Voluntary Slavery?

I really thought that the Salvation Army in the UK did a lot of good, on balance, despite my antipathy to religion and religious organisations. Their involvement with workfare has finished off any residual respect I had for them.
The government doesn’t like the word “workfare”, and neither does the Sally Ann, They always talk about the people who are forced onto these schemes, with a withdrawal of benefits as punishment for not complying, as volunteers, which is adding insult to injury when the only alternative is “volunteering” to starve, or freeze, or go homeless. Or all three.
All this is bad enough for people who have just left school, many of whom may have families to support them, but it’s often older people, who have worked for decades and don’t need “work experience”, who are placed on these schemes, and the government have extended the scope of workfare to include disabled people, with the added sting that their placement can be indefinite. If the “volunteer” doesn’t turn up for any reason, such as a vital hospital appointment, they can lose all their benefits.
Even workfare for younger, fitter people is detrimental to society though, as it depresses wages. Why would an employer pay decent wages, when they can use free labour? In fact, why pay wages at all?
An organisation that claims to work for the greater good should not have any involvement with workfare, and quibbling about the name won’t persuade your opponents.

Related articles

• Workfare Picket Report – End Unpaid Labour At Poundland (gogwit.wordpress.com)
• Salvation Army denies existence of Workfare scheme it participates in (no – not satire) (tompride.wordpress.com)
• Is workfare close to godliness? Some Christian charities seem to believe so | Sarah Ditum (guardian.co.uk)

Papal Resignation

So, Joseph Ratzinger has announced his resignation as Pope, and the news media are abuzz with speculation about who his successor will be.
Ratzinger’s Papacy was certainly controversial. His membership of the Hitler Youth raised a few eyebrows. That was a little unfair, as he had very little choice in the matter, and his family would have been threatened if he had refused to join. Indeed, there is evidence that he and his family were opposed to the Nazis. My criticism of him in this regard is that he was in a position to know that the Nazis were by no means atheists, as he claimed on a recent paid holiday to the UK.

The criticism of his handling of the child abuse scandal within his church is on firmer ground, though there is still a degree of hyperbole. It would be wrong, for example, to assert that he is himself a “kiddy fiddler”, but it is true that his lackadaisical attitude to paedophile priests, both before and during his reign, meant that more victims suffered, and for longer, than if he’d acted promptly.

Some people are lamenting the departure of a Pope so adept at bringing the Roman Catholic Church into disrepute, but I’m looking forward to a whole new era of scandal especially if, as is being mooted, the next Pope comes from Africa, a region in which the Catholic Church has particularly bloody hands.

Meanwhile, rumours abound over the precise reason for Ratzinger’s resignation, since “failing health” hasn’t tempted his predecessors to quit.  Perhaps he has had a better job offer!

#WowPetition – Please Keep It Going!

Who’s been at the communion wine?

When I started this blog, I intended to write, for the most part, about religion, and my continued opposition to it. I seem now to write, almost exclusively, about social justice and, lately, the ConDem government’s War on Welfare.

I suppose I could shoehorn religion in, by mentioning Iain “Duncan” Smith’s devout Roman Catholicism, and noting that his faith does not, contrary to the many claims of religious apologists, make him a good person. To emphasise this point would, however, be to ignore the many people who are religious who stand firmly against all that Smith stands for. It would be wrong, as well, to ignore atheists in government, like the Quisling Nick Clegg who, at the very least, stand idly by while Smith hounds sick and disabled people, sometimes to death.

So, just as members of the government, religious and non-religious alike, can join together to persecute the poor, so I will happily stand with my religious friends to fight them. Some people, on either side of the religious divide, will call me opportunistic, but I don’t see it that way. Sometimes, one principle has to make way for another.

Of course, the government side has the best armaments, having better access to the mainstream media than us, and it has been suggested that on-line petitions and social media aren’t going to help so “why bother?”

This defeatist argument often comes from people who are well aware of the role of social media in the “Arab Spring“, so I don’t understand why they’re so sure it can’t work here.

In any case, it’s worth a try, and it’s better than just rolling over and accepting defeat so, if you haven’t already signed the Wow Petition, please head over to http://wowpetition.com/ and do so and, whether or not you’ve signed, you could also help by passing the message along to your friends.

The Daily Mail – Dishonest, or Merely Asleep?

The Daily Mail today published an article titled “‘Being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse’: Latest incendiary claim made by atheist professor Richard Dawkins”

There are problems with the article , but there are a couple with the headline itself. For one thing, the “latest incendiary claim” was made in 2006! Furthermore, Dawkins’ contention is a great deal more nuanced than is suggested by the “journalist”, Daniel Martin.

I’m not keen on some of Dawkins’ wording in his original writing, all those years ago. For example, he wrote:

“ Doubtless, too, some fall at the violent end, which is terrible but I would make two points about it. First, just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn’t mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one.”

