Archive for POLITICS
Pope to visit UK in 2010
Posted by: | Comments
Protest against the vatican
Several days ago the BBC reported (along with many other news agencies) that Pope Benedict has been invited to the UK on a state visit.
So lets ask the question. Is Pope Benedict someone we want honoured by a state visit to the UK?
My personal view on this is that the Pope should not be honoured in such a way. This has nothing to do with the fact he’s head of the Catholic Church. It is quite simply inconsistent with the way we have responded to other radicals.
Let us take the case of Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP. He dared to describe the Koran as a “fascist book” and wanted to enter the UK to show a film depicting Islam in a negative light. Whatever my personal view on his comments, he was excluded from the UK on “Secuirty grounds”, and perhaps rightly so?
Pope Benedict made equally inflamatory comments at his Christmas address where he likened homosexuals and trans-gender people to be as big a problem as global warming. We could continue to talk about the abuse of many childen at the hands of this organisation he represents, and that same organisation failed to take action to protect these children. It also continues to fail in meeting is obligations in the UN.
So when you look at it this way is the Pope any better or worse than our Dutch MP? How many angry people from the LGBT community will it take before the papal visit becomes a security concern? Well of course there isn’t a security concern from the LGBT community because they don’t go around burning effigies and making threats of violence like some of the extreme Islamic groups in our country. Therefore he will have his state visit virtually unchallenged.
I’d suggest you fill in the online petition but this too is unlikely to make any difference. However I signed it anyway.
So I’m going to sit back and just accept that it will happen and watch the moral fibre of our nation be flushed down the toilet.
I’m sure many Catholics (and other Christians) will be offended by these comments, but not as offended as I am about a man who lives in a palace and preaches to us about greed.
My only message here is to Gordon Brown…NOT in my name.
Welcome back America
Posted by: | Comments
Barak Obama
With the inauguration of the new President Barak Obama we see the return of the America which we can call friend.
Almost immediately President Obama has take steps turn the United States back into a free and democratic society. The USA has been engaged in behaviours that are not in keeping with that tradition of freedom and democracy, such as the detention of prisoners in Guantanamo bay.
President Obama has also demonstrated that he is a man who believes setting and good example, and taking personal accountability to be important aspects to his character and that of the nation he leads. By capping the pay of politicians, he shows he truly recognises the difficult economic circumstances that affect Joe public.
I’ve only been to the United States a couple of times during the Bush administration, and I have to confess, I felt a huge unease. Any state which can decide to imprison people, and hold them beyond the reach of law and justices is questionable at best. The patriot act being an example of how civil liberties were eroded under the Bush administration, a response to the fear generated by the atrocities of 9/11.
When Barack Obama was elected, it felt like a black cloud had lifted, and I personally felt a massive relief. The fact that Barack is the first black president is shadowed by the kind of values he demonstrated. In his inaugural speech, I was very impressed that he recognised that those with no religion had equal rights and standing in society as those of faith.
I look forward to seeing the new president tested and to see how strongly his values hold in the climate of fear and economic instability.
YES WE CAN!
Posted by: | Comments
So Barack Obama president elect is now waiting to build his team for the White House in January next year. He’s received widespread congratulations from his closest friends to his most bitter political rivals.
What does this mean for the American people, and the rest of the world? He seems quite liberal, and verges on having a socialist view, wishing to help the poorer elements of American society. If I was an American in New Orleans I’d have felt very let down by the Bush administration, and he didn’t win much popular support for the war in Iraq.
Barack Obama has the chance now to be a positive force for true change in America, and start changing their society toward a more progressive an open society. It is my hope that he will embrace the views of all, the white people, the black people, the women, the men, the young, the old, the religious, and the humanists.
It is a time of great anticipation for America, because it’s like having an amazing gift given you, only to be told you can’t have it just yet.
Human Greed?
Posted by: | Comments
In an article in The Times today Rowan Williams has blamed "Human greed" for the current financial crisis.
In some ways I don’t disagree with him as there is certainly some form of behavioural psychology at work. However I do not agree that being greedy on its own is bad, it is the consequences of greed which are bad.
I could be greedy, but act in a totally ethical way in order to obtain all that I desire. Greed is simply an expression of desire, be it a desire for money or a desire to help our fellow man. One could argue that Christianity is greedy because they want to get as many worshippers as possible.
I don’t suppose these "Greedy" people in the banks thought for one minute that they’d like to orchestrate a global economic collapse. Who wakes up in the morning and says, "I know I think I’ll screw up the economy today".
So it is very glib of Dr Williams to boil our economic problems down to pure greed. These so called greedy people have probably been stupid, selfish, or ignorant, but if you take away all the subjective labels it becomes clearer. It is ultimately their actions which resulted in the outcome, not their greed. The way their greed manifested itself was the cause, not the desire (or greed) itself.
However what surprises me most is that Dr Williams is once again trying to convince us that Islamic Sharia law has the answers to all our problems.
I often fantasise about the world of Star Trek where everyone wants for nothing and nobody uses money any more. This is along way from the real world, and whilst the current situation is not very palatable, it is simply another step in our economic evolution.
