The Stroppy Rabbit

Christo-Pagans

2012-01-31T10:22:00.000-01:00

So, is it possible to be a Christo-Pagan?

It depends on what kind of Christianity and what kind of Paganism you are trying to merge.

One approach to Christo-Paganism emphasises that Yahweh had a consort, the goddess Asherah. Another way to do it might be to regard Jesus as a dying and resurrecting god along the same lines as Attis, Adonis, Dumuzi, Tammuz, etc. Or you could be a henotheist who worships Yahweh and family whilst acknowledging the existence of other deities.

Certain kinds of Christianity are not compatible with Paganism. The type of Christianity that says we are all inherently sinful and fallen, and need an atoning sacrifice to save us, seems to me to be completely antithetical to Paganism.

But the kind of Christianity that emphasises compassion and forgiveness does seem compatible with Paganism. These virtues were extolled by ancient Roman polytheism.

I'm not sure if Gnosticism is compatible with Paganism, because Gnosticism was world-denying and Paganism is world-affirming - but I know people who identify as both. It's certainly possible to believe in gnosis alongside earth spirituality.

Personally, I could never call myself a Christian because too many people have been murdered in the name of Christianity, but others feel that the name can be reclaimed. Good for them.

It could also be pointed out that ancient pagans (in the form of Roman state religion) murdered a lot of Christians. But Christianity's record of genocide is considerably larger in both geographical scope and historical duration.

It's certainly possible to be a Unitarian and a Pagan - but then not all Unitarians are Christians. Even the ones who identify as Christian don't believe in vicarious atonement (Jesus dying for your sins) or Jesus being part of the godhead. They also respect other religions.

(Just in case you were disappointed that the previous post wasn't about Christo-Pagans.)

"Pagan Christianity"

2012-01-30T12:32:00.002-01:00

Ha. I bet you thought this was going to be a blogpost about ChristoPagans, didn't you?

That's what I thought when I saw the title of this blogpost by Dyfed Wyn Roberts, Pagan Christianity.

But no, it's about a pair of bigots who have written a book complaining about all the "pagan" bits in Christianity.

I find the notion of expunging "pagan" practices from Christianity really offensive - but then I am a Pagan.

The Orthodox Church at least has the sense to practice inculturation in its missionary activities, whereby it preserves the bits of the pre-Christian culture that do not conflict with Christianity (which is most things).

I don't approve of converting people of other religions to Christianity, but if you must do so, at least do it with some respect and sensitivity towards them, as the Orthodox Church does.

The early church preserved many aspects of pagan culture which might otherwise have been lost. Snorri Sturluson wrote down the Eddas (Norse legends). The Pantheon in Rome was converted into a church (can we have it back please?) St Paul quoted two pagan poets, Epimenides and Aratus, in his famous speech in the marketplace in Athens.

Many customs which are supposedly "pagan" actually turn out to be only pre-Reformation folk customs.

Other practices (such as Christmas trees) may have been pagan or Christian in origin - no-one is quite sure.

Doubtless there are "pagan" bits in Christianity - including the myth of the dying and resurrecting god so beloved of most Christians - but they should be celebrated, not expunged.

Atheism 2.0 and liberal religion

2012-01-27T21:07:00.000-01:00

So, I finally managed to watch the whole of Alain de Botton's TED talk on Atheism 2.0, because I finally got broadband installed. Yay!

Pharyngula raised the objection that learning by rote is a bad thing. Well, I am sure that's true at advanced levels of science, but the reason the Japanese are so good at maths is because they still learn their times tables by rote. And it's very difficult to speak German properly if you don't learn the declension of the definite article, indefinite article, and adjectival endings, which also involves rote learning.. You can then go on to see how they operate in different contexts, but unfortunately there are some things that do need to be learnt by rote. However, that's not what Alain de Botton actually said - he said that repetition was good. Also there's a difference between learning something by heart and learning it by rote. And de Botton is not talking about the repetition of a creed or dogma, but the repetition of learning how to forgive, how to be compassionate, how to meditate - yes, these require practice and repetition. You have to meditate every day to get any good at it - and it has effects that can be measured by science. These effects are not caused by any supernatural thing - they are caused by the calming down of the brain and moving into a more relaxed state. Obviously.

Anyway, I reckon Atheism 2.0 sounds a lot like Unitarianism. Unitarians have been welcoming atheists (without trying to change their minds about being atheist) since the 1920s. Unitarians have been non-creedal (that is, each person is free to seek their own understanding of the truth) since the earliest days of the movement in Poland. Unitarians also draw inspiration from literature (yes! praise Shakespeare!), science (Darwin came from a Unitarian family), and reason.

Atheists 2.0 would also be welcome in Buddhism (a non-theist religion), Quakerism (includes many non-theists and atheists) and much of Paganism.

What did surprise me was that de Botton did not mention spiritual practices like meditation. These, to my mind, are the most effective bits of religion - not because they inculcate you with morality, but because they make you a calmer and less aggressive person.

When the compère asked him why he didn't mention spiritual experience and de Botton replied that you can have spiritual experiences without religion, that rather missed the point. Of course you can have spiritual experiences without religion, but religion provides you with techniques that allow you to access that level of consciousness on a regular basis. In my view, religion is spirituality practiced in community.

Also, he was talking as if Atheism 2.0 was a new idea, but as I said, Unitarians have been welcoming atheists since the 1920s; Buddhists have always been non-theist; and Lao Tsu just refers to the ultimate mystery as the Tao (the Way) and leaves it at that. He also says "The tao that can be named is not the true Tao." So as soon as you try to give it a name, it disappears. In a way, the same truth is pointed to when Moses asks the burning bush who it is, and the reply is "I am that I am". The Mystery has no name. There's a lovely hymn by Brian Wren, a member off the Iona community, which begins "Name Unnamed, hidden and shown, knowing and known" which is about the ineffability of the great Mystery.

Apophatic theology is really important here, too. Apophatic theology is the idea that anything you say about the divine can be negated - it is not light, it is not darkness, it is not wisdom it, it is not love. It is like all these things, but it is not them. I think the reason atheism became so popular in the first place is because people lost all sense of the mystery of "God" and tried to define it as a person, or as three persons, and got bogged down in all the literalness; whereas if you just regard God as a metaphor for the mind of the universe, that's a lot easier.

De Botton also says "it's obvious that God doesn't exist - let's move on" -- but wait, there have been some really interesting theological ideas around that non-existence. Spinoza with his idea of God as Nature; Tillich with his theology of the Ground of All Being; Eriugena with his view that God cannot exist in a material universe; Pagans and pantheists with talk of energies and immanent deities.

Another thing he suggests is that if all religious belief systems are equally untrue, then pick and mix is OK. Well, yes, up to a point, but the problem is, how do you know whether you're rejecting a particular symbol or practice because it is objectively bad, or because it pushes up against an issue that you have? For example, in Wicca, we call the quarters with the four elements, which are seen as symbols of aspects of the psyche. (Earth = sensation; Air = intellect; Water = emotion; Fire = passion and intuition). So if someone was just picking the bits they liked, they might pick the element which most closely corresponded to their psychological makeup. But if they work with all four elements and their symbolism, it might create a balance in their psyche.

I think Atheism 2.0 is an idea whose time has come - apart from the fact that's it's already been invented several times before.

A Bible for every school?

2012-01-18T10:37:00.001-01:00

Apparently Michael Gove wants a King James Bible in every school.

Whilst I agree that the Bible is a foundational text of our culture, and that the 400th anniversary of it becoming available in English is worth celebrating, I do not think it should be accorded a status above other important books, like On the Origin of Species, or the works of Shakespeare. And why wouldn't schools already have a copy of the Bible in their library, along with other important sacred and secular works?

Sense of humour failure?

2012-01-10T11:04:00.001-01:00

Bisexual FTW tweeted:

Really unimpressed with @pridelondon and @petertatchell referring to the pope as "Pope Betty". Emasculating him is sexist and out of order.

