cynicalbastard

Has fundamentalist athiest Richard Dawkins finally taken one step too far? Suggesting the not-exactly-pretty woman at the centre of the BA cross scandal had ‘one of the stupidest faces I’d ever seen’ is one thing. It’s all in a day’s work for the arch-rationalist bully covering his ears and shouting ‘la la la I can’t hear you.’.

But taking on Peter Kay, one of Britain’s most-loved comedians? Not very bright at all really. Certainly, it won’t be wise to come up to Greater Manchester any time soon.

And what’s the nature of his complaint? That people who happen to believe in God find comfort in it. Well, shucks, maybe that’s the point? And maybe the search for that comfort is rather central to the human experience—it hasn’t done badly for our culture in terms of art, music and all that stuff that makes life worth living after all. We can’t all find our sense of purpose in a blinding lack of self-awareness, a surfeit of smugness and total intolerance, as does Dawkins.

Funny, though, that he suggests his problem with religion is about ‘truth’. Never mind the rather deep philosophical nature of the search for truth, Dawkins’ connection to fact is somewhat lacking throughout ‘The God Delusion’. The permanent scar in my wall from the book being bounced against it was caused by the book’s lack of understanding of history, philosophy, ethics, or, well, anything very much.

And, patently, what ordinary people tend to think and feel. Course, they’re all ’stupid’ as far as the dear Prof. is concerned. And why should stupid people be allowed to publish books? It might affect Dawkins’ own future plans, of course.

By way of popbitch, why fisting is God’s will. Ah-hemm. Not sure Pat Robertson would agree, but, hey.

Never quite sure about Prospect magazine. I always think it’s a front for something. But a couple of articles caught my eye. Kenan Malik’s excellent opinion piece on why free societies shouldn’t become less free as they become more diverse is in the March issue (subscription required online)–and nails the Guardianista hypocrisy.

And as a web exclusive, there’s a very good debate between Daniel Dennett and Richard Swinburne on issues around science and religion. Given the usual level of atheist comment on xianity owes more to playground abuse than it does to an understanding of xian thought (see the dumbest clever man in the west, Richard Dawkins), it’s nice to see a proper and civilized debate.

Worstall carries a story from Michelle ”teeth whitener’s best friend’ Malkin.

It’s one of those typical IPCGMITY stories, school in suffolk bans hot cross buns because it might offend religious sensibilities of non-Christins. Seemed a bit odd to me as it’s still a way to go even till Lent. Unlike most of these stories (straight bananas, banning xmas, etc) however there’s a grain of truth. But only a grain. The story was picked up by that mighty organ of record the Ipswich Evening Star and then on to the Mirror and elsewhere and lots and lots of places in the US. It’s rushing round the blogosphere as we speak.

With the result that the head in question is getting hate mail. But what’s this? The papers and blogger haven’t got the whole story. Says the head,

I have not imposed an outright ban on hot cross buns and we look forward to having them before we break up for the Easter Holidays.”

So what happened? Well, she requested the suppliers to remove the cross because it wasn’t yet Easter and THIS might offend non-christians. Well, okay, the latter bit is a bit odd (though most of us would applaud anything that delayed xmas till the start of December). But the actual decision is perfectly sensible. It wasn’t the time to eat hot cross buns, so they weren’t going to. Perhaps, rather than the appaling attacks on this woman, she should be applauded for resisting arrogant consumerism threatening to turn important xian festivals and their associated rituals into all year-round excuses for consumerism.

The Evening Star plays both ends by asking its readers, ‘do you think Miss Jackson deserves hate mail?’

The Synod are debating women bishops. Now, I have no problem theologically with women being bishops. It’s absolutely clear that the first generation of Church leaders included women, recognised by Paul (yes, that evil-woman hater) and the other Fathers.

I’m not really happy with the notion of either flying bishops or a third province for the recusants. This seems to me to strike at the heart of apostolic succession. Not to mention the need to maintain the single communion within the Church.

So, I should be all in favour of enforcing women bishops sooner rather than later. Only, I’m not. And it really comes down to the women vicars I’ve met. While I’ve met many male vicars I don’t like or don’t respect, I’ve met many that I do. But of the women, they’re all (sweeping generalisation) of a type. Happy clappy or high-heretic and nothing in between. Of the former, increasingly in the majority of new seminary students, there’s something of the Dawn French about them (which is no surprise given the influence of that damn programme on images of xianity). Large, happy, bouncy, willing to engage in discourse about anything, ‘talk through’ any problem. But no backbone.

Maybe its just that I hate Dawn French.

And as an xian (*yawn*, won’t be saying that again for a while), I’d just like to support the decision of Woolworths and Sainsburys to stop stocking Jerry Springer: The Opera because of the campaign of the very serious people at Christian Voice.

