Humans are not unusual in avoiding death. Animals run from forest fires, gazelles sprint from lions and carrots sigh every time a rabbit unearths them. But inevitably, death comes to every creature that has ever existed whether you're torn apart by lions or time ravages your body, you just cannot escape it. So what is our big worry about being dead? Well I think its a mix of two key things. One, that the actual process of death will be very painful and just a ghastly business in general. And, two, that once we are dead, by definition, we cannot continue to enjoy the experience of being alive. Even more horrifyingly is that being dead is a permanent state, so it's understandable that deprivation for an eternity makes some people a bit nervous.
So, in a Julie Andrews-esque rhetoric, 'How do we solve a problem like death?'. We could collectively stick our heads in the sand but because dead people are so blatant about their predicament, that can get a bit difficult. A far better solution would be to imagine that the 'deceased' has gone on to pursue another life elsewhere. Perhaps Hitler now has a pleasant secretarial job, just a stone's throw away from his heavenly 2 bedroom riverside apartment? I doubt it very much. But in effect, what we have done is not made death the end of our existence. So, really, you don't die at all, you just move to a different place. Gosh! How delightful, when we die everything will be new and exciting but best of all, I will still exist. Astutely, religious institutions move in on the act and play on the ideas of an afterlife, mentioning that, depending on if you are well behaved or not will affect whether your afterlife is happy or horrendous. Unsurprisingly, this proved to be quite the motivator for adhering to scriptures of religious saviours.
Fortunately, the afterlife is a comforting concept that gives one a warm, reassured glow inside. Unfortunately, believing in something that is pleasantly convenient does not make it a reality. This major flaw in the theory seems to be overlooked by many people. Some might say it is rather suspicious that such a glaring fault is not noticed. But, there is nothing suspicious about the fact that people prefer to ignore the frightening- constantly thinking about human futility can somewhat hinder day to day life. The idea of eternal life is very appealing and certainly helps to boost the sale of any book, most notably the Bible.
Some people ask how 'we' as an individual can simply cease to exist- how is it, that all our personality, memories and experiences can just disappear? That can't be right, surely? Well it is easily explained if we look at what that person and their characteristics was made of. We may marvel at our own complexity, but then the brain is a very complex, even sophisticated, organ. It has the ability to learn constantly, effortlessly maintain our vital functions and all at the same time as it intricately coordinating the limbs to play a violin, for example. It could be called remarkable, but in reality it works almost exactly as a computer but it is far more developed, at the time of writing, and made from a different substance. Apart from that, it uses electricity like we use food, to power a whole load of circuitry that can be programmed and changed to produce thoughts, emotions and control a physical body. That is where each of us lies, in the brain and body, we simply invent concepts like 'the soul' to name the remarkable workings of the mind. So, logically, once the mechanics are destroyed and energy no longer courses through the parts, we are well and truly lost to existence. Gone, like a binned computer. It is a mistake to be so impressed by the human body, that we make up supernatural explanations for something that is Super Nature.
It is often remarked by some that we do, in fact, live on. Because there must be some form of reincarnation if your materials perpetuate through time and space. This is simply not true. What made you, 'you' no longer exists. The necessary components are no longer arranged in the structures that gave 'you' existence. A simple analogy might be useful here. If we take a straight line, then bend it into a triangle, then it is a triangle. If we then bend it so that there are four corners and sides it is a square and the triangle no longer exists. Just because the two shapes are made from the same line does not make them, in themselves, the same. Just as the atoms that form me are not still 'me' when part of a rose bush or floating around in the atmosphere. Although, if you define 'us' as those atoms, only by definition do we actually 'live on'.
The idea of never ending, is more frightening than any other concept. Eternal life would be like riding a roller-coaster you can never get off. Imagine the sheer boredom you might face, or even the hellishness of never being able to escape all the worry or concern of existence. Surely even a heaven would get tiring, if it did not, it would beg the question 'How much of our personal humanity do we have to lose to remain eternally content?'. The great thing about the reality of dying, is that once you are dead, one simply would not care. One couldn't even care if they wished to. That's the beauty of ceasing to exist, it might come prematurely for some, but it is a far better option in comparison to never ending.
