In Part 1 I provided a transcript of an interview spouting intolerance and hate purporting to be on behalf of the Islamic religion and tried to answer why we treat such radicals as representations of the whole. Here I want to try to answer a question posed by a newspaper editorial asking why when such attacks happen the media turns to the 'Muslim community' for answers.
This is a transcript of an on-the-street interview between a Daybreak reporter and Anjem Choundary that took place Friday morning two days after the Woolwich attack (... indicate interruptions and speaking over each other) please forgive the punctuation.
I did end up watching the Papal announcement ceremony if only because it came on straight after Eggheads.
Lot's of guards in razor helmets that I wouldn't want to be headbutted by. Someone in a parade who seemed to be running late and had to run in position and some guard commander fussily directing his troops into straight lines. At which point absolutely nothing happened.
Cue a load of whaffle from the commentators. At one point they started contemplating what a potential candidate would do if they were elected and what name they might take rolling through all the traditional names and then someone brilliantly stated that "Of course John Paul the first was a new name". Really no shit John Paul the first was the first person to take that name; I'd have put money on it being John Paul the second.
The cameras weren't controlled by the BBC so we had a lot of crowd shots and an amusing "crowds as far as the eye can see" as we watched the traffic roll past behind the crowds. A quick chat to some Italians who, oddly enough, were hoping for an Italian to win. Then a loud cheer for no reason until we were informed that the lights had gone on in the room next to the balcony, the room we couldn't see due to the camera still being fixated on the crowds. Oh I did have some fun trying to translate the inscription on the façade as it whipped past as they focussed on the balcony; caught the date of 1612, but who was pontiff at the time? Then caught PAVLVSV following APOSTOL...
Then out tottered some guy who looked like they'd dragged him out of a nice cosy coffin to speak some Latin. I actually heard the name Jorge Mario and the taken name of Francis, but didn't grasp it as it wasn't one of the top contenders listed in yesterday's paper.
Then the commentators woke up, presumably after a "Who the hell is that?" moment and the breaking news banner became 'Jorge Bergoglio named' while the scrolling banner beneath assured us that the new pontiff would be named soon.
Then out he tottered with a younger guy helping him forward and I switched off.
But 76 though, seriously a whole 2 years younger than the guy who resigned? Don't they ever learn... oh wait no, no they don't.
Had a chat with an old friend yesterday. I won't get into too much about what started the discussion, but it turned to religion how it's not necessarily about God (capital G) or even god (lower G) but about a higher power - believing in a higher power. As examples he tried to throw concepts of infinity, and cause and effect at me... at me can you imagine :-)
Anyway as the concept of 'higher power' is helping him I didn't throw the big guns at him; despite what some people might conclude I'm not into breaking people's faith I'd rather they came to their own conclusions and help them with some of the false 'scientific' concepts religions tend to throw at their followers.
Frequenting many different atheist and secular sites it's hard not to spot someone in a predominantly Muslim country condemning someone for disrespecting Mohammed or producing images of him. This is interesting to me because taken at a particular level of the Islamic faith this acts against the faith.
Sadly I only caught the last half-hour of Sunday's "The Big Question" which had atheists and theists discussing the evidence for God. Sad to say most of it was the same back and forth that occurs on any internet forum dealing with the subject though slightly more polite and with the ability to interrupt others, something I noted the theists doing to the atheists more than the other way around.
Important point - I'm not talking about or for all theists or atheists only the ones on this programme and ones I've encountered. Likewise as the programme was about God with the capital I'll also refer to 'it' as capital "H" He.
Isn't. Despite what the media keeps stating this is a ban on "conceal[ing] one's face in public". There are exceptions on the grounds of safety, medical and festivities or in religious facilities. That means you can wear a motorcycle helmet while riding your motorcycle; you can wear a Halloween mask on Halloween; a surgeon etc. can wear a protective mask in a hospital and a Muslim women can wear a veil in a mosque; but not outside those circumstances.
One could argue that this law came into effect because of the Muslim face-coverings and that its intent was to prohibit them, but the law is not specifically aimed at them. As such those looking to challenge this in the European courts can only state that they have a right to conceal their identity in public; not that this is discriminatory against their religion.