It is my hope that one day the economics of the distant future will be quite different, and we can devote ourselves to the enrichment of our lives through the pursuit of art and knowledge.
So let me suggest to Dr Williams we look forward to the future and not hark to medieval concepts that have no place in modern society.
BBC NEWS | ‘No decision’ on giant database
Posted by: | CommentsOur government seem to be toying with the idea of creating a huge database which contains records of all my phone, and email records. I strongly suspect this has much to do with the “War on terror”, and quite honestly is starting to sound like a familiar story. Except of course that Hitler, used communists to stir up the masses.
Even if the government does pursue this route I strongly suspect that it will be challenged because it would fall into conflict with the right to privacy. My first question as a law abiding citizen is what exactly does the government think it’s going to do with my data? Will it go looking to see if I’ve dialled a sex line, or perhaps if I’ve emailed a loved one about something going on at work?
I also question how useful all this mass of data will be, due to the fact we now have so much CCTV everywhere that when a crime is committed it takes police weeks if not months to search through all of it. In some places the CCTV even records your conversations.
Personally I do not trust this government at all with any of my personal data. If they can lose secret military data so easily (as we found out this week), then I don’t believe that they will use my data with care and respect. In fact this government acts with great arrogance, assuming that my personal data is their property. What arrogant presumption on the part of these people, how dare they assume my data is a commodity that they can use and abuse as they see fit.
I can see why they’ve taken a step back to think about this, because this is a step too far, having all my phone calls monitored and emails recorded. I didn’t like it when the RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) legislation was introduced, giving enormous powers to agencies to get my data from ISP’s and phone companies.
This is a clear harassment of the majority and an attack on personal liberty and privacy. So if this database comes into effect, all I can say is the terrorists have won. They’ve won because we’ll be living in a society where nobody trusts anyone, and the government feels it necessary to monitor the activities of all its citizens.
Does this sound the Great Britain we can be proud of?
Ministers ‘ignoring Church role’
Posted by: | CommentsAccording to the BBC, the government only pays ‘lip service’ to the Church of England. So let us look at the evidence behind this. Umm…. 26 Bishops who sit in the House of Lords, bishops on the news every other week, thought for the day, songs of praise, faith slots here there and everywhere on the BBC. Oh and lets not forget the church indoctrination that goes on in all those faith schools (and community schools).
Forgive me if I don’t feel a great swell of sympathy for the state religion being ignored by ministers.
Quite honestly it is about time religion stopped sticking its nose into politics. Hazel Blears talks of listening to the “Christian majority” but even the last census (as well as church statistics) show this to be utter nonsense.
“God is dead”, to quote Nietzsche, so let him rest in peace, and once and for all disestablish the church. The state should be secular, it’s only because the religions keep saying secular like it’s a dirty word that people think secularisation of the state is a bad thing. Look at France! hundreds of years of culture and progress, and all in the remit of a secular state.. Secular means a free and fair society for all despite their religious or non-religious philosophical views.
So I say shut your yap, bishop Lowe, because it is utterly false to claim you don’t want to influence political decisions, yet want ministers to listen to you. Why else would you want ministers to pay more attention to you? A nice chat and cup of tea perhaps?
We all know the church has its own political agenda, and given half a chance would seek to reassert itself as it did in bygone days, that are best left bygone. The recent controversy on stem cell research only serves to illustrate this point.
As for churches being contracted to provide social services, well we only have to see how that turned for employees of the Christian charity prospects.
So Bishop Lowe, I say this. I don’t want ministers listening to you, I want them governing for the benefit of all British people NOT your church!
BBC News Online | Politics | Ministers ‘ignoring Church role’
Ministers ‘ignoring Church role’
Posted by: | CommentsAccording to the BBC, the government only pays ‘lip service’ to the Church of England. So let us look at the evidence behind this. Umm…. 26 Bishops who sit in the House of Lords, bishops on the news every other week, thought for the day, songs of praise, faith slots here there and everywhere on the BBC. Oh and lets not forget the church indoctrination that goes on in all those faith schools (and community schools).
Forgive me if I don’t feel a great swell of sympathy for the state religion being ignored by ministers. Quite honestly it is about time religion stopped sticking its nose into politics. Hazel Blears talks of listening to the “Christian majority” but even the last census (as well as church statistics) show this to be utter nonsense.
“God is dead”, to quote Nietzsche, so let him rest in peace, and once and for all disestablish the church. The state should be secular, it’s only because the religions keep saying secular like it’s a dirty word that people think secularisation of the state is a bad thing. Look at France! hundreds of years of culture and progress, and all in the remit of a secular state.. Secular means a free and fair society for all despite their religious or non-religious philosophical views.
So I say shut your yap, bishop Lowe, because it is utterly false to claim you don’t want to influence political decisions, yet want ministers to listen to you. Why else would you want ministers to pay more attention to you? A nice chat and cup of tea perhaps?