So next time you have a close shave with a car or a similar 'near death experience', try to get it into perspective. If anything had happened, it wouldn't have mattered one bit to you. Because, once you are dead there's no responsibility or worry. It's a 'get out of life free card'. Fuck the mortgage, there's not much anyone can do when your in a box 6 feet under. Why don't we all just commit suicide then? Well, that's a very bad idea for two reasons: one, if you mess it up it's potentially very embarrassing and two, a botched suicide would give you all the pain of dying but none of the benefits of being truly dead- like fattening salad.
That said- I don't think I'll be reaching for a gun too soon.
4.3.08
Hatred, inheritence tax and the formation of Old-New Money estates.
'There's nothing worse than a bunch of paupers staring into the windows of Harvey Nichols looking at things they will never be able to afford. Its really quite irritating, can't they just toddle off to Primark?' It is statements like these, that really boil the blood of some people- and rightly so. Such snobbery is truly appalling and modern society should not have to tolerate such things. The financial status of someone, ideally, should not be a key factor in whether you like them or not. But I would be interested to see if a phrase such as 'They're a bunch of wealthy toffs that get everything easy, can't they just run back to their private school?', would be taken with quite the same seriousness as the statement that started this article. I sincerely doubt it. Such phrases are what I like to call examples of 'inverted snobbery', something less apparent but no less abhorrent.
It is this rather Anglo-typical hatred of the rich that can sometimes be so socially acceptable, that its frightening. Other western countries such as the USA or countries with vibrant economies like China, have a culture that congratulates and respects those who are lucky enough to be financially sound. They don't have an inbuilt attitude of bitterness towards the rich, that can be so prevalent in the UK. Yet in the UK, mockery or discrimination of any minority is greatly frowned upon. Surely one of the most 'by definition' minorities is the rich, so why is there such tolerance of abuse orientated towards the wealthy and their lifestyles? I am genuinely stumped as to why is exists in the UK to a far greater degree than anywhere else. Does the green eyed monster really have such a hold over our green and pleasant land?
One thing that has become more apparent is just what easy targets they tend to be. Take inheritance tax, something that was firstly a cash generator but secondly, decimated the aristocracy, terminated their way of life and caused their future security to crumble. Inheritance tax effectively erased much of the British aristocracy and made the continuance of proud family lineage, centred around their cherished manors and estates, an impossibility. But did the masses cry out 'Foul play!'? No. They thought it was about time these people with cushy lives had to suffer a less pleasant existence. The fact that they provided much employment and rural care, not to mention the vast amount of English heritage tied up in these estates , did not seem to matter. Nor did the fact that these were real human beings, being singled out and treated quite terribly. If it was done to some racial or religious group, there would be national outrage- but if you have staff you may as well rot.
What this vile tax forced these people to do, is open their beautiful homes to the public. Just imagine how it must have felt at first. You have to live in a small section of what you did previously, whilst gawking tourists traipse through the rest of you house and critique each individual air loom or memory filled portrait on show. All this, so they can earn enough money to at least hold onto their immensely personal, historic family homes. Such trespass by the public into your ancient sanctuary must cause at least a degree of anguish. It is, quite simply, tragic. But of course, because they have a big garden and nice clothes they are unable to experience emotions.
What it did create, however, is a bunch of entrepreneurs setting up dynamic farming businesses, national parks and even safaris such as Longleet. A cross breed of old money- new money individuals. They had to turn their homes in to business capital in order to earn a living. But, it is my belief that they should never have been forced to turn a house in to an office. They should have been left to live their lives, unfortunately the government saw rich pickings and faced no public opposition. So the aristocracy were shot down like pheasants at Balmoral.
