Archive for the ‘British Society’ Category
A Response to terror
How to respond is the question to a brutal murder on the streets of London by killers shouting “Allahu Akbar” demanding we have British troops returned from Afghanistan, and EDL taking to the streets as football hooligans looking for confrontation.
Regarding pulling troops out of Afghanistan, before the murder in Woolwich YouGov reported:
YouGov’s Public Opinion polling in April of this year found that a strong majority of the British public (77%, split between leaving immediately and leaving gradually) were in favour of bringing British troops home from Afghanistan, while 14% were not in favour, and 9% said they didn’t know.
Regarding getting rid of our government, voting intentions just before the murder had Labour on 38%, Conservative 27%, UKIP 16%, Liberal Democrat 10% (Source)
Not only is there a democratic process to be used by aggrieved citizens, but a swell of public opinion to be tapped into on these issues. The young men turned their back on using these means to create their own outrage. Violence can never be legitimised in a society that allows dissent. Anyone that suggests their savagery was justified lacks credibility on the issues and is not just an enemy of reason but of humanity.
In Spain the Madrid bombings of 2004 nearly 200 were killed and over 2000 injured, and the hundreds of thousands that protested against terror was dignified and moving as Spanish people showed solidarity with each other and mourned the victims.
We can contrast that moving spectacle of solidarity, protest and movement with the English Defence League when they descended on Woolwich the night of the murder.
So how should we in the secular, humanist and atheist community show solidarity with the Muslim community? The answer I would hope would be straightforward but it is has proven on social media not to be. The statement of the obvious needs repeating unless we are prepared for others to make up for our silence.
In no particular order as all important:
1. Do not treat Muslims as a homogenous group – everyone is an individual
2. Do not dehumanise Muslims – we are all human beings
3. Calmly note our difficulties and problems with Islam – and how that impacts on Muslims too
4. Speak out against outrages to religious freedom and human rights taking place
5. Talk to each other and find out how we can stop people being radicalised by others
This will not be easy, you will lose people who think this is the time to be quiet about criticising Islam, or think you should be abandoning secular liberal principles to respond harshly to the Muslim community.
We need to speak up even more so that our voices can be heard. In a civil society commitment and enthusiasm can make a difference where will power and not brute force triumphs. These values are what bring us together in a pluralistic state.
Now is the time to stand for human rights, secularism and the democratic process.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The dehumanising done by Islam
I have written that we should not dehumanise Muslims. However, we can be critical of religion and certainly those that try to be the apologists of it. Mehdi Hasan in writing “Woolwich Attack: Demonising Muslims Won’t Help” does not help by trying to rewrite the history of Islam. It feels like he is trying to take advantage of the solidarity we show Muslims by trying to get us to swallow that Islam has been misunderstood.
Perversely, it was the non-Muslim cub scout leader who, in trying to save the soldier’s life and standing up to his alleged attackers, was acting in accordance with Qur’anic principles. Let’s be clear: Islam, like every other faith, doesn’t permit the killing of innocents.
I have asked him via twitter what could possibly be perverse about a non Muslim going to help someone she thought was injured in the road, and verbally challenging the attackers? He may be wanting to contrast her actions with the killers. That is not what perversely means. Rather it sounds like a Freudian slip that Ingrid Loyau-Kennett showed heroism and compassion without needing to be a Muslim – how out of character for a non-believer, how perverse.
In case you think I am being too hard read what Hasan had to say in 2009:
“We know that keeping the moral high-ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire.”
The problem Hasan has is the belief the Koran must be right as the Word of God. As such, if we find anything there which is an anathema to us we must be mistaken in our interpretation. That does not work. The translation is very clear, and how the Koran and Hadith are applied in the world a testament that followers of Islam can think that too.
If Islam does not want us ever to harm the innocent, it becomes most important to know who qualifies. Clearly the following people are not as innocent as we would like them to be.
-
Apostates
Qur’an (4:89) – “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
Bukhari (52:260) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.