Except how would that play out if a new law was drafted prohibiting head coverings in public. No hats; no caps; no turbans... ah. Would an exception be made on the grounds of religion? No Khalsa Sikh would be able to set foot outside otherwise. So if such an exception were to be made; shouldn't a similar one be added to this law?
It depends. To a Khalsa Sikh the wearing of a turban is mandatory to their religion; it's not open to interpretation; the wearing of a veil for Muslim women is. There is nothing specific stating that one must be worn and as such it can be defined as a non-religious item of clothing. Just as a Christian can wear a crucifix, but doesn't have to.
The way this law is worded I don't think they have a case.
I do like comments like this, so much better than 'cheap X at somesite.com.' As my policy is to respond to comments that pose interesting points I do so here. My comments in square brackets []
Caught the end of a quiz show on ITV where the questions was "What book comes before Revelations in the Bible?". The next day I re-watched "Sherlock Holmes" where Lord Blackwood quoted from the "Book of Revelations". As the former is supposedly a factual show and the latter features two supposedly intelligent characters the responses should have been-
1) None; and
2) What are you talking about?
Because there is no "Revelations" in the Bible, there is no "Book of Revelations" it's the "Revelation of St John the Divine" that is revelation singular in a book singular. So it could be John's Book or John's Revelation, but it cannot be either Revelations or Revelation's.
Why does this seem so entrenched in the media both fictional and factual?
One might wonder why I as an avowed atheist care? Because if you're going to quote nonsense at least make it accurate nonsense. If I end up in a theological debate I will instantly tune out anything you say if you start quoting 'revelations' at me as you've demonstrated you have either not read the Bible or have little understanding of it beyond parroting others. As a result I simply won't waste any further time on you.
Just some questions for all you good Christians out there for this time of year.
Okay not Christmas-ey; but Evan Almighty was on so firstly -
How many of each animal did Noah take aboard the Ark?
Now a couple of Christmas ones -
In what building was Jesus born?
and finally -
How many kings visited Jesus at his birth?
Sunday Morning Live on the BBC featured a Young Earth Creationist. Oh my it was painful to watch. I'm not taking him as representative of all such belief holders, but I'll take on his 'arguments'.
As the Shuttle has closed the comments I've no opportunity to reply to Jon except here: (I hope he sees it)
Avoidance Jon? "Whereas in your story we know for sure there isn't a monster with the God question we don't know for sure there isn't a God therefore the two are not analogous." Really and exactly how did you determine there isn't a monster? My story didn't state that and left it open to interpretation which is the entire point. Why can't the existence or non existence of the monster also be agnostic (i.e. not knowable)?
How can you clearly come down on the side of non-monster, but not do so with God?
This is my point which you seem to refuse to see. By classifying the existence of God as unknowable you are not in a position to tell those that have faith in Him (or Them) that the actions they take are wrong as for all you know they may be right. God may be beyond knowledge but still like worship.
Now you argue that your actions don't affect others, that your refusal to come down on one side or another makes no difference to those who worship or don't. Except that's what implicit means, by not countering the actions of those who worship (in particular teaching their children to worship) you are implicitly condoning that behaviour.
Now you've argued that you're not because being agnostic doesn't mean you can't take a position regarding such activity yet your position is based on no greater basis than that of the theists who are doing the worship.
This was the point of my monster analogy and your 'belief' system. The atheist is saying that you shouldn't worship because there's nothing there to worship, the agnostic can't say that because there may well be.
Hawking popped up in the news with a controversial view only to be displaced by Blair and Rooney. In essence Hawking stated that science had no requirement for God. As one might expect this brought out a stream of believers challenging his view all of whom seem to be oblivious to the torturous efforts they're going to in order to force their world-view into reality.
As so often happens a comment thread has gone rogue. In this case for a blog entry on the Shuttle that has nothing to do with religion has turned religious. I'm trying to present the argument that religion is an emotional-based decision and that atheism is a reason-based decision; which is why they conflict so badly. To that end allow me to tell you a story.
