Everyone knows the shocking scale of the Tory-led coalition government's proposed changes to the NHS and degree to which they disregard public and expert concerns.
If you care about public healthcare in the UK, write to your MP. NOW.
Below the fold is the letter I have sent to my MP and to various members of the House of Lords, complete with references.
Look at that. You can see fetid cogs in his tiny brain grinding against each other, spraying his cryptoreligious, sub-Victorian horseshit propaganda across the nation's children.
If those unwealthy masses want to learn something, they can damn well learn some family values. Look at them, breeding and scrounging. Single mothers and fags — the buck of every problem in this Broken Britain stops with them. Maybe if we can get their birth rate down they'll stop rioting, get docile and let us keep the money we worked hard to earn, dammit. That's what a conservative government ought to do. Protect the interests of those which make this country great.
Apparently there are no bounds on the lack of respect I have for this corrupt party.
This...
The image used in the Facebook page for "Atheism"
...looks a little familiar...
Continue reading
The Guradian's published a Comment is free article by Christian author Charlotte Allen. It's called "Atheists: No God, just whining", with jovial abstract: "Atheists are a tiresome, self-pitying bunch whose primary motivation isn't rationalism but anger". Oh yes, this is already looking like a good one. Well, I read it. And the only thing that struck me was the bizarre irony of someone complaining about whining taking the place of valid argument, by whining in place of valid argument. There are fifteen paragraphs in Charlotte's essay, and I think only one valid point is made throughout. I'm going to reproduce and deconstruct it briefly because, well, because I can. And I think it's interesting that an essay of such meagre calibre has been published in not one but two major newspapers. Let me begin:
I can't stand atheists – but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.
Well we're off to a good start. Allen opens with a short paragraph which really serves as an excellent preview for the rest of the essay — it's a sweeping generalisation, offensively bigoted (try rehashing with "jew" in place of "atheist" and submitting this to The Guardian), contains no argument, and displays a startling lack of self-awareness. Continue reading
I'm finding it quite hard to think about the Pope. He's saying some truly evil and stupid things; but can he be blamed?
I'm talking, of course, about his recent public anti-condom statements. He said:
[AIDS is] a tragedy that ... cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.
Well, he's just wrong. You don't need to look for more than 30 seconds to find the UN saying
The male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
or Leslie Ramsammy, the World Health Assembly President saying
The statement by the Pope is inconsistent with science, it's inconsistent with our experiences and it is not in sync with what Catholics have experienced and believe.
Now, everyone knows that when religious leaders talk about what's right and what's wrong, they're drawing from medieval ignorance and not from modern enlightenment. But like it or not, most people in the world are religious, and a huge number of religious people follow a religious leader as part of their faith. This gives these people a huge amount of power. There are currently about a billion (!) Catholics in the world, and a lot of people take what the Pope says very seriously.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Matthew 16:18-19]
Which makes his a position of extreme responsibility. Which makes him (literally) pontificating whereof he is ignorant -- and matters of sexual health and disease prevention are apparently such things -- so dangerous.
So who's at fault, and what's to be done? Is it Ratzinger's fault? Assuming he's not grotesquely cynical, he really believes he has unique access to the will of his god and is sharing his acquired wisdom with his flock.
Well, his flock aren't at fault. If you're extremely poorly educated and brought up from birth to follow Catholicism (a belief-system already known for its insidious affect on mental health) you probably can't help but follow Ratzinger's terrible advice.
So I'm forced to conclude that, yes, it is entirely Ratzinger's fault. Let's not make excuses about this. I don't want to hear "oh, I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right think". Yes, I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing, too; but when you've got that much power, you'd better make damned sure that you're actually correct with what you proclaim. And he's most-definitely not correct about this one, and an untold number of people will now suffer as a direct consequence of his Hyde Park Corner-esque ravings.
Perhaps he's mad. Perhaps the Pope is a literal sociopath. But he doesn't really act like one, if you take his behaviour in the context of the Catholic faith. So he's uneducated, and either bewilderingly stupid or wilfully ignorant and (given that if it were the former, he probably wouldn't have got elected) it's probably the latter.