Referring to a man as if he was female is potentially sexist towards women, because it implies that women are inferior; but referring to this as "emasculating" sounds as if Bisexual FTW thinks it is sexist towards men.

However, I think what they are doing by referring to him as "Pope Betty" is the old-time Polari habit of referring to everyone (up to and including God, who is known as Gloria) as female. It also implies that he is a closet case (and given the propensity of Catholic clergy to wear dresses - sorry, robes - and froth at the mouth about gay sexuality, that's not an unreasonable conclusion).

a symbol for science

2012-01-09T11:07:00.000-01:00

There's an interesting article by Paul Root Wolpe in the Opinion section of New Scientist putting forward the idea that science needs a symbol so that people can express support for science, because it is under attack.

Is science really under attack (apart from by a few nutters on the extreme end of religion)? The article even admits that plenty of people of faith do support science. My own research into Pagans and science found a lot of support for science. Dr Wolpe himself is an expert in bioethics, so I guess he comes up against a lot of overlap and potential conflict between religion and science in his work.

American Atheists use the atomic whirl as a symbol, and it is recognised as the symbol for atheism on veterans' gravestones. That symbol might be one possibility. The New Scientist article points out that the DNA double helix won't do, because the symbol must represent physics and chemistry as well as biology. He goes on to say:

And it should be easy to modify, perhaps to identify a subject area - able to accommodate within it a double helix, or an atom, or the word NASA, or any other refinement locating the bearer in the scientific firmament. Perhaps it could even accommodate a cross or star of David or some other symbol to state: "I am a Christian (or Jew or Muslim) and support science as an enterprise."

You could certainly fit a pentagram or a chalice in the middle of an atomic whirl.

As to the points that the symbol would express support for...

I'm not sure that I want a rigid demarcation between the areas that religion and science can pronounce upon, as I am not a supporter of the non-overlapping magisteria theory. May the person with the best evidence win the debate.
I do want to express support for the scientific method, and empiricism generally.
I think that politicians all too often make decisions which fly in the face of scientific evidence.
I do want to show that I am full of awe and wonder at the beauty of the universe as revealed by science.
However, I do think science could be more open to phenomena that do not appear to have a material basis (they probably do, but no-one has worked out how to measure them yet).
I don't believe that scientists are entirely objective; they are too often influenced by politics and ideology.
I don't want to express support for Dawkins' dismissal of myth and fairy-tales (I am sure no-one ever took them literally; they express mythopoeic truths)
And I do think science should take ethical and environmental concerns into consideration more often.
I would like to see more awareness among scientists of Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts.
I would like to see more awareness among scientists of the history and philosophy of science generally, and how many times science and technology has made situations worse instead of making them better.

So I probably wouldn't wear the symbol even if it existed, because I might not be able to sign up for everything it stands for, even though I think science is a jolly good thing and should form the basis of more decisions than it does.

The symbol could be an atom, except that it is already in use for a particular group. It could be a chemical flask, but that would not encompass astronomy. It's difficult to think of a symbol that would encompass the whole of science. Maybe a pair of compasses to represent the idea of measuring? or a pair of scales to indicate weighing up the evidence?

In praise of Alain de Botton

2012-01-09T08:52:00.003-01:00

Quite possibly single-handedly responsible for reviving interest in philosophy among the general reading public (that is to say, the small proportion of the population that actually reads books), de Botton has certainly made philosophy accessible to me. I wanted to be interested in philosophy, but found the long-winded, overly abstracted and tortuous way it is generally written completely inaccessible. De Botton's engaging and laconic style, however, makes it available, and interesting, and applicable to the real world.

I started with The Art of Travel, which explores the experience of travel, why we do it, and which bits we focus on and which we ignore. Then I read The Consolations of Philosophy, which explores the approaches of various different philosophers to the common problems of life (love, death, meaning). Then I read The Architecture of Happiness, which looks at which types of architecture make us happy, and which make us miserable, and why. I am currently reading The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work. I've only got as far as chapter 1, on logistics, which explores why we ignore the romance of goods coming from far away places and being delivered to our doorsteps, and why we allow warehouses and distribution centres to be so ugly and boxy. But it's very good indeed and promises to be as interesting as his other stuff. I look forward to reading his next book, Religion for Atheists. A timely offering if ever there was one - there are plenty of religions which don't mind if you're an atheist (Unitarians, Quakers, Pagans and Buddhists all welcome atheists and don't try to change them into theists).

De Botton's writing does what good poetry and comedy should do: it looks at the world from a different perspective, and makes connections between things that no-one else had noticed a connection between. Presumably that is what good philosophy should do, too. He also asks why things are as they are, and whether the status quo could or should be changed - or, if he doesn't ask this question himself, he certainly provokes it in the reader, and gives the reader the conceptual tools to ask the question, and work towards an answer.

It is a truism that the in France, philosophers are held in popular esteem, whereas in England, they are regarded with suspicion. De Botton has single-handedly reversed that trend, so that it is cool to be seen reading one of his books. And about time too.

Of course there have always been people who enjoy Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell and so on, but they were few and far between; now there are more people who read and enjoy philosophy, thanks to de Botton, who has succeeded in popularising something without dumbing it down.

Same-sex love in the Bible

2011-12-31T11:10:00.000-01:00

Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David, have often been held up as examples of same-gender love. They may or may not have been having some sort of sexual interaction - but it really doesn't matter. The important thing about their relationships is that they loved each other; and this can be inspiring, both for close same-gender friendships and same-gender sexual relationships.

It would be incorrect to assume that just because two people of the same sex love each other then that automatically means they must be lesbian or gay. It would be just as bad as automatically assuming that they can't have been lovers because they were in the Bible, and that everyone in the Bible was heterosexual.

The current identity of LGBTs is a relatively recent phenomenon. People classified sexualities differently in the past, e.g. the ancient Greeks classified people as either penetrators (strong, active) or penetrated (weak, passive) - so it was OK to be the penetrator but not the penetrated (women, eromenoi).So it makes no sense to back-project contemporary LGBT identities on to same-sex relationships of the past and/or other cultures. That's why many writers on this subject are careful to refer to "women-loving women" and "men-loving men" when talking about the past or other cultures - becuase then it doesn't assume that the same set of practices and cultural assumptions was happening. Conversely, there's nothing wrong with LGBT people viewing same-gender relationships from the past as inspirational, in fact it's a good thing.

To say that Ruth and Naomi might have been having a sexual relationship is not to "reduce" their relationship to "only" being about sex. Lesbian relationships are not solely about sex - they are also about love, caring, mutual support, friendship, shared values, shared interests, going for walks together, and so on.

It is important not to airbrush out sexuality from texts like the Bible, and ancient mythologies in general. Sexuality is sacred and part of human experience, and it can be deeply spiritual.

It is very important to LGBT Christians to see Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan as exemplars of samae-sex love. And I think it quite likely that there was at least an erotic aspect to their relationships. Rev Fred Hammond, a UU minister, points out:

The Hebrew word for love in the text is Ahava. Ahava is used some 250 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is used to refer to the sexual as in the very poetic Song of Songs. It is used to refer to the love of a husband for a wife. It is used to refer to passion in illicit relationships. It is used to refer to the love of Jonathan and David, and Ruth and Naomi, and it is used in the great commandment to love one’s neighbor as one self[2]. And while we translate ahava as love, it literally means “I will give.”

The word Ahava is just as ambiguous (in the sense of whether it includes a sexual aspect) as our word, love. And this ambiguity leaves it open for a wide variety of ways to express love - and that can only be a good thing.

New Year's Resolutions

2011-12-30T09:46:00.001-01:00

I wasn't going to make any New Year's Resolutions, but then I read Alain de Botton's piece about them. I wasn't going to make any because I always break them, but then that's not the point, according to the article.