Hasan suggests apostasy is only a sin awaiting punishment in next life
Speaking of dehumanising:
Our rights in Egypt, as Christians or converts, are less than the rights of animals,” El-Gohary said. “We are deprived of social and civil rights, deprived of our inheritance and left to the fundamentalists to be killed. Nobody bothers to investigate or care about us.” El-Gohary, 56, has been attacked in the street, spat at and knocked down in his effort to win the right to officially convert. He said he and his 14-year-old daughter continue to receive death threats by text message and phone call. (Source)
-
Homosexuals
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – Muhammad said “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.”
Speaking of dehumanising:
Citing the Qur’an, Javadi-Amoli said politicians who pass laws in favour of homosexuals are lower than animals. “Even animals … dogs and pigs don’t engage in this disgusting act [homosexuality] but yet they [western politicians] pass laws in favour of them in their parliaments.” (Source)
-
Unbelievers
Sura 9:29
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Speaking of dehumanising:
The restrictions placed on non-Islamic faiths, and enshrined in law in some countries different legal status of non believers.
-
Women
Quran 4:34
“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them.”
Sura 2:223 – Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like.
Speaking of dehumanising:
“The passage of a law in Afghanistan asking Muslim women to unconditionally submit to the sexual whims of their husbands once in four days is a shocking piece of legislation that seeks to dehumanise women reducing them to mere chattels devoid of human rights.” (Source)
My secularism means no Muslim should be threatened or denied their rights and must be treated equally as a citizen. An issue that I want Hasan to go further on is promoting acceptance and equal rights for gay Muslims. I know humanist Muslims that condemn the verses above. But the rights we give apostates, unbelievers, homosexuals and women are not because of Islam.
It is in spite of Islam.
UPDATE 1pm: The article above is concerned with how cherry picking is used, indeed by all faiths, or a different interpretation given to fit in with enlightenment values. All can quote mine, but my point above is not just that detractors of Islam quote mine – extreme Islamists do too to legitimise their actions, by law or by terror.
The key difference being I want Muslims to live in peace and harmony. Jihadists want us all, believer or not, to accept their version of faith and will do this by all means they can.
Because of how they view a book written over a millennia ago.
Is it too much to ask we move beyond one ancient book to work out how we should treat one another?
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Woolwich: do not be terrorised by those that use fear
Sadly, not all of humanities problems will be resolved by a sit down to resolve our differences. For those of us that have been paying attention, in a world where a schoolgirl blogger is a target for a bullet between the eyes in Afghanistan, Baghdad markets are places to detonate bombs, and a Syrian rebel eats the heart of a government soldier, what happened in Woolwich is a rare moment of brutality in our land compared to the darkness of terror that happens around the world.
That was the purpose of the attack – the stated aims of the bloody handed man to camera was a reminder that beheadings happen in other lands, in front of people. The target a soldier that had served in Afghanistan. Their aim to provoke a violent backlash to engulf London into fire. The suspects waited for the police to arrive so they could have a final confrontation. One Both of the suspects are in custody in stable condition after being shot the other shot dead at the scene. Hopefully investigators can piece together what happened to lead to such savagery on our streets. [Update: at time of writing reported one had been shot dead]
The mind of the murderers is one to examine, before deciding to blame a catch all bogey man like foreign policy, religious freedom or Islam – as sadly those who dislike complex nuance in favour of one problem one easy solution may. The latest reports suggests one of the suspects was an Islamic convert during or just after college; radicalisation to jihad may be a factor. The blame game will go on of course. The fault however lies squarely with those that would commit such an atrocity in the light of day wanting to cast in shadow how we go about our daily lives. In the fight against global jihadism it is preciously how we live which upsets them – it makes us all targets.
So yes it would be wrong to completely dismiss world events, and global Jihadism from what happened. It would also be wrong to hold UK Muslims to account for the actions of two people. Muslims are the main victims of jihadism.
In the wake of this tragic event, we need to stand in solidarity with our servicemen and women, the people of Woolwich and Muslims. Revenge and hate crimes are never legitimised by dehumanising people. I cannot criticise religion for that without stressing it is a very human trait that we all must avoid when provoked.
Murderers took away a life most savagely. I am resolved they will not take my humanity. I will not live in fear, or be terrorised into thinking differently by those that use violence or intimidation.
Follow up blogs:
A Response to terror
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The Eurovision Delusion
Eurovision is the biggest music competition in the world. A party for those watching, a chance to make fun of contestants’ clothes and looks, while enjoying the occasion as Europe sings to each other.
