Death, or to be more accurate what is imagined to be after the end of the body’s mortal coil gives up the ghost, is conisdered the main reason for religion.

The fear of death in particular allowing people to cling on to a hope that the meaning of their life is rewarded, or at least continued in the hereafter. That loved ones are waiting for you or will be with you in due course.

The lack of any certainty in how this happens, which god is scoring your worldly doings and intimate thoughts, or the mechanism by which this is accounted for is besides the thought of rationalists to comprehend. The argument goes that hope springs eternal – at least till the last breath.

For loved ones that remain, it is a comfort to think they are in a better place. Even if not considered true, the rituals of pray, going to a chapel or pray room, or seeing a man of the cloth brings a benefit to those in hospital.

The National Secular Society in the UK is arguing that the National Health Service should not pay for these services (effectively not the tax payer). Churches or faith organizations should foot the bill (£40 million a year) for these services so resources can be spent on front care services.

Humanist chaplins do exist – the demand for people to bring comfort, prepare you and loved ones for death or ill health is not in dispute. The funding is given to faith groups on the basis of demand. The idea being if a buddhist Chaplin is at your hospital then their services our required by patients.

Yet this is one which does not get me worked up. Daniel Dennett wrote how disappointed he was people prayed for him when he was rushed to hospital. For him the thanks was due to the staff that battled to save his life.

However, while prayers and people of faith would not raise my spirits, and I see the after life as a fools comfort like relying on the lottery to make you set for life, I am not inclined to take it away from people who do find it helpful.

As to funding these things, I would prefer to see this come from supporters rather than all tax payers. I expect that faith groups do make contributions both financial and of time, the figures would be good to know.

If this went to humanist chaplins too, then there would be a level playing field. The bottom line for me though is what helps the people in hospital, rather than the principle of secularism.

And if that means no humanist chaplins in a hospital but demand enough for a priest and a rabbi then so be it. It does not have to be rational, only demanded and in this circumstance the expense can be justified in welfare terms.

Radio 4 covered this in The Today programe this morning, which can be picked up on podcast.

It has been a while since I wrote a blog. So a nine hour train journey from the West Country to the Midlands (thanks to Sunday engineering works) gives time which can be used to, literally right this wrong in a write way.

So a good place to start are comments which I have now gone through and approved. As usual the Jose Mestre and Jehovah’s Witnesses stance on blood transfusions has the most comment.

In the Blood

To have a substitue for blood in a critical blood loss situation would be brilliant; at the moment though it is only valid for minimal loss.

Health risks are nothing compared to being dead. Especially with death being a fatal condition with no after life healthcare coverage.

This is where my criticism of the religious refusal kicks in. As one who for many years was involved in going door to door in ministry work I do know the theological position, as I mention in another blog. The criminal act of letting your child die rather than give medical treatment, which gives them their only chance at living, is somehow countered with an after life faith in the resurrection. That spiritual care in whatever form has a priority over the material one.

The supernatural has no part in examing the best medical care for your child. A parent has no right to enforce their religious belief in this regard – their duty of care first and foremost is the life and physical well being of their child. Not what their interpretation of a text tells them.

Peace Out

Much as love, peace and understanding are good things the unnecessary death of a child cannot be allowed by a tolerance of religion or agreement that parents may give religious instruction to their children. It is a medical matter, and needs to be thought of in that way.

As to adults making the choice, it is their life to end as irrationally as they wish. In the same way that I can criticize that choice as being morally wrong, not with accord to the teachings of Jesus. The waste of a life, only serving as an example where belief in religion allows people to do things which for any other reason would shock more people to outrage.

My ability to tolerate belief is in the freedom of religion. That does not grant the liberty to inflict harm on those unable to reason for themselves with the ommission of medical care.

Comments

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming (whether you agree or not). When not on a train will link to the ones I am responding to here.

But please bear in mind two key points:

Argue with my points rather than personal comments – and if you do not know what a Homo economicus is think economics rather than sex.

Thanks guys …

Happy New Year everyone!

The Xmas edition of New Scientist asks the question of who matters most: Darwin in the 200th annviversary of his birth or the 400th anniversary of Galileo using a telescope?