Just had two Jehova's Witnesses turn up at work because "It's difficult to find people at home". Congratulations a captive audience whose only desire is to get you to leave as soon as possible, sure leave the magazines, put them with the others in reception type of way.
"I'm not religious in anyway"
"Oh okay bye then."
Well I could have preached the true word of the Four Gods, but the word states "Teach only those who seek it". ;-)
Being the fifth part of the Book of the Four Gods.
And so the Four Gods did search
They crossed the lands and moved amongst the people
Looking for those who would understand.
And the Four did find those amongst the people
and brought them to the place that is no place
and showed them the universe.
Some did fall upon their knees and worship the Four;
and the Four were displeased
Some did shout and scream and call the Four devils;
and the Four were amused.
Some looked and did return to impose new rules upon the people;
and the Four were saddened.
And then amongst the Wise Ones of the Cfungi was found Farout of the Thereman tribe.
Farout was brought amongst the Four and she was silent.
And the Four did show her the universe and she was silent.
In the place that is no place the Four did wait and she was silent.
The silence grew to fill the place that is no place and the Four waited.
Then finally she spoke
"I have some questions"
and the Four rejoiced.
Here endeth the first book of understanding.
Being the fourth part of the Book of the Four Gods.
And the Four Gods did watch sentience war amongst itself.
"Can we do anything?", asked Fanglemork.
"By what right?", replied Scypian.
"By what right do we have to change them?"
Said Tekneos "We cannot remove them for they are a part of the universe"
"We cannot force them for then we will become them"
"We cannot leave them for they will destroy it all".
And mighty Hruggh did answer.
"We will show them."
"We will search amongst them for those that might see,"
"For those who might show others,"
"And we will show them the univese."
Here endeth the book of life.
Being the third part of the Book of the Four Gods.
And though all was built upon the Four Gods
With thought came fear.
And they did not understand.
And so sentience brought Chaos,
and Disharmony,
and Indolence,
and Hate.
Lo did the Four Gods look upon this
and as one did spake
"Are we bothered?"
"Do we look bothered?"
Sentience did create its own gods;
Though there were no other gods.
Sentience did create heaven;
Though there was no heaven.
Sentience did create hell
Though there was no hell.
Sentience did create rebirth;
Though there was no rebirth.
Sentience did create rules;
Though there were no rules.
And at the last sentience created war
and did set upon those who thought differently from they.
Lo did the Four Gods look upon this
and as one did spake
"Now this is getting silly"
Here endeth the second book of life.
Part Four of the Charlatan's Act is now available.
Being the second part of the Book of the Four Gods.
And so the universe was full of order;
And it did form structure.
Under the Beat,
With the Need,
Being Blue.
Structure grew and the stars did shine,
And the planets were formed.
Under the Beat,
With the Need,
Being Blue.
And from structure came life,
And it did multiply.
Under the Beat,
With the Need,
Rather Squishy.
And life was simple,
And held to the four tenets of the universe.
Order,
Rhythm,
Need,
Beauty.
Then life did think,
and things got complicated.
Here endeth the first book of life.
Part Three of the Charlatan's Act is now available.
In the beginning was Chaos and the Great God Hruggh beheld it and was unpleased.
For the Chaos was wild and untamed.
So thus did the Great God take the Chaos and pass it through His own body.
And Order was created and the Great God pleased.
Upon the Order came Tekneos who beheld it and was unpleased.
For the Order was sterile and without life.
So thus did Tekneos impress upon Order the Beat.
And Order did dance and Tekneos pleased.
Upon the Order came Scypian who beheld it and was unpleased.
For though the Order danced it was without meaning.
So thus did Scypian impose the Need
And Order did strive and Scypian pleased.
Upon the Order came Fanglemork who beheld it and was unpleased.
For though the Order danced,
For though the Order strived; it did need colour,
And perhaps something squishy.
So thus did Fanglemork add the Blue.
So thus did Fanglemork add the Tomato.
And Order did gain and Fanglemork pleased.
Here endeth the beginning.
Part Two of the Charlatan's Act is now available.
