Irony

Given UK's recent decision to attack Syria...

Visit www.andysinger.com for more of his cartoons.

Where to live?

Regarding the recent flooding in Cumbria, the question is again brought to my mind: how do we understand our 'right' to live where we want?

In UK, we have quite variable weather: hot and humid summers, cold and frozen winters, lots of rain... and of course the floods at times. Those of us who have lived in UK for a long time should surely be aware of such things?

So when it comes to looking for a house to move into, surely a flood plain is not the most logical choice? Sure, to some extent, we don't expect rivers to rise above those high water marks, but the possibility is always there. Why do people get angry at the government and councils for 'not providing adequate flood defences' when they have chosen to live in such a place?

If I chose to live at the base of an active volcano, do I have a right to be angry at the government if the volcano erupts and I lose my house?

Personally, I just don't understand it. I wouldn't choose to live in a valley, or on a volcano, or on a fault line with frequent earthquakes. I wouldn't want to live too close to a train track because of the noise. I wouldn't want to live too close to sewage works because of the smell. I wouldn't want to live too far in the country because of the travel expenses to get into town, to work or to do the shopping.

At what point do people say, "Oh, but I want to live in a nice (picturesque) place!" and then feel they have a right to moan and complain because of a natural consequence? Shouldn't practicality come first?

The only people who could be justified are those living in a designated council house which happens to be on a flood plain. Those people don't have a choice and yes, in that situation, the council should know better.

UK's recent decision to bomb Syria...

Despite the UK's laws regarding tolerance, anti-racism and so on, could the government's recent decision to bomb Syria be considered 'ethnic cleansing'?

It's a group of people, originating from a different country, with a different culture and a different set of values and beliefs. The majority of people in UK disagree with their values and beliefs (I also believe we should protect human life rather than destroy it) and yet members of our government believe that the destruction of such a group of people is part of their "moral and practical duty" (i newspaper, 3rd December 2015, page 4).

Schoolyard fights are vengeful:
- "Billy took my sandwich, so I'll take his lunchbox."
- "George took my lunchbox, so I'll take his bag."
- "Billy took my bag, so I'm gonna punch him."
- "George punched me, so I'm gonna give him a black eye."
- "Billy gave me a black eye, so I'm taking this knife and we'll see what happens!"

Most of us can see how things escalate when we always try to get 'one-up' on the other person. But I find it ironic how, in the adult world, it's gets even more childish:
- "Billy said he'd take my sandwich, so tomorrow I'll get his lunchbox."
- "George says he's gonna take my lunchbox, so I'll take his bag."
- "Billy says he's gonna get my bag, so I'll punch him to teach him a lesson."
- "George is gonna punch me, so I'll give him a black eye before he does it."
- "I'm taking this knife to school, just in case Billy even thinks about giving me a black eye!"

I'm not saying any choice is easy. In UK, government laws and policies have got us to a point where (on the surface, at least) we are tolerant of people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds. And now the government has condoned an action which is intended to destroy a group who are ehnically and religiously different.

The reality is that essentially we all have intolerance towards people who hold different beliefs to us. Atheists believe Christians (and other religious people) are uneducated; Christians believe atheists need to open their mind to the existence and experience of God; agnostics believe both sides are fools because there's not enough evidence either way; certain Muslim extremists believe any non-Muslim should be killed; Jews believe that accepting Jesus as the Son of God is a step too far; Mormons believe that even Christians need to open their minds to the prophetic nature of Joseph Smith.

But intolerance isn't just limited to religious examples: some people are intolerant of those who use animals for medical testing (before the medicine is tested on humans) to the point where they will vandalise such clinics; some people are intolerant of those who believe climate change is a natural process and not human-induced; some people are intolerant of those who believe that natural relationships should be between two people of opposite sexes.

Let's face it, if we think that another person has a respectable belief, then we'd be foolish not to believe it also. If, however, we choose not to believe as someone else, we either accept that we are foolish for not believing it, or we believe them to be foolish for believing it.

Hence, under the surface, logical people are intolerant, and illogical people are just ignorant.

So, to solve this whole mess, UK's government could simply apologise for forcing the notion of 'tolerance' on their citizens and keep and enforce a standard of British laws that they don't alter, claiming it as 'British culture'. Then, if anyone disagrees, or takes action against those laws, their moral position is clear and the consequences are clear. Although people may disagree with the action, hypocrisy is eradicated.

Now, that was a tangent! Back to the topic of this: with the decision to bomb Syria, UK's government have effectively pinned their colours to the mast that there is a line, that tolerance only goes so far. They have also shown that they will go as far as attacking another country to eradicate those beliefs they find offensive. How do they reconcile that decision with their 'tolerant' and 'politically correct' society they hope to uphold?

I had this saved on my computer and just read it again:

This one will make you think.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "we reap what we sow."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God, and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Does atheism require faith?

Today's thought comes from a recent conversation regarding atheism.

Many times I have heard it said that atheist is the absence of belief: that all religions require a belief in something (God, Allah, Enlightenment, etc), but atheism is the absence of such beliefs.

But my thinking is that atheism is, in actual fact, a belief system: it is the belief that there is no God.

Putting forward this proposal spawned a flurry of comments from my friend, trying to convince me that atheism is certainly not a belief system and cannot be likened to other religions.

Two things come from this:

Firstly, that belief in the non-existence of God tends to carry with it a belief in the non-existence of anything supernatural. The follow-on is that the only things "rational" people believe in are the things confirmed by science. And this pathway leads to the belief system that science, despite not yet having all the answers (it is forever a work-in-progress), will ultimately be able to explain all of the intricacies of the universe. This is also in spite of the fact that science (currently?) only works with the physical nature of the universe, not the supernatural aspect that is a major part of most religions.

