![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksOn Monday morning I walked past Trafalgar Square and two items were being constructed. The traditional Christmas Tree, 40 feet or so high and sent by the Norwegians every year, was sitting horizontally on its own articulated lorry. Also being put together was a geometric design which, on closer examination, turned out to be a 16-foot high representation of Chanukah candles, although it was a rather ugly triangular version sitting on a pyramid. Not sure where the pyramid comes into it. Perhaps it was a sop to the Egyptian sun worshippers.
I sometimes get the feeling that Britain is ashamed of its religion. Of course, as a confirmed evangelical atheist, my position on this is of necessity ambigious. I wouldn't be happy if Britain was fiercely religious in its governmental edicts (and it would be fairly pointless in a country where the majority of people are stoutly irreligious -- a point which separates the ordinary Englishman from the ordinary American to a significant degree), but I a also of the ilk that, well, if you are going to do a job, do it properly. France is fiercely secularist and al credit to it for being so. The US is now in the hands of Christian nutters, as far as I can see, but, well, give them credit for following through with their principles.
Meanwhile in the UK we have this nominal situation of being a "Christian" country that is also "multicultural". The ensuing contradictions seem to becoming harder and harder to cope with.
As Dawkins points out, much of the lunacy stems from the fact that you only have to say that a conviction is faith-based to deny any counter-argument. The French say "bollocks, pal, this is not a faith-based country. That just doesn't wash".
In England, it's harder, because we are a faith-based country. Therefore to deny someone else a faith-based conviction (say, a ban on wearing a burkah as part of the fight against terrorism) is to imply that "my religion is better than yours".
Then again, isn't that the point of religion, that "my religion is better than yours"? In Engliand the push of multiculturalism (and the necessity of such a push, given the multi-ethnicity of urban centres) cries out for a change in the rules. Either we stop being a Christian country and allow a whole raft of religions to apply faith-based principles, or we become a secular nation and tell the lot of them (including Christians) that faith-based principles just don't cut it here.
It's the illogicality of it that bugs me. Just because something was written in a book a few hundred years ago and "it's really important to my way of life", doesn't make it so. Is diversity good? When does diversity become ghettoisation? If female circumcision is "an important part of our faith", does that make it okay if the practitioner believes this to be the case most sincerely?
You will never stop this battle of the religions. You could throw out all non-Christians and the only result would be battles between different factions of Christianity. That's what religions do. And it's fine by me; let the fuckers get on with it. You get no kudos in this world for showing people how and why they are wrong. They won't thank you for it.
+++++++
Quote of the day:
George Rogers, Running Back, on his hopes for the coming season. "I want to rush for 1,000 yards or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first."
I sometimes get the feeling that Britain is ashamed of its religion. Of course, as a confirmed evangelical atheist, my position on this is of necessity ambigious. I wouldn't be happy if Britain was fiercely religious in its governmental edicts (and it would be fairly pointless in a country where the majority of people are stoutly irreligious -- a point which separates the ordinary Englishman from the ordinary American to a significant degree), but I a also of the ilk that, well, if you are going to do a job, do it properly. France is fiercely secularist and al credit to it for being so. The US is now in the hands of Christian nutters, as far as I can see, but, well, give them credit for following through with their principles.
Meanwhile in the UK we have this nominal situation of being a "Christian" country that is also "multicultural". The ensuing contradictions seem to becoming harder and harder to cope with.
As Dawkins points out, much of the lunacy stems from the fact that you only have to say that a conviction is faith-based to deny any counter-argument. The French say "bollocks, pal, this is not a faith-based country. That just doesn't wash".
In England, it's harder, because we are a faith-based country. Therefore to deny someone else a faith-based conviction (say, a ban on wearing a burkah as part of the fight against terrorism) is to imply that "my religion is better than yours".
Then again, isn't that the point of religion, that "my religion is better than yours"? In Engliand the push of multiculturalism (and the necessity of such a push, given the multi-ethnicity of urban centres) cries out for a change in the rules. Either we stop being a Christian country and allow a whole raft of religions to apply faith-based principles, or we become a secular nation and tell the lot of them (including Christians) that faith-based principles just don't cut it here.
It's the illogicality of it that bugs me. Just because something was written in a book a few hundred years ago and "it's really important to my way of life", doesn't make it so. Is diversity good? When does diversity become ghettoisation? If female circumcision is "an important part of our faith", does that make it okay if the practitioner believes this to be the case most sincerely?
You will never stop this battle of the religions. You could throw out all non-Christians and the only result would be battles between different factions of Christianity. That's what religions do. And it's fine by me; let the fuckers get on with it. You get no kudos in this world for showing people how and why they are wrong. They won't thank you for it.
+++++++
Quote of the day:
George Rogers, Running Back, on his hopes for the coming season. "I want to rush for 1,000 yards or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-05 03:47 pm (UTC)Denying somebody use of the burkah is by no means equivalent to saying that "my religion is better than yours," any more than it is equivalent to saying that "my cheese-cake is better than your religion." Putting to one side the dubious proposition that foisting the burkah on a Moslem woman is in any way connected to religion, such a denial is simply saying "I prize certain principles external to my religion/cheesecake more highly than I prize certain principles internal to your religion," which is not the same thing at all.
