A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY

I'll get to that in a minute, but first something else.

1. On an actor.

Is this phrase racist? A popular black actor. 

Permit me to explain the context. I was watching TV when a trailer flashed up for tonight's Holby City, HC being one of two medical drama soaps I watch. In the trailer it was revealed that the arrival of a possibly extrovert new character could cause a fuss and bother for the regular cast. I smiled when I saw who it was -Don Gilet, a popular black actor who's been regularly working on TV for some time now. I remember him in lots of things, notably a cop series The Night Detective set up the road in Newcastle. Gilet played the lead. Not long ago he played a psycho killer in Eastenders and I remember him playing Donna Noble's deceitful fiance in Doctor Who. Good addition to the cast, I thought, and while I always watch HC I was actually looking forward to tonight's episode.

And then I thought to myself: Whoah Nelly! Did I just think of Gilet as a popular black actor rather than just a popular actor. I wouldn't of think of fill in your favourite name  as a popular white actor would I?

So, is the phrase racist? It obviously wasn't intended to be as I find Gilet a good and engaging actor who always brings a certain something to whatever role he plays. But the question remains: is the phrase itself racist? I could have called him a popular bald actor for example, but I chose to single him out as black even the parts he's often played aren't race-specific. 

Here's a Holby City photo of the worthy gentleman in case you don't know who I'm talking about. (To be honest, I forgot his name and had to look it up but that's just an ageing failing memory.)

2. Is This a Christian Country? 

And on that note I'll leave and return to today's main dish: David Cameron and how dare he call this a Christian country!

Cue outrage, frothing at the mouth, racism, whateveryouhaveism, ignoring minority group feelings, the insensitive swine, pandering to the conservative heartland or what have you.

As regular readers or even anyone who's read anything about me in the sidebar will realise, I'm an atheist with no time for organised religion so you'd naturally expect me to be one of the hounds baying for our not particularly beloved Prime Minister's blood.

Well I would be if history wasn't on his side.

Britain is a Christian country. Its history, literature, and traditions are steeped in Christianity. It seems pointless to provide any examples because it's all pervasive and the contemporary secular tone of our era doesn't change that. Britain is traditionally a Christianity country and that Christianity shaped our society for both good and ill. We may well be in or emerging into (hopefully) a post-religious era but that doesn't affect the past and there is a lot in our past to be proud of. From it we've emerged as the most open, in every sense of the word, of all western nations with our acceptance of that which and who is different. We may no longer need religion but we can't deny it, deny Christianity, in shaping what we have become. So, yes, in that sense we are and remain a Christian country and it is nothing to be ashamed of or to deny. 

Just don't expect a photo of either Dave or Jesus in this blog.

SOCIETY/RELIGION: THE POPE'S VISIT. WARNING: CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE AND STRONGER OPINIONS.

Here is a brief tongue in cheek exchange of emails between myself and my good friend Barry Spence. His is reprinted without his knowledge and I hope the phrase 'my good friend' continues to apply after this.

I sent him the following email:

Hi,

Does the Spence agree that the government should spend an estimated £100,000,000.00 of taxpayer's money on the visit of a cult leader who is responsible for:
the increase in AIDS cases,
the increase in the number of unwanted children,
maintaining prejudice against and repressing the moral right of homosexuals to engage with society as full members, and
covering up the crimes of large numbers of paedophiles solely because they belong to a select group?
Does the Spence even agree that this person should even be allowed into this country when so many of its taxpayers emphatically disagree with the actions of this member of the Hitler Youth?

--
Ian

To which Barry replied:

The Spence sees a current economic situation where the downtrodden peasants (= anyone whose income is less than that of an MP) have been ordered by the wise and experienced Cameron and his 100% millionaire cabinet to sacrifice some of their already low income to fund an attempt to correct the damage done by previous governments and bankers. Said MPs tell the peasants they must cough up to avoid national bankruptcy. Many projects (such as hospitals and schools that would benefit the peasants in the long run) worth less than £100 million have been cancelled.

Therefore, squandering what (according to the above) we cannot afford is a wasteful one-off short-term project that will help nobody long-term but inspire current resentment in a fair number of thinking, sacrificing citizens -but not a majority. If this visit is so important, shouldn’t the Church of Rome pay the bills? They have much more wealth than a near bankrupt minor European Hellhole!