If we go by sacrifice, Galileo wins by being under house arrest for his convictions based on empirical observations. Darwin had others, like Huxley, to vocalize his findings. Whether Darwin was “agnostic” for personal loss or philosohical science reasons, what is clear is that he had regard for how people used faith. Galileo spoke for himself, vigorously, his battle with papal idiocy not shaking his catholic faith.

While that matters not in terms of the value of their findings, it is a measure of what they had to go through. For those reasons I admire William Tyndale – I may disagree with all theology but his stand on free speech paid the ultimate price, one that paved the way to deciding for myself the truth or otherwise of the bible.

Acceptance of truth would also favour Galileo. We may point out time to get used to the idea, but anyone that claimed the sun went round the earth would be a laughing stock. Claims that evolution is wrong are cloaked as a different point of view – the verification of the theory distorted in a way that, if there was a prime mover, brings discredit on their works and culminates in dishonest inquiry that goes to any lengths to support a conclusion.

The value of humanity, as dust or apes in origin before being human, seems unchanged with either assumption. We are mammals, as Hitchens reminds us, but no less for it due to the modifications that make us as a species stand out. It may mean we are not so much a steward as a part of the animal kingdom. Our abilities mean we have moral responsibilities to behave like one.

The controversy gives Darwin an edge. That and the simplicity of a theory that explains increasing complexity, that has a body of evidence supporting it. It needed more than a telescope to prove, and Darwin devoted much of his life to collecting material to make his findings evidence based.

Rocks flying around, or the mysteries of life itself unfolding? Darwin set up biology on the path that would lead to genetics and to network theory. His thinking has set us on a path of discovery that directly effects us.

Yet both are to be celebrated. For humanity is better off for such men as these to grace us with findings that added to the sum of knowledge and paved the way for empirical observations rather than traditional orthodoxy, and discoveries that are the backbone to understanding what we are.

In financial hard times, a means of reducing expenditure and charity is to be more discriminating in your provision. The trick is to make the case: either resorting to demonising a sub group, or making the case that too many will suffer with over stretched resources. The last that you do not have responsibility for them.

So we turn to Oxford where “homeless tourists” are attracted to the beauty and splendour of the city. Help will be offered to those with a personal link to the city; others will be given a one way single train ticket out save if they would face violence on their return.

My first instinct is to be alarmed where rights are diminshed for any group, and I will know the cause that takes their rights away for fear that my rights may too be taken, and that my rights are worth less when the rights of my fellow citizens are diminished.

Those without property or fixed abode may be ordered out of a city. Shall we deem that a local authority has an arbitray power to exile people from their boundaries because their personal history is not linked to the town?

By this logic local authorities can evict “home tourists” who buy holiday property, denying locals accommodation and increasing the price of housing. Residents without personal links to the city could be asked to leave.

The right to live where you will are not dependent on your ability to own property. Oxford are stating that homless citizens have less rights then the population because of this, and that being local has a quasi privledge for a citizen.

That idea needs challenging – the rights of people are not subject to local considerations. The birthright of a citizen is to live and reside where he can. Being homeless is not a crime that makes these rights less; it is a national scandel that any response is anything less than solving this social problem, but to say here is your fare, on your way.

Nationally we need to tackle the issue of homlessness. We have a civic responsibilty not to condone our citizens living in cardboard boxes. A moral responsibility not to send them on their way.

Truth is a matter, not of what we believe or feel; of what can be proven without falsehood being allowed to stand on it’s slate. This applies to religion and, as will become apparent, Christmas Quizzes. For example some will claim the bible as truth for being god’s word. Without considering that there is no proof supporting that latter claim as a foundation for the former, for faith alone does not make a text divine. Nor devout assertion make a piece of text sacred. That is left to the imagination of scribblers and critics.

We may yet hope to agree on what the text says. Though there are arguments over the rendering of passages we may at least consult the text to what it says. Rather than rely on songs or common knowledge.

Which brings me to the Christmas Quiz at work, attended by Jews, Muslims, Christians and an infidel. The question was how did the animals go into Noah’s Ark?

For the song it is 2 by 2. Hurrah! Hurrah! I claimed that was half true. For Genesis 7 has god instructing Noah on entering the ark with his family:

2take with you seven pairs of each kind of ritually clean animal, but only one pair of each unclean animal.3Take also seven pairs of each kind of bird. Do this so that every kind of animal and bird will be kept alive to reproduce again on earth.