And yet we need resolutions - even if we don’t actually manage to carry them through or rather, precisely because we rarely manage to do so. Trying to lead a moral and a good life must mean regularly daring ourselves to be good.

So I thought, Oh go on then...

Here goes.

I will take care of my spiritual needs.
I will do something creative.
I will do something to help others. (I already have two things in mind here, but the details are a bit hazy at the moment.)
I will lose weight.

Belief audit

2011-12-21T22:40:00.000-01:00

I like to do the Belief-O-Matic quiz every so often to see what religion it thinks I am.

I note that I am now 100% Pagan and 97% UU. (I tend to fluctuate between 100% UU / 97% Pagan, and 100% Pagan and 97% UU). Last time I did it, I was 100% Secular Humanist - I must have been feeling very rational that day!

wait a minute...

2011-10-05T14:42:00.000-01:00

Come on, atheists, you can't have it both ways...

According to this article about Blasphemy Rights Day on RichardDawkins.net,

Not only are the militant stereotypes on the spectrum, I am glad they are there. One of the stupidest things about the liberal movement is that every couple of years they disavow and jettison 5% of their most extreme members. Kick the Communists out, then the Socialists look extreme. Kick the Socialists out, then the New Dealers look extreme. Soon, Nixon is viewed as moderate. These days, if you look at Reagan's policies, HE'S the new "center." When Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are considered the extreme left, and Joe Liebermann is the "moderate" you know some definitional changers are going on. And yet, the left keeps throwing out their 5% most-left, and wondering why our national discourse keeps shifting to the right. Asserting the government's right to torture suspects and wiretap non-suspects, suspending Congressional elections, limiting the right of the poor to vote - all of these ideas were considered too extreme for even serious consideration when I was a kid, but now, although they are far right, they not too out-there for debate. Because the left bi-annually disavows its "extreme" 5%. That wasn't a digression; that was a vision of the way Atheists will be treated if they disavow, discourage, silence, their angry extremists. Go back to that spectrum I described.

Now, I think that's a really good point - but aren't atheists (especially Richard Dawkins, on whose site this article is hosted) always complaining about how in religions, the extremists "hide behind" the moderates? I've always said that not's even true, because the extremists usually get far more media coverage than the moderates. But maybe it's true that if religions kicked out their extremists, the whole religious scene would move further to the right.

Certainly it has been argued by religious liberals before that if they left the big powerful churches, the evangelicals and fundamentalists would then occupy the seats of power. That's why Harry Emerson Fosdick never left the church he originally belonged to.

Another thing in the article is a list of types of atheists:

You've walked along the atheist spectrum, right? It ends at the "Angry-in-your-face" Atheist stereotype , goes through the "Don't be a dick" activist , past the "My religion (or lack thereof) is my own business" maverick, through the "I'm still in the closet" person, and starts at the "I'm faking it every Sunday for my family and friends" misery.

He missed out a category there - but then it's not really part of that spectrum: spiritual atheists who enjoy attending churches (because they like stories and inspirational poetry and meditation) where they are welcomed as atheists and are not expected to turn into theists.

Quaker Week

2011-10-05T08:57:00.001-01:00

I think Quaker Week is a great idea - because whilst Quakers are more visible than other liberal denominations, the main reason most people have heard of them is probably because you have a breakfast cereal named after you, and that image is a little outdated.As a Unitarian and a Wiccan, I am very much in sympathy with Quaker views and values, and think it is a good idea to promote peace, social and environmental justice, equality and inclusion. Religion in general is getting a bit of a bashing from certain quarters at the moment, so any increase in the visibility of liberal religion is a good thing.

A hopeful sign

2011-09-29T08:07:00.003-01:00

I was delighted to see that, in Scotland, the Unitarians, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, the Pagan Federation and Liberal Judaism are backing members of the the Scottish Youth Parliament in the campaign for same-sex marriage.

In England, the campaign for religious civil partnerships brought together the Unitarians, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, and Liberal Judaism - but sadly did not include the Pagan Federation. The issues surrounding marriage for Pagans in England (whether same-sex or opposite-sex) are slightly more complicated, in that Pagan celebrants are not licensed to perform opposite-sex marriages. Whereas in Scotland, where the marriage laws are different, Pagan celebrants have been licensed to perform weddings. But still, I hope that the Pagan Federation will also get included in the English campaign.

Anyway, it's great that liberal faith groups are getting together to campaign on this issue (which, as any regular reader of this blog will know, is one I consider to be important), and I hope it signals a move towards campaigning together on other areas of common ground. A liberal interfaith alliance for peace and social and environmental justice - just think what that could achieve. And I hope it will soon include other religious liberals too.

What is the source of morality?

2011-09-26T18:58:00.000-01:00

Recently, when the US state of Georgia decided to execute Troy Davis, and the state of Texas decided to execute Lawrence Brewer, many bloggers wrote some heartfelt and moving articles arguing against the death penalty.I wrote one myself outlining what I think are the reasons for abolishing the death penalty.

Many of the Christian blog posts on the subject focussed on the commandments of God and/or Jesus as a basis for the ethical argument for abolishing the death penalty.The trouble is, there will be many Christians who think the opposite, and will probably find some Biblical text or other to justify their position.

I think you probably can make quite a good case that Jesus was against the death penalty, as in the story where he saves the woman taken in adultery from being stoned to death by saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". On the other hand, he is also recorded as saying "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" and "if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off"; so in order to work out what Jesus' ethical stance was on anything in particular, we have to select the texts that support our argument. So wouldn't it be easier to work out whether something is right or wrong without reference to Jesus' views, or indeed God's commandments, which are similarly ambivalent ("Thou shalt not kill" as part of the Ten Commandments, but lots of injunctions to stone people to death for various infringements of the Law).

The death penalty is not wrong because Jesus was against it, or because it's against God's commands as handed down in the Bible. It's wrong for far more basic reasons than that; because you can never know to what extent the person was responsible for what they were doing when they committed murder, or to what extent they might change. They may well be innocent, as evidence is not 100% reliable. Killing is wrong because it cuts short someone's life and does them extreme harm.

The Golden Rule (attested to by every religion) says that we should do unto others as we would have them to do unto us - and being killed is pretty high on the list of things we would not like to have done to us. (The fact that a version of this rule has been worked out by every major religion suggests that it transcends cultural context and is based on universal human experience).God's commands (and Jesus' ethical stance) can be interpreted one way by one group of people, and another by a different group of people; so the Bible is not a reliable guide to ethics. It's got some rattling good stories in it, which when pondered can produce some interesting insights, but I would not use it as a guide to ethics.

So what is the source of morality? According to Richard Holloway, author of the excellent book Godless morality, morality is based on weighing two conflicting good things. So, in deciding whether abortion is ethical, one weighs the good of the life of the foetus against the good of the mother who may or may not bring it to term. In the case of the death penalty, it cannot benefit the victim of the crime to have the perpetrator killed. Society should be protected from the possibility that the perpetrator might repeat their crime, but the life of the perpetrator outweighs the cost of maintaining them in prison as opposed to killing them. There is also the very valid point that carrying out the sentence places a burden of distress on the people who carry it out.

The source of moraliy is not some absolute command handed down from on high (the very absolutism of which can often cause more distress than it alleviates) but the pragmatic considerations of the context in which the ethical decisions must be made: who benefits? who suffers? and to what extent?

Let's not lose the momentum

2011-09-22T07:13:00.000-01:00

The death penalty is wrong no matter whether the victim of judicial murder is innocent or guilty.