In the United Kingdom we blame the politics for us doing so badly in recent years. Every single year we blame the attitude towards us, and cosines of other countries to each other. That border geography is the thing that plays a part too.
Yet every single year I listen to the songs and chose my top 3 and one of them wins. Based on what I heard not what punters say. Denmark, with a feisty Shakira clone produced a song which was fun, flamboyant and upbeat.
By contrast we managed 23 points – less than a tenth of Denmark’s. Comparing the entries that was about right.
Frankly what I said to Phillip Schofield counts. We delude ourselves. Until those that chose our entry with outdated ballads and past their career best singers get how to take a music competition seriously – as a contest that you play to win, we just will not be in the top half of the table.
Nor frankly will we deserve to be. It is only a music competition but if they have the audacity to play it this way give us back the choice of who represents us and with which song. We gave Denmark, the winners, a maximum 12 points after all.
I think we can do better.
UPDATE:
BBC pundit Dr Eurovision explodes the “it’s all political” nonsense in detail
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Health Needs of Carers, Colin Brewer and Atos
As regular readers and followers on twitter know, for the last two years I have been looking after my severely disabled brother full time. That means 17 hours a day, with an average of 5 hours sleep – adrenaline surging in the early hours ready to deal with medical emergencies which happen at least once a week. He will need constant supervision till his last breath, though he is able bodied enough to be active but not aware of his own needs and safety or the capacity to look out for them.
So when the Royal College of General Practitioners addressed the health needs of carers I hope it has a positive response:
Dr Clare Gerada, RCGP chairman, told Sky News: “They have higher rates of mental health problems, higher rates of physical health problems, higher rates of financial problems.
“It’s very important we look after this hidden army of people that do a phenomenal job every single day across health and social care. – Sky News
The article mentions that the monetary value of what family carers do is over £100 billion. Which I can imagine given my own contribution to saving tax payers money is £72,000.
Colin Brewer
However, there are some like Colin Brewer who would like to save even more:
‘disabled children should be put down as they cost the council too much money’
This matters because he is an independent councillor, and has just been re-elected despite the media storm his comments provoked, in the county council where my brother and I reside.
His remarks were not enough for the people of his district to turf him out, or vote in sufficient numbers so he would not be re-elected. They have instead given him a platform to voice such views. The electorate have said:
The murder of the disabled to save money is acceptable public discourse.
How is that for stress?
Councillor Brewer has been back on form after his election victory supporting infanticide and a cost benefit analysis to the life of a disabled person comparing such a decision to support with funding public toilets – Source
Yet I remember eating with my brother in a restaurant and his favourite song came on. To which he stood up and danced to. So I joined in for a few seconds, then said to him we had better finish our food, and I sat down to eat, which he copied.
A gentleman of the age of Colin Brewer, as he passed by our table minutes later, placed his hand on my shoulder and said “You’re a good man doing a fine job”. The comment was like a weeks vacation in a moment. That kind of public support means the world.
Atos
I have received in the post today from Atos a twenty page document to explain why my brother will not be able to work. I get through the days and nights concentrating on the fun my brother can get out of life and how to expand that. A walk through the woods, running from the sea as it comes in, the way he dances for joy as the kettle boils.
He is already registered with the Department for Works and Pensions as being permanently severely mentally disabled, with no mental capacity. So for twenty pages I can be reminded of exactly what my brother cannot do, never be able to do, a life limited by something that never happened to me. I can add that paperwork this month to finances, meetings with his GP, meeting with his consultant, meeting with social worker, meeting with care agency, meeting with occupational therapist and the paperwork all this entails.
Then the small matter of looking after someone.
You wonder why carers do not have time to look after themselves? My concern is that one of the family carers’ greatest fear is that revealing the work load, and the stress, their role will be taken away from them or be judged as failing. So they try not to let on.
Besides the option to take the person you are caring for with you is often impractical – so who looks after them?
If they think the GP is going to quiz them to see how they are coping, carers may be even less likely to use their services for regular heath concerns and check ups. This needs to be done tactfully, or else the very thing it is meant to be helping with could make the present situation even worse.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Video: Panorama “Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Councils”
The BBC flagship current affairs documentary Panorama revealed in April 2013 what the secularist community had long feared. That access to legal address from marriage, child custody and even domestic violence was being undermined by the Sharia Councils. That it encouraged the flouting of court judgements in place to protect victims.
