Mehdi Hasan has written about his youthful homophobia and how by embracing secularism he resolves the private belief that homosexuality is wrong (New Statesman).

The mood music of the piece has been applauded while I wonder if they noticed the lyrics which demand attention. Ignore them and you miss that his secularism is for those of us who as non Muslim can enjoy the gay life; just leave us alone to make a Muslim being gay potentially difficult.

Let us start with what homophobic behaviour at school is like, something which effeminate boys like myself went through. I had a whole class of male 11 year olds chanting over and over “Bend over for Jehovah!” for a full five minutes only stopping when the arts teacher decided to finally come to her lesson. Part of my bullying, which once involved me being on the floor praying to God to forgive them as the shit was kicked out of me, was the decision that I must be gay because I had the look of a pretty boy and read books. That I was studying with an anti-gay religion is one of the biggest ironies of my life and I hold my head up now that I did not try to play that card with them.

You may or may not be surprised to learn that, as a teenager, I was one of those wannabe-macho kids who crudely deployed “gay” as a mark of abuse; you will probably be shocked to discover that shamefully, even in my twenties, I was still making the odd disparaging remark about homosexuality.

Yes Hasan, that behaviour gives the cover for the very things that happen in school. You may repudiate your younger self. It took you till your 30s. This is no cause for applause. About bloody time for a man of your education. Shame on you for taking so long should be the cry, not good on you.

So let me be clear: yes, I’m a progressive who supports a secular society in which you don’t impose your faith on others – and in which the government, no matter how big or small, must always stay out of the bedroom. But I am also (to Richard Dawkins’s continuing disappointment) a believing Muslim. And, as a result, I really do struggle with this issue of homosexuality. As a supporter of secularism, I am willing to accept same-sex weddings in a state-sanctioned register office, on grounds of equity. As a believer in Islam, however, I insist that no mosque be forced to hold one against its wishes.

If you’re gay, that doesn’t mean I want to discriminate against you, belittle or bully you, abuse or offend you. Not at all. I don’t want to go back to the dark days of criminalisation and the imprisonment of gay men and women; of Section 28 and legalised discrimination. I’m disgusted by the violent repression and persecution of gay people across the Muslim-majority world.

I am pleased Hasan you will not impose your faith on those outside it, as you are a secularist. My concern is you are quite willing to allow anti-gay feelings and belief to prevent Gay Muslims marrying in a mosque. You do not even attempt in the article to suggest how to address these tendencies in the Muslim community as you wrestle with your own beliefs. Beyond saying stoning or killing gay people of whatever religious persuasion is not on. I would like to think we could take your thinking on that as a given.

You mention the problem is men lusting after other men’s procreative genitalia as something to be considered wrong (the same for women too). For equity gay people should be able to get married. But the thought of consenting same sex people having orgasims with each other, without any chance of a baby, is something you have an issue with as a believer. If not, then I wonder why Islam’s view on homosexuality is a concern for you that it clearly seems to be. Faith and state have to get out of the bedroom.

I am writing this because I want to live in a society in which all minorities – Jews, Muslims, gay people and others – are protected from violence and abuse, from demonisation and discrimination. And because I want to apologise for any hurt or offence that I may have caused to my gay brothers and lesbian sisters.

And yes, whatever our differences – straight or gay, religious or atheist, male or female – we are all brothers and sisters. As the great Muslim leader of the 7th century and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, Ali ibn Abi Talib, once declared: “Remember that people are of two kinds; they are either your brothers in religion or your brothers in mankind.”

It is not clear what rights and privileges Gay Muslims should enjoy with their gay non Muslim brethren in Hasan’s article. Under the belief of secularism we are to respect these differences as religious freedom not discrimination. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is no detail by Hasan beyond what we know: homophobia is an issue in society. The word “rights” is not even mentioned in the article. Nor for that matter is the word “equality” by Hasan.

Does this not tell you all you need to know?

No one should get a round of applause for just saying homophobia is wrong and religious bigotry should not be imposed on non believers. That is the minimum to be taken seriously in public discourse, not grounds for a standing ovation.

If he had written not only should gay Muslims not be subjected to hatred by the community but also we should work hard to give gay Muslims the same rights and privileges that gay non Muslims have – then I would be cheering him from the rafters. Notice he never says that. Tolerance and mutual respect yes. That though empowers no one the way rights do, and the way equality enshrines as one law for all.