Here's some reasons why it's wrong:

The person being executed might be innocent. (Even if they're guilty, it's still wrong.)
They may not have been entirely compos mentis when the crime was committed.
People on Death Row frequently have learning difficulties or mental illness. If they weren't mentally ill to start with, the conditions on Death Row frequently send them over the edge.
Executing them means they will never have a chance to make good.
Killing is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The judicial murder weighs on the consciences of those who carry it out.
The process of killing the person is inhumane.
The endless waiting on death row (20 years in the case of Troy Davis) is extremely stressful for the person waiting to be executed, and for their family.
We don't have the right to decide to kill others.
Quite often it is the poor and disadvantaged who get executed, while those who can afford a good lawyer get acquitted, or get their sentence commuted.
How can any country that has the death penalty preach about human rights and democracy to the rest of the world?
As Lindsay Beyerstein points out: "the same logic that drives the death penalty is also behind a large percentage of murders. The idea is that some transgressions are so bad that they can only be settled by blood. Encouraging people to think that their pain isn't honored and avenged unless the perpetrator is killed probably makes our society more violent on the whole, not less."

What you can do about it:

Write to a prisoner on death row
Support Amnesty and Reprieve - if you cannot give your money, give your time to raise funds and raise awareness.

UPDATE: Special Amnesty page with campaign resources about the death penalty, including a schools pack.

Putting the riots in context

2011-08-17T08:58:00.001-01:00

The first thing that occurred to me when I heard about the riots was that this has happened before. There were riots in the 1830s over the Corn Laws and the need for parliamentary reform. The flames of Bristol burning after the 1831 riot could be seen from Cardiff. Rioters tore down the jail, freed the prisoners and burnt a large number of houses.

Research by The Guardian has shown that there is a strong statistical link between government austerity measures and outbreaks of unrest (riots, revolutions, and so on). We must see these riots in the context of the widening gap between rich and poor (notwithstanding a few high-profile cases of rich people joining in with the looting), the scandalous facts that the bankers have got away with wrecking the economy and the parliamentary expenses scandal has resulted in very few MPs being imprisoned for fraudulently claiming for their extravagant lifestyles. Clearly the looters are simply emulating the bankers and MPs.

It is of course very sad that people were killed in the riots, and the murderers must be brought to justice. But the disproportionate punishments meted out to some people involved in the riots seem ill-considered and likely to fan the flames of unrest. Right-wing social commentators have sought to blame poor parenting, single mothers, and the usual list of tired clichés.

There clearly has been some sort of breakdown in values, but it is not confined to the rioters and looters. The moral bankruptcy of the MPs and the banks is merely a middle-class version of the more blatant tactics of the looters. One looter, when asked what she thought she was doing, said that she was getting her taxes back. This implies that there has been a breakdown in the social contract - the consensus that we pay taxes and the government represents us and delivers services.

Many people remarked on the role of social media in spreading the unrest - but people managed to riot just as much without social media in previous centuries. The Luddites who smashed machinery in the 18th century did not have social media. In fact, it was heartening to see how social media (especially Twitter and blogs) was used to comment on and discuss the riots, and to gather people together to clean up after the riots.

What can we do as religious liberals in response to the riots? We must keep trying to build community and counteract the effects of social exclusion. The efforts of Bolton Street Angels (an initiative of which Bolton Unitarians are part), of Oldham Unitarians in helping asylum seekers, and of many other Unitarians up and down the country, are the sort of thing we need more of. The lack of cool places for youth to hang out in (since most youth clubs were closed) must be a contributory factor in the disaffection of youth. The prospect of unemployment and homelessness looms large for increasing numbers of the population as the gap between rich and poor grows wider. The increase in the activities of far-right groups such as the English Defence League is also disturbing, and we must join with other liberal groups to present an alternative view. We must also put pressure on the government to recognise that compassion and equality should be the central values of our society and its response to these riots and the the worsening economic situation, not retribution and increasing inequality.

Airbrushing the Bible

2011-07-28T13:35:00.004-01:00

In a post entitled Reinterpreting Deuteronomy with Sophisticated Theology, Russell Blackford critiques some theologians' attempts to airbrush out the rather clear instruction to go and massacre the Hittites.

I think the problem here is actually the attempt (whether by Christians or atheists) to interpret the Bible as a unified text.

Actually the Bible is a collection of different books compiled over several centuries from books written by authors with very different political and social agendas. Some books have been shown to have been rewritten versions of earlier texts, as the accounts in them are clearly conflicting.

Karen Armstrong has pointed out in her book about the writing of the Bible that the author known as the Deuteronomist was very interested in smiting and genocide, whereas other authors (such as Amos) are much more liberal. In addition, some Tanakh authors anthropomorphise God, and some make him/her/it much more abstract.

Add to that the many layers of Jewish editing and rewriting, and the attempts by Christian theologians to create some sort of unified theology out of all this, and to retrospectively try to make Tanakh texts predict the coming of Christ, and you have a huge mess.

I think it's a complete waste of time trying to rehabilitate texts like this. It's a much better idea to disentangle the bits of the Bible from each other and view them as separate pieces of writing produced by people with very different ideas of God. Biblical criticism has been doing this very successfully using increasingly sophisticated methods of textual analysis since the late nineteenth century.

It's also a complete waste of time trying to deduce anything about God (who doesn't exist anyway) from these texts. Though you can deduce a lot about the author of Deuteronomy.

I do think that the allegorical method of interpretation favoured by many theologians has some uses though - not in the way that Russell Blackford is critiquing, but in order to prevent people from thinking that it's alright to massacre people you don't like.

However, the historical deconstruction of the text is probably more useful. Perhaps the two approaches can be used alongside each other.

I like the comments of MH on Russell Blackford's post; MH also advocates historical exegesis of the texts.

God Collar

2011-07-25T08:31:00.002-01:00

I am currently reading God Collar by Marcus Brigstocke. It's brilliant, hilarious, witty and heartfelt. I laughed out loud at several bits, especially the one about the turgidity of school assemblies, and the bit about the desire to fart in church and mix up the shoes in the foyer of mosques. I also agreed wholeheartedly with his views on The God Delusion.

The main premise of God Collar is that the author experiences a "God-shaped hole" but can't manage to actually believe in God (especially not the smitey "Old Testament" God), which is quite understandable - I can't manage to believe in a supernatural creator deity, especially not the smitey variety. I can manage a sort of mystical energy (but not a person) or maybe it's just an experience, like love - in which case, should we even call it God?

I was quite surprised at the degree to which the book focusses on the vengeful deity depicted in the early books of the "Old Testament", especially as the author acknowledges Karen Armstrong in the introduction, and Karen Armstrong has done much to bring biblical criticism to the non-specialist, and to point out how you get a different picture of God from different authors of the Bible.

The author wishes that there was a religion where his atheism would be respected, and that the religion was just about being nice to people. He quite likes Jesus but cannot see why Jesus' death is supposed to save anyone. He would like to have a religion that is compatible with reason and science, where the wonder of the universe as discovered by science is appreciated. He would also like a religion that does not consider all the other religions to be doing it wrong. And he would like a religion that doesn't persecute women and gays.

Well several such religions exist. There's Unitarianism (welcoming towards atheists and humanists since at least the 1920s, ordaining women since 1904, respecting other religions since it began in the 16th century, and welcoming LGBT people since 1970).

Alternatively, if you don't like Christian symbolism served with your religious smörgåsbord, try Paganism (LGBT-friendly, has priestesses and goddesses; respects other religions; though Pagans are less inclusive towards atheism).

And if you don't like singing, try the Quakers.

Or if you like meditation, try Buddhism (most Buddhists are non-theist).

None of these religions mind if you're an atheist, and they won't try to change your mind about it. They also acknowledge the validity of other religions, are welcoming towards women and gay people, politically left-leaning and environmentally friendly.

Creation

2011-07-17T20:36:00.000-01:00

I have just been watching the film Creation on BBC iPlayer, and found the portrayal of Emma Darwin a bit too orthodox, considering that she was a Unitarian (though of course Unitarianism was different then to what it's like now), so I decided to Google for background information. Although the family attended the local Anglican church, Emma made them turn around when the Nicene Creed was recited, because it is Trinitarian. She also enjoyed discussing evolution with her husband, although she believed in creation.

It seems really bizarre now that millions of ordinary people actually literally believed in God creating the Earth in 7 days and all that.