To clearly separate his past from his present – current policies concern AIDS, unwanted children, homophobia and – sorry folks, I don’t believe it suddenly stopped – paedophilia and cover ups. Past sins include paedophilia cover ups and Hitler Youth, but you forget about 1940s apathy towards The Final Solution and a large organization in bed with the 1970s Mafia.

On PAST issues, we shouldn’t refuse this person entry on a visit – if we were to do that, over half the world’s leaders would never get in! We also have home-grown leaders (past and current) with pasts just as bad.

On CURRENT issues alone, over ongoing Church of Rome policies, we SHOULD refuse entry to he who represents it and takes full and final responsibility.

Since when did the opinions of the taxpayers (who provided the £100 million) matter a toss to those in power?

 The Spence

 PS

I need an explanation from The Roman Catholic Church based on your words below:

maintaining prejudice against and repressing the moral right of homosexuals to engage with society as full members

How come this is ongoing official policy, yet that same outfit permits (some claim they encourage) paedophile activity by its employees (not all homosexual, just the majority) and then covers it up, skilfully using a complex network of power abuse? Is this “One law for us – another for you” - or can I just dismiss it as raging hypocrisy?

Me again.

Just so you know exactly who we're talking about here's his picture.

Sorry, that was below the belt. Here's the real photo.

Hmm. Spooky.

Just in case anyone thinks I've got it in for the old Nazi supporter, I should make it clear that I hate all organised religions. The worst mistake Man ever made (Women have more sense) was to invent God. Christianity and Islam just made it much worse.

As for the Pope, fuck the old bastard.

Post script.

It appears that the Pope's visit will only cost the taxpayer £12million not 100 as I stated. As far as I'm concerned, his anachronistic paedophile-ridden hypocritical church should pay  for it and one penny of taxpayer's money is too much.

SOCIETY: Atheist Summer Camp Fun

Oh I do hope so.

I don't know the origin of this illustration, but I love it. It's got nothing to do with the subject except tangentially in that reflects typical right-wing Christian fears which are just under the surface of a piece about the camp in today's Daily Mail Online, a good source of right wing propaganda to either get leftily righteous about or have a good laugh at.

Okay, I'm not going to go into any great detail here. You can google it easily yourself. Suffice to say that it's a summer camp for kids in the typical tradition of summer camps all outdoor fun and communal stuff but with a theme of thinking critically about religion and teaching kids to think critically in general.

I confess that when I first heard about these camps a while ago I felt somewhat ambivalent, uncertain of any need or point. But having read more about it, I think it's a great idea as long as the emphasis is on teaching kids to think rather than indoctrinating them about atheism. My belief is that we should be able to arrive at our destination without compulsion be it as a devout theist of whatever kind or a devout atheist or anywhere else along the axis between belief and unbelief. As long as the emphasis is on thinking critically, which I take to mean, analysing ideas of whatever kind, I think it's a good idea. If you do that you don't need to ram atheism down their throats because they'll come to it naturally when they realise how ludicrous religions are.

Not untypically, The Daily Mail, while not overtly condemning these camps outright, nevertheless makes it clear where it stands. Fears of indoctrinating kids. Um, excuse me, and religious camps don't indoctrinate kids?

Christ, I fucking hate religion. When asked recently if I wanted to go to church, my reply was: Only if I can burn it down.

FLASHBACK 2004: Losing my religion. (It's not faith, stupid, it's stupidity.)

(This was written about 4/5 years ago and, while I wouldn't change much in terms of content -except for perhaps exploring in more detail the Buddhist concept of self- the tone would be more upbeat. My head clearly wasn't in a great place but, as it's as valid a representation of my views on religion as anything else I've written on the subject, I'll let it stand.
Incidentally, I think the cartoon above brilliantly sums up the stupidity of the religious attitude towards evolution.)

Is there a middle ground between the spiritual and the scientific, between reason and mysticism? My own view is that there is not. My own feeling is that I wish there was. However, I must come down on one side or the other and, inevitably, simply by the way I have phrased everything so far, it must be that there is no middle way and thus only science explains everything.

Spirituality and mysticism are lies or, at best, delusions.

There we have it: the conclusion. I don’t need to write anything more, do I? Except for the fact that I keep being drawn to Buddhism, or at least aspects of it.

I’m 56 years old. I have an unspecified number of years left to me. All can know is that they are less in number than those I have lived. Death could come at any time, though I do expect, barring accidents, to live at least into my eighties. (At this point I’m reminded of the old joke: Q. How do you make God laugh? A. Tell him/her/it your plans.)