I was the only one to point this out. The non believer sticking to biblical text. As we had done on the question of how many ghosts visited Mr Scrooge – 4 when you count Jacob Marley warning him of the other three.

Religious friends tell me that atheists assume that they should be fundementalists with regards their faith. Perhaps one reason why people claim faith is that they do not grapple with fundementals. For if you think animals went in two by two, then examining the tennents of your faith is not the rock upon which you base it.

Rather common knowledge suggests that they so marched. Common knowledge should not be confused with a sense of things as they are. The latter allows us to find out about things by inquiry and empirical objectivity. The former allows what is held by tradition or acclaim, by appeal to populaism to be true.

Let us not limit ourselves to common knowledge when there are better fruits to pluck and feast upon. No matter who tells you not too.

George Bush had not one, but two shoes thrown at him. The journalist even had time to make a speech before hauling them – the first shoe about the invasion of Iraq and the second for the widows and orphans.

Much is being made about Arab culture and showing the soles of your feet as a sign of disrespect.

That though would surely be a double barefooted flying kick?

However, despite having the best security of any leader in the world, a man was able to let fly with a second shoe before being surrounded by security agents. Both shoes narrowly missed the President. Considering the damage a Pretzel did this qualifies as an all out assault.

Just five weeks to go before Obama becomes President. If he can go eight years without such an incident he will have done well. The fear, softly spoken but felt, is that the risk is beyond steel tipped footwear.

Such fears are less compared to everyday life in Iraq. Still, it must be a safer place if you would risk going about barefoot in Iraq.

Tim Rice wrote “A Winter’s Tale” for David Essex, misquoting Shakespear’s play by mistake. Yet when the cold wind chills to the bone, my mind reflects on the past year. Not just because the year is nearly out but to numb the body from the icy sensations running between my skin and a wool rich Italian coat. Not always caused by the weather.

This self reflection was helped along by the first Christmas card coming from my ex. In answer to her question, returning my Nintendo DS and games would go a long way towards it. However, this is the first full year since being 19 I have been single. Seeing as next month I am 31 this has been an atypical year.

I have been single, though I have not been without affection, only lacking what was mutually agreed as a missing firm foundation. I just managed a long distance relationship in Germany at University in my 20s; the prospect of one in the United States into my 30s makes me grateful she realized that would be too much for either of us, newly single people, to embark on.

At the time after this revelation was delivered, suddenly stranded on my own in Stratford Upon Avon having seen Henry V, I felt like I had seen my Christmas puppy get run over on Boxing Day. Almost exactly a year to the day in Shakespear’s hometown, I am glad to have been spared seperation across the pond. Still have fond memories of puppy love.

Returning to Henry V, love seems like a lot of tennis balls rolling across the stage. It is everywhere going in all directions, but watching and grabbing onto one is enough to give you more then tennis elbow. You will be aced often, unsure of your footing. Still worth taking a swing though.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers – do not dispare. Because, as Shakespear observed elegantly, love is comical, beautiful, a tragedy. Though our adventures mean the world to us, Time Rice observed why should the world take notice of one more love that has failed?

I know that Summer shall come again, and that those long Summer Days will lengthen those lustful enchanted evenngs. I am in no rush. The best things come to those who wait, even though it is just another Winter’s tale for now.

There is an issue about assisted suicide. Being able to see what that entails for loved ones is one thing that needs to kick start a debate in the UK. Which makes assisted suicide illegal here but will allow travel to Switzerland as long as there is no public interest in prosecuting travelling companions. Such a journey, and moment of death, was televised last night.

How long the House of Commons will duck the issue, time will tell. Gordon Brown, when not saving the world, announced that biased pressure from others means he is against. I would suggest maybe increasing hospice care would be one consideration – and that going to a foreign land to die, in unfamilar terroritary is the pressure of suffering with death the only release.

Right now the “not in our back yard” approach is the symptom of a government that needs an election to help it on it’s way. They are not prepared to tackle these issues or have a debate. Leadership has to go beyond the one financial dimension of the Prime Minister.

Yet we need to see what the process is like, both in the travel and the reality of assisted suicide. I would welcome comments on whether the program succeeded in that.

The Pregnant Man

This is a program I am currently watching. The narrator is the same guy for “Make Me A Christian” on Channel 4. As my review of that show suggests I have not high hopes for this.

A woman (Tracy) that has hormone treatment to become more mascaline (legally a man named Thomas), and a double masectomy, decides to concieve when their female partner cannot.