A memory stirred today that these fears were first mentioned on this blog in 2008 when criticising the Archbishop of Canterbury’s public support for Sharia Law to exist alongside secular law.
That blog examining the collusion of the Church of England with Sharia Law can be read here.
One quote to see in light of the above documentary:
[Archbishop Williams]: “The problem here is that recognising the authority of a communal religious court to decide finally and authoritatively about such a question would in effect not merely allow an additional layer of legal routes for resolving conflicts and ordering behaviour but would actually deprive members of the minority community of rights and liberties that they were entitled to enjoy as citizens; and while a legal system might properly admit structures or protocols that embody the diversity of moral reasoning in a plural society by allowing scope for a minority group to administer its affairs according to its own convictions, it can hardly admit or ‘license’ protocols that effectively take away the rights it acknowledges as generally valid.”
The answer is simple my Lord Bishop – do not give religious law legal force. There is a reason why the law book of England is not the Bible. The law has developed based on tradition, culture, legal practise and Parliamentary Democracy within a liberal pluralist political system. Because a sub group feel passionate in their way of living does not make them a special case when it comes to temporal matters.His answer however is that the believer would have the right of appeal based on secular rights – that the jurisdiction of British law would trump Sharia law. The question then becomes why give legal weight to Sharia Law which under certain circumstances could be superseded? It becomes not only a recipe for conflict and legal wrangling but is ceding the rule of law to a religious body. It is a step back to the dark ages.
Rather than helping believers and none to live together in harmony this is something that would if enacted like Williams suggests tear the nation apart. The rule of law would not apply equally. Under what circumstances would someone accept less than their full rights that secular law gives them? Do we imagine such circumstances are done out of respect for the law of Allah, or fear of the community that they live in? What Williams promotes for harden the lines that already separate towns and cities across this nation. Many Muslims are in this country because their descendants were secularists fleeing the cruel imposition of religious law. He may not be advocating it, but the principle is the same – the law of the land applies to one and all, and is not based on supposed divine text and bodies with authority to interpret the mind of God.
Please support the One Law for All Campaign
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Margaret Thatcher via Spitting Image
Margaret Thatcher – a tribute brought to you via Spitting Image.
My Way:
Grantham Anthem:
The Wets:
The Vegetable Cabinet:
UPDATE: Apologises to email subscribers for broken link to Grantham Anthem – have mended.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Secular versus Home Schooling and my first meme
Ray Comfort has a wealth of material that can be used for a contrarian to get stuck into. He mentions homeschooling (my experience of being homeschooled and attitude to faith schools here):
I recommend following @askegg on twitter aka Andrew Skegg.
As I mentioned in my previous blog:
Religious prayer for children is actually a legal requirement on schools in England. However parents can opt for children not to attend Religious Education lessons. For me I find it odd that the State should legally require a religious function to be carried out by a school – such as school prayer – but say that learning about other faiths is not compulsory.
The main contention is that it seems that parents are reinforcing their religious belief on children. On this score I have to make clear that I am not suggesting that religious parents to do not take their children to church, or tell them about their faith. But the faith most people have is based on where they are born and who their parents are – it is factors that have nothing to do with the choice a child makes. My contention is that children should be aware of other faiths, and be brought up to be capable of independent thought and critical analysis.
That is not because I want all children to become atheists when they grow up. But I want them to have the choice, with the best information at their disposal and the faculties to understand what they believe. To genuinely believe something is to appreciate and understand something – most tenants of faith are beyond the comprehension of a minor and even many adults have difficulty expressing certain aspects of dogma. As such they are children of faith parents – they have yet to reach an age where they have made an informed choice.