Speak up for gay Muslims who live in terror of being outed, where leaving the faith as an apostate to have their secular rights can be made unbearable by the community and even their own family. Do not give plaudits to someone that contains their own bigotry as a constant conflict. I know where my sympathies are.

Ladies and gentlemen please remain in your seats.

Related blog: Oh for the wings of a horse … Dawkins and Hasan

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Above: My companions while taught at home

Even now twenty years on I can trace the route of my father’s tears of joy as I told him the news we had left the study of Jehovah’s Witnesses, on one of his weekly visits to see me. For years he had not let on his true feelings: regarding my being taught at home or being so close to baptism, and demanding a blood transfusion if needed. He feared not being allowed to see me or my brother had his displeasure been realised. His amateur dramatics in local Gilbert and Sullivan productions had paid off in his once a week performance as Dad. Shows like Princess Ida which no one could stop me seeing now. It was roughly a year or so after the divorce that mum had accepted the bible study. Timing is, as they say, everything as to what happens in your life. It felt like six years of mine had been wasted.

The biggest loss was a religious community, even though it had enforced every facet of belief on my child self. Our lodger was tolerated by the elders of the congregation because he did not “practise” his homosexuality at our home and used the back door to enter his part of the house. Word play is something he taught me, together with an appreciation for Douglas Adams, which I shall always be grateful for. There was no one else, besides him and my father outside the faith because “bad associations spoil useful habits.” Satan and his minions were considered able to use people outside the faith to get you to leave. Apostates are willing agents of the evil one by this reckoning.

There was no one to talk too about losing my religion. My mother had been concerned I would be the one still committed. However we reacted very differently on leaving. She still believed Jehovah existed, but the Society had failed to represent him. My own view was initially a deist but I had my work cut out learning about other faiths and whether science had answers that scripture did not know, before I could be sure of anything. Our views drifted further in time and my future atheism would distress her. She still read the Society publications, whilst I did not even want them on the book shelf. I had realised how easy it was to believe passionately in something that was not worthy of such devotion.

Playing as a war god to be worshipped on a new planet – definite NO

The congregation did shun, literally not talking or meeting with us, save for contact three months later by a ministerial servant (one down from an elder) seeing how we all were. With glee I happened to be playing the strategy god war game Mega-lo-mania on my newly acquired Mega Drive and thought – here is one game you are not burning. Note that playing card games or chess were not allowed because of the tarot origins of cards and the military aspect of chess. Naturally I bought books to learn card games and taught myself to play chess to fill in the spare time I now had by not attending or preparing for eight hours worth of meetings each week.

Being taught at home meant I had no other children to talk too accept at the Kingdom Hall and study meetings. What was now available to openly explore in the world had exponentially increased while the known population had dramatically declined. This was made harsher because I had no childhood friends to call on having existed mainly in a world of suited men and well dressed women old enough to adopt me. Those people from my childhood no longer existed.

Like the elder who led our local weekly study group who I called Uncle (his idea not mine) who grilled me on my bible knowledge; a challenge I revelled in showing off on. The other elder old enough to be my grandfather who used to take me weekly for swimming and diving – his dives from the top board were legendary in the swimming baths. My mother as a single parent with a younger disabled son could not provide such social outlets. To avoid being lonely I read books – but I was now alone.

My private study on evolution reading Richard Dawkins, and desire to go back to school to obtain qualifications, destroyed the relationship with my mother. With the TV aerial back on the roof (absent for two years because of “evil TV”) she shouted at David Attenborough whenever he said “evolution” on his wildlife documentaries. I was no longer turning to her for advice or counsel, nor able to help with the care of my brother when at secondary school as I had when taught at home. I was hitting the library as somewhere to do homework without the distractions of family life. Plus I finally discovered why Ford Prefect liked parties as I socialised. There was resentment too on my part that she had been so gullible to believe what the Jehovah’s Witnesses said. I mourned a childhood of no celebration and no friends to speak of. My adolescent self was being reborn in a brave new world.

Even chess was off limits with the military undertones – yet I could read Old Testament

Going back to secondary school seven months after leaving the faith helped in so many ways beyond obtaining qualifications. There was bullying to start with as the new kid (though I had been there for two terms four years previous). Being in the school play changed everything – there was a camaraderie and sense of belonging with my own peer group. Plus it helped me to understand why my father had the acting bug. I also became the chess captain when chess had a brief resurgence as Britain’s Nigel Short took on the Russian Thinking Machine that is Gary Kasparov.

