Recently, a study into the religious composition of the American population has been released. Predictably, 78.4% of the people claim that it's still 'In G-d We Trust', the Christian one in particular. The statistics also indicated that you have just under a 1-in-50 chance of bumping into a Jew. And 0.1% more chance of sharing a lift with a Buddhist at 0.7% of the population than sharing with a Muslim at 0.6%, the jury is still out on the odds of going to the same floor, however. But what I find alarming, is that there is less than a 3-in-50 chance of meeting an atheist. In one of the most developed and educated nations in the world, less than 6 in every 100 people have worked out that religion is more trouble than it is worth.
What I find scary, is that the overwhelming majority of a global superpower think a man who provided a rather large, but otherwise somewhat lacking in variety, buffet of fish sandwiches and wine, is going to come back from the dead and save us all from a horned man underground. Even if a higher power did exist, I doubt his rep on earth would be quite so plain. Jesus' modern day equivalent would probably be an accountant from Slough called Alan. If you want to blame global warming on someone, start with Jesus. He has inspired the biggest waste of paper in the form of Jehovah's Witness leaflets known to man- that's what has done it, not those delightfully comfortable 4x4s.
So why is religion still fairly popular? Well, I think it's rather like a multivitamin. It tends to nourish the supposedly 'spiritual' aspects of our humanity that are vital for a healthy, balanced individual. But like multivitamins, its far cheaper and better to already have it in your diet without the need to 'pill pop'. I think that religion, especially when drummed into us from birth, is a familiar and easy substitute for things such as intellectual stimulation or cerebral creativity. It's far easier to chew over the supposedly deep and holy meanings of fables and prayers than actually take a challenging and introspective look at your own thoughts and emotions. I know I'd rather discuss how I actually feel about things rather than what some 'supreme being' has decided I should already be thinking. Most people would give a one finger salute to interfering busy bodies who try to tell you what to do, why should G-d be any different? Because he can damn you eternally for disagreeing? Its a reason I guess but as it isn't true I shouldn't get too worried.
I think it is about time that society begins to realise that their are productive alternatives to the fairy stories and magic spells that religions promise. It gets very tiring to constantly hear of people racked with guilt or acting against their entirely natural instincts because of what someone graffitied onto a rock once upon a time. Some might say without religion society is doomed, but as most religions hijack general humanitarian principles and claim them as their own anyway, that is highly unlikely. Like jumping into the deep end as a child, its terrifying before the plunge, but after you can have a lot more fun.
Religion may have helped when humans did not understand all that much, maybe we did need our hand holding by G-d back then. But now we must stand on our own two feet and start looking after our secular modernity and scientific infants. Its time we took the plunge and left future generations a trust fund of knowledge and progress not confusing bedtime stories.
10.2.08
Why the Arch Bishop is particularly dangerous.
Firstly I would like to compliment the Arch Bishop of Canterbury on some of his rather more intelligent observations, regarding Sharia law. He recognised the fact that Sharia law is derived from Islamic scriptures through interpretations by Islamic clergy, or indeed anyone who may find themselves in a position, requiring such views. The fact is that Sharia law varies from interpreter to interpreter, whether people recognise an interpretation as valid is a different matter. All too often people assume that Sharia law is one single set of rules that are harsh, intolerant and misogynistic. There might be a case to argue that, but again this is a different matter and greatly subjective. The key thing to note is that, even trying to define Sharia law is very very difficult, if not impossible to arrive at a set of universally agreed upon rules.
I do, however, have a few issues regarding his other comments. Primarily, his idea that there should be an adoption of Sharia law into the British legal systems. It is my opinion that our legal systems should demonstrate sensitivity and intelligent understanding of religions. However, as much as is possible, the legal system should be secular and not lean in favour of any one religion. Clearly, the adoption of Sharia law goes completely against this concept. Agreed, there are key concepts shared regarding murder and theft but after that, the rest of the law should be as secular as can be managed. This is key to ensuring that the law does not discriminate or treat people unequally. It is a simple concept, if you live in Britain, you live under secular British laws.
