable, and fundamentally fraudulent. And they can change our perception of what is acceptable simply through the provision of desire, power, and low risk.

We are minds at war with our brains, which have fashioned the illusion that we are altruistic in order, and drugged us up with dopamine to keep us, like cows, working for the good of the genes we reproduce - not for society.

Reducing Immoral Action

According to the above idea of when we become immoral - an idea which I have found fits my own behaviour, as well as everyone else's to a 't'- there are a few ways to reduce immorality that are far more complicated to implement in real life than they appear:

Increase Risk (by instituting harsher punishments and greater surveillance, so immoral acts are not worth anyone's while)
the Perception of Risk can be increased by educating all people to believe in their own value & potential, an inflated sense of the risk of crime, the need for the mental to overcome temptation - even religion can be useful in these cases to increase hope and the sense of risk (this is the true evolutionary value of religious faith - which is not to say that we still all need it)
Decrease Power (in the individual, this is nearly impossible without removing limbs or eyes a la Gulliver; we shall come to how we reduce the ability of nations to behave immorally in the next part)
Decrease Desperation (by meeting social, mental, health and dietary needs)

In the next part, we will examine how this unified theory of morality can be applied to nations as well as individuals: how a high power:risk ratio will inevitably corrupt its wielder, and how the likelihood of temptation can be decreased.

Religion is a tool to manipulate people

2009-10-22T20:17:00.003+01:00

This story is a near perfect microcosm of what is going on in cases where people are manipulated by religion. For instance, when people claim that religion is not the root cause of terrorism, but is merely used by people with political motives to manipulate others - something they think stumps me but really just proves our point. Religion is bad as much because it can be used as a tool in this way, as because it encourages some crazy people to carry out evil acts in and of itself.

A guy walks into a shop with a loaded weapon, and threatens the woman behind the counter. She starts praying, and he apparently breaks down, gives her one of the bullets from the gun (the report claims, inconclusively, that it was the only bullet) and promises not to hurt her.

Then, with her full consent, he robs her anyway.

The news stations in the US have been praising this as some kind of divine intervention. But is it really? Well, no. The dude seems inexperienced and hard-up, and thus emotionally vulnerable. He's not a career criminal, isn't hardened to it, and in America it's likely he's already a strong Christian. A display of faith and fear weakened his resolve - not the holy spirit.

Confusingly, though, he still robbed the store even after supposedly repenting. This to me looks more like the guy was taking advantage of the woman's religion in order to get peacefully out of the shop with the money and phone, perhaps assuming that she wouldn't phone the police when he'd made her consent to it through religious manipulation. Another thing which displays his inexperience.

As Ron Gold said, "if prayer is so fantastically powerful, why did the guy keep robbing? And so what if he turned himself in later? He was caught on camera and recognized by his family, so he was probably going down one way or another. Also, what about everyone else, atheist or religious, who didn’t commit a felony? They all deserve more credit that a praying robber. "

If God had the power to intervene, why let robberies happen at all? I'm sure you can immediately leap to some kind of rationalisation like "he had to let the guy hit rock bottom before he could save him" - but really, 'had to'? Given all the credit people have chucked his way for interventions with far greater implications for free will, and his omnipotence (literally, the property of not having to do anything) I find this hard to believe.

Or if you must claim it as a miracle, why a miracle of the Christian God, just because it was a Christian prayer? Why not the FSM or PIU?

(via Friendly Atheist)

Disturbing video shows "witches" beaten by Indian villagers

2009-10-20T22:43:00.002+01:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8317421.stm

Abuse and even murder of women labelled "witches" is now common in India - and growing worse. The woman in the linked video, along with four others, were paraded naked, beaten, and force-fed human excrement by their neighbours - and all because of religious superstition, and the ignorance implicit in it. In what other situation would you see hundreds of people looking on, while an old woman is abused, without good reason?

The only distinguishing feature of these women was their religion: all five were Muslim widows. But just as often, women are picked on because they are financially succesful or independent, Christian, or physically deformed.

It's a growing problem in India as well as Africa and other developing areas. These women were lucky, and are now under police protection. Most are not. There are several "witch murder" stories a month on the BBC website.

The only way to end the problem, is to educate these people. The more faith they have in superstition, the more brutal they are. It's a clear relationship. Even if their religion were somehow just an excuse, remove it, and it's one fewer excuse to use.

Horncastle Town Hall: Nearly Safe At Last??

2009-10-20T20:18:00.003+01:00

The Task and Finish group appointed by ELDC to scrutinise the decision of the Executive Committee, which was reached without the support of the non-executive members, has recommended that the Town Hall be handed over to the town council - the body which logically should have charge of the building in future.

Commentators hope strongly that the Exec will take this opportunity to go back on their earlier decision without 'losing face'. It has become increasingly clear that any logical reasons for the decision were only superficially sensible. Accusations of unfair play, however, mean that many remain sceptical whether the Executive members will be able to take this opportunity, if backhanders mean they are already committed to demolition.

The decision will be printed in the Horncastle News which goes on sale tomorrow. Supporters wait with baited breath to see if the Exec will use the provided ladder or continue digging their elaborate pit. It could go either way; bets are now on. We understand that legal proceedings against ELDC will continue until the final decision is made - just in case.

Immoral: Anglican Church robs couple, forces them to sell home

2009-10-20T15:07:00.003+01:00

Andrew and Gail Wallbank have become the latest victims of religiously-inspired crime, having had more than £287,000 stolen by the Anglican Church. In order to make up for the loss, the couple will now have to sell their home or go bankrupt. This is merely to pay for legal fees and to enable the couple to sell the farm; the Church wants to screw them for even more than this (about £200,000 more) before the robbery is over.

