Ciaran’s Omnipurpose Blog

… could it?

Are we getting closer to the horror of the American redneck warehouse-style "Charismatic" Christian movement here in our beloved "Live and let live" UK?

Here's a fascinating documentary on the threat of Christian fundamentalism in the UK. It's on Youtube, so it's broken up into five parts. 

There was all the usual stuff you'd expect with any documentary about religious fundamentalism:

• Children getting indoctrinated and being educated off the National Curriculum: One child in particular sitting a "Science" test where the questions included, "How long did God take to create the Earth?" and "When did God create the Sun?"
• Hatred of homosexuality and equating it with paedophilia and murder.
• A victim complex, presumably for the purpose of galvanising the group to work harder against the perceived injustices of other people in the world living differently to them.
• A vicious loathing of the big rival - Islam.

I really think that we should give our children the best possible start in life. That includes teaching them the facts of the world they live in and allowing them to explore knowledge with open minds. What I saw on this programme was tantamount to child abuse.

A load of beardy loons with placards and prayer is one thing, but warehouses full of thousands of evangelicals ready to support whatever they're told to support by their minister is quite another. The stated aim of these groups is to "Radically transform this nation for Christ's purposes". And they're getting advice and money from fundamentalists in the USA. Worse still, one scene in the documentary shows a fundamentalist lawyer handing an amendment to the recently-tabled abortion bill to Norman Tebbit, which he appears to have used verbatim in the process of lawmaking. This is the same lawyer who states her belief that the earth is 4,000 years old and that Islam is evil.

And it seems that these people have the foot in the door of the Conservative Party too. Nadine Dorries MP, who tabled the recent attempt to reduce a woman's right to choose, is backed by these groups. I suspect that if a Conservative Party revival takes place and they get in power, the fundamentalist Christian groups will enter Downing Street with them. I vote for my MP to represent my interests and their manifesto. I don't vote for my MP so that he or she can fall under the spell of a religious pressure group.

I really want to live and let live. I don't see these fundamentalists doing the same. In the end, it doesn't matter how rational and well-argued the reasonable voicce of atheism is. Against this sort of mass indoctrination, I fear we don't stand a chance unless we unify and agree that our country should be secular.

National Secular Society Website

I'll nail my colours to the mast: I'm a big fan of Barack Obama. He's not perfect: he's a politician after all, but I can't help being moved by his increrdible rhetoric, and the apparent transparency and fair play his campaign demonstrates.

Having said all that, Obama's not only winning this, but Hillary's losing it as well:

• She can't raise money anywhere near as effectively as Obama. In fact, some analysts claim that she only continues to run because she's in debt and needs to raise more money in a campaign to pay these debts off.
• She played a very dirty game against Obama. He's played it passive-aggressively.
• She lied repeatedly before and during her campaign, including a notorious story about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.
• She appears to be in the race entirely and cynically for her own benefit, changing stories/ policies as she goes.
• She seems manipulative, and some have argued that she's dragging feminism backwards.

Obama might have similar faults, but I don't see him showing it yet. He has also turned a lot of the mud flung at him into positives, such as his "A More Perfect Union" speech.

Anyway - there's everything for Hillary to play for, according to this video: 

I was two minutes late.

My barrister friend had invited me to attend a lecture on the subject of Sharia Law and British Law. He'd invited me in early January and I'd pencilled it into my diary.

I was two minutes late arriving at the British Court of Justice and because they have such strict security, I was unable to enter. Instead, I had to console myself with watching a heated debate in the street between two women who shared my timekeeping predicament.

Rowan Williams announced to a packed room of about 1,000 people the existence of "the presence of communities which, while no less 'law-abiding' than the rest of the population, relate to something other than the British legal system alone".

This isn't really news. We've all heard of stories where family ties conflict with the interests of the law, but my take on this is that if there are people who don't relate to the British legal system, that's one thing. If they choose not to obey the law, then they're criminals. It's pretty simple, really. 

I don't have a religous belief. I think the way that we are governed should be determined by reason, by agreement and not by revelation. God is not a democrat: what he says is law and must be followed without question and his laws are unchangeable. To me - any move away from a legal system that is determined by a democratic system is dangerous and possibly irrevocable.

Equality under the law is something we've treasured since the Magna Carta. And it's paid off: being free of despotism, having a system within which there are a series of rules that are predictable and which free the individual to be productive and achieve their potential; has allowed Britain to flourish.