My childhood spans the 1950’s, my adolescence the 1960’s. Chalk and cheese; unthinking acceptance and ignorance followed by angst and confusion.

If you’re too young to remember the 50’s, be glad; it was a drab black and white decade. My memories are all monochromatic as if seen through the small tv screen on which I watched The Lone Ranger and Quatermass and the Pit. Little of the world impinged on my consciousness – I remember rations but never understood at the time why they so called- and childhood seemed as if it lasted forever. But my memories are fragments, snippets of images, many seem to have no significance whatsoever, but there they are; some, of course, do have significance.

The junior schools (7-11) were streamed, and so it was within the classes, and I was usually the youngest in the class, also usually the last name to be read out (curse that alphabet), neither of which, it seemed to me, were advantages, the former certainly was not. One day, someone in the second top aisle had been naughty and was to be demoted. Who, in the third and fourth aisles, would like his place? Every hand in those two aisles went up, all except mine. I didn’t bother because I wouldn’t be picked. So, of course, I was. What happened after that I’ve no idea. John, one of the kids I did hang around with in that class was the elder brother of the kid who became rock legend Dave Stewart. I remember once punching out a kid smaller than me. Odd, because I avoided fights and I’ve no idea why I did it as we usually got on (just don’t ask me for details because I can’t remember).

Perhaps I should re-title this ‘The Absence of Memory.

Buddhism says that the ‘I’ doesn’t exist. There are times when I can almost grasp that concept and believe it. There is no one self.

I was brought up a Methodist. My family had always been Methodists (‘always’ being, of course, relative). My great-grandfather (a bad-tempered Victorian-type who died when I was seven, hooray, aged 94) played the organ for many years in a different church to the one I went to. I went to the Sunday School at Ewesley Road Methodist Church which was just round the corner. I was also a member of St.Gabriel’s Church of England cubs (and later scouts), because Ewesley Road didn’t have a pack. (The two churches faced each other across a main road and both were –the 50’s, remember- well attended.) Every so often the cubs and scouts had to attend a church parade and I always found the C of E services confusing compared to those of the Methodists.

All it takes is a moment of doubt.

I must have been nearly fourteen, not short of the time when I would exchange Sunday School to become a member of the church’s congregation. It didn’t happen because one Sunday the person giving the main talk to us kids said something that I agreed with.

“Gambling is wrong,” he declaimed.

While I felt the use of the word ‘wrong’ was unduly harsh and perhaps would have substituted ‘stupid’ or ‘pointless’ or whatever, I couldn’t say I disagreed with him to any significant degree. Unfortunately he went too far. After condemning the usual forms, he then went on to state that the Pools and Premium Bonds were wrong.

(For the benefit of non-British readers, I should explain that the Pools was a national pastime of wagering very small sums on which of the Saturday soccer matches which would result in drawn games. Premium Bonds are a government run scheme in which you buy a stake with the chance of winning money. If at any time you wanted your money back you got it, without interest. As far as gambling goes, these barely warrant the name.)

You’ve gone too far, I thought.

There, the seed of doubt and so I began to question. Being an avid reader of science fiction didn’t help. Although crap at science subjects at school I did find science interesting.

By the time I got to college I was very confused. I strongly felt the religious impulse but couldn’t reconcile it with the scientific approach to the universe. I remember (very little) about going to a Christian weekend during my first year and talking to two girls who laughed (pleasantly as they suddenly gained an insight into me) and said I was an intellectual. Which struck me as odd as I didn’t believe I was intelligent enough to be an intellectual. I also went to an evangelical do in Liverpool and came away, as did the woman friend I’d gone with, feeling it was manipulative. I spent several Sundays going to a Pentecostal Church. After the lively meetings, the congregation went to a local hospital with fruit and talked to the patients, not trying to convert but just to provide some company, which I thought was nice. Eventually I had a one to one session with the pastor who tried to bring me across to Jesus.

He failed and that was pretty much it for me and religion.

I’ve stood there, wanting God to speak to me in some way, begging Him/She/It/Whatever. I want to believe, help me. I’m open to you.

Nothing came because there is nothing there. And we are briefly burning flames in the night and what is left of the flame when it is blown out?



That’s right.









POST SCRIPT

Rather ironically, in my online novel All The Worlds At Once (see sidebar), I came up with a quasi-scientific explanation for the existence of a god.