Religion on the Ropes?

In the Blue Corner
Baroness Warsi of Dewsbury

 

Not content with exposing her considerable intellectual deficiencies on a recent edition of  BBC's Question Time, the undeservedly enobled Baroness Sayeed Warsi of Dewsbury has been very busy this week confirming her status as a seriously mediocre thinker.

Championed by the right-wing Daily Telegraph, her religious views, like those of her woolly-minded leader, have been given more column inches than all the empty pews in all the churches in the shire counties of England. 

This unelected Muslim peer has jumped on Cameron's ridiculous religious bandwaggon and been calling for a large injection of 'faith' in public life. Her call for a defence of Christian values, against the dangers of secularism, is not only unwelcome to most rational people, but also ill-advised, given the clear intolerance of her own inherited faith.

She compares secularism to totalitarianism. A claim so patently ridiculous and seriously inaccurate that one must question her suitability for her current role as Co-Chairperson of the Conservative Party. With such incendiary and ill-informed views she should certainly be removed from office. 

Her claims for the value of faith at the heart of politics, would be laughable, were they not potentially, also dangerous. Faith is belief without evidence, and whilst I fully accept that the Baroness may find the existence of an invisible, intangile unknowable god believable, I don't really want people who hold such untestable beliefs making important decisions in the public sphere.

It's understandable, that due to enforced religious indoctrination during the impressionable years of childhood, many people grow to believe things collectively, which, if believed uniquely, would mark them as insane. It must be stated and restated, that the truth of any proposition is not proven by the number of people who believe, or wish it to be true. Truth is established by evidence, not by faith or wish fulfilment.

It's asserted by Warsi and others, that we require religious faith to make us more tolerant and understanding of our fellow man.  Yet how is morality, or sound judgement served by threats of eternal damnation simply because we believe it unreasonable to worship and adore the imaginary and capricious tyrant portrayed in the holy writings of Christendom  and Islam?

What we really require in public life is not more religion, but a very large injection of intelligence and rationality. We do not need a return to the values of an obscure desert tribe in Bronze-Age Palestine, for whom the wheelbarrow was the pinnacle of technological achievement.

If the deluded Baroness sincerely wishes to live in a society where religion plays a truly significant role in public affairs, then may I respectfully suggest she relocates to Iran. She would not be missed by those of us who value intelligence above stupidity and evidence above faith.


Note to readers: To leave a comment, please click on the tab below.

Honours: a discredited system

The decision to strip Fred Goodwin of his knighthood for his monumental incompetence, and obscene rewards for his failure as a banker, sets an interesting, and hopefully, useful precedent.

Are we now going to see campaigns for the removal of honours from others who've proved themselves unworthy? If so, what are to be the criteria? Clearly, perjury, fraud, and other forms of criminality have not been considered serious enough to warrant the removal of an undeserved honour.

So, if incompetence, avarice and stupidity are to be the new benchmarks for the confiscation of honours, then the House of Lords is going to become very depopulated indeed. Many, may think this not altogether a bad thing, and I'm sure we'd all be able to suggest a large list of lords for the chop.

Of course historically, we've never been deterred from giving knighthoods, dukedoms and even principalities to the less than virtuous. In medieval times, to be an unprincipled brigand was frequently a required condition for ennoblement. I'm sure that knights of yore didn't have to worry too much about the opinions of the common herd.

Not so today however. In the present climate of complete intolerance for any transgression by a public figure, there is scarcely anyone truly deserving of an honour. For who can honestly claim a totally innocent and untainted past? Given this fact, we would be advised to permanently change the rules for the awarding of all honours.

I would like to suggest the perfect solution. In future, all honours should only be awarded postumously. This would put the candidates in a similar position to saints. We should allow a decent length of time to elapse between death and reward, say one hundred years, so that each individual's life could be exhaustively scrutinised to ensure there were no skeletons in any cupboards likely to rattle and embarrass the recipient.

It would also possess the added advantage of filling the House of Lords with the long departed. This would improve both the levels of debate and their lordship's legislative competence. Lord Bishops should be particularly keen on this, as it would remove the temptation to store up earthly riches for themselves and make their admittance to heaven more certain.

All in all, postumous awards would solve an awful lot of our current difficulties. 'Cash for honours' would become 'ash for honours,' since that's all potential recipients would have to offer. Plus we could sell off the House of Lords to help with the deficit and hold all future sessions of the Upper House in a cemetery.

A win win for everyone I think.

Note to readers: To leave a comment please click on the comments tab below.

Cameron the Christian

David Cameron, ex Eton schoolboy and Oxford University Bullingdon Club toff is now advocating a return to 'Christian Values.' For whom exactly?