In theory, even the Monarch can be tried for murder.

I usually like a good discussion. I think the one thing that unites pretty much all of my friends and many of my colleagues is that they are totally opposed to this idea. In some way, this is a shame because I'd like to at least what sort of justification there could possibly be for this idea.

So I've had to turn to the Internet. Apparently, some apologists claim that other religious groups are permitted to live according to their religious/ cultural norms, so why shouldn't Muslims? To me, the answer to this is pretty straightforward: everybody should be equal under the law, regardless of their beliefs.

As usual, the right-wing press has gone to town. It's quite funny to read the Daily Mail's comments on their site. One reader said,

"So it's fine for the UK law courts to adopt Sharia Law to fit Muslims' needs, but Christian people, in a historically Christian country, will be prosecuted for not promoting homosexuality? Something needs to change…"

"Not promoting homosexuality" is, of course, standard right-wing code language used to imply that homosexuals can only either be persecuted or "promoted", rather than just thinking, "it's none of my damn business if you're gay or not". Whatever the reader is getting at, would she prefer homosexuals to be persecuted in the name of Jesus or Allah? In the end, what's promoted by both religions is an intolerance of homosexuality.

We need to get rid of the intolerance of religion in our public discourse. It is the 21st Century and we're in Europe, we should move on from this primitive thinking and live and let live.

"Ah!", runs the counterargument, "If you want to live and let live, at least give us Sharia Law! We're not imposing it on you. We want to use it for ourselves; for our families and for our children."

We have to draw the line somewhere. We do so with some cultural practices. We have family law in place to protect vulnerable people in society. This includes women and children.

The moment you open up the "choice" to follow a more restrictive, paternalistic set of laws, rather than the laws of the land, you open up the opportunity to pressurise the vulnerable into laws that don't protect them as effectively.

There are also technical issues to do with, inter alia, deciding on which set of laws to apply to family court proceedings, and when; how to staff up the bar with Sharia-compliant barristers and importantly: coming to a clear definition of what Sharia actually means, since it appears to have different cultural influences in any case. 

Is Rowan Williams Playing Chamberlain or Machiavelli? Is he giving in to demands made by a vocal minority, or is he playing the long game of protecting religious privilege? As I've mentioned earlier in this post, I think it wrong that any religious considerations are involved in making laws. I totally oppose the idea that you need religion to have morals. I think it wrong that churches can play the game of politics and remain tax-exempt. I think it's crazy that, in 21st Century Europe, we have bishops sitting in our upper chamber. Is Rowan Williams kicking up a fuss to drive people into supporting the status quo against the possibility of Sharia, and in so doing keeping the privilege with the Church of England?

I'm not saying that there aren't problems with integration at the moment. I think we need to look at our melting-pot and how we make it work. I'm from a mixed background myself, so I have a little bit of an insight here.

And you mustn't shove a group of people, religiously-identified or otherwise, into a legal ghetto because a minority of them demand it. Remember we're dealing with only a fraction of 3% of the population here. They're free to vote to elect people to try to change the law how they wish (within reason).

Until that time:

… do as the Romans do.

"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." 

L. Ron Hubbard - founder of the Church of Scientology

An internet movement called "Anonymous" has declared war on Scientology. They appear to have done so after Scientologist lawyers tried to have a video of Tom Cruise talking about scientolgy taken off Youtube. This followed many years of attempts by Scientology's lawyers to stifle freedom of expression on the internet.

Here is the declaration of war video in full:

If you click through to the actual YouTube site, you'll find a transcript of the message. It ends with:

"Knowledge is free.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
WE DO NOT FORGET.
Expect us."

Anonymous appears to be something quite new. Since critics of Scientology get silenced with lawsuits, Anonymous has chosen anonymity. Anonymity makes association difficult, but not on the Internet.

Anonymous has grown organically into a (possibly) large, decentralised mass through web technologies, such as Internet Relay Chat, Message Boards, Wikis and sites such as Digg and Facebook. Anyone could be part of Anonymous! I say "possibly" because I don't know how many are active in the Anonymous cause. This mass seems to work a little like a terrorist cell, except this cell is massive and everyone inside the cell is anonymous to one another.