To put in perspective no one would say of Socialist parents that their child is a socialist child. There is no school of Socialist character where children in addition to learning the National Curriculum learn about the great traditions of the Labour Party, the leaders and policy through the ages. A mention is made of other political parties and philosophy but the school reflects the foundation of a mainstream political philosophy. [Source]
For a while I have thought about creating my own meme; reading Andrew’s tweet gave my first inspiration to download an app thus the creation below. Feel free to use.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Carey On Gays
Lord Carey has criticised aggressive secularism as threatening the benefits of marriage in society by pursuing gay marriage to the point of persecuting Christians who are against such people and peccadillos taking place in everyday life whether staying at a Bed and Breakfast or professing their love in a legally binding way. In the Daily Mail article, he has chosen the weekend of the redemption and salvation of humanity to suggest that we are in danger of societal breakdown as a transmutation of heterosexual marriage occurs if gay people can say “I do”.
Lord Carey was Archbishop of the Church of England from 1991 – the same year that marital rape became illegal in England – to 2002. In that most sacred of unions a husband did not need full consent of his wife to have sex with her – it was a right before 1991 to rape her. I doubt that Carey argued at the time this would change the nature of marriage to it’s detriment. However, consenting homosexuals marrying now apparently will:
As David Cameron knows, I am very suspicious that behind the plans to change the nature of marriage, which come before the House of Lords soon, there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society together for time immemorial.
By dividing marriage into religious and civil the Government threatens the church and state link which they purport to support. But they also threaten to empty marriage of its fundamental religious and civic meaning as an institution orientated towards the upbringing of children.
How the glue will come unstuck if gay people marry is unclear – it is true that their union may not produce genetically their own children – though as “Milk” says God knows they try. However, this misses another crucial reason people marry: recognition both civically and legally of the relationship between two people. The rights such as to see your loved one in hospital, inherit an estate, if the relationship breaks down legal address. In this sense the recognition of gay long term relationships is about understanding human nature and equality of citizens in legal situations. That supersedes the right of anyone to discriminate on basis of sexuality or moral authority on what nature should be.
Carey wants registers to be able to refuse to marry same sex couples. This misses crucial part of current legislation that allows religious protection (say on serving alcohol) if not part of job description without being sacked or disciplined – I am using that as a real life example in an entertainment leisure setting. If the state redefines marriage than it has changed the legal definition rather than the job description. This is not about creating a new institution – it is about espousing the institution of marriage as the union of two people.
Churches do not have to perform same sex marriages, but civil authorities will and there is no opt out for their register employees. Just as there is not if an interfaith or interracial marriage they may disagree with for religious reasons. Some are trying to argue that line of argument is wrong because gay marriage is a new institution; rather as I argue extending legal rights to same sex couples that different sex couples already have, but within an existing institution. Civic officials have no right to refuse citizens what they are legally entitled to. If that is aggressive thinking, perhaps you are being too defensive in being against rights.
The only way to argue gay marriage is so different is to suggest there is something perverse about same sex couples wanting legal means of recognition for their relationship in the way different sex couples can. In the telegraph link above the blogger recognises as I do this is the main point to stress in the debate rather than a direct comparison to interracial marriage struggle in the USA. If you call homosexuality wrong, unnatural, a sin against God, then you have revealed your fascination with this sin makes you want to stop others who rather enjoy it being happy. The pursuit of happiness is a natural right that trumps others’ bigotry preventing.
Perhaps some may want an accommodation made: registers can refuse same sex weddings, not call gay unions marriage but civil partnerships, not give same entitlements (eg pensions and welfare benefits) to gay couples. The crucial point in staying the course is that two people that love one another and want their relationship recognised with legal protections and rights they would otherwise not have, and publicly declare the status of their relationship, should be allowed. With or without giving birth to children.
That Lord Carey did not even try to address that point, or suggest how Christians should feel about the love that dare not speak it’s name, is one reason why he does not just lack the authority of office. Stressing the idea of fertility at this time suggests a more pagan idea to human rights at Easter.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Is Religion Exempt From Satire According To The BBC? Clarification and Your Action Required
Red Nose Day (Comic Relief) is a biennial UK telethon event, which aims to raise money for charity. The hook is on the promise of entertainment in the form of famous faces ‘doing something funny for money’. It is hoped that this will attract viewers, and hopefully donations along with it. (Our team raised over 10k! Just saying)
Over the years, some incredibly talented, hilarious performers and Lenny Henry have appeared during the TV event to participate in various skits, some live, some pre-recorded, some funny, some cringe-worthy.