Under an archaic mediaeval law, the owners of the family farm discovered that they were liable for all of the costs of repairs to the local parish church in Aston Cutlow. The original demand for money was made in 1990, and the decision by the courts this week has been the result of 19 years' campaigning.

The Church's legal battle against the Wallbanks was merely a "test case" of the defensibility of the capricious and anachronistic law, before they bring it into force against hundreds of other homeowners in the UK - whether they like it or not.

That's one way of filling the funding gap left by dwindling congregations.

Whatever the legal status of this law, morally this theft is unjustifiable. It is up to the couple whether their money be used for church repairs. This is yet another example of the ridiculous relationship between Church and State in this country. Bring on disestablishment, legal reform and an end to legalised injustice of this kind. The whole system needs an overhaul.

(via the BBC, 2,3)

This has to be parody...right?

2009-10-20T11:47:00.007+01:00

A Muslim group, Islam4UK, led by the notorious and insane hate preacher Anjem Choudary, has issued photoshopped images of Nelson's Column and trafalgar square, showing how they will appear “within 24 hours of Islam gaining glorious dominion over the UK”.

The Islam for the UK group revealed its vision for this world-renowned landmark on its Islam4UK website, which states that in just 24 hours after sharia is established in the UK:

Nelson’s statue would be removed and demolished without hesitation. Indeed, there is none truly worthy of worship except Allah (and thus the veneration of any man or woman is unacceptable, let alone a man such as Horatio Nelson who was a notorious fornicator, as his illicit relationships with married women such as Emma, Lady Hamilton demonstrate.
An exquisitely constructed Islamic clock with the black flag of Islam flying high over it; this clock could also be fitted with an electronic device that would sound the Islamic call to prayer 5 times a day; moreover, because the statue of Horatio Nelson is coincidentally positioned facing due south, on its replacement with an Islamic orientated clock, the front of the clock could duly be rotated 45 degrees (anti-clockwise) so as to indicate the direction of the qibla ie direction of the Kaabah in Makkah, thereby making it easier for Muslims in the locality to know which way to pray.

The bronze lions will apparently be replaced by giant gold pots of money, [bxA]"so as to provide all members of the public with the opportunity to freely take money and fulfil any need that they might have. " Presumably in the care of a friendly leprechaun...?

My initial reaction to this news story (published in secularist magazine The Freethinker) was that it must either be a parody by Poe's Law -loving atheists, or a deliberate (and over-killing) attempt to inflame anti-muslim sentiment by a group like the BNP (whose claims that Muslims will soon outnumber us 10 to 1 continue to be repeated all over the place to my great annoyance).

It is to my great chagrin that I find this nutter is deadly serious, and is in fact leading a hate march against parliament in the near future (October 31st).

If these people want Sharia law, move to a country which already has it. Of course, they don't want to - because no sane and successful country does have it. Because it's insane.

Islam, like Catholicism and other forms of Abrahamic religion, is at odds with modern thinking. Perhaps more so than others. One has only to look at the recent case of the Dutch politician Geert Wilders: banned from coming to the UK to lecture on why we should do something about violent Muslims, eventually allowed in, only to be proved right when greeted on arrival by lovely people holding signs condemning him to death.

No other religion has quite the same kind of institutionalised hate in the modern era, as Islam. Something will have to be done (even if it absolutely, positively cannot be as extreme as anything Wilders suggested like banning books and burkas...)

Geert Wilders is the Christian Terrorist?? Because making films and talking is totally equivalent to blowing up thousands of people with hijacked jet planes...

(May I remind enraged readers that Islam is not a race but an ideology, like Nazism: I'm perfectly able to criticise a hateful ideology, without attracting the moniker of "racist". I'll even point out that the majority of moderate Muslims are A-OK with me, but the growing core of extremists do not look like going away any time soon.

In the wake of comments from Catholics and Christians that "you wouldn't say these things about Muslims", I am forced to prove that indeed I feel the same about all religion: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are hateful, even if many individual adherents are in themselves nice.)

Anglicans and Priorities...don't mix?

2009-10-17T11:37:00.002+01:00

It has recently been in the news that various vicars of local parishes are considering suing the Anglican Church for its failure to provide proper maintenance on their vicarages - some of which are falling down. I did not think much of the story at the time, as it seemed uncharitable to expect these priests to take into consideration the poverty of their organisation when they were living in such conditions. I can't now find that particular story, so I may have some details wrong.

Another recent item revealed that the Anglicans were forcing an innocent couple to hand over £95,000 for repairs to their local church, because their house was once church property. Other than an arcane mediaeval law, there was no reason why these people should have been held responsible for the repair, and it was completely unjust of the church to sue them for the money. It's legalised theft.

But it seems that, almost like the Catholics, the Anglicans have their financial priorities all wrong. Having just lost millions in a property investment deal gone wrong, it has now been revealed that the Bishops have an expenses scam going on to rival MPs.

At a time when the church has been telling its congregations to live frugally and modestly, Bishops' expenses increased by £2 million, or 13.5 per cent, to £16 million in the last year. The bishops spent £1.3 million on travel, £50,000 on gardeners and £600,000 in hospitality. the Church Commissioners, who manage the Church’s assets, spent £7.3 million on the maintenance of houses, offices and gardens (an increase of £4.3 million since 2000).