So, it seems as though atheists have a faith in science. Despite knowing that science does not have all the answers (as yet), I have currently not found an athiest willing to engage in such philosophical debates who does not refer back to science to back up their own beliefs.

Secondly, the recent conversation with my friend turned rather quickly to concern that a person could possibly entertain the thought of a supernatural force operating in the universe. A striking resemblance to people such as Richard Dawkins who believe that people holding a faith in God are deluded. The problem with this line of thought is that it is highly intolerant of religious people. The claim that a person "of no religion" is the most able to be objective becomes a farce: their own belief system becomes a driving force of religious intolerance.

To sum up, it seems to me that atheism not only requires a belief in the non-existence of God, but also in the infallibility of scientific theory and testing (despite the ever-changing nature of science, which currently does not hold all the answers). Atheism also causes a large amount of intolerance to people who do not share the same belief system.

Therefore: atheism seems to require faith, and it seems to carry with it some similarities to religious extremism.


Note: By stating that science does not hold all the answers, there is no implication that any particular religion does hold all the answers.

The term 'Islamist'

Having just read an article about someone who was "speaking out against Islam and Islamism," I realise that I have heard the terms 'Islamist' and 'Islamism' quite a bit recently.

This is causing me a bit of confusion... not from a religious standpoint, but from a grammatical view.

I'm assuming that an 'Islamist' is a person who follows Islam. And I'm also assuming that 'Islamism' is the term given to the set of beliefs that 'Islamists' follow. Please, if I am wrong in these assumptions, can somebody correct me!!

Because...

I thought that a person who follows Islam is called a Muslim. And I also thought that the term given to the set of beliefs that Muslims follow is just Islam. In other words:
Islamist = Muslim
Islamism = Islam

In summary, why on earth are there two extra words being used when the English language already has the words to describe those things?!?!


EDIT:
I have recently found that the term 'Islamist' effectively refers to Muslim extremist and 'Islamism' to the set of beliefs of such extremism. This is to differentiate between those who use Islam to practise terrorism (or use terrorism to practise Islam?) and the amicable Muslims who simply practise their faith in a non-destructive way... according to my current understanding!

Brainwashing and Extremism

The term ‘brainwashing’ gets thrown around a lot, especially when it comes to dealing with terrorism, extremism and general intolerance. It even gets thrown around when someone just doesn’t agree with your point of view. But how can we define it?


My current line of thinking points towards a definition such as, “forcing a person to commit to a set of beliefs or principles which they may not choose to follow if they were given free choice.” In my mind, there is an element of it not being of the person’s freewill (one dictionary defines it as “to cause one to alter their beliefs” but I do not feel this is strong enough). Most definitions even suggest the involvement of torture.


There are some dangers here. People believe all sorts of things of their own free will, and yet it is all too easy to just throw the ‘brainwashed’ label at them. This is often said about religion. Just because someone has decided to commit themselves to a particular set of beliefs and principles, it does not mean they were forced into it.


But also, look at it from another perspective: the education system. When a parent sends their child to school, they are allowing the government to educate the child into a particular way of thinking. If a parent does not wish this for their child – opting for home-schooling – then there are various checks to make sure that the required governmental standards are being met. Education in the UK is compulsory, and it is government controlled. Every child is essentially ‘brainwashed’ into UK society.


The irony here is that if a person chooses not to conform to the standards of the society, then they are labelled with ‘brainwashing’, ‘extremism’ and even ‘terrorism.’ But what makes the standards of society correct?


UK is a place where people supposedly have various ‘freedoms.’ And yet there are restrictions. We are free to study – as long as it is not to study bomb-making. We are free to speak – but this gets restricted when it comes to various topics.


The other problem is that the laws change. Someone who upheld the law 25 years ago might be branded a criminal now, should they wish to continue upholding those laws. Just because a particular point of view might be ‘outdated’ in the eyes of society, that – by itself – does not make that point of view incorrect.


UK also aims to be a ‘tolerant’ society: a place where we allow people to follow their own religion and beliefs. And yet, if a person uses their ‘free speech’ to say that they think a particular action is wrong, they are easily branded ‘intolerant’, possibly an ‘extremist’ and the phrases ‘brainwashed’ and ‘the grass-roots of terrorism’ will probably not be too far behind.


People use examples from the past of how religion (often Christianity) held back the advances of science because it could be seen to contradict the religious traditions. However, UK society is now at a point where the pursuit of science has led to the ridicule of people who follow religions. Where religion once used to be ‘intolerant’ of science, science (and so-called ‘free-thinkers’) has now become quite intolerant of religion.


The problem is that society is ultimately brainwashed. It could be argued that a free society is one where people can be educated if they want to. Everything could be done on the basis of if you want to. However, that is also a brainwashed society: the dominant ideology being that this ‘freedom’ leads to a better community. But, due to parental responsibility, any education will be built upon the parents ideology. This can actually be seen in society today: a parent who has contempt for their education may well bring up a child to also have contempt for education.


So, I do not really think that we can avoid brainwashing, but what we can avoid is using the word as a way of demeaning (or bullying or harassing) people who thoughtfully disagree with us. And we certainly need to avoid labelling people as ‘extremists’ because they do not see our point of view.


It seems to me that the next ‘religious war’ has already been started by the atheists with their intolerance to people who believe in higher powers. The irony here is that as things escalate, the accusation is thrown at the religious people for their intolerance and reluctance to change their point of view.


So, who is the extremist?