Presumably not for himself, as this would involve some very unwelcome consequences.

For a start, he'd have to love those who persecute him. If someone were to ask for his coat he'd have to give them his cloak also. If someone slapped him on one cheek he'd have to offer them the other. If a man asked him to walk for one mile he'd be expected to walk two. He'd be obliged to love his enemies as himself and not store up treasures for himself here on earth.

If he really does now believe in 'Christian' values and intends to follow them himself, then I think Samantha is in for a very different future than the one she had anticipated. Of course she need not fear, for none of these values apply to him, or indeed, to any member of his self-serving and increasingly intrusive government.

No, Dave's admonition is meant for the rest of us, who now must suffer the consequences of greed and incompetence brought about, not by an absence of 'Christian' values, but by an absence of intelligence, diligence, sound judgement  and concern for our fellow man.

I applaud his attempt to assert the superiority of some values over others, but in choosing 'Christian' values he's backing the wrong horse.

It's undoubtedly true, that the main values of Western democracies, such as: freedom of speech, equality before the law, equal rights for all, no forced marriage, no female genital mutilation, no stoning people for adultery, no issue of death threats for apostasy, no demand for respect for ridiculous beliefs,  no discrimination on the basis of colour, sex, age, creed or disability, are not simply different from the values of most religions, but are clearly superior.

We should not tolerate, or appease faith based tyranny and we should not be frightened or cowed into asserting the moral equivalence of ridiculous belief systems built upon fear of death, the preachings of priests and the absence of evidence.

By advocating a resurgence of 'Christian' values in our largely secular society Cameron has revealed himself to be at best a woolly-minded and deluded thinker, and at worst a cynical and manipulative opportunist.

I leave you to decide which.


Your opinions are welcome. Please click on the comments tab below to record your views.

 The Myth of Talent

Much has been published recently upon the subject of excessive executive salaries. I've followed the views expressed by various vested interests with a mixture of inevitable resignation and immense cynicism.

The most untested and questionable reason given to justify why senior directors of major banks and other large companies must be paid such huge salaries, is the assertion that they are somehow exceptional people who possess such enormous talent and ability, that if we do not pay them obscene amounts of money they will all resign their very lucrative positions and go and work for someone else.

This is no more than the perpetuation of 'The Myth of Talent,' a delusion we been persuaded to believe by those who benefit from our insecurity, fear, ignorance and gullibility.

Remember, the persons asserting these views are largely the same people who ran our banks into the ground, destroyed our manufacturing base, pocketed enormous bonuses, forced their companies to lay off thousands of loyal workers, had to be bailed out from the public purse and paid themselves salaries out of all proportion to the performance of their company, or their individual worth.

Just ask yourself this: if these people are so exceptional and immensely talented, why we are we all in the economic shit?  

If they are so incredibly brilliant that their loss would prove a disaster, why did their ability not reveal itself when it was required to protect us?

The answer is clear. They are not generally speaking, people of exceptional ability. They are, just like everyone else, flawed, fallible and capable of failure.

We shall not make any progress towards resolving the obscenity of rewarding company executives for failure until we confront and dismiss 'The Myth of Talent,' A conspiracy perpetuated by mediocre thinkers to convince us all that they are indispensable.

We should test their claim of indispensability, by sacking them from their pampered, protected and privileged positions and put in their place people of genuine ability and talent evidenced by results.

We need to call the bluff of these blustering idiots who claim we'd be lost without them.

From all I've heard, witnessed and thought, we'd be much better off if they were all made to resign and forced to seek their future fortune in the lucrative open market they all claim is salivating in anticipation at their availability.

All I would say in conclusion is:  Goodbye, and good riddance to them all!.

Note to readers: Your views are welcome. Just click on the comments tab below to record your views.

What now for our broken society?

Since the civil disorder and looting which took place in a number of English cities last week, the pundits,  politicians and media commentators have been queuing up to tell us why they happened and what we need to do in the future to prevent a re-occurrence.

It is tragically clear from their many comments, that they don't have a clue, either about the undoubtedly complex causes of the civil unrest, or about what may prove to be effective solutions to prevent a future outbreak of  violence, arson and largely unchallenged looting in our major cities.

From the predictable bleating of the liberal elite, I see no evidence that any of them comprehend the part their dogmatic support for the morally bankrupt doctrines of multiculturalism, political-correctness, cultural relativism and 'human rights' legislation has played in the decline of respect and consequences in our society.

Predictably, the morally relativist BBC has been in the forefront of promoting the views of those who fear that the consequences meted out by our judiciary in response to some of the most disturbing civil unrest in our history, may be excessively harsh.