In a fantastic example of hypocrisy, Bishop of London, the Right Rev Richard Chartres, who runs the “Shrinking the Footprint” campaign on climate change, claimed the highest chauffeur costs, of £27,264. He also had the second-highest fuel bill of £3,149. He claims a large carbon footprint is "symptomatic of sin".

In spite of having fewer responsibilities and a smaller staff, home and office to maintain, the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, outspent Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in almost every area. Last year he spent four times more on office equipment, eight times more on office furnishings, double on an official car, £5,000 more on drivers, more on fuel, travel, heating, lighting and cleaning.

Dr Sentamu’s individual working costs, excluding office and staff, came to more than £106,000, up 20 per cent from nearly £88,500 in 2007 and about one fifth more than Dr Williams’s individual working costs of nearly £87,000.

Now, it's not my money... although it is my parents' money... but I do feel that by cutting some of the chauffers and gardeners, flowing robes and staff, Bishops, like MPs, could do more to help those lower down the scale. It would be interesting to find and compare the average vicar's salary with that of the Archbigot himself.

Notes preceding Eagleton's talk at the Cambridge Union Society tonight

2009-10-16T12:35:00.005+01:00

Tonight, Eagleton will be talking on "Reason, Faith and Revolution". I've been reviewing what Eagleton has said in the past and will probably say tonight, and began to compile some notes and questions to haul along with me.

It's uncertain whether I'll get to speak at all, and nearly certain I won't get to say everything I want to without becoming one of those embarrassing questioners who rambles on for hours. So instead, I'll just copy and paste the lot, wholesale, here, and let you read for yourselves (and, if the mood takes you, to ask any questions I don't tonight).

Needless to say: anyone who isn't already convinced, should really think seriously about what Eagleton is (or isn't) saying. His arguments are full of undefined terms, ridiculous comparisons, circumlocution, equivocation, etc. Don't just nod along when he's backing up your opinions: think through whether this is good support.

What makes you any more qualified to talk about theology than Dawkins or Hitchens?

“No theologian believes that God exists” – in which case God is irrelevant. What does God do?

If I claim “No fairyologist that I know of believes that fairies exist

Have you heard of the Courtier’s Reply?

Ignorance of religion: why does one need to know about the details of any religions in order to point out that there is no good reason to believe in God

You talk about the smugness and tediousness of the New Atheists; does it not bother you that you are being just as condescending, if not more, in return? For instance, you have written that Dawkins speaks “scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean.” Just as you speak scoffingly of a god who does not exist within or without the universe as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this means. Let me assure you, it isn’t.

Care to cite examples of non-theistic beliefs which have no rational justification and are still reasonable to hold??

I’d like to read you something Dawkins wrote in reply to your rebuttal. He said Theology to him, “is like someone saying they don’t believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven’t studied fairy-ology.”–Dawkins

I know from hearing you speak before, you will almost certainly reply that the existence and fairies and god are very different questions. How exactly is believing in God different from, for example, believing in Fairies?

Next you will reply that you are unaware of any serious theologian who thinks that God exists in any tangible form, in the sense that you or I, or a squirrel exist.

To which I reply, I know of no serious fairy-ologist who thinks that fairies are either inside or outside the universe, as you think they do. Their transcendence and invisibility are part of what they are. I know of no serious fairy-ologist who thinks that fairies exist in the sense that you or I exist.

Do you know anything about fairy-ology? Of course not: you don’t believe there’s anything there to be known. And yet you deny them. You dismiss fairies purely because you have no reason to believe in them, and fairy-ology can no more resolve this lack of evidence than theology.

You say that not looking in detail at what one is rejecting is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. In God, we have an idea which has many properties – but none of the additional properties are worth studying if the idea they belong to is a false one.

It is not that we can prove the idea true, and thus these properties are irrelevant; it is that if nobody can give any good reason or evidence why we should consider the
idea true, these properties are irrelevant.

You are right to say the truthfulness of the idea of God is not a scientific question, but in the absence of science we have no alternative method to evaluate said truthfulness.

Theology, as the study of details, has no value if the central premise on which these details depend cannot be ascertained to be true.

“Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist.” Prove it.

“The mainstream theology I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is in my view to be respected, whereas Dawkins considers that no religious belief, anytime or anywhere, is worthy of any respect whatsoever.”

Eagleton fails to see the difference between respecting a person (“anyone who holds it”) and respecting a belief. People’s rights demand respect; people’s humanity deserves respect; one might go so far as to say that people automatically demand respect. Beliefs do not: flat earth, racism, phlogiston, religion. Dawkins nowhere resorts to disrespect of the person, only hard criticism of actions and of ideas. Ideas are there to be criticised, or we would get nowhere, and no idea is ‘automatically’ immune from scrutiny. Ideas do not receive respect until they have earned it.

“When I read a good book on evolution- I often come across simple, satisfing answers to questions that I have often wondered about. Even when there are no answers as yet, the biologist can usually give the latest hypotheses that are currently circulating in scientific thought. Sometimes I even come across questions that I have never even thought about before, and these in turn sometimes also have satisfying answers given to them. There is seemingly no end to the intellectal illumination that such books can offer. Now, compare that to the drivel offered by Eagleton. Virtually every sentence is dripping in an excess of ambiguity and confusion. Instead of answering
questions, or even asking any decent questions, all Eagleton does is confuse the
hell out of everybody. There is absolutely no illumination here, nothing but darkness.” (source)
“Interesting, isn't it? Eagleton's view of Christianity is quite different from John Lennox's, which in turn is quite different from D'Souza's, which in turn is quite different from the Archbishop of Canterbury's, which in turn is quite different from Fred Phelps's, which in turn is quite different from the Pope's.
Each and every one of them is absolutely convinced that only THEIR take on Christianity is the correct one. No wonder they're all convinced atheists don't understand Christianity.
What are the odds of us happening to alight on just the version any one particular Christian happens to subscribe to?
But what really fascinates me in all this is the way they implicity deny that other other Christians disagree with them, and act as though every Christian believed the same thing. 'Oh, but that's not the God I believe in' becomes, 'Oh, but that's not the God Christians believe in' - when it is perfectly apparent to everyone else that there are Christians aplenty who believe in exactly the God described in, say, TGD.” (source)

