Archive for February, 2008
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Pakistan blocks YouTube website
Posted by: | CommentsHere we go again, the long dead and supposed prophet (if he ever existed) Mohammad, is once again at risk of being offended by content on YouTube.
Pakistan has reportedly blocked access to the YouTube site because it contains images depicting the Islam in a negative light. According to the BBC the reason it was blocked is because the Danish cartoons have resurfaced there.
Call to Pray Inside the Badshahi Mosque, Lahore, Punjab, PakistanOf course how can we see Islam in a positive light, when the first reaction by Pakistan’s leaders is to censor anything that may offend. This suggests that in Islam people are unable to exercise free choice (God given some would argue), to not visit the YouTube web site. This is the same for television programmes which I find offensive, where I exercise my free will and simply change the channel.
I suspect in Islamic states the last thing they want is anything like free choice, because this will inevitably lead to citizens choosing their own values to live by. Is the average Muslim citizen unable to make a judgement about what they do and do not find insulting?
One thing I take away from this little episode and that of the Danish cartoons is that Islam does not tolerate freedom of speech, and in my view is not compatible with any idea of a free society.
Even in the UK we aren’t entirely free to mock or criticise religion, because we currently have blasphemy laws on the statute books.
Obviously gratuitous insults are impolite and not desirable, but part of being a free society is learning how to deal with insult and verbal abuse. How do we judge what is insulting to one person isn’t insulting to another? For example, as an atheist I question the veracity of religious scriptures, or at least question if they should be taken literally. However someone who follows a particular religion may be offended by my lack of belief. So who’s freedom gets priority?
The religious would argue their view is the only correct one, but which religion? Buddhists are vegetarian, so does that make Muslims and Christians immoral? If I kill a cow, does that offend a Hindu? There are so many things that could offend, but being extreme in our views is not the way to make for a happier and more peaceful world. Tolerance, is the only way to achieve stability and peace.
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Pakistan blocks YouTube website
Congestion, Pollution, Motorists
Posted by: | CommentsI have just seen a news article on car sharing cameras, which I found quite curious and annoying. The idea being that we have special lanes for people who share a car with another.
I theory this is a good idea, but the problem falls down because the majority of people don’t punch in at 9am and punch out at 5pm every day.
My day starts at 8:00 – 08:30 and can finish at anything between 17:00 and 19:00 depending on demands of that particular day.
Who could I share my car with? I’m sure there is someone on my route with whom I could share, but do they want finish at the same time as me? I start quite early to avoid congestion.
Industrial PollutionWe could of course switch to public transport, but my problem is that it takes so long to get anywhere. For example, I can catch a train to the office in London, but it takes me two changes plus a trip along the underground. The underground journey itself is enough to put me off as people jab, poke and shove you in order to get where they want to go.
I have never seen a more degraded form of humanity than those that commute on London tube trains. They care nothing for others and it’s dog eat dog when it comes to getting your train to work.
So why not car share? Well as I said in my previous posting, working hours are mental. So many parents have to rush around and leave promptly to pick up their kids from child minders, drop little Johnny off to some club, or get to parents evening. I can’t speak for the majority of people but I couldn’t consider car sharing because I am continually doing a careful balancing act between my working hours and the demands of family life. In my job I have to be able to react to an emergency which means staying an extra hour or two. The factory whistle doesn’t blow a la Fred Flintstone for me, and if I am home at the same time two nights in a row it is quite amazing.
This latest ideas about car sharing, pollution zones, and congestion charging seems to be just another way to punish the average person trying to get to work.
The way I see it this car sharing idea will be great for working parents in their 4×4’s who are dropping their kiddies and their exclusive schools. However my kids walk to school, my wife walks to work, and I have to drive to work. Yet I am the one who will be punished, not the real polluters.
Please don’t misunderstand, I want to reduce my carbon footprint, but not at the expense of my family life.
I’d dearly love to upgrade my car to something more environmentally friendly but it isn’t easy to find a hybrid or something similar that meets the needs of my family.