Nah, only kidding. What a bunch of fuckwits. CV’s understanding of xianity can be written on the head of a pin. If anyone seriously believes anything like ‘god’ cares about such shit (beyond the enjoyment of a good laugh–Christ was, after all, a humourist), they need to, uhhr, get their heads examined.

So, no Woolworths or Sainsburys for me–not a hard decision as I won’t have been in either for a year or so (okay, the former to get out of the rain in Ilkley, but not to buy. )

Two of my more esteemed peers have been blogging on xianity over the last couple of days. Garry at curious hamster has been relating the story of Media Watch and their latest attempt to stop Jerry Springer: The Opera being performed. Meanwhile, that nice Mr. N. Monkey has been criticising a Polly article about the Narnia film (available from torrentspy should you not want to bother going to the cinema), and has had some very astute comments in response.

Let’s start with the obvious. I go to church. Not every Sunday, but not Easter and xmas either. Me and t’beloved make it every three weeks or so. I got baptised earlier this year. I’m a proud anglican. Some of my friends (including the host of this site) are, let’s say, not so happy about that. Not because I’ve become in any sense ‘born again’ (as you can tell from previous posts). But because of the fears and misunderstandings surrounding the christian religion. Which have come out in the analysis provided by both of the above-mentioned posts.

So, I’m answering them somewhat obliquely, and mostly answering the points raised in the comments to Nosemonkey’s post (especially a typically brilliant post from rachel from north London). Firstly, the decision I took to get baptised was because I finally decided that xianity wasn’t a choice on a landscape for me, it WAS the landscape. To be a yorkshireman, a European, I shouldn’t be playing with religions from the Far East. Within xianity, there is as much spirituality, as much mysticism as you can get from any of the mystery religions. And, this is the religioon of my fore-fathers/mothers. And therefore is part of me.

Which brings me to Problem No 1: White liberals who criticise xianity for being ‘airy-fairy’ and then go off into the realms of mystical religions where the whole basis is gnomic sentiments deisgned not to make sense ( try reading some Zen koans sometime).

xianity can be mystical. Read The Imitation of Christ. A stunning book with as much beauty and spirituality as the Hagakure or the I Ching any day. Hey, read the Gospel of John. Similarly.

Within xianity, you can be a mystic, you can be a realist, you can be, hey, yes it’s true, effectively an atheist.

At least as far as the ‘average’ person would understand you. Which brings me to Problem no.2, ‘Fluffy Christianity’, which is the subject of Rachel’s comment. What is taught in Sunday schools, and what is understood by most even quite intellectual members of society is a form of xianity that bears little relationship to ‘high’ theology. Noticeably, the Bishop of Durham writes ‘fluffy’ books as ‘Tom’ Wright and ‘high theology’ as NT Wright (and for anyone interested in religion, I recommend the latter). Within high theology, the ‘death of God’ movement has been mainstream in the past thirty years. It is possible, as I do, to not believe in an after-life, to not believe in a ’second coming’ (and to question whether this was ever believed until the mid-third century), and to still believe that Christ’s message offers the best way of understanding and touching God/Love/agape.

For that’s the point. Inherent within xianity is tolerance, and understanding. And it is the only religion (except for made-up versions of paganism) that really allows that. Within the biblical tale is the story of Thomas, the doubter who was allowed to remain within the apostolic fold, was allowed to comment, but wasn’t burnt, wasn’t tortured. This, it seems to me, is a thread of freedom. And within protestantism, the idea that individuals can access God is vital. The birth of protestantism is about access to language, to the Bible in the vernacular, to the ability (yes, within an established church) to re-interpret a sacred text for today. Oh, and for access to God through a personal connection, without following rules. Protestantism offers freedom. Anglicanism even more so. It is no surprise that the great democracies of the world (whatever their faults) are all protestant. Look at the other great religions and one sees rules at every point–this is how one must be for access to God. This is how one must act for access to God. Anglicanism says, no, one mustn’t BE any particular way, one is still entitled to have a relationship with God. And that’s why Mediawatch have missed the point so supremely.

Which brings me to Problem 3 friends and liberal commentators who criticise something they’ve never studied, and have no idea about. People who would rather read the qu’ran than the Bible. Who have a vague memory of sunday school and nuns with rulers, and seek to condemn on that basis, who say ‘Christ was great, but Paul distorted everything.’

Have you read Paul? Until Paul, xianity was a superior and elitist sect of Judaism. Paul opened it to the Gentiles. Paul democratised it. Paul saw the possibilities.

But the misunderstanding of Paul is another of the liberal confusions over religion. It’s one of those ‘passed down’ myths, which doesn’t hold true. But the whole subject of the chattering classes having no grasp on history, any more than they do on maths or science, is going to be a recurring theme herein.

…tbc