There is a subjectivity in religion that is simply not present in science. In science one is either right or wrong, according to the evidence: it is possible to have a more sophisticated understanding if one is a PhD, than if one is a ‘layperson’. The same does not apply to theology, because there is no system of determining truth from untruth.

Catholic Church was warned about their Abuse Problem in the 50s

2009-10-14T16:10:00.005+01:00

The Rev. Gerald M. C. Fitzgerald, founder of the order, Servants of the Paraclete, delivered the same advice in person to Vatican officials in Rome in 1962 and to Pope Paul VI a year later, and in letters dating back as far as 1952, that paedophile priests were uncurable and should be removed from contact with children immediately.

Father Fitzgerald, who died in 1969, even made a $5,000 down payment on a Caribbean island where he planned to build an isolated retreat to sequester priests who were sexual predators. His letters show he was driven by a desire to save the church from scandal, and to save laypeople from being victimized. He wrote to dozens of bishops, saying that he had learned through experience that most of the abusers were unrepentant, manipulative and dangerous. He called them “vipers.”

These documents have come to light as part of scandals that have now dragged on for nearly thirty years, over the fact that the Catholic Church regularly covered up and protected known paedophiles, and even put them back into direct contact with children, without informing their congregations of the danger. It was not until 2002 that this ceased to be the case.

Official dogma has always been that the reputation of the church is of greater importance than the safety of its congregations, as a decrease in church-attendance would represent many lost souls condemned to hell, more terrible than the earthly suffering of a few children. Another case of supernatural beliefs and concern for the afterlife causing a prolongation of pain in life.

The letters directly contradict the most consistent defense given by bishops about the sexual abuse scandal: that they were unaware until recently that offenders could not be rehabilitated and returned to the ministry.

Asked why Father Fitzgerald’s advice went largely unheeded for 50 years, Bishop
Blase J. Cupich of Rapid City, S.D., chairman of the United States Bishops Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People, said in a telephone interview that in the first case, cases of sexually abusive priests were considered to be rare.

In fact it is now known that as many as one in twenty Catholic priests have abused minors. The scandal continues...

[source]

Do your instincts say "transubstantiation" or "murder! murder!"?

2009-10-14T09:52:00.003+01:00

A Catholic priest in Poland was doing the Holy Communion ritual recently. He accidentally dropped the cracker. So he put it in holy water (to “cleanse” it). The object turned red… and it turned out it’s not a cracker at all.

It’s a piece of human heart.

All of sudden, some Italians are proclaiming it’s a miracle! Not just a miracle, either. They think it’s the heart of Jesus.

But look: this isn't inexplicable. It's not a miracle. There are other, far more creepy explanations than 'magic', unfortunately.
1. The priest killed someone and was covering it up by feeding bits of the guy's body to his congregation
2. It's a base conspiracy by the church in question, whereby bits of human heart were taken from a medical facility and mixed with the wafers
3. More gruesomeness

So...yes, along with the Catholics at this church, I "pray" it's a miracle and not the other, much worse option. However I'm not holding my hopes out. Crime is not the nicest explanation, but it is the simplest. In the mean time, this should be treated as very suspicious indeed. It should not be assumed to be a miracle.

Yet the Polish authorities seem not to be doing anything about it.

If I were part of this church's congregation, I would be very scared right now.

(via Friendly Atheist)

Vow of poverty - ur doing it wrong

2009-10-10T17:34:00.000+01:00

see more Political Pictures

Veils

2009-10-09T10:23:00.003+01:00

I'm listening to an interesting discussion on Woman's Hour (which came on as I was getting my morning coffee) about muslim veils, between an advocate and an opponent.

The advocate, as usual, is insisting that it is her choice to wear it, and that many women do prefer to wear it as a reaction against forced westernisation and loss of cultural heritage that comes naturally with naturalisation.

Tellingly, she was going on a long spiel about modern feminists liking to define themselves by the clothes they wear, when she had to stop mid-sentence, being about to totally contradict that criticism by stating that the veil is an attempt at self-definition.

I am...concerned by the suggestion that the veil should be banned, since it is, after all, a case of freedom of expression. I do disagree that women should wear it as an item which empowers them, but again, it's a matter of choice.

As the opponent very sensibly points out, women in the UK who wear the veil by choice, make it much much harder for women in less free countries to choose not to wear it. They reinforce the restrictive laws of Islamic theocracies.

I think the whole Islamic mind-set of women wearing veils - through choice or not - to save men from their irresistable lust is a bit sick, personally, and can't help referring back to all the recent cases in these same Islamic theocracies of women being raped, killed, or forced into marriage - and the men getting off scot-free because 'the woman was asking for it'. There seems to be a general agreement between men - based on Quranic lore - that any woman not wearing a veil is "fair game", and veil-wearers here only help to back-up this superannuated ideology.

The jury is still out.