Some argue that Muslims should be allowed to live under their own laws. I do not think this is a possibility. You cannot have one rule for one group and other rules for other groups. The 'group' we belong to is the British group and by definition one is not exempt from the rules. This may upset alot of people, that is unfortunate but a problem for them to deal with. They could go to another country where they prefer the laws. Although, I would suggest that those who are dissatisfied with the current system change it through the open and democratic processes available. Even now, people can use arbitration via religious courts, as a way of settling lesser civil or commercial matters. To me, this should be about the legal limit of differentiation allowed within the law. Any further attempts to extend religion into our legal system would be a dangerous move indeed. These semi-courts should be a satisfactory way of dealing with day to day matters. The more serious disputes must enter the secular courts regardless of the choice by participants, that way, the truly important cases can be dealt with fairly.
I cannot help but feel, that the Arch Bishop might be trying to give religions, including his own, far more involvement in the law by describing it as an inevitable necessity that aspects of them should be adopted into legal systems. It has taken our country a long time to remove the powerful and sometimes controlling influence of religious institutions over the law. We still have a long way to go. I think it is time that people explain to men such as the Arch Bishop, that religion has no business interfering with the state or the legal systems.
We must make clear, that people's culture and religious institutions are afforded protections under a democracy, as long as they are not harmful to the rest of society. But the days are long gone when Church and State were intertwined. Civil harmony is only possible under secular laws. Within limits, we must accommodate religion within the context of the law but instigating religious law is to be avoided at all costs.
I do, however, have a few issues regarding his other comments. Primarily, his idea that there should be an adoption of Sharia law into the British legal systems. It is my opinion that our legal systems should demonstrate sensitivity and intelligent understanding of religions. However, as much as is possible, the legal system should be secular and not lean in favour of any one religion. Clearly, the adoption of Sharia law goes completely against this concept. Agreed, there are key concepts shared regarding murder and theft but after that, the rest of the law should be as secular as can be managed. This is key to ensuring that the law does not discriminate or treat people unequally. It is a simple concept, if you live in Britain, you live under secular British laws.
Some argue that Muslims should be allowed to live under their own laws. I do not think this is a possibility. You cannot have one rule for one group and other rules for other groups. The 'group' we belong to is the British group and by definition one is not exempt from the rules. This may upset alot of people, that is unfortunate but a problem for them to deal with. They could go to another country where they prefer the laws. Although, I would suggest that those who are dissatisfied with the current system change it through the open and democratic processes available. Even now, people can use arbitration via religious courts, as a way of settling lesser civil or commercial matters. To me, this should be about the legal limit of differentiation allowed within the law. Any further attempts to extend religion into our legal system would be a dangerous move indeed. These semi-courts should be a satisfactory way of dealing with day to day matters. The more serious disputes must enter the secular courts regardless of the choice by participants, that way, the truly important cases can be dealt with fairly.
I cannot help but feel, that the Arch Bishop might be trying to give religions, including his own, far more involvement in the law by describing it as an inevitable necessity that aspects of them should be adopted into legal systems. It has taken our country a long time to remove the powerful and sometimes controlling influence of religious institutions over the law. We still have a long way to go. I think it is time that people explain to men such as the Arch Bishop, that religion has no business interfering with the state or the legal systems.
We must make clear, that people's culture and religious institutions are afforded protections under a democracy, as long as they are not harmful to the rest of society. But the days are long gone when Church and State were intertwined. Civil harmony is only possible under secular laws. Within limits, we must accommodate religion within the context of the law but instigating religious law is to be avoided at all costs.
5.2.08
People can be wrong and my opinions can be right!
All this week it is 'Diversity and Equality week'. And in my opinion its one of the worst creations of anal liberals. The whole idea is filled with cringe worthy buzz words such as 'ethno-diversity' and 'equal opportunities'. These may have originally represented some very important and noble concepts but now they are plain annoying. At my college it had honestly been suggested that discrimination existed because male and female toilets were not in perfect uniform symmetry and, depending on your lesson, different sexes were subject to the horrors of unequal distance. A whole 60 seconds or more.
There seems to be such a fear of discrimination and racism that we have become completely and unnecessarily wary of such things. The fact is I am not racist, I don't hate people based on their heritage. And if the majority of the population knows this, why are the majorities so frightened? I absolutely refuse to endorse such fussy and crass celebrations of discrimination, albeit positive. Discrimination is discrimination and doing it positively does not change that. Statistics can be extremely tricky in this respect. The fact is that in Britain the majority of the population is Caucasian, so in the setting of things like job application, the post is far more likely to go to someone in the majority. It is, in my view, wrong to use legislation to put the scales out of balance for any criteria of discrimination.