The film also seems to me to have made Darwin's inner struggles a bit too anguished and laudanum-fuelled. It's true that he feared the impact that publication of the theory of evolution would have on the world, but it did not abolish trust, hope, love and altruism, as he is portrayed in the film as fearing.

And why wasn't the film called Evolution? (I suppose because less Americans would have gone to see it...)

2011-07-13T18:51:00.001-01:00

A trailer for a 1984 documentary about Harvey Milk.

Hat tip to the Camp Crusader.

Biblical phrases in common usage

2011-07-10T17:57:00.000-01:00

The Phrase Finder has a list of 122 phrases and sayings that have their origins in the Bible. I knew some of them came from the Bible, but many of them I had no idea about, like a "broken heart" or "set your teeth on edge". Fascinating.

William Tyndale

2011-07-10T17:07:00.001-01:00

There was an excellent article by Cliff Reed in the latest Inquirer about the King James Bible, and the earlier translations by William Tyndale and others. He points out that Tyndale's translations were much truer to the original texts than subsequent translations, which were manipulated politically.

William Tyndale is not forgotten in Bristol, as there is a statue of him in Millennium Square (sadly it was vandalised in 2008, and I do not know if it has been restored). There is also the Tyndale Monument on the Cotswold scarp, and the small Gloucestershire church of St Adeline's in Little Sodbury, near where Tyndale was chaplain to a local family of Protestant aristocracy has a folder of detailed information about him. (Sadly the family's chapel does not survive, though the church was built from its remains.)

I was also pleased to see both Tyndale and John Wyclif (a fourteenth-century Lollard translator upon whose work later translations were based) receive due honour in Melvyn Bragg's fascinating book, The Adventure of English: the biography of a language which demonstrates that Wyclif was responsible for the rhythmic language of the English translation of the Beatitudes.

The Bible was an important spiritual resource for centuries, and still is for some people, and I think people should be able to read it in their own language (as long as they don't go taking it literally). I have recently bought the Jewish Study Bible (Tanakh), which is the Torah (Law), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Kethuvim (Writings) translated by and for Jews. If you're going to read a translation, it makes sense to me to read a translation by people who are really immersed in the language and culture of the original work, and who can explain all the symbolism and cultural references. Also, I don't hold with Christian attempts to manipulate the Tanakh to make it look as if it is prophesying the coming of Jesus. The Tanakh is a Jewish work and should primarily be seen as such. And of course Jewish translations are blessedly free of such attempts.

Nevertheless the Wycliffe and Tyndale translations are classic works that have deeply influenced the subsequent development of English language and culture, and given us many proverbs and sayings, and so, as Isaiah puts it, "Look to the rock whence ye are hewn, and the pit whence ye are digged."

UPDATE: The William Tyndale statue is back - I was in millennium square it was there.

Ex-gay "therapy" exposed

2011-07-09T05:53:00.001-01:00

Truth Wins Out went undercover to find out whether Marcus Bachmann, husband of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, conducts ex-gay "therapy" at his "clinic". They found incontrovertible evidence that this is what happens (and filmed it covertly).

Truth Wins Out Undercover Operation Finds That Marcus Bachmann’s Clinic Works to ‘Cure’ Gay People
July 8th, 2011

I Received ‘Ex-Gay’ Therapy at Marcus Bachmann’s Clinic
July 8th, 2011

The articles above expose ex-gay "therapy" as a pathetic travesty of real therapy - with the "therapist" making suggestions and conclusions that were not justified by what the client said, and all sorts of other unethical practices (including not offering an informed consent form with details of other possible therapies, such as gay-affirmative therapy). The "therapist" also said that the client's gay friends would not get to heaven unless they stopped being gay.

The ex-gay movement is sick and twisted and should be stopped - and it should certainly not be funded by government money.

I wonder if this sort of thing goes on in the UK, and whether LGBT organisations here are actively combating it?

What is tolerance?

2011-06-13T19:04:00.000-01:00

I have been complained at more than once for being sharply critical of aspects of other religions that I consider to be abusive, and people have said that this is intolerant of me.

For example, if a tradition has a doctrine that women are less valuable than men, or that LGBT people are less moral than straight people, why shouldn't I (or anyone else) criticise it? And if that tradition has a doctrine that its leaders can do or say no wrong, then that doctrine is clearly going to lead to abuses of power, because there are no protections in the structure of that tradition for the laity. Or if the tradition has a cult of personality around one person, that can also lead to abuses of power. (I am thinking of more than one tradition here.)

It is supposedly the role of religion to speak truth to power, so if one's own tradition or another tradition is abusing its power, then there is nothing wrong with saying so - provided one couches one's criticism in constructive terms, and backs it up with facts. I dislike the intolerant view of some atheists that all religions are completely barking mad, because they can't be bothered to sort out the facts, or distinguish between traditions; or the view of some Pagans that all Christians are intolerant fundamentalists; or the view of some Christians that all Pagans are bad (and so on).

Being tolerant does not preclude criticising other traditions, provided it is done in a constructive and nuanced way (and I would be the first to admit that I do not always live up to the ideal of being constructive and nuanced in my utterances, although I hope my underlying views are constructive and nuanced). I would not want to give offence to anyone, because apart from the desire not to hurt people's feelings, giving offence just puts people on the defensive, and then they cease to hear what was actually being said.

Tolerance does not mean turning a blind eye to abusive practices, or ignoring the doctrines and power structures that give rise to those abusive practices. It does not mean sweeping things under the carpet and pretending they don't exist. It does mean engaging in constructive dialogue between groups, and acknowledging their right to exist and form associations with like-minded others. It also means acknowledging and celebrating the good aspects of different traditions, and not always picking on the bad stuff. It does not mean passive acceptance of things one disagrees with.

Also, tolerance goes hand-in-hand with freedom and reason. The freedom to reach different conclusions about things by using one's reason; to debate them in a courteous manner; and to engage in constructive dialogue rather than just projecting stereotypes on others.

Stonewall: It Gets Better... Today

2011-06-08T10:15:00.000-01:00

I am very glad to see that Stonewall have started a UK version of the It Gets Better Project.

Stonewall's version is called It Gets Better... Today. It gets better today because you can get support by calling Stonewall's helpline number: 08000 50 20 20

Two thirds of lesbian, gay and bisexual young people have experienced homophobic bullying. However, where schools have said homophobic bullying is wrong gay pupils are sixty per cent less likely to have been bullied.

The complexity of marriage law

2011-06-06T12:16:00.008-01:00

The subject of marriage and what is legal and what is not is getting increasingly more confusing, especially since a Liberal Jewish synagogue was in the news recently for performing a same-sex marriage (which is recognised by Liberal Judaism but not by the state). Apparently Scotland is just about to begin a process of consultation about same-sex marriage. So here's a list of what is and is not currently legal:

Legal (permitted by law and recognised by the state):

Opposite-sex church weddings (couple legally married and registered)
Same-sex civil partnerships in a register office / registered premises for weddings
Opposite-sex marriages in a register office / registered premises for weddings

The law allows, but there's no mechanism for implementing:

Religious civil partnerships (civil partnership ceremonies in a religious building)

Not forbidden by law, but not recognised by the state

same-sex blessings in a church / synagogue
same-sex marriages in a church / synagogue where the marriage is recognised by the church / synagogue but not by the state
Pagan handfastings (weddings) in England & Wales - both same and opposite sex
Pagan same-sex handfastings in Scotland
Blessings of polyamorous relationships

Illegal (not permitted by law):

Same-sex church weddings (couple legally married and registered)
Opposite-sex civil partnerships in a register office / registered premises for weddings
Same-sex marriages in a register office / registered premises for weddings
Marrying more than one person

Another difficulty is that if a transsexual married to a person of the opposite sex to their original sex wants to change their birth certificate to reflect their new sex, they would have to divorce their partner (whereas if same sex marriage were legal, they could stay married).