In any case, their activities seem to be having some effect. Aside from the video of Tom Cruise, which has gained it enough publicity to feature in the Economist, Anonymous has called for the investigation of Scientology's tax-exempt status, circulated damning documentation about the current Scietology leadership and (controversially) carried out Denial of Service attacks to disrupt Scientology websites. Internet chatrooms are buzzing with discussion of Anonymous, and other mainstream media is carrying stories about the group.

On February 10th, 2008, Anonymous is planning peaceful protests outside Scientology offices. It will be interesting to see how many people actually turn up for these protests, and whether this aggressive campaign towards the Scientologists will win them more sympathy than ridicule.

I've had personal contact with Scientology, and I've seen a friend of mine descend into the abyss and sign a billion year contract with them. I don't think they're heralding the "Truth". I certainly don't think the Earth was visited by an alien called Xenu. I feel uncomforable about the intolerance Scientology seems to show its critics. I see a lot said about their mistreatment of members and family of members. I do think it is a cult, and whilst I disagree with religion, I actually hate cults.

However, they should be allowed to expose themselves to ridicule. With their denial of service attacks, Anonymous is sailing very close to accusations of persecution of Scientology, and that is never a good thing because it can strengthen the faith of members already involved with Scientology, as well as winning sympathy and dividing Scientology's opponents.

To learn more about the Anonymous movement, visit their wiki site here.

I watched Hugh-Fearnley Whittingstall's Chicken Run. There's not really much to add to what he's done; he's kept the issue of industrialised food production up in the public debating space, but I did stumble over this:

That's right! It's a Cheeseburger in a can. If McDonald's burgers don't look anything like the pictures, do you expect this to? I'm curious to see what the actual contents of the can look like, but suspect that I'll wind up with nightmares as I look at some grey, tuna-shaped chunk of matter.

To be fair, this is camping food. It's designed (to use modern marketing parlance) to be a "portable cheeseburger solution for the outdoor nutritional context". It isn't meant to be haute cuisine.

Having said all that, though, it does cost FOUR EURO! That's a hell of a lot of money, especially when you consider that some of the nicest meals you'll ever taste involve beans and sausages cooked in the open for pennies after a long hike. In my opinion, this puts to rest the argument that people eat bad food to save money (an argument that gets trotted out all the time in response to campaigns to get us to eat more healthily/ ethhically).

There's something awesome about William Shatner's stop-start gravitas.

Alongside Mr. T and Verne Troyer (Mini-Mi from the Austin Powers movies), Shatner's taken Blizzard's gold to advertise World of Warcraft, the massively-successful MMORPG. With coming close to 9 million subscribers, I'm at a bit of a loss to see how much bigger they want it to become, but I love the advert anyway.

I know this is a little late, but I've been on holiday:

It's all kicked off about yoga, that uncomfortable-looking way of sitting and lying around.

It started at the end of August, when a Church of England priest decided that the yoga class that had been using the church hall for some years should no longer be allowed to take place on church property.

The yoga teacher couldn't understand that permission had been withdrawn from two different churches in Somerset.

The more reserved of the two Somerset priests said, “If it was just a group of children singing nursery rhymes, there wouldn’t be a problem but she’s called it yoga and therefore there is a dividing line we’re not prepared to cross.”

So an exercise regime based on Hinduism is fine if you omit the Hinduism part? Fair enough - perhaps that's why some christians have recognised the popularity of Yoga and the indifference of many to the Hindu roots of the practice. So they've created a christian alternative to Yoga called "Praise Moves":

But whilst one of the priests was at least open to the idea of compromise, the other wasn't. How exciting!

“Any alternative philosophies or beliefs are offering a sham - and at St James’s Church we want people to have the real thing. Yoga has its roots in Hinduism, and attempts to use exercises and relaxation techniques to put a person into a calm frame of mind - in touch with some kind of impersonal spiritual reality.

“The philosophy of yoga cannot be separated from the practice of it, and any teacher of yoga, even to toddlers, must subscribe to the philosophy.

“Yoga may appear harmless or even beneficial, but it is encouraging people to think that there is a way to wholeness of body and mind through human techniques - whereas the only true way to wholeness is by faith in God through Jesus Christ.” 

My personal view is that since the Church of England is tax exempt, I'm theoretically paying higher taxes and therefore subsidising a "public service" that I cannot use. I live with this, because I don't claim dole money or a lot of other public services, but I don't expect to be denied access to their Services or related services. The Church's doors are open to unbelievers, but their schools are closed, as if to say, "We welcome you if you might potentially become a customer, but you can forget access to the schools you pay for". This is one of the many reasons why I think faith schools are a terrible idea. 