It is this rather Anglo-typical hatred of the rich that can sometimes be so socially acceptable, that its frightening. Other western countries such as the USA or countries with vibrant economies like China, have a culture that congratulates and respects those who are lucky enough to be financially sound. They don't have an inbuilt attitude of bitterness towards the rich, that can be so prevalent in the UK. Yet in the UK, mockery or discrimination of any minority is greatly frowned upon. Surely one of the most 'by definition' minorities is the rich, so why is there such tolerance of abuse orientated towards the wealthy and their lifestyles? I am genuinely stumped as to why is exists in the UK to a far greater degree than anywhere else. Does the green eyed monster really have such a hold over our green and pleasant land?
One thing that has become more apparent is just what easy targets they tend to be. Take inheritance tax, something that was firstly a cash generator but secondly, decimated the aristocracy, terminated their way of life and caused their future security to crumble. Inheritance tax effectively erased much of the British aristocracy and made the continuance of proud family lineage, centred around their cherished manors and estates, an impossibility. But did the masses cry out 'Foul play!'? No. They thought it was about time these people with cushy lives had to suffer a less pleasant existence. The fact that they provided much employment and rural care, not to mention the vast amount of English heritage tied up in these estates , did not seem to matter. Nor did the fact that these were real human beings, being singled out and treated quite terribly. If it was done to some racial or religious group, there would be national outrage- but if you have staff you may as well rot.
What this vile tax forced these people to do, is open their beautiful homes to the public. Just imagine how it must have felt at first. You have to live in a small section of what you did previously, whilst gawking tourists traipse through the rest of you house and critique each individual air loom or memory filled portrait on show. All this, so they can earn enough money to at least hold onto their immensely personal, historic family homes. Such trespass by the public into your ancient sanctuary must cause at least a degree of anguish. It is, quite simply, tragic. But of course, because they have a big garden and nice clothes they are unable to experience emotions.
What it did create, however, is a bunch of entrepreneurs setting up dynamic farming businesses, national parks and even safaris such as Longleet. A cross breed of old money- new money individuals. They had to turn their homes in to business capital in order to earn a living. But, it is my belief that they should never have been forced to turn a house in to an office. They should have been left to live their lives, unfortunately the government saw rich pickings and faced no public opposition. So the aristocracy were shot down like pheasants at Balmoral.
25.2.08
We can nearly cure AIDS but when it comes to religion we're still puzzled.
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.
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.
26.1.08
Scientology, annoying and so beautifully comic. They've improved my life immensely, through hours of ridicule fuelled laughter.
Ever heard of Scientology? If you watch television or even listen to the news the chances are you have. If you're reading this in America, unlucky, its classed as a religion there. Something which affords it far more credibility than it should probably have. Here, however, it has been refused such status thankfully. Sure, there are tons of issues with religions, but there's a limit and that limit is Scientology. Its whole appearance and set up is so rich in absurdity and sheer insanity, that even the word brings a suppressed giggle from nowhere.
It is a fairly sinister organisation, it harasses critics, preys on the vulnerable and is rather more like a profitable franchise. It even charges for its key texts- something not even a hard up church would do, well you can get beefed up Bibles for a price but most are given free. But I am not bothered about these aspects, it is unpleasant but not very dangerous- ask Joe public and they will think it as credible as the OJ Simpson defence. I want to look at the vast amounts of comedy it provides me with. Calling it a cult annoys me though, we expect such crazy ideas from cults, so let call it an organisation to amplify the humour shall we?
Firstly, let us look at who it has representing it in the public eye. The most famous is Tom Cruise. This is like the Church of England asking Borat to be their figure head. Hilarity is bound to ensue. And it did. He filmed a video about Scientology in which he stated amongst much tautologous crap, 'I won't hesitate to put ethics into someone else because I put it ruthlessly in on myself'. Oh, and did you know that Scientology is the authority on drug and criminal rehab? With Criminon and Narconon, now don't they sound like nice, safe rehab programs? Maybe Amy Winehouse should hook up with Tom. I don't know about Amy but Tom's got to be on crack.