Legal (permitted by law and recognised by the state) in Scotland only:

Pagan opposite-sex handfastings where the celebrant says the required form of words (the same as for all other legal weddings)

Have I missed anything?

Big Society or Bigoted Society?

2011-05-18T11:21:00.001-01:00

In giving evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee on the "Big Society", Derek McAuley, the Chief Officer of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, has pointed out that giving public service contracts to faith-based charities may result in discrimination against LGBT staff (particularly those who are transferred across under TUPE to the charities from local government) and clients.

Third Sector Online: Faith charities delivering public services 'could increase discrimination'

From the Unitarian Chief Officer: Faith charities delivering public services could increase discrimination

Faith leaders for the freedom to marry

2011-05-03T19:00:00.001-01:00

Religious leaders from various traditions explain why they want same-sex couples to be able to marry.

Third Annual Pagan Values Blogging Month

2011-04-12T15:25:00.002-01:00

Pax of the Pagan Values Blogject has just announced the third annual Pagan Values Blogging Month.

You can sign up for it on Facebook.

Pax writes:

We must not be afraid to discuss the values and virtues and ethics we have discovered in our contemporary Pagan faiths. There are enough books on rituals and spells and prayers to last us a few generations… let's start writing works on confronting poverty and hunger from Pagan perspectives. Let us set aside the fear of prejudice, and the once glamorous but now tattered and worn mantle of the outsider and the rebel, and take pride in ourselves and our faiths, in our works and lives and worship and in our Pagan communities and our larger communities.

Learn more about the event.

When you get your contribution written/recorded and posted in June put a link to it in the comments stream on the Facebook page. Tags such as "PVE2011" and "Pagan Values" are also encouraged.

Pagan Values Blogging Month 2010 and 2009 produced some excellent reflections on Pagan values and virtues - it was popular theology in the making.

Zeno of Citium

2011-03-15T17:47:00.002-01:00

According to Mark Vernon's Philosophy Quiz, my ancient Greek guru is Zeno of Citium, founder of Stoicism.

Your recommended philosophy-guru is ZENO OF CITIUM.

Key fact: He taught in a stoa, the Athenian supermarket, and hence founded the school of philosophy called Stoicism.

Must have: An interest in everyday life, for it is there that you learn life's big lessons.

Key promise: An ability to face anything, no matter how disastrous.

Key peril: To be "stoical" is to turn your back on passion.

Most likely to say: "If you have integrity, no-one can harm you."

Least likely to say: "Forget prudence! It won't help you anyway."

That fits, as I am attracted by Stoicism and Epicureanism.

Find out who your ancient Greek guru is.

Libel

2010-10-07T05:31:00.003-01:00

This article is as ill-informed, unpleasant and ridiculous a piece of claptrap as ever I have seen from the Daily Mail. It doesn't even qualify as journalism, as it contains only three facts, and one of those has incorrect conclusions drawn from it. The Druid Network has achieved charitable status. It does not represent the whole of Druidry (it is smaller than OBOD), and the Charity Commission is not the government, so it does not mean that Druidry has been officially recognised as a religion. The other facts are that there is an association for Pagan police officers, and Pagan chaplains can visit hospitals and prisons, but both of these were described in a vile and dismissive way.

Getting charitable status for one druid organisation doesn't make Paganism an official religion - there are no official religions in this country, with the possible exception of the established church. Pagans do not "dress up as ghosts". Paganism was not "tied up with" fascism - that old chestnut has been debunked several times over, most recently by the Independent pointing out just how involved the Catholic church was with the Nazis. And it's a bit of a rich irony for a Daily Mail columnist to be saying that, as the Mail is a notoriously right-wing paper and has bordered on fascist views in the past. Many Christians believe in the immanent Divine as well as the transcendent Divine. In case Melanie Phillips hasn't noticed, we have religious freedom in this country (fought for by Unitarians and other Dissenters). It doesn't undermine Christianity if other religions are treated with dignity - it raises the status of all religions. And Christianity is not the "bedrock creed" of this country - it was imposed by force. If anything, the bedrock creed of this country is tolerance, fairness, and pantheism.

Please sign the petition demanding an apology. I think it would have been better to go to the Press Complaints Commission, but then I think they have a ridiculous rule that the libel has to have been of an individual, and that named individual has to be the one to complain (which is a bit difficult if you're dead, like the poor guy who got libelled by the unpleasantly homophobic Jan Moir).

LGBT teen suicide in the UK

2010-09-28T11:20:00.000-01:00

Just in case you think this is only an American problem, it happens in the UK too.

Here's a few articles:

And remember that what the media reports is only the tip of the iceberg.

Check out the It Gets Better Project for inspiring videos from LGBT people showing that life really does get better after you leave school. There's also a great video from a straight woman saying how she has loads of LGBT friends and celebrates their sexuality.

It gets better video

2010-09-27T18:35:00.003-01:00

My effort for the It Gets Better Project. It's not the best video ever made, but it is my first ever YouTube video.

Supporting Teen LGBTs

2010-09-27T07:51:00.003-01:00

Many UU churches have LGBT teen support groups. There are some excellent resources on being a welcoming congregation for LGBT people on the UUA's Welcoming Congregations section.

I think at least one church in the UK has placed a LGBT rainbow flag outside their church. This is a widely-recognised sign of being LGBT-friendly. Also, at least one UK Unitarian church hires their premises to the Metropolitan Community Church. Another thing you can do is to arrange to talk to your local university's LGBT group about liberal religion - where I live, the local MCC minister has done this and I hope to do a talk this term. Reaching LGBT teens is harder because they are more isolated - but you could offer to do a talk at your local school.

Standing on the Side of Love has a section for congregational resources.

In the 1970s, Golders Green Unitarians held meetings of Integroup, a sharing group for LGBT people and allies. Dudley Cave, who was a member at GGU, was a founding member of the Lesbian and Gay Switchboard.

Stonewall also has excellent resources for schools.

Other resources

The Trevor Project - a nonprofit endeavour established to promote acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth, and to aid in suicide prevention among that group.
Scarleteen - sex ed for the real world
We are the youth - photographic journalism project chronicling the individual stories of queer youth in the United States
"I'm From Driftwood" 50-State Story Tour: Collecting and Sharing True LGBT Stories.

It Gets Better

2010-09-25T07:23:00.003-01:00

Recently the media has been paying more media attention to teen LGBT suicides.

In response to this, Dan Savage has started a YouTube channel, "It Gets Better".

Nine out of 10 gay teenagers experience bullying and harassment at school, and gay teens are four times likelier to attempt suicide. Many LGBT kids who do kill themselves live in rural areas, exurbs, and suburban areas, places with no gay organizations or services for queer kids. (...)

I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that it gets better. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, it gets better.

But gay adults aren't allowed to talk to these kids. Schools and churches don't bring us in to talk to teenagers who are being bullied. Many of these kids have homophobic parents who believe that they can prevent their gay children from growing up to be gay—or from ever coming out—by depriving them of information, resources, and positive role models.

Why are we waiting for permission to talk to these kids? We have the ability to talk directly to them right now. We don't have to wait for permission to let them know that it gets better. We can reach these kids.

So here's what you can do, GBVWS: Make a video. Tell them it gets better.

This deserves wide publicity, so please blog about it, tweet it, and post it on Facebook.

(via Geeky Sex and sexgenderbody)

Who controls the weather?

2010-09-23T12:16:00.000-01:00

It has often been a source of bemusement to me that fundies think God controls the weather, and uses extreme weather events to smite unbelievers, gays and liberals.

When it suits them, they claim that God was responsible for the Haiti earthquake (smiting the Vodouisants), the flooding of New Orleans (smiting the city for being nice to gays), and so on.

On the other hand, when the Boscastle flood destroyed the Christian bookshop but spared the Witchcraft Museum, they claimed the Devil was controlling the weather.

So which is it, fundies? You can't have it both ways.