It can, and I believe should, be argued that any assault is a form of violence, and I would have preferred the words in that quote that I’ve bolded to have been in quotes. Even better would have been more appropriate words but, in fairness, I can’t think of any myself, so I can hardly criticise Dawkins for not being able to.

What Dawkins is saying is that there are different levels of severity of child abuse. This is as true of religious teaching as it is of physical abuse. Many of the people who are horrified and offended by Dawkins’ stance on this issue probably don’t realise just how cruel some of the more extreme religious adherents can be. Often, the two go hand in hand, with the indoctrination used to further the sexual and/or sadistic predilections of the abuser.

A child being told that a beloved grandparent, for example, has gone to heaven, even though in the view of some (including myself) it is not the best way to deal with bereavement, is not in the same league as telling that child that their friend, who as far as she can tell has been taught the same doctrine,  is going to be tortured for all eternity for having a different group name. The differences between Protestant and Catholic beliefs are unlikely to be understood by the 7 year old in Dawkins’ example.

As I understand it, Dawkins isn’t saying child abuse is trivial, though in some cases the child may treat it as such. He’s saying that, sometimes, religious indoctrination can be even worse.

But it’s not just Dawkins saying this. The last word should go to the woman who wrote the letter to Dawkins that he cited.

“Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as ‘yuchy’ while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest ? but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares.”

Related articles

• Physical versus mental child abuse (http://richarddawkins.net)

“Creeping Secularism?” Good!

Peter Bone MP has just succeeded in his bid to introduce a bill to amend the Charities Act 2011. If this amendment is passed, a religious organisation will automatically be given charitable status, regardless of whether it actually performs any real service to society. Being religious, and preaching one’s beliefs, will be regarded as beneficial to society.

I know many religious people who are kind and compassionate, and who give generously of their time and money, but I also know judgemental religious people and organisations who are the absolute opposite of what any sane person would call charitable.

The cultish Plymouth Brethren’s failure to be recognised as a charity is what kicked off this retrograde amendment. Apparently, some of their number helped out locally during recent flooding. So did people of other, and of no, religion. Such an act, though laudable in itself, does not make its participants a charity.

It’s not that I think religious organisations cannot also be charities. It’s that, like everybody else, they should have to demonstrate real charity. It should not be a given that religion is good for society. I certainly don’t regard it so. In his speech when introducing his bill, Bone complained of a “creeping secularism”, as if it was a bad thing. Yet again, somebody religious fails to realise that secularism offers protection to all religions against the prominence of one, as well as protecting  the non-religious.

I don’t withhold donations from genuine charities just because they happen to be religious. I will if this amendment is passed, as I won’t be able to tell that they really are charitable.

International Blasphemy Day

 

I was trying to think of something suitable for International Blasphemy Day, something suitably blasphemous, but a better idea occurred to me when I saw this story, an illustration of the stupidity of blasphemy laws.

I remember when the album, Jesus Christ Superstar, was first released, and checking it against the Gospels. Everything in the musical is in the book, though there are some bits of the book that aren’t in the book, obviously since different parts of the book contradict each other.

So some Christians are objecting to a faithful version of their story set to music, and this shows why blasphemy laws are such a bad idea.

Not only are atheists going to be caught by them, and members of religions other than the one applying the law, but if you like a style of music that isn’t approved by those in charge you could still be in trouble, even if you are of the “right” religion. As for the various sub-divisions of the various religions……

I expect that some people will be offended by my picture, if they see it, and would like their sensibilities protected by law.

They should be careful what they wish for.

Atheist, With No Artificial Additives

 

 

I’d promised myself that my previous post would be my last on the subject of FreeThoughtBlogs, but they had to go and surpass their already inane nonsense.

It seems that nobody can be a proper atheist unless they are Atheist Plus ®, and agree wholeheartedly with all the dogmatic pronouncements that accrue to that exclusive little club.

I criticised Richard Dawkins for his “Muslima” outburst, and I stand by that criticism. It seems, however, that there was some background to that comment, and that Rebecca Watson isn’t quite the calm and thoughtful person she presented in the “elevatorgate” video. That doesn’t excuse Dawkins outburst of course, but it does serve as mitigation.

Dawkins, along with the other “new atheists”, has been castigated by the FTB/Skepchick crowd for more than his words or actions; his very existence is apparently worthy of blame.

He is described as old (something his critics would presumably aspire to), white (an accident of birth. I blame his parents) and privileged. This last seems to be the most heinous crime, and it doesn’t appear to matter what your background is, nor how much money you have. The easiest way to become privileged, as far as the Atheist Plus ® adherents are concerned, is to disagree with them. That disagreement is profound, even if it’s just a word of caution about the wording of some premise.

I disagree with lots of people. I often disagreed with Christopher Hitchens, somebody I held in high regard. Even so, I felt I could learn something from that disagreement, if only the limit of my own knowledge.