I currently drive 1.4 Seat Leon (Petrol), and to quote parkers
Leon is an environmentally friendly choice for green buyers. With an average of 170 g/km CO2 across the range, its emissions are quite low for a small family hatchback. However, it’s worth noting that the line up has a high number of diesel models, bringing the average down and giving buyers more choices of low-emission versions. Diesels typically produce less CO2 than petrol engines with similar power outputs. Eco-conscious buyers should consider the 1.9-litre diesel, which is one of the greenest models in the range. The range is also fairly economical, averaging 43 mpg.
I want to be environmentally friendly but I am so sick of being punished for trying to earn a living, and get to my job. I want some serious alternatives, not new ways in which the government can steal my cash in the guise of “being green”.
Pull the other one it’s got bells on it.
What’s Wrong with Society?
Posted by: | CommentsMe and Dad were watching the politics show today listening to how young people were being corrupted by drink. Well, that started us both on the rant of all rants about what is wrong with society.
Family Guy- Let’s Go DrinkAfter working it through we decided there are some major issues with society, mainly the hours people work. Husbands and wives spend so little time together, they drift apart. In relationships with children, the children are essentially abandoned because parents have to work long hours just to meet the aspirational requirements of our society. The old “Last car in the car park culture” wins out in the workplace again.
Children once abandoned then roam the streets looking for cheap booze, drugs, and sex, while the tired out adults look for the sedative effects of more highly priced alcohol.
I personally don’t blame alcohol, it is our working culture that drives us all to drink. Children use it to cut lose and help sedate real feelings of abandonment, and adults use it do sedate away the stresses of the modern workplace.
I can freely admit that I have used alcohol to alleviate work related stress. I’m just more honest about it than the rest of the population at large. It’s more acceptable when we have a glass of wine, or beer to “unwind”, but if we started more correctly saying, a glass of wine or beer to sedate, how comfortable would that feel?
Many other countries don’t seem to have this binge drinking culture, and I don’t think it has anything to do with licensing laws. It is simply the family life and work balance that is wrong. While many employers talk about work/life balance, how many proactively make sure their employees get one. Many employees feel threatened if they try to leave the office at 5pm, because it’s seen as skiving, or being lazy. It doesn’t matter if they started 8am, its the perception of leaving work early.
Would the economy grind to a halt if everyone left the office at 5pm on the dot? For that matter would the economy grind to a halt if everyone left work at 4:30? If people spent more time enjoying their family life, their spouses and children, would they have the time to drink so much? If the working day was shorter and we had more days off, would we be so inclined to take a sip of liquor?
The politicians sit in their ivory towers swilling back their brandy and wine, the same as us all. Perhaps if they took time to see the bigger picture they’d realise it is our work and family culture that is at the root of our drinking, and not some mystery madness that has possessed the nation.
The politicians look to ASBO’s, more police, harsher sentencing guidelines to solve the issue. However they’re only dealing with the outcome and not the root cause. If parents are too knackered parent then it effects everything.
I love my job, but I wouldn’t love it any less if I had to work fewer hours, and got to spend more time with my family. I’m lucky that my wife is home a lot and doesn’t have to work full time. However I have often thought as I’ve progressed my career, what is the price to be paid for my success? Is it really a success if I have to sacrifice my family for it?
These are the challenges the government should be addressing.
Voice of the People
Posted by: | CommentsI had an email from the government today, informing me that a petition I’d signed had now closed. The petition was to:
Abolish all faith schools and prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology in all UK schools.
Which is something America has got right in my view. However this is not the point I wish to make.
Baby With Megaphone Making AnnouncementIn all my correspondence with government offices, my MP, and through petitioning the government I have learned one thing. They don’t give a rats arse what you want, and they don’t have care about what you think or want.
On the occasions, I have written to my MP asking him to support various early day motions or amendments to bills, he has usually disagreed with my views. There is the sting, because the elected member of Parliament doesn’t have to agree with you. He can ignore you completely, and unless you have significant support in terms of voter numbers, chances are your lone voice won’t carry any sway.