More LOLs with the King of Witches

2009-10-08T14:01:00.002+01:00

The crazy man claiming to be the King of Witches has claimed he's summoned a demon to the local Catholic church, to drive the congregation to suicide, presumably in retaliation for the priest's hilarious comments last week.

The priest "plans to report him to the police for practising witchcraft in a church." Because as we all know, there's a law against that. He said: "He should be reported to the police. It's as if someone came into your home and performed some sort of magic trick without your permission."

Who's that at the door?

...oh my god! Paul Daniels! What do you want?

What...what are you doing?

Get away! No, don't come in!

What are you doing with that top hat..? No...! You wouldn't! Not...not the rabbit! Anything but the rabbit! Nooooo!

Mary Midgley's Mistake About Darwinists

2009-10-05T11:51:00.003+01:00

Everyone will have by now seen the misleading essay by Midgley in the first edition of Varsity. I feel I should devote a little space to debunking its whiney and misleading conclusions.

1. Evolution does not rule out religion, as science and faith "need different conceptual tools" and "physical science does not deal in questions of meaning or value, so it naturally has nothing to say about the point or purpose of life."

This is another version of the 'non-overlapping magisteria' fallacy; an interesting subject, which is too long to go into in depth here. Essentially, just because science can't prove or disprove God's existence, or comment on the purpose of life, doesn't mean anything else can. If science can't comment, neither can anything else, since there exists no method to analyse the truth-value of claims made outside science's remit.

Science has produced no evidence that there is an intrinsic meaning to life - and there are no other sources to turn to but the human imagination. In other words, making shit up. Quite apart from claiming that "science has proved there is no such point or purpose", Dawkins is actually claiming that science has not brought one to light, and that with this option exhausted, there may as well not be one, for it will never be discovered with certainty.

2. "It is none too clear ... why they do not think that a belief in entities such as memes, or possibilities jousting in space before the dawn of time, is superstitious"

Perhaps because they're based on some evidence, and are not held with absolute faith as absolute and certain truths, despite the lack of conclusive evidence? They are recognised as mere hypotheses, probabilities based on the available evidence, not certainties.

3. Darwin "expressed a sense of disproportion - of the need to find other contributary causes" for evolution.

Well...not that I know of. Midgley certainly doesn't present any textual evidence for this odd claim. Even if she did, who is she to imply that Darwin (an agnostic) actually meant these additional mechanisms must be supernatural??

4. Modern science "make it plain that the workings of natural selection are not in the least like the model of 'blind chance' that is cited by modern neo-Darwinians."

Actually, "blind chance" is cited by modern creationists, as an (incorrect) rebuttal to evolution. For goodness' sake, woman, you work for the Bible Society and lecture on Philosophy: do you really feel qualified to correct a biologist of Dawkins' stature on his specialist subject?? This is a complete red herring.

5. "This passage mixes an officially impersonal, objective, scientific account with unbridled mythical melodrama to a very strange effect"

In the words of a fellow atheist, "that's called well written prose you moron!"

6. "The phrase 'pitiles indifference' only makes sense if it describes a conscious being who is capable of pity and fails to feel it when he ought to."

Well, Mary, there are these things called "metaphors" that the rest of us learned about in primary school...

"Like the constant talk of 'ruthless selfishness' in The Selfish Gene, this language builds a colourful picture of a callous, manipulative demon in whose hands humans are helpless."

Reading this, I have a hard time believing Midgley has actually read The Selfish Gene, which is actually about the evolution of altruism and charity... it's precisely about why selfish genes do not produce ruthlessly selfish animals. In the very next paragraph, she talks about "an unbalanced emphasis on the competitive, destructive side" as opposed to "co-operation", proving beyond all doubt that she has not done her research into Dawkins at all.

7. "blah blah...The Goldilocks Enigma...blah blah"

The fine tuning argument is one of the most ridiculous and easily discredited in the book (here, here, here).

Conclusion:
Did not do research. Clutching at straws (and straw men) to justify her personal theology. Meaningless rubbish.

Getting Away With Murder

2009-10-05T10:23:00.004+01:00

Faith and Healing are two words which do not belong in the same sentence. There has never been one confirmed case of faith healing anyone - it is, in fact, an impossibility. No matter how certain you are of [insert made-up religious belief here], that certainty is not going to make you any more likely to get better. In fact, rather than getting better because you're certain you will merely by the act of being certain (as I've explained before, faith and certainty are the same thing) you are more likely to get worse, and kill yourself or someone else.

Crazy beliefs kill - and let you get away with it.

The Followers of Christ church in Oregon City, Oregon, believes in faith healing, and surprise surprise, it's resulting in a lot of deaths. Mainly babies, and pregnant mothers. What is more shocking is that many of the deaths have excited little media interest, let alone criminal prosecutions.

Dr. Larry Lewman, a state official, issued a report about a string of deaths there in the 1990s - deaths which have continued to occur to the extent that they have been described as "routine".

“There were also during that period –- it wasn’t publicized much -– four perfectly healthy mothers, pregnant, who died during child birth from puerperal sepsis. That’s an infection that doesn’t even occur today,” Lewman said. “You read about it in the textbooks from the 1910s –- the pre-antibiotic era. None of these women should have died — three of their children died. It was all perfectly treatable, and they literally suffered for days.”

This is positively mediaeval - and it's happening in the supposedly advanced and educated west. The more faith one has, the more likely one is to kill someone. There is an undeniable relationship between faith and irrational and irresponsible behaviour. Yes, moderates, you're good people who quite often make rational decisions - but only because you don't take as many crazy things on faith. Christians in particular, it's because you ignore the bits in the bible about faith healing and moving mountains. And if one more person tries to tell me Jesus meant those bits metaphorically - pfah.