We all know the church has its own political agenda, and given half a chance would seek to reassert itself as it did in bygone days, that are best left bygone. The recent controversy on stem cell research only serves to illustrate this point.
As for churches being contracted to provide social services, well we only have to see how that turned for employees of the Christian charity prospects.
So Bishop Lowe, I say this. I don’t want ministers listening to you, I want them governing for the benefit of all British people NOT your church!
BBC News Online | Politics | Ministers ‘ignoring Church role’
More religious nonsense in public life
Posted by: | CommentsI saw this article on the BBC News web site and I have to say I am growing increased fed up with these religious people crying foul all the time.
Now Christian registrars don’t want to perform civil partnerships. Well here’s my argument, by it’s definition it isn’t marriage, it isn’t religious so shut up and get on the with job you’re paid (£31k) to do. Technically the registrar isn’t marrying the pair, they are overseeing the commitment to a civil partnership, effectively a contractual agreement.
I get quite cross when I hear these pitiful arguments that just because they believe in some mythical/imaginary figure in the sky they should be allowed to treat people unfairly.
Imagine if the person was a racist and not a Christian, would they be allowed to refuse to marry black people because on grounds of conscience. Of course NOT! They’d be sacked for discrimination.
I argue this again and again, if your religion means you cannot fulfil the requirements of your job function, bog off and find another job. Or in this case join the clergy and conduct religious weddings, on heterosexuals only.
Discrimination of this kind shouldn’t be accepted any more. I wonder how it work if I turned up to work one day saying that I couldn’t help a customer because they were Christian and I was an atheist, consequently I only wanted to serve atheist customers. Ummm…. I think I might be fired from my job and rightly so. Fortunately I treat people equally and fairly regardless of their faith or belief.
BBC NEWS | England | London | Registrars ‘in fear’ over beliefs
BBC NEWS | Education | Call to offer faith class choice
Posted by: | CommentsThe NUT clearly has gone NUTS! This BBC report from the NUT conference explains how they are proposing introducing religious instruction from different faiths into our classrooms.
So let me echo the thoughts from Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society, by saying NO RELIGION IN SCHOOL. I have no problem with children studying comparative religion from a sociological and historical perspective. However religious worship and religious instruction has no place in education.
Church of England Confirmation
For parents who wish their children to be taught about their faith they can take them to a local place of worship. It is not for the British tax payers support the teaching for sky fairies and invisible pink unicorns in school.
Why oh why is this so difficult? Go to a temple for religion, go to a school for education. My son is already withdrawn from religious worship at school, and segregated from his class. It is outrageous in modern British society that we have to put up with this nonsense and it makes my blood boil. There is no rational purpose to this, and it is totally unacceptable.
The proponents of these ideas would argue its not about indoctrination, however that is a clear and obvious falsehood. Religious instruction is entirely about teaching doctrine, and to claim otherwise is misleading.
Thinking back to my previous debate about “Faith in the System” with a representative from the Department of Schools Children and Families I know that any protests I make will only fall on condescending ears.
What about parents who don’t want their children taught these lies of the sky fairy in school? Segregation, the one and only option.
Why is it that government and schools bend over backwards to be politically correct when it comes to faith? Yet humanist families are subjected to this nonsense and told not to complain, or that we are somehow militant atheists because we don’t want our children to be force fed this horse shit.
There used to be a time where I could agree to disagree with the religious viewpoint, but I am fast losing patience and tolerance for those who seek to clearly impose their values on me.
I am grateful to the BBC for highlighting this as it has confirmed my need to keep my subscriptions and donations to the NSS and BHA up to date.
Cyclists battle for road survival
Posted by: | CommentsDavid Cameron was recently filmed by the national press running a red light whilst out cycling. This in direct contraction to the highway code, is clearly not acceptable behaviour from a politician, however his behaviour is sadly not that uncommon.
I like cycling and I have found myself dismayed at how cars treat cyclists, as though they have no right to be on the road. Many times I’ve had cars come so close when passing me that I’ve almost been driven off the road.
Bicycle Racers in MotionMany cyclists are also irresponsible though, and I have seen cyclists who have run red lights at pedestrian crossings, particularly in London. Me and another man walking along the embankment in London were almost hit by a cyclist who ran a red light as we crossed the road.
More recently after dropping my car off for a service I was walking back home only to find my gentle stroll along the path was causing some annoyance to a cyclist using the footpath instead of the road.
I always try my best to follow the rules of the road, however there are occasions where I have found signposts for cycle paths to be confusing, and sometimes pedestrians walk in the cycle paths without looking where they’re going.
I often wonder if there should not be a compulsory basic training course for cyclists who wish to use the road and a license issued when they have completed the course.
The other thing that never ceases to amaze me about cyclists is the parents I see out with young kids who don’t wear helmets. The kids are usually padded up to their ears with safety equipment, but these parents somehow think because they’re older they’re indestructible. I always wear correct safety equipment when cycling and ensure my bike is in good working order.
David Cameron along with many other cyclists, need to wake up and realise that they are putting their own safety along with that other people at risk by doing stupid dumb stuff when out on the roads.