The government officers I have dealt with have been nothing short of condescending when I have challenged them over faith schools.
However it doesn’t mean everything is bad. My local councillor was extremely responsive to my concerns and really did listen to what I had to say. He also provided useful contacts should I have had the need to further my enquiries.
So in terms of having a voice my view is that we are heard much more at a local level than an national level.
I suppose its difficult to please all the people all the time, and it must be hard for politicians to try and strike a balance.
So just be aware, that if you want something from your government, then the only place you really stand a chance of influencing them is in the polling booth on election day.
Alternatively you can always run for government yourself.
Evolution or Design
Posted by: | CommentsHaving listened to a very engaging talk on Darwin yesterday, it would seem that creationists and the ID movement are using the anniversary of Darwin’s birth to promote claims of intelligent design.
An article from Yahoo News on the weekend highlights the campaign which seeks to pervade our British school system with the creation myth as scientific fact.
In comparative RE creation myths of all religious groups could be openly discussed, including the idea of intelligent design. However I cannot see any justification for any form of creation/design theory in science class.
The usual response from creationists I have come across suggests that we are somehow a completely random event. However we are not, and the idea of evolution by natural selection is not the same thing as randomness. People often use the term survival of the fittest, which while closer isn’t what Darwin was on about at all. Evolution describes subtle changes in the species which over a vast amounts of time may or may not be advantageous to survival. It is not random in the sense that the equation is; environment, combined with mutation, which gives rise to the survival of the species.
I am not going to explain the theory of evolution by natural selection in this article. Dawkins does a far better job of explaining Darwin’s theory. Modern scientific techniques support this theory through evidence.
While many religious factions seek to impose creationism in the classroom, I do not see them arguing the case scientifically through experiments. If ID or creationism is so compelling surely it’s study would only bring us closer to having evidence of God? As someone of secular beliefs, I have never seen any compelling evidence for the existence of God. However what is different about my belief is that, should the evidence for God ever be presented and it is irrefutable then I would freely acknowledge this as being truth. I am not waiting with baited breath.
The design/creationist movement, simply cannot back up their arguments with any compelling evidence. When they cannot produce any evidence they faithfully fall back on the good old, “just because” arguments. They are constant in their faith, and nothing will change their mind. Indoctrination has robbed them of free thought, and I daresay free will.
This movement of creationism seeks to get their half baked theories into schools, because they cannot reason a sensible case with grown up scientists. So their aim: To deceitfully try to create future generations of creationists, and further their own religious ends.
This is a bone chilling vision of the future, which begs the question:
If they succeed at quashing evolution what next? Medical science? Genetics? I personally feel threatened by these religious people, because they want to take away free thought and free choice and replace it with religious doctrine, and they are doing it with such slight of hand that we will wake up one day to find we are governed not by elected officials, but unelected religious leaders.
So I will conclude this posting with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, when I say that “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.“
I Quit!
Posted by: | CommentsI wrote about this before, but I have decided not to drink any more. I don’t mean for a week or a month, but actually stop drinking altogether.
What??!!! I hear you cry with incredulity, stop drinking altogether! The other day I caught a TV programme which showed Alcohol as being one of those drugs that is as bad as cocaine, ecstasy and all kinds of other narcotics.
Vintage CabernetAlcohol has many detrimental effects, and while there are some health benefits, I’m dubious about just how big an impact we’re talking about.
Reflecting on the whole issue, I do not think drinking is sociable. I personally drink at home, usually alone. Julie hardly ever drinks, and so I can easily polish off a bottle of wine myself. In fact I probably drink less when I go out than when I am at home.
Alcohol dehydrates me, it ruins my sleep pattern, and in large amounts makes me sick.
The important thing is that I haven’t made this decision after a heavy drinking session on the town, and suffering a massive hangover. I’ve made the decision in the cold hard light of day.
I’m not sure I like the feeling of being out of control, although the relaxing effect is quite nice. Of course the effect of alcohol is to stimulate the pleasure centre in the brain, so it’s not a real form of relaxation.