But I couldn't help my eruption of bemusement and amusement at the news that the Hindu Council UK is considering challenging the ban. Said Anil Bhanot:

"These priests might appear to be advising Christians not to practice yoga because they believe it is based on a 'sham' and a 'false philosophy', but what in effect they mean is that Hinduism is a false religion,"

Well, of course they do! They're not polytheists who believe in reincarnation: they're Christians!

So I think this bleating about being referred to as a false religion is pretty laughable and the Hindus claim the Christians are wrong and the Christians claim the Hindus are wrong. There's always a silver lining to every cloud. In this case, I can happily say that I agree with both of them!

It has been reported in the news today that a mother died hours after giving birth in Shropshire. The details are still unclear pending an enquiry, but it seems that she died because she needed a blood transfusion after complications during the birth of her twins.

The technology was available: it isn't wholly uncommon to have complications during birth that require transfusions.

The blood was available: the doctors were desperate to perform the procedure.

She refused the blood that would save her life.

She refused by ticking a box on a form and this choice appears to have been upheld by her husband and family during the medical emergency in the hospital, whilst she lay dying on the bed with her newborn infants.

She chose death over life, and was supported in this grim choice that left her children without a mother because she and her family are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions.

It's sad to think that a lot of people say that having children gives their life new hope and meaning - this is something that she and her family have denied themselves because of what would seem to the outside, rational observer to be a tragic devotion to a dubious set of beliefs.

One's thoughts turn to the surviving father and the children. the children who will be without a mother, and the father who supported his wife's decision to die in the name of a new take on Christianity dating from the 1870s. If it were me, I would wonder if I were a suitable father after choosing death for my wife in a parallel to the story of Abraham and Isaac.

But I think that would be too hard on the man and his family: religion's about social control as well as belief, and people in groups will often enforce the hardest line possible. It must have been a terrible dilemma; and the intense pressures from the church leadership must have been unbearable.

After surrendering your mind to the authority of those "above", what room is there for compassion, for protecting yourself, protecting your family, for doing what's right and what's natural?

I'm upgrading my hosting. This may break a couple of links in the site and cause other screwy behaviour. Please bear with me as I complete the migration. If you spot anything particularly amiss, or find that the site runs slowly, please let me know.

I finally caved in and bought a Wii this week.

I’ve had a weird relationship with consoles. Ages ago, I wanted to go halves with my cousin on a super hi-tech Atari 2600. The problem with that was that my cousin lived in Germany and I lived in London. Since he was older than me, I’m pretty sure I’d never have seen that console.

I also have some vague memories of walking through Bentalls or John Lewis and overhearing a boy trying to explain to his father that he was after a joystick, not a joss stick, and that he wasn’t trying to buy drugs (for a while in the early ’80s there seemed to be an idea that joss sticks were marijuana).

I haven’t actually owned a console since the early 1990s, when I briefly owned a second-hand Gameboy. I got a bit fed up of it, since I had a PC and preferred to read on the go, rather than play games in pixellated black and white.

So why did I take the plunge and buy the Wii in the first place, given that I spend arguably enough time on the PC as it is? Well, the main reason is that it is incredibly fun and incredibly social. Instead of going head to head with Sony and Microsoft to produce the biggest, most powerful console, Nintendo have put together something very different. The Wii isn’t about having the best graphics, it’s about having fun and making gaming accessible to people who don’t usually get involved with gaming.

The really stand-out thing about the console is the much-talked-about control system, that uses a combination of infrared and accelerometers to work out what movements you are making with your hands. Thus, the little remote becomes a tennis racket, baseball bat, golf club, or your hands in the case of the bowling game or the boxing game (see photo of Rebecca beating the bejesus out of her opponent).

Pretty soon after setting the thing up, Rebecca and I were leaping around the room like crazed apes, playing the included game, Wii Sports. The controls are incredibly simple and accurate - swing the controller like a putter and it putts, swing it like a bat and it bats. It’s very easy to pick up. Anyway, without further ado, here are the results of our first, fairly drunken, fairly epic evening:

• Tennis - Rebecca won
• Baseball - Rebecca won
• Golf - Rebecca won
• Boxing - Rebecca won with a Knock Out
• Bowling - Rebecca won after getting three strikes in a row.

So it’s official - Rebecca is a natural, and I have all the gear but no idea.