Without that lifeline provided by teachers who really did look out for my education and gaining life experiences – I honestly do not know what story I would be writing now. My mind was made up that I would achieve something that nobody in my family had done before – attend university. Something which is a low priority when you think the end of the world is soon to be upon you.

It took me five years to get over instincts that constant mind training at meetings had installed on an impressionable young mind. In adult life I have twice on the off chance met people like myself who grew up in the faith only to leave. They had not met someone else like themselves, and the ability to talk about these things with someone who knew first hand was one I wish my adolescent self had access to.

Social media via the Internet makes talking to such people possible now. I hope people take advantage of it. That is why the apostasy project is so important. However, when you are brought up to consider apostates as capable of being a shining light while working for the dark evil one, none of us should take for granted how difficult it is for someone with doubts to reach out.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My twitter timeline shows a divide on whether Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) or Ronald Lindsay (President and CEO Center for Inquiry) are in the right regarding his speech. I was not there, but this may give you background to what people are saying. Of course the published responses may lead to a different view if we had been there.

In Washington DC The Center For Inquiry (CFI) has just hosted Women In Secularism 2 which finishes today. My twitter feed suggests great speakers, and panels on topics worth discussing for the $250 ticket cost of attendance. However, the opening remarks by CFI Ronald Lindsey left a bitter after taste at the event that kept some delegates chatting in PZ Myers room till the early hours. PZ explains:

the head of CFI, Ron Lindsay, chose to use the opening talk of the conference to basically chastise the attendees and instruct them in how to behave, and I’ve had more than one person tell me that they were irate that their introduction to an event that they paid a considerable sum of money was to be greeted by a talk that pandered to people who hated the event, and were volubly complaining on the internet throughout the day about it. The impression they had was that the organization was unhappy to be sponsoring this conference.

Rebecca Watson wrote her thoughts about the “shut up and listen” attitude where sometimes it is important to listen to the experience and expertise someone can give you than sound off your own gut feeling. You can read them here – it is a measured critique that does not go into ad hominem about Lindsey’s opening remark talk.

By contrast Ronald Lindsay response does not deal with those issues in feminism, like how transsexuals are treated in the movement, which Watson makes clear together with how feminist activists have been victimised into silence. He instead writes not on those substantive issues but his feelings:

But in her defense, perhaps Watson was too busy tweeting about how “strange” it was to have a “white man” open the conference to pay attention to what I was actually saying. (I’m just glad Watson didn’t notify security: “white man loose on stage, white man loose on stage!”)

The picture he paints of Rebecca is as a North Korean propagandist against white males talking about feminism, perhaps using twitter to get the feminist police onto him. Her article deserved not just more tact, but a recognition of the problems the feminist movement faces. Lindsay links to it in his article but makes no reference in his rebuke of her.

This is the extract from Lindsay’s talk on privilege and shut up and listen:

This brings me to the concept of privilege, a concept much in use these days. Let me emphasize at the outset that I think it’s a concept that has some validity and utility; it’s also a concept that can be misused, misused as a way to try to silence critics. In what way does it have validity? I think there is sufficient evidence to indicate that there are socially embedded advantages that men have over women, in a very general sense. These advantages manifest in various ways, such as the persistent pay gap between men and women. Also, I’m not a believer in a priori arguments, but I will say that given the thousands of years that women were subordinated to men, it would be absolutely amazing if in the space of several decades all the social advantages that men had were promptly and completely eradicated. Legislation can be very effective for securing rights, but changing deeply engrained patterns of behavior can take some time.

That said, I am concerned the concept of privilege may be misapplied in some instances. First, some people think it has dispositive explanatory power in all situations, so, if for example, in a particular situation there are fewer women than men in a given managerial position, and intentional discrimination is ruled out, well, then privilege must be at work. But that’s not true; there may be other explanations. The concept of privilege can do some explanatory work at a general level, but in particular, individualized situations, other factors may be more significant. To bring this point home let’s consider an example of another broad generalization which is unquestionably true, namely that people with college degrees earn more over their lifetime than those who have only high school diplomas. As I said, as a general matter, this is unquestionably true as statistics have shown this to be the case. Nonetheless in any particular case, when comparing two individuals, one with a high school degree and one with a college degree, the generalization may not hold.