I would like to share an experience I once has with a dear friend regarding Scientology. We were in town and had about 5 hours to waste. So we decided to go for a free 'personality test' they were offering. We of course went in under aliases. I chose a rather ordinary name whilst my dear friend thought she would go in as Regina Spector, a irony lost wasted on our testers. Thinking it would be a quick ten minute bout of suppressed laughter, we sat down in the reception area. Soon a rather large sheet with about 200 tick box questions was brought to us. Shit, we both thought simultaneously, this discrete mockery was going to take a little longer than expected. We began seriously answering the questions, up to around 15 and then went on a super speed ticking race.
Having realised, we had answered 200 deep, introspective questions in under 5 minutes, the woman with a permanent smile came over and took our results to go and be analysed. We were each given a book to muse over whilst we waited for out consultation on how toxic we were. This time, however, was used to run through our story and fake addresses . Again, the irony of No. 12 Existential Road seemed lost on them. Now our mockery became how far we could push the boundaries of absurdity. Seeing as they deal in this commodity already, we must have seemed like amateurs in comparison. After much waiting, I was the first to be taken to a consultation booth. I was lead there by a man who had clearly been a car salesman in his past. A suit that left much to be desired and an ill fitted shirt flagged up the fact that the drug addicts he exploited in this area weren't particularly lucrative.
Appearances aside, he told me that overall I get nervous, can be fairly happy too and predicted that I was someone who engaged in the act of breathing on a very regular basis. What revelations I thought to myself. However, I had told my accomplice that I was going to play two personalities. One mumbling and insecure one and one coherent confident one. I began by uming and erring and using completely inappropriate adjectives, apparently my life was very 'mauve' and I can find social situations 'pulsating' and 'salty'. Then half way through one of the many confused sentences I confessed, as lucidly and swiftly as possible, that socialising was very agreeable and that life was good. To say he looked confused is an understatement. But he was damned if he was going to lose a sale, oops- I mean the chance to enlighten. Eventually, the consultation finished with not one fact being mentioned the entire time. But then fact and Scientology are not particularly chummy.
Pretty soon I found myself talking to the woman with the permanent smile, whilst by friend was in a booth whilst the curious man told her that she is female and probably uses her legs to walk. And that because he knows such intimate and powerful information, she should buy his books and posters about people with permanent smiles. Anyway, I sat there as the woman with a permanent smile pointed out flaws in the theory of evolution. Apparently, because 'she feels like a spiritual being, adaptation and evolution just don't seem plausible'. Well, if that's not conclusive proof I don't know what is!
I've come to a little conclusion of my own. I think the secret is all in the permanent smile. My theory is that, once a full member, they tell you that Scientology was actually set up as a practical joke but as it proves to be lucrative and few have caught on, they're just continuing with it. Like becoming a millionaire for using a Whoopy Cushion. The only way they can hold the years on held back laughter, is by steadily releasing it through smiles. Even Tom Cruise is subject to the occasional unstoppable bout of laughter. Who couldn't?
Like the Monster Raving Looney Party, I reckon Scientology is almost slap stick satire. Its a shame reporters and drug addicts are the victims of their practical joke. Still everyone likes a laugh. If you need proof, just go on their websites, you'll encounter a big toothy grin within a few seconds. Cherie Blair would be jealous.
So here's to Scientology! The most amusing cultural faux-pas since witch hunts.
It is a fairly sinister organisation, it harasses critics, preys on the vulnerable and is rather more like a profitable franchise. It even charges for its key texts- something not even a hard up church would do, well you can get beefed up Bibles for a price but most are given free. But I am not bothered about these aspects, it is unpleasant but not very dangerous- ask Joe public and they will think it as credible as the OJ Simpson defence. I want to look at the vast amounts of comedy it provides me with. Calling it a cult annoys me though, we expect such crazy ideas from cults, so let call it an organisation to amplify the humour shall we?