Granted most couples cannot resort to the husband as a way of bearing children. However, I find it very difficult to get wound up about this. Given the situation it seems one way round it.

With easy money from the media, that insist it is the first man giving birth, to set the family up – good for them. As far as I can see they are not hurting anyone.

As to the environment the daughter will grow up in – well the fact that they want the child is actually a rather good indication. Two devoted loving parents I can settle for. The documentary will not answer that, as I doubt it would on any couple, as we see YouTube videos dennouncing Thomas and the couple hiding out from a German documentary crew.

I would be more impressed by the science if someone born a man became a woman and then pregnant.

At work all people could talk about was this program; not the issue of assisted suicide. One issue is more important to society than another.

Till then we wait for the first Sea Horse carrying Homo sapien, let alone an artifically inserted reproductive system. And for a debate by Parliament on how we can choose to die.

The police want to search premises that you are responsible for. Even without legal expertise it would be pertinent to enquire the reason and whether a warrent has been issued.

That neither the sergent at arms or the speaker thought to ask about a warrent or consult a legal team looks beyond carelessness. A member of parliament was detained and his office in Parliament searched on the basis that a civil servant had been breaching confidentiality by leaking. An annoyance to government, but not a matter of national security.

Damien Green MP has been accused of grooming the mole – a civil servant that had run for public office as a Conservative. That has the mark of spin – Green is not in a position to offer such high favours. Perhaps like Ratty he could have offered Moley a trip on a rowing boat with a picnic. Leaking is more fun when fine dining and wine has been consumed.

In the debate in the Commons the mood will have to be seen if the Speaker or the Sergent At Arms will be held to account or if MPs will focus on Parliamentary Privledge being reflected in new proceedures to cover future police requests..

I have more sympathy, not usually the case, for the Home Secretary who kept her distance from the operation for concern that it would be seen as a conflict of interest between politics and gathering evidence for a leak investigation.

The modern day issue is the conflict between the executive and parliament. The speaker, not taking responsibility and blaming others, does not inspire confidence that parliament will be served. An over mighty executive needs an effective speaker.

He should go.

ADDITION:

The government sets up it’s own committee, stuffed with Labour MPs, to investigate the incident when the police investigation into the leaks finish. This going against the speakers own attempt to have a cross party investigative group.

I wonder that the main reason MPs did not criticize the speaker in the debate today is that they fear the government would choose a right toady to replace him.

Parliamentary democracy is something that may not excite the general populace. It however is a concern for those that realize that power is best served in the public interest when it is accountable. If the population will not, our only hope is our elected representatives.

That is why the arrest of Damien Green and the search of his Parliamentary office should worry us.

Facebook

As friends have testified I have suddenly become active on facebook, whether stating that I am having onion soup or latest status asking for advice over whether my first iTune album download should be Guns n Roses’ or the Kings of Leon’s album. The f button on my iPhone home page allows me in seconds to update it.

So through facebook I learnt that a former work colleague is pregnant when she posted the first sonogram; become more aware of the hobbies and interests of my new work colleagues (which will come in handy for Secret Santa which I am organising) and discovered that out of my friends I have been voted:

best father (potential)

hottest

best catch

With such ringing endorsements this single young man (I believe that when I leave the 18-30 group in January that cannot be used any more in an absolute sense, hence getting as much mileage out of it as I can now) feels he has enjoyed his bachelorhood for long enough. At least I should go into the Christmas Party tonight with more of an air of confidence then the song “How Soon is Now?” ringing in my ears. Hold on to your friends.

Surviving the Christmas Party

The Party is over

How do you survive a staff Christmas Party (the politically correct Holiday Party can take a running jump. Call a spade a spade for crying out loud)? It seems fairly obvious and common sense:

Turn up

Have fun

Don’t talk shop

Don’t drink more then you can handle (absolute drunkenness)

Don’t become unsober quicker than the people around you (relative drunkenness)

Beware camera phones

Try to not look for love at the Party – better places to woo without other work colleagues watching you

Mingle like your social life depended on it

On that note better make sure the house is organised, as some people may well end up crashing at mine tonight. Not that I am trying to break any of the rules above. Though sometimes that is the charm about rules; they make such a charming clinking sound when they are broken. The only think is the sound can reverberate for far longer than you had intended.