But it’s the second misapplication of the concept of privilege that troubles me most. I’m talking about the situation where the concept of privilege is used to try to silence others, as a justification for saying, “shut up and listen.” Shut up, because you’re a man and you cannot possibly know what it’s like to experience x, y, and z, and anything you say is bound to be mistaken in some way, but, of course, you’re too blinded by your privilege even to realize that.

This approach doesn’t work. It certainly doesn’t work for me. It’s the approach that the dogmatist who wants to silence critics has always taken because it beats having to engage someone in a reasoned argument. It’s the approach that’s been taken by many religions. It’s the approach taken by ideologies such as Marxism. You pull your dogma off the shelf, take out the relevant category or classification, fit it snugly over the person you want to categorize, dismiss, and silence and … poof, you’re done. End of discussion. You’re a heretic spreading the lies of Satan, and anything you say is wrong. You’re a member of the bourgeoisie, defending your ownership of the means of production, and everything you say is just a lie to justify your power. You’re a man; you have nothing to contribute to a discussion of how to achieve equality for women.

Now don’t get me wrong. I think the concept of privilege is useful; in fact it is too useful to have it ossified and turned into a dogma.

By the way, with respect to the “Shut up and listen” meme, I hope it’s clear that it’s the “shut up” part that troubles me, not the “listen” part. Listening is good. People do have different life experiences, and many women have had experiences and perspectives from which men can and should learn. But having had certain experiences does not automatically turn one into an authority to whom others must defer. Listen, listen carefully, but where appropriate, question and engage.

By my reckoning assuming 15 words a line the above is over 600 odd words on the subject of privilege and how it relates to debate within feminism. Rebecca means both those things and not just those 200 words Ronald thinks. To quote Rebecca:

To summarize, Lindsay spends a good deal of time arguing against the idea that feminism as a movement has no significant internal disagreements, an absurd idea I have never actually heard expressed by any feminists, but I suppose Lindsay and I travel in different circles. Lindsay doesn’t mention who exactly has argued this point so I can’t check to see why on Earth they’d think something so obviously contradictory to reality. It seems impossible to me that a person could be involved in modern day feminism in any way without noticing the lively and occasionally contentious debates among feminists about topics like intersectionality, particularly with regards to the fringe radical feminists who hold openly transphobic beliefs.

How should a CEO have responded? An article saying he wants to get to know the problems feminists have experienced with transgender issues and how secular organisations can stop the victimisation of women in the public sphere when debating. Then actually you say this but I meant that.

But no, he responded with scorn and anger publicly.

He is going to need a thicker skin in the job, and I am unimpressed with how he has handled himself in print given the serious points Watson raised. Rather than offer a private talk he wrote an enflaming response and now is trying to douse the flames he caused in the first place because of a critique.

Related Blog: The Critical Thinker Gives No One A Free Ride

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

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

Watching your childhood toys being packed up invokes memories of an innocent age lost in a sea of time, preserved in a cardboard box. Presents from Christmas like the Millennium Falcon and X Wing fighters bought after watching Star Wars for the first time. Spectrum games given for your birthday where you fight valiantly against hordes of ghosts and monsters to save the damsel in distress.

I was still a child when such things were gathered, and what was chosen by an elder would be buried or burnt for all time. For those things above suggested a power beyond that of Jehovah, referencing the occult and satanic machinations. My mistake was playing one of my computer games where you collected a crystal ball during a visit by an elder. Even PAC man did not escape this moral maze. I was nine years old when childish things were put away.

The year before at school assembly we had thanked God for the rain. Which made me wonder, if God decided where the rain should fall, why was there drought and people starving as a result in Africa? If we were all God’s children we all deserved life giving water.

My mother did not have the answers. There were no science books at home, and the internet did not exist. That same evening there was a knock on the door by Jehovah’s Witnesses. She put the question to them, and their answer made her start a bible study with them.

By the time I was ten this study involved four meetings of two hours a week each, door to door ministry at the weekend and about 20 odd hours of personal study preparing for questions at meetings. At these meetings Watchtower and Bible Tract Society publications were read, and bibles checked to see scripture said what the publications referenced. My aim was to find the verse while the sound of rustling still resonated in the hall.