I found the Dawkins book extremely dull and disappointing, although I did perk up a bit at the ad-hominem arguments in some of the footnotes that "my wife Leila Ward agrees with me, so it must be true." I think he, and potentially you, are missing the crux of the matter, which I think is a total lack of tolerance for "the other" combined with a lack of critical thinking skills. Remove religion entirely (a thought experiment in which neither Dawkins nor yourself indulge), and I'd lay odds that exactly the same people would have exactly the same level of disagreement over some other random triviality.
Your usage of the term "faith-based" is questionable. Insofar as it means anything as a distinction between England and France, what you really mean is "presence of an Established church." Interestingly, of course, Disestablishment is just as fundamental a principle in the US constitution as it is in the French (pick any one of dozens, but don't mention Charles X). I look forward to huge arguments in the Supreme Court between the "Original Intent" branch of right-wing nuttery and the "Cross in every Government Office" branch.
One other thing. Last time I checked, christmas trees fall more nearly into the domain of cheesecake than they do into the domain of Christianity.
Other than that, an excellent blog: as persuasive and well-researched as ever.
Personally I think there should be a giant teddy bear on the fourth plinth for Christmas, but I don't see that ever happening...
The Big Topics
Date: 2007-12-05 04:19 pm (UTC)Lurker
no subject
Date: 2007-12-05 05:35 pm (UTC)I think that I do touch, albeit less articulately than you do, on the point that getting rid of some religions wouldn't solve the problem. Yes, one could extend this and say that you could get rid of all religions and the intolerance would remain; it would just get shifted onto something else.
This is a major flaw in the Dawkins line. He posits that it's all religion's fault and that, if you get rid of the religious cancer (or so his line goes), things will be better, whereas you could equally argue that humanity consists of the tolerant and the intolerant, and that religion is just a useful and available channel used by both.
As I said, it's the illogicallity that gets me down and the fact that this has been allowed by those in power. You could refuse to kill people in the last century's Great War if you were a Quaker and it offended your religious beliefs, but not if you were an atheist who just happened to believe that killing people was wrong. The system seemed to deny the atheist to claim that some things were inherently right or wrong, unless he could "back it up" with a belief in some kind of higher power who (they thought) said so.
That illogicality, and the whole British "duality" of being a Christian state but avowedly multicultural and "tolerant" of other beliefs, was what I was thinking about this morning.
I know that the same people would be intolerant on some other random triviality, but I don't see why one belief system is, today in 21st Century Britain, ranked as "more valid" than another.
Now, tell me more about this pair of threes.....
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-12-05 06:04 pm (UTC)Only among religions that want to convert you.
Titmus
Hannukah and Armadillos
Date: 2007-12-06 12:04 am (UTC)Well, young man, I think I've already trashed that one. I may have to put more work in on trashing "episcopalian atheism," whatever that is, but I promise you, your dog, your god, and the atomic element at number 73 in the periodic table that I will do my best.
Isn't it odd that people always say that they will "do their best?"
I'd like to think that it's not clear to Birks that it is possible to believe in a religion without wishing to convert other people. Unfortunately, I do believe that this is clear to Birks: and I also think he phrased the OP on those terms, quite consciously.
A pair of threes?
This pair of threes?
Well, I can't comment on that particular pair of threes. One should really be there to comment, don't y'know.
If GOD had wanted Birks to play a pair of threes on the button, with BB raising to $11 at $100 No Limit ... well, er, he'd have ... ummm ... I dunno, really. Probably given up his day job and retired to being a bartender in the Bahamas.
Me, I go for the Woodhouse line. Too complicated; too much effort. Save yourself the mental strain, which at Pete's advanced age can only lead to a brain aneurism. Or, more politely, use the thinking on the other tables.
Now, what about the teddy bear?
I think I'll call him "Peter," just to confuse people.
I have the squad in place. We await your divine command, O "pair-of-threes" one.
Selah.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-06 06:14 am (UTC)PJ
33
Date: 2007-12-06 11:20 am (UTC)The apparent current trend towards militant atheism (Dawkins style) is something I find interesting. I agree with him that the religious appear to benefit from privileges and protections that to me, an atheist, seem anachronistic and unfair. I would like to see our society secularised, not because I believe the abolition of religion is desirable, or possible, but because it would make the country fairer. I resent the fact that someone like Anne Atkins has a platform every now and again on Thought For The Day to spout what would on any other subject be called the wrong-headed mental doodlings of a drooling idiot, but apparently is deep philosophical thought. And there's the whole existence of the Church of England thing too of course.
Having said that, Dawkins is a pillock, albeit a clever one, and the idea of taking a Corporal Jones approach to the believers is something I want to see tried for a bit. You can hear the squeals of indignation getting more and more irrational and outraged. They truly do not like it up 'em.
Lurker
btw I still fold the threes, because there are too many players with stats like that who will happily not pay you off with an overpair to the flop or TPTK when you hit your set. I suspect these people don't exist in such numbers at the stakes that the "folding is wrong" group play at. But they sure are there at $0.5/$1.0.
Re: 33
Date: 2007-12-06 11:34 am (UTC)I will return to this over the weekend, when I have the relevant hand on-stream. But the kernel of the point is, if reraiser from the blind will not pay you off when you hit your set, what obvious alternative (and more profitable) line is available apart from folding pre-flop to the reraise?
PJB
Corporal Jones
Date: 2007-12-06 11:58 pm (UTC)Believe me (from purely anecdotal evidence, of course), the majority really do like it up 'em.