"King of witches will target the vulnerable" says local cult

2009-10-02T11:08:00.006+01:00

Magus Lynius Shadee, self-named King of All Witches, has announced he will open an occult centree in Cambridge by December 24. The shop and "surgery" will be open to the public and will offer exorcisms, physical research, paranormal phenomena, direct voice communication, manifestation of "ghosts" and witchcraft.

Mr Shadee told the Cambridge News: "I do not preach, I can prove it and any sceptic is more than welcome to join me, then they too will have a new born life."

Although the supernatural pretensions of Shadee (if that is your real name...) are bad enough, what is more hilarious is the reaction of another, longer established, pedlar of exorcisms, paranormal phenomena, ghosts, resurrection and magic: the Catholic Church.

Father David Paul of St Laurence's Roman Catholic Church in Milton Road, raised fears over the occultist's move on the city.

"Whilst it is obviously a load of nonsense it will appeal to people who are in distress or are vulnerable. It really is manipulation of people's fears and a complete fraud. People who go to these things often end up with mental problems. A lot of Cambridge University students come to the city and can be very vulnerable. This sort of thing may seem interesting but it is actually very seedy."

Pot and kettle, anyone? Creepy old men in robes whispering bizarre incantations in hope of communicating with an invisible spirit, waving incense around and encouraging cannibalistic rituals based on 'ancient lore'? No? You don't see any parallel?

How can he not see the irony of what he is saying?

(via Paul Wright)[bxA]

The best defense is...hang on a fricking minute!

2009-09-29T11:06:00.006+01:00

Yesterday, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN spoke briefly about the Catholic Church's child abuse problem.

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi ... defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% [1 in 20] of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.

At last count (2005) there were in excess of 406,411 Catholic priests in the world. With a quick bit of maths, that's only 20,320 abusive priests. And besides, the Jews and the Protestants are doing it too, so why should we keep picking on the Catholics?

It seems this "nobody ever talks about protestant paedophile priests" defence is one of the Pope's favourites. We don't hear about the protestant ones because they're an even rarer, and not endemic within their churches. The vast majority of protestant priests enter the priesthood to help people, not in order to escape their 'sinful' attraction to men/boys through a vow of celibacy, and many are married. And consequently not so frustrated they have to resort to clandestine kiddy fiddling.

Which isn't to say I'm letting protestants off the hook - their pastors are just as wrong when they abuse their authority and attack children. But pædophilia is endemic in the Catholic church, more than in any other denomination, and for many years the abusers were protected from justice by the Vatican (if indeed they aren't still...see recent Irish scandal). That's why we keep moaning about it.

There are some hilarious (?) apologists on the net for this issue. Today I found one citing a 1990's study which found that of 2,200 abusive priests "just one was a pedophile". So that's okay then.

Oh, Vatican, when will you learn?

(via MotherJones)

Homeopathy Kills

2009-09-28T16:26:00.002+01:00

In 2002, Gloria Sam, a mere 4-month old infant with a terrible and extreme form of eczma, died painfully, her body constantly covered in dry, cracked and peeling skin that oozed pus.

Her parents stood and watched her writhe, scream, and then die.

This condition was treatable with conventional medicine. Instead, Thomas and Manju Sam - well educated, well-off, without excuse - gave her homeopathic remedies. Then, as her condition deteriorated, they took her to India against doctors' orders.

It's taken until this week for the couple to be charged with manslaughter and sentenced to twenty-five years.

"What harm can it do?"? Quack medicine kills people. Homeopathy doesn't work, and has never worked. It makes no sense. It should be outlawed.

Let's be talking about molesting children

2009-09-26T22:17:00.003+01:00

I've just written a long post about the new law in Poland sentencing paedophiles to chemical castration. It was confusing and in many places factually incorrect, so I've withdrawn it.

I'd still like to point out that the age of consent in the Vatican City is twelve (12).

Things I've learned:
>not all people who have sex with minors are paedophiles. This is a distinction not accounted for in most legal systems, who convict consenting teenagers of child molestation (punishable in Poland by chemical castration...)
>paedophilia is positively identified as a natural sexuality. Not all paedophiles rape children, but the media's assertion that all paedophiles eventually will can sap their will to resist, and demolishes entirely any hope of the paedophile seeking therapy.

Uniquely in the spectrum of crime, child molesters need to be locked away, for as long as possible, for the protection of others, not for rehabilitation. You can't rehabilitate a child molester any more than you can make a straight person gay. It's regretable, but we can't have these people (and they are still people) in the community.

A good solution would be to place offenders in a secure facility after they complete their prison sentences, where they can live as normally as possible, but without any chance of temptation or reoffending. They aren't monsters, they aren't inhuman, they're just people in need of help.

Chemical castration does much the same thing, as it removes the sex drive. It probably makes the paedophile despondent, but then so would being a paedophile... I can't see any objections.

But boy, is this a difficult subject for a rationalist to navigate. I'm never going to speak of it again.

The Morality of Internet Piracy

2009-09-26T15:57:00.006+01:00

If I were to download videos or music from the internet without paying for them, I don't necessarily think that this breach of copyright should, or would, condemn me. In my specific situation, there are numerous reasons why it would be okay for me to "steal" certain music and films.

1. I have never bought many DVDs or CDs, even before I heard of internet piracy, so by downloading it I would not be depriving producers of any money whatsoever.