Firstly, let us look at who it has representing it in the public eye. The most famous is Tom Cruise. This is like the Church of England asking Borat to be their figure head. Hilarity is bound to ensue. And it did. He filmed a video about Scientology in which he stated amongst much tautologous crap, 'I won't hesitate to put ethics into someone else because I put it ruthlessly in on myself'. Oh, and did you know that Scientology is the authority on drug and criminal rehab? With Criminon and Narconon, now don't they sound like nice, safe rehab programs? Maybe Amy Winehouse should hook up with Tom. I don't know about Amy but Tom's got to be on crack.
I would like to share an experience I once has with a dear friend regarding Scientology. We were in town and had about 5 hours to waste. So we decided to go for a free 'personality test' they were offering. We of course went in under aliases. I chose a rather ordinary name whilst my dear friend thought she would go in as Regina Spector, a irony lost wasted on our testers. Thinking it would be a quick ten minute bout of suppressed laughter, we sat down in the reception area. Soon a rather large sheet with about 200 tick box questions was brought to us. Shit, we both thought simultaneously, this discrete mockery was going to take a little longer than expected. We began seriously answering the questions, up to around 15 and then went on a super speed ticking race.
Having realised, we had answered 200 deep, introspective questions in under 5 minutes, the woman with a permanent smile came over and took our results to go and be analysed. We were each given a book to muse over whilst we waited for out consultation on how toxic we were. This time, however, was used to run through our story and fake addresses . Again, the irony of No. 12 Existential Road seemed lost on them. Now our mockery became how far we could push the boundaries of absurdity. Seeing as they deal in this commodity already, we must have seemed like amateurs in comparison. After much waiting, I was the first to be taken to a consultation booth. I was lead there by a man who had clearly been a car salesman in his past. A suit that left much to be desired and an ill fitted shirt flagged up the fact that the drug addicts he exploited in this area weren't particularly lucrative.
Appearances aside, he told me that overall I get nervous, can be fairly happy too and predicted that I was someone who engaged in the act of breathing on a very regular basis. What revelations I thought to myself. However, I had told my accomplice that I was going to play two personalities. One mumbling and insecure one and one coherent confident one. I began by uming and erring and using completely inappropriate adjectives, apparently my life was very 'mauve' and I can find social situations 'pulsating' and 'salty'. Then half way through one of the many confused sentences I confessed, as lucidly and swiftly as possible, that socialising was very agreeable and that life was good. To say he looked confused is an understatement. But he was damned if he was going to lose a sale, oops- I mean the chance to enlighten. Eventually, the consultation finished with not one fact being mentioned the entire time. But then fact and Scientology are not particularly chummy.
Pretty soon I found myself talking to the woman with the permanent smile, whilst by friend was in a booth whilst the curious man told her that she is female and probably uses her legs to walk. And that because he knows such intimate and powerful information, she should buy his books and posters about people with permanent smiles. Anyway, I sat there as the woman with a permanent smile pointed out flaws in the theory of evolution. Apparently, because 'she feels like a spiritual being, adaptation and evolution just don't seem plausible'. Well, if that's not conclusive proof I don't know what is!
I've come to a little conclusion of my own. I think the secret is all in the permanent smile. My theory is that, once a full member, they tell you that Scientology was actually set up as a practical joke but as it proves to be lucrative and few have caught on, they're just continuing with it. Like becoming a millionaire for using a Whoopy Cushion. The only way they can hold the years on held back laughter, is by steadily releasing it through smiles. Even Tom Cruise is subject to the occasional unstoppable bout of laughter. Who couldn't?
Like the Monster Raving Looney Party, I reckon Scientology is almost slap stick satire. Its a shame reporters and drug addicts are the victims of their practical joke. Still everyone likes a laugh. If you need proof, just go on their websites, you'll encounter a big toothy grin within a few seconds. Cherie Blair would be jealous.
So here's to Scientology! The most amusing cultural faux-pas since witch hunts.
10.1.08
Beggars can't be choosers. They can't have mansions or morals.