In fact we have gone completely the other way to avoid reality, truth and things people may not find pleasant. Several displays are about in my college describing dyslexia as a 'gift' saying people with dyslexia are more creative and intuitive. The displays are based on absolutely no fact and have been put up to promote difference and diversity. The fact that it is bollocks doesn't seem to come into it. If anything it makes it seem as if a person is heavily defined by learning difficulty. In extreme cases, maybe. But otherwise, such people have to learn to deal with and manage such things, the idea that slowness in learning and difficulties in read and writing is somehow a gift they should enjoy is downright offensive. Not to mention patronising.
Such paranoid efforts to eliminate any chance that we may perform actions with the slightest ability to be interpreted as non-P.C, completely degrade truly important and noble ideas like equality and tolerance. They shouldn't be made into crass buzz words for the Guardian reader to drop into polite conversation (please excuse this coarse generalisation :-) ). The worst thing is, you are labelled a racist money-lover who beats kittens, should you be inclined to express a contrary opinion.
Its like religion and new age theories of well being. People may genuinely believe them. They may feel very strongly with regards to them. But this does not make them right. Only more deluded if they believe something that isn't correct. Deities are good example, they are nice ideas and evidently very inspiring for causes, both good and bad. But the complete lack of reliable evidence leaves their existence as highly improbable. At any rate religions are big business and the disproof of deities would cause alot of people to end up with egg on their faces. Best leave it alone then.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that hiding away from the facts just because people may get offended and going to silly lengths to wrap people up in bubbles is completely counter-productive. The ' Well that's your opinion and I think that's great' attitude is not always a good option. To avoid wars maybe. But otherwise I would prefer to see people with the courage to say 'Well that's your opinion and its wrong'. This may cause people to realise possibly upsetting truths but it is far better than living in a world of ludicrous denial.
There seems to be such a fear of discrimination and racism that we have become completely and unnecessarily wary of such things. The fact is I am not racist, I don't hate people based on their heritage. And if the majority of the population knows this, why are the majorities so frightened? I absolutely refuse to endorse such fussy and crass celebrations of discrimination, albeit positive. Discrimination is discrimination and doing it positively does not change that. Statistics can be extremely tricky in this respect. The fact is that in Britain the majority of the population is Caucasian, so in the setting of things like job application, the post is far more likely to go to someone in the majority. It is, in my view, wrong to use legislation to put the scales out of balance for any criteria of discrimination.
In fact we have gone completely the other way to avoid reality, truth and things people may not find pleasant. Several displays are about in my college describing dyslexia as a 'gift' saying people with dyslexia are more creative and intuitive. The displays are based on absolutely no fact and have been put up to promote difference and diversity. The fact that it is bollocks doesn't seem to come into it. If anything it makes it seem as if a person is heavily defined by learning difficulty. In extreme cases, maybe. But otherwise, such people have to learn to deal with and manage such things, the idea that slowness in learning and difficulties in read and writing is somehow a gift they should enjoy is downright offensive. Not to mention patronising.
Such paranoid efforts to eliminate any chance that we may perform actions with the slightest ability to be interpreted as non-P.C, completely degrade truly important and noble ideas like equality and tolerance. They shouldn't be made into crass buzz words for the Guardian reader to drop into polite conversation (please excuse this coarse generalisation :-) ). The worst thing is, you are labelled a racist money-lover who beats kittens, should you be inclined to express a contrary opinion.
Its like religion and new age theories of well being. People may genuinely believe them. They may feel very strongly with regards to them. But this does not make them right. Only more deluded if they believe something that isn't correct. Deities are good example, they are nice ideas and evidently very inspiring for causes, both good and bad. But the complete lack of reliable evidence leaves their existence as highly improbable. At any rate religions are big business and the disproof of deities would cause alot of people to end up with egg on their faces. Best leave it alone then.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that hiding away from the facts just because people may get offended and going to silly lengths to wrap people up in bubbles is completely counter-productive. The ' Well that's your opinion and I think that's great' attitude is not always a good option. To avoid wars maybe. But otherwise I would prefer to see people with the courage to say 'Well that's your opinion and its wrong'. This may cause people to realise possibly upsetting truths but it is far better than living in a world of ludicrous denial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)