The police have been more robust in the defense of their failure to immediately challenge and arrest the lawbreakers than they were in confronting them. Yet this should not surprise us. Our liberal legislators have created the conditions under which, those charged with our protection, are more frightened of the consequences of  confronting the forces of chaos, than they are of personal injury or enforcing the law.

My fear, is that although extremely serious, the lawlessness and unrest will not prove serious enough to result in a genuine change of direction or attitude. Unless we manage to re-establish a society where we can, without liberal censure, restore adult authority, hold people, (especially children) to account for their actions, allow our teachers to discipline their pupils without fear of dismissal or worse, then the lessons of these tragic events will not have been learned and the opportunity to change the values of our deeply dysfunctional society will tragically be lost, leaving future generations to sink in the quagmire of our cowardice and good intentions.



Note to Readers: If you wish to leave your views, please click on the comments tab below.

 

The Riots 

I had resolved not to write about the outbreak of criminal rioting and systematic thieving that has been occurring in many parts of London and numerous other (so far) English cities. I made this decision because I thought, that with so many pundits of all political persuasions and agendas already pontificating about the problems, the causes and the solutions, I would not have anything new or different to say.

However, having read many comments and listened to countless commentators expressing their views about all aspect of this situation, I realised that I may after all, have something to contribute.

First, let me admit that I'm of a generation which has unfortunately, witnessed the steady and relentless decline of serious consequences for criminal activity in our society. This political failure to confront criminality, particularly among the young has created a culture where there is neither fear, or respect for authority. The current penalties for wrong-doing are woefully inadequate and most punishments do not fit the crime.

The inexorable rise of multiculturalism, political correctness and the deeply ingrained moral and cultural relativism in much of our our media and which is endemic among the political classes, has led to a society, where serious consequences for criminal and anti-social behaviour have been significantly eroded.

We now live in a society, where liberal and relativist values have led to a genuine fear among the general population, and a disinclination of those charged with protecting us to engage with the forces of chaos in case they themselves are prosecuted for taking the kind of action necessary to ensure our safety. This is not just evident in the police's reluctance to engage with criminals and others who bleat victim-hood at every opportunity, it extends to the unwillingness of teachers to confront unruly pupils and the total fear of the average member of the public to confront or reprimand any anti-social behaviour they may unfortunately encounter. 

Sadly, I have not been surprised or shocked by recent events, In fact, I have been predicting them for years.. It does not take a genius to realise, that if one creates a society where 'human rights' take precedence over 'human responsibilities' and where the rights of criminals are more closely monitored and valued than the rights of victims, then people will grow up with no fear of consequences. Couple this with the clear evidence, that even when the police do their job and bring an offender before the courts, the punishment they receive is all too frequently perceived to be totally inadequate.

The assertions from politicians and senior police that the perpetrators of these crimes will face the full force of the law is quite clearly a joke. Firstly, many of them will never be identified, secondly, of those that are arrested, few will be charged and lastly, those very few who are charged will be tried and sentenced by a criminal justice system which will fail to adequately punish them.

From what I've heard so far from our political leaders, senior police and media commentators I have no confidence that any of them have either the will, intelligence or courage to take the measures necessary to deal with the immediate threats. Even more concerning, I don't believe they understand the historical responsibility they bear for the current state of our deeply fractured and dysfunctional society.


Note to readers: Your comments are welcome. Please click on the comments tab below if you wish to express a view.

Grumpy: The inspiration for this blog

My first post, on this my new blog, is a tribute to 'Grumpy,' the disgruntled dog who inspired its title.

I encountered 'Grumpy' in a picturesque Dartmoor village called Widecombe-in-the-Moor in deepest Devon. He had been tied up and clearly temporarily abandoned by his owners outside the National Trust Shop.

It was obvious upon our first meeting that he really wasn't happy and despite my very best efforts to cheer him up with jocular fantasies about future walkies, discussions about fondly remembered bones and assurances that things would turn out alright in the end, he was not to be consoled, or cheered by my pathetic efforts.

I politely asked him if I could take his picture and although he seemed to approve, his demeanor clearly indicated that he was not prepared to show the camera his softer side. Despite my very best efforts, using all the tricks I'd learned to put photographic subjects at their ease, he maintained his sulky refusal to be charmed.

But what really persuaded me to use my photo of 'Grumpy' as a header for my blog, was the fact, that when I showed his picture to my very perceptive wife, she exclaimed: 'My God! That dog looks exactly like you!'
His wonderfully exasperated expression certainly reflects my attitude to a great many of life's insanities. I hope that in the posts to follow I'll accurately reflect Grumpy's justified disenchantment with the world and all its bitter sweet disappointments.