There is also the cost of Alcohol, which isn’t cheap, so by not drinking I will save a bit of money.
I’m not going to get all self righteous about it though, I’m only doing this for my own benefit. I knew a guy that didn’t drink, and he never seemed worried about it.
Maybe I’m getting old, but drinking feels wrong. I wonder what is wrong with me, that I can’t go out and have fun without getting drunk. Perhaps people use drink because they can go out, and make a fool of themselves then not have to worry about the embarrassment of the previous night. I myself have woken up not remembering my crazy drunken antics from the night before. I’ve also had some moments I’m not too proud about.
What I want for myself is to re-learn how to have a good time on my own without the old social lubricant. The challenge for me is how to be socially interesting without being an alcohol induced idiot.
So it will be interesting to see what will come as a result of the change. Julie would argue I don’t drink that much, which is true, but I use alcohol for the wrong reasons, and I just can’t find any good ones.
Rowan Williams, stop talking bollocks!
Posted by: | CommentsOh yes the arch bish is at it again, talking complete and utter shit. I can’t believe he suggesting we introduce Sharia law in the UK! How on Earth does he imagine this would be remotely compatible with democracy and human rights?
By proposing aspects of Sharia law be adopted in the UK he’s effectively saying: women are worth less than men, it’s ok to stone people to death for adultery, and also chop of limbs for crimes like theft. Perhaps Rowan Williams should clarify his thinking on this, so we can understand why he thinks introducing a barbaric form of law in this country would be beneficial? If you give any credence to Sharia law you give credence to all these atrocities.
With the Teddy called Mohammed so recent in our minds, and the now the Afghan journalist and his impending execution for reading about women’s’ rights, what sort of path does he think we’d be going down.
Sharia law is anachronistic, based on a mythology, not reason and fairness. Our laws should be fair, equal and secular, favouring none ensuring all people are treated the same under law. Anything else is dangerous and despite Rowan Williams delusional comments I am given to understand that moderate Muslims do not agree with him.
We are not a Muslim state and it’s bad enough being a Christian state. Rowan Williams has simply served to stir up more ill feeling from the Daily Mail readers against the Muslim community.
I was even more surprised to find my usual opponents Gordon Brown and Mark Pritchard come out an speak against the Arch Bishop as well.
Rowan, go back to your cream teas and church fetes. Leave governing and law making to the people we actually elected!
BHA/NSS Plea to Scouts
Posted by: | CommentsI was reading the recent news pages of the British Humanist Association and came across a document asking the Scout Association to reconsider its discriminatory policy against atheists. The submission is very well worded, and a well argued case. However as an atheist I question if this is a valuable use of BHA/NSS time.
Discrimination is unacceptable, and I do not support the Scout Association in its view of the non-religious. Their attitude to atheists is insulting and unacceptable in the 21st century.
So what is the alternative to people that wish to help our youth in a positive and fully inclusive way if the Scouts won’t change their position? This question puzzled me a bit, and so I did a Google of youth organisations. I quickly found a directory of organisations that do not require adherence to a religion of any kind. A site called YouthInformation.com provides information on all kinds of youth groups both religious and non-religious.
I soon found a group from my own youth; Clubs for Young People (formerly National Association of Boys’ Clubs). I went to a youth club when I was around 8-10 years old, and probably it bit older. Thinking back to those days I had a really positive experience. Table tennis, pool, and a snack shop were all available. In the summer time got out trampolines, as well as doing a treasure hunt around the village. I didn’t realise it at the time but this helped me develop my social skills, and learn how to be part of the wider community. Team sports, friendly competition are all important and positive in a young person’s life.
So my view is that the scouts can carry on as they are, and my plea to Humanists and Secularists is that we focus our energies in supporting fully inclusive youth groups, instead of banging our head against a wall with the scouts. The scouts are simply showing themselves to be anachronistic and increasingly irrelevant in the 21st century, and their inability to adapt will be their demise.