Today Britain and much of western society is hailed as a free, liberal and opportunity filled land of promise. There has never been such good access to education, training and advice. So naturally there should be a cornucopia of choice and power over your own life. In such a setting then, we would think that people could easily adhere to and uphold admirable moral and ethical lifestyles. A stable and lawful country should be a haven of ethical citizens. But I would argue there is another hugely important factor that allows people to act morally, that is wealth. Think about it for a moment, go back in history, who is it working in the whore houses or pickpocketing? Its those at the bottom of society, the impoverished and hapless.
In the majority of cases, however, the circumstances of the poor made necessary their actions. The prostitutes didn't have childhood dreams of being a prostitute, poverty necessitated it. Nor did the starving child wish to be in the situation where he had to steal in order to go on breathing. It was all very well for the rich to look in disgust at those whose lives were filled with depravity and crime. The wealth of the rich afforded them the privilege of higher morals. Placed in the same situation any member of the aristocracy would be forced to act the same.
Although less prominent, it is still the case today. It is the wealthy who can buy the free range organic chicken and the Fairtrade clothing ranges. The poor are still left with the cruelly produced poultry and sweatshop manufactured T-shirts. Their financial circumstances dictate how ethical their actions can be. Those who are in the position of the privileged can sit back with a clear conscience, knowing they're helping a farmer in Brazil somewhere. Whilst the rest must sit there with the guilt of buying from businesses exploiting children in China. Hardly what you would call equal is it?
I'm not saying we don't all have the desire to be ethical consumers and uphold our moral codes through actions- but we don't all have the choice. There may be far more equality and better living standards than a hundred years ago but there's still a very long way to go before we are all sufficiently free to be clear in conscience.
A key concept to understand is the fact that morality and ethics can never truly exist outside reality. Our ideals and actions can often be two very separate things, even when given a multitude of choices. So when presented with only a few choices, one can only be as ethical as the available choices allow. Thus, if you're in the situation where wealth affords greater choice, it stands to reason that you are presented with greater opportunity to be more ethical.
So does that mean that the poorer you are, the less moral you are? In principle no, in action probably. Your desires may be ethical, however, your consumption can only be as ethical as the variety available.
It would appear morality is as subject to economic forces as any other commodity and those with the money can have the finest. Even in the modern age, equality is as sluggish as ever.
In the majority of cases, however, the circumstances of the poor made necessary their actions. The prostitutes didn't have childhood dreams of being a prostitute, poverty necessitated it. Nor did the starving child wish to be in the situation where he had to steal in order to go on breathing. It was all very well for the rich to look in disgust at those whose lives were filled with depravity and crime. The wealth of the rich afforded them the privilege of higher morals. Placed in the same situation any member of the aristocracy would be forced to act the same.
Although less prominent, it is still the case today. It is the wealthy who can buy the free range organic chicken and the Fairtrade clothing ranges. The poor are still left with the cruelly produced poultry and sweatshop manufactured T-shirts. Their financial circumstances dictate how ethical their actions can be. Those who are in the position of the privileged can sit back with a clear conscience, knowing they're helping a farmer in Brazil somewhere. Whilst the rest must sit there with the guilt of buying from businesses exploiting children in China. Hardly what you would call equal is it?
I'm not saying we don't all have the desire to be ethical consumers and uphold our moral codes through actions- but we don't all have the choice. There may be far more equality and better living standards than a hundred years ago but there's still a very long way to go before we are all sufficiently free to be clear in conscience.
A key concept to understand is the fact that morality and ethics can never truly exist outside reality. Our ideals and actions can often be two very separate things, even when given a multitude of choices. So when presented with only a few choices, one can only be as ethical as the available choices allow. Thus, if you're in the situation where wealth affords greater choice, it stands to reason that you are presented with greater opportunity to be more ethical.
So does that mean that the poorer you are, the less moral you are? In principle no, in action probably. Your desires may be ethical, however, your consumption can only be as ethical as the variety available.
It would appear morality is as subject to economic forces as any other commodity and those with the money can have the finest. Even in the modern age, equality is as sluggish as ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)