2. I would not sell on these pirated films or songs, so I would not be profiting from someone else's copyright

3. I would only download films that have been on the television, and music that's been on the radio. Why? Because it's essentially in the public domain once that happens. People have been videoing films off the telly and taping things off the radio for decades, since the first reel-to-reels came out. It would not be just or fair to convict those who use the internet, without also convicting those who use other media to "steal" music and films. And if you do that, you'd have to arrest pretty much everyone in the country.

Anyone who has ever used a VHS, reel-to-reel, tape recorder, or one of those newfangled boxes that allows you to pause, rewind, and record real-time TV is guilty of "piracy" and copyright infringement, as much as anyone with bittorrent.

4. I would make a point of only pirating films and music from people with more than two cars (i.e., an already above-average income). Consider it ninja-socialism.

5. Since the music and films are copies of the media and not an actual profit, nothing has actually been taken from the producer.

Policing this stuff is unfair and impractical. No country has the right to control what is going on on the internet, and while there's people, and music, and films ~~and romance, let's face the music, and dance~~ there will be piracy. And I guarantee the music and film industries will not suffer because of it. It may be forced to change, but it will always be there.

People still go to the cinema (where good films make most of their money). Bad films that go straight to video, don't get pirated. Independent films don't need the money (indeed the few instances of pirating of independent films recently - like The Man From Earth - have actually been praised by their creators for the publicity generated).

The only people who stand to lose out from this are Steven Spielberg's second emergency chauffer and the maid that cleans his golf balls.

Nearly made me snort coffee out of my nose...

2009-09-26T12:25:00.005+01:00

[bxA]

(via Pharyngula)

Just when you thought the Catholics couldn't get any worse...

2009-09-22T13:27:00.006+01:00

The Catholic church sold my child

requires no explanation... guaranteed to make you cry. (link now fixed)[bxA]

Why should we really live and let live? Meet the Apatheists

2009-09-22T12:57:00.007+01:00

Believe it or not, I do occasionally doubt my otherwise strong conviction that religion must be actively and outrageously questioned and mocked, to draw attention to horrors and ridiculousnesses that would otherwise go unnoticed by the mainstream.

But that is not because of any woory about the feelings of the religious - they will get over it, and for the most part the offence or boredom or upset they claim to take from it are just manipulative strategies to get me to stop telling them what they'd rather not hear.

It is because of one group: the apatheists.

When you hear that atheism is growing, it is not the minority sects of militant atheists like me and Richard Dawkins who are being talked about, it is the majority who simply recognise that religion has no bearing or relevence for their lives and ignore it without a second thought.

It is the apatheists who will bring about the new age of secularism, not us outspoken bloggers and authors, and they will achieve it through non-compliance and non-attendance and non-caring.

Had he found himself in the lunchtime queue at Aldi in Tottenham High Road, north London, today, Jesus might have been pleased with the selection of cheap wine on offer, if perhaps a little disheartened by the scarcity of those believing in his existence.

"I haven't got a clue about religion, it's not my thing," said Danny Edwards, an unemployed builder from Edmonton. "Load of rubbish."

Did he think the Church of England was too middle-class for its own good?
"How would I know? They can come and hand out leaflets here all they want, they are never, never, never going to get me into a church."
Colin Fox, clasping a loaf of sliced white bread and a carton of milk, said the church probably was a bit too middle-class, but he was most concerned about the "hypocrites" who took all the parking spaces in his street when there was a service at his local church.

In this part of north London, among the pawnbrokers and afro hair salons and pound stores, those who do confess to having a belief tend to be Roman Catholic or Pentecostal rather than Anglican.

Was the C of E out of touch? There were a lot of shrugs. [source]

You see, most people couldn't give a flying fuck whether Jesus came to save them from their sins. And despite churches' attempts to convert the masses, they haven't been winning for nearly a hundred years. Congregations are ageing, shrinking, losing touch with reality. There's a shortage of priests and a shortage of funds. Catholicism and others which have strong presences in third world countries, where the deprived need some kind of false hope to hang on to, are going to be around for a while, but Anglicanism is going to disappear within the next few hundred years.

Fairly soon, the UK, like Scandinavia, will be full of people who just don't think about religion. Let alone reject it. There is an inverse relationship between quality of life and religiosity, which will do most of our work for us.

Does this mean the militant, 'New' Atheists are not needed in the mean time? Unfortunately not. Although people seem to be doing a good job of secularisation on their own, simply by gaining an education in comparative religion and sex, and getting decent healthcare, we can speed up the process and prevent any backsliding by the population. Somebody needs to be there to counter the respectful tones of the traditional media towards religion.

When the BBC reports on the PM jetting to the Vatican, somebody has to point out the hypocrisy of such an action by a climate-change obsessed presbytarian. When the Pope begins some crackpot campaign to increase HIV tenfold in the third world, someone has to call him out on it and remind the first world why his arguments are worth nothing. When atheists are being sidelined and treated like untermensch, second class citizens, somebody has to stand up for our rights.

It doesn't have to be me; but I want to be a part of it. If you're an apatheist, please just ignore my posts; don't fight against them.

Yes, yes we are tedious. Now shut the f**k up.

2009-09-20T23:51:00.012+01:00

The telegraph carried a story today gleefully reporting how atheism will soon - quite literally - die out, as the religious continue to have huge numbers of children irresponsibly all over the place, while we remember to use birth control.

Of course, the strapline of the story is "statistics show that atheists are a dying breed"...but reading on we discover that this is the case only in Austria. Statistics do not show any such thing elsewhere; the story is a result of wishful thinking on the author's part. This is not a new idea (Foreign Policy ran it in 2006, with significantly better analysis than West's).