I think you'll find that the weather is not controlled by a supernatural being, but is an emergent chaotic system.

As the Bible points out: the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike (Matthew 5:45).

After religion, what?

2010-09-17T10:08:00.001-01:00

As for ceremony, already the leaves have swirled over, the wind has spoken - Andrew Brown, Caute

We have just been through a week in which we have seen yet further examples of the deeply problematic nature of religion - especially in its monotheistic varieties.
...
My question - developing in various ways since 9/11 - is how might we continue to access these sacramental energies without resorting to the language of the gods/God with which they were once so indissolubly linked? In short, what religion might look like after religion - after God?

This is a wonderful post and very gently articulates what I have been struggling to say in several different ways: that religion is not all about fundamentalist nutters threatening to blow things up and burn things because the world isn't how they think it should be.

Many of my Pagan friends seek to blame fundamentalism on monotheism, claiming that polytheism is inherently more tolerant. This is understandable, but it does the liberal monotheists a disservice. I think polytheism can be intolerant too - look at what happened to Socrates.

I think the problem is twofold: assuming that metaphors for the ineffable mystery are literal, concrete and graspable; and assuming that religion is an external process, something you do, a set of laws you adhere to, rather than an internal process and an internal apprehension of harmony.

status of religious texts

2010-09-15T14:47:00.001-01:00

The idea that the Bible is a single unified text, intended to be "God's word for all time" or some such rubbish, is an entirely modern idea, invented in the late 19th / early 20th century by fundamentalist nut-jobs (the original Fundamentalists who actually coined the word).

The point is that the Bible was put together by a bunch of different people, and the law codes of Deuteronomy were produced at a time of extreme social conservatism, some time in the late Bronze Age. More liberal authors of the Torah, Nevi'im (e.g. Amos) and Ketuvim would probably have been horrified by what appears in Deuteronomy.

The Qu'ran was originally produced as an oral tradition, handed down by the followers of the Prophet Muhammad, and intended to be interpreted by qadis (judges) and modified by hadiths (sayings of the Prophet). It wasn't written down until well after Muhammad's death.

The Torah (Jewish scriptures) were always subject to constant reinterpretation and discussion by the scholars (which was basically every Jew who could read and comment on them).

This notion that a religious text should be a completely infallible law code for a religion and be taken completely literally is therefore an entirely modern invention.

Let's get this in proportion

2010-09-14T06:00:00.001-01:00

In response to my previous blogpost about what I would ask the Pope, Steve posted a link to this article on spiked, How the New Atheists are abusing the truth, by Brendan O’Neill.

O'Neill is clearly not an apologist for the Catholic Church, but he points out that various newspapers are quoting excessive figures for "child rape" by "paedophile priests".

A similarly warped conflation has been made in relation to Ireland, now widely looked upon as a country where crazy priests spent most of their days handing out communion wafers and/or raping children. When the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was published in May 2009 - with its analysis of accusations of abuse made by individuals who had attended Irish reform schools between 1940 and 1999 - the media reported it as if it had uncovered apocalyptic, Caligulan levels of sexual depravity. ‘Thousands were raped in Irish reform schools’, said the Independent. ‘Thousands raped in Ireland’s Christian Brothers schools’, said the Belfast Telegraph. ‘Thousands raped and abused in Catholic schools in Ireland’, said the Guardian.

So were thousands of children - in particular boys, the main focus of the media reports - raped in Irish reform schools? No - 68 were, allegedly. Two-hundred-and-forty-two male witnesses made 253 reports of sexual abuse against the staff of Irish reform schools at the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse - and of these, 68 claim to have been raped. Once again, not all of the allegations resulted in convictions. Some witness reports involved priests who had died, and out of the 253 male reports of sexual abuse, 207 related to the period of 1969 or earlier; 46 related to the 1970s and 1980s. How did 68 claims of anal rape made against the staff of Irish reform schools over a 59-year period translate into headlines about thousands being raped? ...

Why is it worth pointing out these basic facts? Not in order to defend the Catholic Church, which clearly has a sexual abuse problem, or to minimise the suffering of those individuals who ‘only’ suffered being verbally abused, shown dirty photos or fondled over their clothing by Catholic priests - all of those acts are abhorrent and potentially punishable in a court of law. No, it is worth pointing out the reality of the extent of allegations against the Catholic Church in order to expose the non-rationalist, anti-humanist underpinnings of the current fashion for Catholic-baiting amongst the liberal, opinion-forming classes in the US and the UK.

It's worth reading the whole article, just to get this thing in proportion. It is bad, and there was widespread abuse of various kinds, but let's be sober and accurate in reporting it. It does not help the victims of this to exaggerate it - it means that once the exaggeration becomes apparent, it will be much harder for any future victims to be believed.

Finally, I want to quote part of Steve's comment:

I'm also reluctant to join in the fashionable chorus of condemnation of other religions because of allegations made by others. Some people allege that Wiccans sacrifice thousands of babies. I have no doubt that ritual killing of children for magical purposes does take place, but to make Wiccans a scapegoat for that would not be fair.

Because Wiccans have been victims of media feeding frenzies in the past (fuelled by right-wing evangelical Christians), we should be very wary indeed of jumping on any anti-Catholic bandwagon. As I said at the end of my previous post, I think much of the brouhaha about the papal visit is being fuelled by intolerance of religion in general and by a general Protestant feeling of anti-Catholicism. And I went on to point out that a lot of good is done by Catholics. Let's not lose sight of that.

Cultural appropriation

2010-09-13T18:05:00.007-01:00

On Facebook, my profile says "Political views: Pragmatic anarchist (i.e. Lib Dem). Religious views: Unitarian and Wiccan pantheist / non-theist".

It took me quite a long time to arrive at that particular combination of things. I have been a Wiccan since 1991, and a Unitarian since 2007. During 2007, I went through quite considerable spiritual upheaval before settling on Unitarianism as my path in addition to Wicca.

I have had some ups and downs with regard to Wicca, and have made quite a bit of effort to learn about Unitarianism in depth. So I thought long and hard before identifying as both Unitarian and Wiccan or Wiccan and Unitarian. I feel entitled to call myself both, because I am a member of both the Unitarian community and the Wiccan community, and recognised as such by other members of that community. I do not identify as a Pagan., though Unitarianism has included pagan and pantheist ideas since its early days, and first referred to the divine as a Mother in 1850.

It also took me some time before I felt that I understood Unitarianism and other Unitarians well enough to call myself a Unitarian.

I briefly toyed with the idea of identifying as a Taoist, because I like the writings of Lao-Tsu and sometimes refer to the ultimate source of everything as the Tao, but decided that I did not understand Taoism sufficiently, and I am not a practising Taoist, so it would be mere cultural appropriation if I claimed to be a Taoist.

I call myself a pantheist because I believe the divine (however you conceive of it) is immanent in Nature, and I find my source of spiritual renewal in Nature. I call myself a non-theist because I do not believe that the divine has a personality - it only has the fleeting instances of personality that we project onto it. And I do not think the divine has an objective existence as a being either.

By pragmatic anarchist, I mean that I find anarchist ideals inspiring, but am not sure that they would work in practice, so my pragmatic response was to join the Lib Dems (the nearest mainstream political alternative).

I was pleasantly surprised when a chap from America contacted me to say that he liked my political and religious views. During our chat, two things became apparent. He had no idea what I meant by non-theist, as he believed in an omnipotent God with a personality and a will, which I do not; he didn't seem too sure what a pantheist was, or what I meant by pragmatic anarchism; and he was neither a Unitarian nor a Wiccan in the sense of belonging to either of those communities. Imagine my surprise then, when I looked at his profile and it said that he was a pragmatic anarchist and a Unitarian and Wiccan pantheist / non-theist.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so they say, but honestly, if you're going to identify as the same thing as me, at least find out what is meant by the terms I am using and whether you're entitled to use them. Given the painful process by which I arrived at my particular self-description, I am not happy with somebody else appropriating it without even knowing what it means. I am sure he means well and everything, and I genuinely wish him well in his spiritual journey - and maybe one day he will earn those labels by being a member of those communities and actually being a pantheist and/or a non-theist. Until then (in the nicest possible way), get your own label.