To prepare for the end of this system of things I was taught at home during high school. The aerial for the TV was removed to prevent watching subversive programming shortly after the first Iraq war. The end of days were clearly at hand were the mutterings of the faithful.

Not even one per cent of the population identifies as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and of all faith groups it has the biggest exodus of children once they are adults. My time came early having read subversively Douglas Adam’s Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It had been banned by the elders because it suggested an alien race built the earth, not Jehovah, and for mice not us. The humorous quotes a lodger mentioned made me want to read.

Hitchhikers made me think how would I prove God not aliens made the earth? Researching Society publications for this ultimate answer unearthed instead prophecies made that did not happen during the 1920s. My head swooned. The bible warns against false prophets and to reject them. Plus new editions of books I had read changed dogma while quoting different scriptures. Once, those destroyed at Sodom and Gomorrah would be given a second chance after Judgement day in an old edition. Now, the new edition said they had already been judged for eternal destruction. There was no acknowledgement of the change – it just happened.

I was fourteen when my mother and I decided to leave. Her doubts started because she would not say “only those that call on the name of Jehovah will be saved”. She felt it was for God, not man, to make such judgements. So she was not allowed to go door to door.

Wonder and curiosity – these are qualities that made me to want to understand the world and universe I live in. For me there is a greater comfort in knowing we are working to reduce suffering caused by disease than thinking God will end this but probably kill 99% of the living population in the process.

Those qualities are not childlike but essential qualities to go beyond unquestioned obedience and sacrifice.

I had gone from bible student to being regarded as an apostate. Despite the elders best efforts I found there was a richer world of knowledge, culture and humour than was imaginable in the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

For more on The Apostasy Project click here

Follow up blog: A Brave New World (on becoming an apostate)

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

If you want to suggest that your first amendment rights are under fire because of islam, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has become the unexpected pin up for free speech. Odd, given the content of his lamentable film Innocence Of Muslims is not the reason for him serving a year in prison. Plus the suggestion that he is culpable for the violence of others, or should pay a price for blasphemy, is more ludicrous than the acting.

Rather he was previously convicted of bank fraud committed to the tune of just under a million dollars. Part of his probation agreement meant not using aliases plus not use computers for transactions nor access the Internet without clear permission of the Probation Office. On all counts this was something he failed to do in making the film, including using an alias while raising finance for the project.

More on that can be found here.

Unfortunately, just as Tommy Robinson (EDL leader) was made out to be a political prisoner despite being sentenced for clearly breaking the law, people have made out Nakoula is one too:

The article sited above, written by Rich Lowry can be read here.

That article opens:

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula deserves a place in American history. He is the first person in this country jailed for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws.

You won’t find that anywhere in the charges against him, of course. As a practical matter, though, everyone knows that Nakoula wouldn’t be in jail if he hadn’t produced a video crudely lampooning the prophet Muhammad.

Maybe not, but the high profile video drew attention to him breaking the probation order on him.

As Attorney Ken White in the first article sited remarked:

Is Nakoula in federal prison because he made the “Innocence of Muslims” video? Superficially, perhaps, in the sense that his behavior may have escaped detection if he hadn’t become famous. It’s even possible that someone in the Obama Administration tipped off — or pressured — the Probation Office about his conduct. (If that’s what happened, there ought to be a Congressional investigation.) But Nakoula’s conduct is the sort that would absolutely be pursued if detected by his Probation Office and would routinely result in a revocation of supervised release and a return to federal prison. People saying otherwise don’t know what they are talking about or don’t care, or both.

As they say in Hollywood, never let facts get in the way of the narrative you want.

Related Blogs: Sam Harris and first amendment rights to criticise Islam

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Time to Wake Up: Magical Thinking on Climate Change

As delivered on the Senate floor
Wednesday, May 8, 2013:

Mr. President, as I’m sure you suspect, I am back on the Floor again to urge that we awaken to what carbon pollution is doing to our planet, to our oceans, to our seasons, to our storms.

And I wonder, “Why is it that we are so comfortable asleep, when the warnings are so many and so real?” What could beguile us away from wakefulness and duty? I was recently at a Senate meeting where I heard a member of our Senate community say, “God won’t allow us to ruin our planet.” God won’t allow us to ruin our planet. Maybe that’s why we do nothing: we are comfortable that God somehow won’t allow us to ruin our planet. That seems such an extraordinary notion that I thought I would reflect on it in my remarks this week.