Of course, I now learn, I’m doing it wrong. People I disagree with (so long as they’re not Atheist Plus ® acolytes) are to be treated as pariahs, and drummed out of the movement.

Just as God PZ Myers commanded.

 

Welcome To The Collective

You Will Be Pharyngulated

I had hoped that the nuisance that is Pharyngula, along with PZ Myers, would just fade into the background, where they belong.

Unfortunately, Myers and his PZombies appear to subscribe the the idea that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

When the blogger Thunderf00t , having been invited to FreeThoughtBlogs, was summarily banned for the heinous crime of having a different opinion, there was much derision and abuse. Few people noticed, so the PZombies decided to redouble their efforts.

Someone at  FreeThoughtBlogs, either through neglect or incompetence, failed to properly remove Thunderf00t from their mailing list, so he was privy to some rather sensitive information. That information concerned a conspiracy to get another “subversive person” (to borrow a term from another cult) fired from his job. Naturally Thunderf00t did what any decent person would do and alerted the target.

Now there are calls for Thunderf00t to be “drummed out of the community” and accusations, without evidence, of hacking.

Pharyngula has become a religion as odious as any it presumes to criticise. If they get any worse, they’ll start to make David Mabus look rational.

Related articles

• The irony of Freethought Blogs (forthesakeofscience.com)
• FTB and the conspiracy to defraud/ Drawing a line under this pointless crap (thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com)

Here Be Monsters!

There are still dinosaurs alive today. They are called birds. Birds evolved from a branch of theropods, and are an excellent example of evolution.

Of course, creationists don’t agree, simply because they don’t want to, and no amount of evidence will change their minds.

They do agree, though, that dinosaurs still live, and they insist that this proves that evolution is false. Not for them the carefully accumulated evidence gathered over centuries, however. No, far more compelling for them are myths and legends  which, if you think about it, are where they derive their entire world view.

The particular loonies who are, astonishingly, promoting this idea are the Florida based Accelerated Christian Education (ACE). One particular myth that they’ve latched on to, and teach as fact, is that of the Loch Ness Monster

The legend of Nessie is no longer taken very seriously by even the most gullible Briton and, despite hordes of “Nessie hunters” over many years descending on the shores of Loch Ness, no evidence has been put forward. The occasional photo that is supposed to be Nessie is invariably grainy, dark and indistinct. Yet ACE are teaching it as fact.

The temptation is to regard this as an American problem, since ACE is basedin America, but they have their claws embedded in the UK too, with around fifty schools teaching the ACE curriculum. I’ve met some pupils from one such school, and I shudder to remember the encounter. They were polite enough; in fact, they were polite to the point of insolence. If you’ve ever read  The Midwich Cuckoos (or seen either of the films based on it), you’ll know what I mean.

Just because ignorance has a smiling face, don’t think it won’t stab you in the guts the first chance it gets.

And if all that’s not enough, the ACE curriculum enthusiastically supports all manner of bigotry, including racism and homophobia.*

* Edited, see comments for details

Related articles

• Loch Ness monster cited by US schools as evidence that evolution is myth (scotsman.com)
• Loch Ness Monster Disproves Evolution (jonathanturley.org)
• The Loch Ness Monster Is Real; The KKK Is Good: The Shocking Content of Publicly Paid for Christian School Textbooks (alternet.org)
• How American fundamentalist schools are using Nessie to disprove evolution – Rachel Loxton – Herald Scotland (richarddawkins.net)
• Top 5 Lies Taught By Accelerated Christian Education (leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com)
• Accelerated Christian Education Validated by UK Government Agency (leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com)
• This should be kinda embarrassing (cbv.typepad.com)

Pro-Life “Science” Failure

In today’s Catholic Herald, Francis Phillips reasserts a supposed link between abortion and breast cancer. Now, as an atheist I am bound to be sceptical of a religious-based source. It doesn’t take much effort, however, to discover the truth, that there is no such link.

Phillips cites a paper by Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., as if a medical doctor’s opinion should automatically be accepted as true. This is a tactic also used by creationists in their desperate fight to “disprove” evolution (Look! Look! a SCIENTIST agrees with us!) but, in both cases, the opinions of the overwhelming majority of their opponents, backed up with actual, up-to-date, evidence are conveniently hand-waved away, and bogus “evidence” repeated ad nauseam. In fact, though Lanfranchi is genuinely a medical doctor, she is also a “pro-life” advocate, eager to seize upon any propaganda that helps the cause.

This bogus “evidence” is usually derived from small scale and flawed studies, decades old, which have been superseded by more rigorous experiments, taking into account complete medical records of large numbers of a large cross-section of women, whether or not they have had an abortion or developed breast cancer.

There are many sources that show that a link between abortion and breast cancer has not been demonstrated. I present here just one, from the American Cancer Society.

To insist that the link exists without evidence, and in the face of contradictory evidence, is not only dishonest, it is a cruel deception.

But then, deception is what I’ve come to expect from the “pro-life” lobby.