In fact, as has long been shown, Atheism and Islam are the only two faith systems that are currently growing (though this trend may change). Atheists are winning 8.5 million new converts annually. The key word being converts - not births. No major religion is expanding its share of the global population by conversion in any circumstances, much less educated democracy. Disbelief in the supernatural alone is able to achieve extraordinary rates of growth by voluntary conversion.

Islam, on the other hand, is growing because, as the Telegraph article astutely noticed, its proponents live in backward countries and are having lots and lots of unprotected sex.

Hinduism has stayed stable at a seventh of the world population, despite the dramatically increasing population of India (the fastest in the world). Christianity stayed stable at a third, and is now edging downwards.

Atheism is growing because it is the only belief system compatible with a truly modern outlook. Where there is liberty, democracy, and education, there you will find ever-increasing numbers of atheists, coming to their beliefs not from indoctrination by parents, but through learning. Birth rates are simply irrelevent to it. West treats atheism as if it's a genetically inherited disease, for goodness' sake.

It is not with Ed West's chip-shop science (based on conjecture, false assumptions and anecdotal evidence) that I am most pissed off, however. It is with his closing comment about the "tediousness" of New Atheists.

Personally I find the New Atheists’ anti-Christian aggression tedious: criticising people for their privately-held religious beliefs shows a lack of class and maturity,

Attacking privately held beliefs is exceedinly classy and mature - whatever some people may think. If we didn't attack privately-held beliefs, then nobody would be allowed to mock the BNP, let alone throw eggs at them. You would not even be able to mock the real Neo-nazis.

Sticking the word "religious" in front of a belief doesn't make it any more immune to criticism. It's an entirely arbitrary designation, an equivocal and all but meaningless term. One might define religious beliefs as making unfalsifiable claims about the nature of the universe, but this still doesn't make help. West says the magic words "privately-held" as if that somehow makes a belief beyond reproach.

I don't give a damn how emotionally invested you are in the idea; consideration for your feelings is not going to stop me calling you out on bullshit claims.

That said, I promise to stop mocking religious beliefs when those who hold them stop trying to act on them too. On the day all religious belief is actually "privately-held", as opposed to publicly shoved in my face, then I'll find something else to whine incessantly about.

And overuse of the word "tedious" in relation to atheists - the sheer pomposity of this repetitive ad hominem attack by those too scared or dimwitted to argue meaningfully with us - is really beginning to pee mee off.

besides which this sudden outpouring of bile against Christianity seems clearly motivated by a secret fear of another Abrahamic religion.

Nope, West, it's all damn three of you whiny, bomby bastards.

Support these Christians

2009-09-20T13:37:00.005+01:00

A Christian couple, Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, are being attacked by some muslims for disagreeing with their interpretation of history. They've been charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act – causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted, they face fines of £2,500 each and a criminal record.

All that Ben and Sharon did was debate with the muslim woman; the muslim (she isn't named in the article) questioned Jesus' messianic status, while the christians questioned Muhammed's prophetic status (calling him a "warlord" - actually a fairly accurate description).

There's no indication of any racial hatred or violence. This was simply a case of "who's got the best imaginary friend" - and freedom of expression.

The muslims are completely in the wrong here, and if they win this case against the Vogelenzangs it will be a bad day for anyone who wants to criticise anything anyone says. If anyone questioning Muhammed's infallibility can be charged with harrassment, then scientologists, neo-nazis, racists, pastafarians, jedi, crystal-magic new-agers, pagans, and atheists can all sue each other repeatedly.

Nothing is sacred. No idea or belief is beyond question or suspicion. Getting the couple arrested for mere words is both childish, unsustainable, and a breach of their human rights.

For once, the Mail has the right idea with this story:

The Public Order Act of 1986, invoked here, was specifically passed to control public processions and assemblies, to punish the stirring up of racial hatred and to bring peace to football grounds.

The Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, also involved, was similarly intended to prevent racial harassment.
First, Islam is not a race, but a religion – a set of ideas with which all are free to disagree. Secondly, the breakfast-room of a guest house, while not wholly private, is clearly not the sort of location the framers of the Public Order Act had in mind.

Keep an eye on this story and be prepared to come out on the side of Freedom of Expression if needs be. I have no intention of being opened up to lawsuits merely for expressing my thoughts.

Voodoo priest to bring magical bones to uk and chant menacingly

2009-09-18T13:11:00.005+01:00

FEAR THE VOODOO! A wacky priest is planning to bring some magic chicken bones to the UK and shake them at people while chanting in a menacing manner. Isn't this ridiculous? Magical bones! Can he be serious? Bones. With magic powers.

Oh. Wait. I got some details of that story mixed up. Apparently, the bones are magic, but they're not funny at all because they belong to Catholics and not Voodoo priests. The BBC and everyone else are treating this with a completely unwarranted respect.

Seriously, though, what is the difference between my hypothetical voodoo chicken bones, and the magical thigh-bone of St. Therese? Magical bones? Come on.

According to the BBC, the relics are thought to possess supernatural powers to promote reconciliation and were taken to Iraq; but it didn’t work.

Why am I not surprised?

Oh, that's right.

BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST BONES.

I hate to break it to you, but magic doesn't exist. Put the lady back in the ground and stop making me laugh.

We wouldn't demand seriousness and respect for ridiculous claims made by other crazy people, so why are Catholics so humoured? Not all beliefs demand automatic respect; Catholicism and the worship of magical bones, doubly so.

One more time: magical bones. Bwahahahaha.... XDDDDD