First of all, the statement refers to God: it is couched in religious terms. But is it really an expression of religious inquiry? I think not. It is less an expression of religious thinking than it is of magical thinking. The statement that God won’t allow us to ruin our planet sweeps aside ethics, responsibilities, consequences, duties, even awareness. It comforts us with the anodyne assumption that—no matter what we do—some undefined presence will, through some undefined measure, make things right, clean up our mess. That is seeking magical deliverance from our troubles, not divine guidance through our troubles.

So is God really here just to tidy up after our sins and follies, to immunize us from their consequence? If that is true, why does the Bible say in Galatians 6:7, “Do not be deceived . . . whatever one sows, that will he also reap”? If God is just a tidy-up-after-us God, why does the Book of Job 4:8 warn that “those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same”? If God is not a god of consequences, why does Luke 6:38 tell us, “For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you,” and Proverbs 22:8 tell us, “Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity”?

Jeremiah 17:10 says, “I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.” So it seems that we should not walk in the counsel of the wicked, or sit in the seat of scoffers, and then expect there will be no bitter fruit of our deeds, no consequence. We are warned in the Bible not to plow iniquity, not to eat the fruit of lies; where in the Bible are we assured of safety if we do? I see no assurances of that. The Bible says at1 Samuel 2:3 “the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed,” and that at 2 Thessalonians 1:6 “God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict.” Those who “sow the wind,” the Bible says, “they shall reap the whirlwind.”

And look at our own American history. If God is just here to tidy up after our sins and follies, how could Abraham Lincoln say this about our bloody Civil War to free and redeem us from the sin of slavery? Here’s what Lincoln said about that war: “Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said: ‘The judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.’” That was Abraham Lincoln. Blood, drawn by the sword, in equal measure to that drawn by the lash, as the true and righteous judgment of the Lord—that doesn’t sound like a God of amnesty.

Go to the very beginning. If we live in a state of God-given general amnesty from consequences, why were Adam and Eve expelled from Eden for their sin? Why was Cain sent into the wilderness, condemned to wander, for the crime against his brother? If it is your assertion that God’s love has no measure of tough love, wander a bit through the Old Testament before getting too married to that idea. And if the Old Testament is too bloodthirsty for you, look at Revelations 11:18: “And thy wrath is come, and the time . . . that thou . . . shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” Destroy them which destroy the earth.

If we believe in an all-powerful God, we must then believe that God gave us this Earth, and we must in turn believe that God gave us its laws of gravity, of chemistry, of physics. We must also believe that God gave us our human powers of intellect and reason. He gives us these powers so that we his children can learn and understand Earth’s natural laws, which he also gave us. So that, as His children, we can use that understanding of Earth’s natural laws to build and create and prosper on His Earth. And hasn’t that in fact been the path of human progress? We learn these natural laws, and we apply them, to build and create, and we prosper.

So why then, when we ignore His plain natural laws, when we ignore the obvious conclusions to be drawn by our God-given intellect and reason, why then would God, the tidy-up God, drop in and spare us? Why would He allow an innocent child to burn its hand when it touches the hot stove, but protect us from this lesson? Why would He allow a badly engineered bridge or building to fall, killing innocent people, but protect us from this mistake? Why would He allow cholera to kill in epidemics, until we figure out that the well water is contaminated? The Earth’s natural laws and our capacity to divine them are God’s great gift to us, allowing us to learn, and build great things, and cure disease. But God’s gift to us of a planet with natural laws and natural order has, as an integral part of that gift, consequences. Consequences when we get that law and order wrong. The child’s hand burns; the bridge falls; the disease spreads. If it didn’t matter whether we got it right or wrong, there’d be no value to God’s creation of that natural law and order in the first place.

So, is that then to be our answer to polluting our atmosphere with carbon by the megaton and changing our climate and changing our seas? Is it to be our answer to that that God would not allow us to ruin our planet?

We are to continue to pollute our Earth, with literally megatons each year of carbon, heating up our atmosphere, acidifying our seas, knowing full well by His natural laws what the consequences are, and instead of correcting our own behavior, we’re going to bet on a miracle? That’s the plan?