So Ratzinger can legitimately be blamed personally for the ruin he's currently bringing upon the lives of so many of the faithful.
So what's to be done? Well, although I'm not a violent person, and nor do I generally approve of murder in cold blood, I can at least see the argument for the justification of the killing of mass-murders. Not sure I agree with it, but at least I can see where they're coming from. But, ethical considerations aside, it would be a poor strategic move to actually try and kill the Pope. Not only would one be almost-certainly unsuccessful; but even if one managed it, a new and (most-likely) indistinguishably unpleasant one would be almost immediately be elected, and no progress would be made. I've suggested elsewhere that perhaps a citizen's arrest for crimes against humanity would be the way to go, since that would more fruitfully incapacitate Ratzinger, whilst bringing almost as much awareness to his transgressions. But on reflection it's just completely impractical.
So what is the answer? I really don't know. At least lots of people are coming out and complaining about the Pope's loud ignorance. That's certainly better than the slight grumbling that has followed other outrageous and intellectually and morally offensive statements made by religious leaders. And rational people everywhere can keep calling the bullshit they encounter. But with so many people suffering and dying, and with Ratzinger and his cronies with their imaginary infallibility, can this be enough?
What the Jesus is this? I'll tell you what it is, it's a proposed bill that a Mr. Gary Chism wants passed in Mississippi which would require all school textbooks on evolution to carry a disclaimer. Astounding. Well, let's be rational - maybe he has a valid point. Why don't we look carefully at the proposed disclaimer, and see if it has anything to offer us.
Let me begin at the top:
The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles.
Well, that's certainly true. "Systematically organised knowledge" is a fairly good description of the meaning of the term in a scientific sense ("knowledge" being a fairly key term). Although it's a bit weird to mention all of the non-scientific meanings of the word on the front of science textbook, isn't it? That's just going to confuse the issue... I'm sure Mr. Chism is about to clear things up, though.
Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world.
Observations? Yes. Assumptions? Well, that's a fairly vague claim. Yes, there are issues with theory-laden observation and unconfirmed auxiliary statements, but it hardly seems fair to claim that scientific theories are "based on ... assumptions". At least that needs some in-depth philosophical argument, and is by no means obvious (or even necessarily true).
They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.
That is certainly true. It seems like Mr. Chism knows all about how science works!
Now we get to the good stuff:
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things.
Wow. Ok, this single sentence is so entirely false, that I'm going to break it down even further.
evolution, a controversial theory
No. Evolution is not a controversial theory. There are still open questions within evolutionary research, but it's not exactly controversial.
some scientists present
"Some scientists"? Those are weasel words if ever I heard them. I'm not going to deny that someone who has been university-educated has disagreed with evolution, but "some scientists" suggests that there's at least a sizeable minority of peer-respected scientists who are on the other side. The AAAS doesn't think so, neither does the IAP. They're definitely not the only major academic organisations who completely advocation evolutionary theory, just the ones I found in 3 minutes of actually looking.
scientific explanation for the origin of living things
This is just flat-out wrong. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. The clue's in the name. Perhaps Mr. Chism isn't too hot on detecting clues, though.
Ok, now comes:
No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.
Yes. Absolutely true. What does this have to do with evolution again?
Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things.
"Unproven". Using that deep understanding of the nomenclature of the philosophy of science again. "Unproven" like the theory of relativity, and the theory of Romans, I guess? And I'm not sure who's claiming that undirected forces somehow "produce living things"... I'm not even sure that makes sense... If only Mr. Chism had imparted his understanding of the matter to us...
There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook...
"Origin of life" stuff creeping in here again, what a shame. And what's this? Unanswered questions in science? What a valid point!
Study hard and keep an open mind.
Yes. That really is good advice. But make sure you keep the "mind" part of "open mind", because otherwise you might end up as a Republican representative.
[Found via Ed Brayton. More discussion on his blog.]