Excuse me, but that’s not really the American way. President Kennedy described the American way as he ended his inaugural address connecting our work to God’s: “. . . let us go forth,” he said, “to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

That is the order of things. We are here to do God’s work; He is not to do ours. How arrogant, how very far from humility, would be the self-satisfied, smug assurance that God, a tidy-up-after-us god, will come and clean up our mess; that on this Earth God’s work need not be our own.

Remember the story of the man trapped in his house during a huge flood. A faithful man, he trusted God to save him. As the waters began to rise in his house, his neighbor offered him a ride to safety. And he said, “I am waiting for God to save me,” so the neighbor got in his pick-up truck and drove away. As the water rose, the man climbed to the second floor of his house. And a boat came by his window with people who were heading for safe ground. They threw a rope and they yelled at the man to climb out and come with them. He told them “No, I trust in God to save me.” They shook their heads and they moved on. The floodwaters kept rising, and the man clambered to his roof. A helicopter flew by and a voice came over the loudspeaker offering to lower a ladder to the man and let him climb up, and fly to safety. The man waived the helicopter away, shouting back that he counted on God to save him. So the helicopter left. Well, eventually the floodwaters swept over the roof and the man was drowned. When the man reached heaven, he had some questions for God. “God,” he asked, “didn’t I trust in you to save me? Why did you let me drown?” God answered, “I sent you a pick-up truck, I sent you a boat, I sent you a helicopter. You refused my help.” Just as God sent the pick-up truck, the boat, and the helicopter to the drowning man, He has sent us everything we need to solve this carbon pollution problem. We just refuse. We just refuse. Some of us even deny that the floodwaters are rising.

Mr. President, as I’ve indicated in previous speeches, climate denial is bad science, indeed it’s such bad science it falls into the category of falsehood. Climate denial is bad economics, ignoring that in a proper marketplace the costs of carbon pollution should be factored into the price of carbon. Climate denial is bad policy in any number of areas: bad national security policy, bad environmental policy, bad foreign policy, bad economic policy.

Though I’m a Senator not a preacher, from everything I’ve learned and believe, it seems to me that climate denial is also bad religion, and bad morals. Hopes for a nanny God, who will with a miracle grant us amnesty from our folly, that’s not aligned with either history or text of the Bible.

We need to face up to the fact that there is only one leg on which climate denial stands: money. The polluters give and spend money to create false doubt. The polluters give and spend money to buy political influence. The polluters give and spend money to keep polluting. That’s it. That’s it. Not truth, not science, not economics, not safety, not policy, and certainly not religion, nor morality. Nothing supports climate denial. Nothing except money. But in Congress, in this temple, money rules; so here I stand, in one of the last places on Earth that is still a haven to climate denial. In our arrogance, we here in Congress think that we can somehow ignore or trump Earth’s natural laws, laws of chemistry, laws of physics, laws of science, with our own political lawmaking, with our own political influence. But we’re fools to think that. The laws of chemistry and the laws of physics neither know, nor care, what we say or do here. So we need to wake up. We need to walk not in the counsel of the wicked, nor sit in the seat of scoffers, but with due humility awaken to our duty and get to work. Because here on Earth, God’s work must truly be our own.

Thank you very much, I yield the floor.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

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

Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard in a pop video by David Bowie, which makes sacrilegious use of imagery in a way former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey calls “Juvenile”.

Is that not enough of a recommendation to watch the video?

Enjoy, but if you are under 18 do not watch. Because, just like religion, it may disturb you.

The Catholic Defence League did not live up to it’s name, going instead for an ad hominem attack on David’s sexuality and age. Rather than a deconstruction of the video imagery used. Naturally the more you say how terrible something on the Internet is, the more people will watch.

Yet they also ignore that by wanting salvation they are actually part of that baying crowd wanting Jesus crucified to save them. A perfect man without sin to die for a particular disease of original sin. So we can keep on sinning but have a chance at redemption.

Christians cannot get enough of that doomsday song. The irony Bowie is pointing out is lost on them, as they try to drown out the message by their condemnation. Still, we can remind them.

Hopefully youtube will not pull down again, having mistakingly done so earlier.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

(More on Sky News)

We can say no red lines have been crossed.

That we cannot take out artillery positions shelling a village.

That we cannot destroy airports where fighter planes take off to strife villages.

That we cannot take out oil depots that allow massacring soldiers to travel to make this civil war genocidal.

A picture paints a thousand words.

They are just a few of the hundred thousand reasons doing nothing is no longer an option as ethnic cleansing goes on.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78