It's impossible to say that you agree with the beliefs of the entire Unitarian community or the entire Wiccan community, because beliefs about the nature of the divine vary widely among both those groups, and values are more important than beliefs in both traditions (but especially in Unitarianism). Membership of something is not the same as identifying with it.

I believe in love, wisdom, freedom, reason, tolerance, inclusiveness and peace - but that could be said of several different liberal religious traditions (with varying degrees of emphasis). I identify with the values of Unitarianism - but that still doesn't make me a Unitarian unless I am a member of a Unitarian community and accepted as such by other Unitarians.

I identify with many of the values of Wicca (as I understand them): reverence for nature, distrust of hierarchy, feminism, the celebration of sexuality and sensuality - but that doesn't make me a Wiccan unless I am a member of a Wiccan community (initiatory lineage, coven, wider Wiccan community) and accepted as such by other Wiccans.

I put pantheist, anarchist and non-theist in lower-case because those describe my beliefs, not communities of which I am a member. I am not in touch with other pantheists, non-theists or anarchists particularly (except where they also happen to be members of the two communities of which I am a part).

I am not for a moment suggesting that it's impossible for another person to arrive at the same identity and worldview as me (indeed I know another Unitarian who has arrived at a similar worldview by a completely different route, which I find very affirming) - but I would hope they would have put in a certain amount of effort (spiritual, emotional and intellectual) before claiming the labels.

In a wider context, this raises the question, what is that makes you a member of a religious community? Is it membership, identity, belief, practice, values, or a combination of these?

Brain & religion

2010-09-13T08:57:00.002-01:00

In response to these statistics about OK Cupid users, I decided to analyse my OK Cupid profile for reading grade level.

I am pleased to announce that my score was 10th grade (higher than all the atheists on OK Cupid, serious or otherwise). I suspect that, as Pharyngula warns, some other factor may be affecting these statistics, but anyway, I feel vindicated.

Here are the results:

Number of characters (without spaces) : 4,253.00
Number of words : 873.00
Number of sentences : 52.00
Average number of characters per word : 4.87
Average number of syllables per word : 1.64
Average number of words per sentence: 16.79

Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading

Gunning Fog index : 12.08

Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text :

Coleman Liau index : 11.11
Flesh Kincaid Grade level : 10.27
ARI (Automated Readability Index) : 9.91
SMOG : 11.73
Flesch Reading Ease : 51.31

What I would say to the Pope

2010-09-09T12:05:00.000-01:00

Apparently atheists are now "leading an onslaught" against the Pope. Funny, I thought it was all people of conscience who were banding together to protest against his visit.

Apparently the current issue of New Humanist has an article reporting what various famous people would say to the Pope if they met him. That seems like a good idea.

This is what I would ask him:

Why did you cover up the child abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests?

Why did you promote cardinals who were covering up the child abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests?

Why did you prevent the perpetrators from being prosecuted by secular criminal courts?

Why did you let them continue to be priests where they could carry on abusing children?

Why do you continue to preach against condoms which would prevent the transmission of AIDS?

Why did you then try to blame the epidemic of child-abuse in your church on gay people?

Why do you refuse to reform a system that fosters abuse of this kind?

And, not so important, but it kind of represents much of what is wrong with the Papal "state visit" - apparently our Queen is required to wear black when she meets the Pope, as only Catholic queens can wear white when they meet him. Er, excuse me, this is our country, and our head of state (I'm a republican but she's still our head of state) - why on earth should she be dictated to about what to wear by a person is responsible for a massive criminal cover-up?

I think much of the brouhaha about the papal visit is being fuelled by intolerance of religion in general and by a general Protestant feeling of anti-Catholicism. However, I still object strongly to his "state visit" on the grounds that the Vatican is not a proper state, and he is a criminal who has covered up child abuse, and his church is often responsible for oppression and misery (though many of its individual members do good charitable work and political activism).

A syllogism

2010-09-08T15:19:00.000-01:00

God doesn't exist. (Many theologians have pointed this out, including John Scotus Eriugena, Paul Tillich, Karen Armstrong, and various thinkers from Judaism and Islam. This is because "God" is Being itself, or the Ground of All Being, or Nothing, or a process.)

God is love (according to various Christian commentators).

Love does not exist. (There's no thing you can point to and say it is love.)

Love is an experience shared between people.

God is an experience shared between people.

redefining irony

2010-09-07T13:18:00.002-01:00

The Jehovah's Witnesses redefine irony (Pharyngula - PZ Myers)

A new group of atheists has arisen in society. Called the new atheists, they are not content to keep their views to themselves.
That's right. The door-knockin', rabidly proselytizing cult is rebuking atheists for not keeping their views to themselves.

Wow, that really does redefine irony. I mean, you know, I have had quite a lot of atheists try to convince me that my participation in religion is deluded and strange, despite my constant explanations that my spiritual views and practices are consistent with reason and science, that I regard most theology as mythology and metaphor, and I'm only interested in practices that enhance my life. Also I have frequently pointed out to the atheists in question that religion is about practices and values, not beliefs (the idea that it is primarily about beliefs was introduced by Christian fundamentalists in the late 19th century, though sadly this attitude has spread to other groups).

But none of these atheists were complete strangers who were knocking on my door and trying to sell me irreligion. Though that might be quite fun - some of my best anecdotes involve the things that I and my friends have said to Jehovah's Witnesses and other doorstep evangelists. Let's face it, doorstep-evangelist-baiting is a national sport.

As I have said elsewhere, though, evangelism and proselytising are completely counter-productive and wrong. Interfaith dialogue is good; it's also good to communicate what your religion is about, so that other people can understand it, and join if (and only if) they feel the same way. And that goes for atheism too.

The thing that really annoys me about JWs is their rampant homophobia and the fact that they drag their kids around with them on their door-to-door evangelism.

The last time some JWs called at my house, I happened to have a copy of The Inquirer (Unitarian magazine) in my hand, so I brandished it at them when they tried to give me The Watchtower.

For the benefit of people who are unable to distinguish between different kinds of religion, may I refer you to my blogposts on liberal religion and non-theism? (for educational information only, of course).

Animals

2010-09-03T16:58:00.000-01:00

I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain'd,
I stand and look at them long and long. -
They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth.

from Song of Myself, Walt Whitman, in Leaves of Grass

Odd's bodikins!

2010-08-13T14:01:00.000-01:00

Dear Almighty God,

Please read Karen Armstrong’s history of you — I think you would find it most interesting. Did you know that you have several separate identities – the God of the philosophers, the God of Western Christianity, the God of Eastern Christianity, the God of the mystics, the Neoplatonic Divine Source, the Ain Sof (the God beyond God), and so on? And there’s also a chapter about your death, but don’t let it get you down, cos you’re obviously alive and well since you’re writing your own blog, right? Just like Dr Watson from Sherlock Holmes… he has his own blog too.

Also, who doesn’t like to read about themselves? I mean, we know you do, because your official biography is so long that most of your followers never get beyond Leviticus, even though there’s all those x-rated bits.

Mind you, I'm amazed you let some of the really dodgy bits into the book, like that mean trick you played on Abraham, and the time you told Saul to slaughter all those babies. You really should get a better publicist.

Oh wait, you did get some better publicists, but they keep getting killed in pogroms and burnt at the stake, or shot at.

Anne Rice

2010-07-30T13:31:00.002-01:00

Well done Anne Rice!
Pink News: Author Anne Rice 'quits' being a Christian over attitudes to gays and women

"I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."

She could always join the Unitarian Universalist Church, the liberal Episcopalians, the Liberal Quakers, or the Metropolitan Community Church, none of which are anti-gay. Indeed the MCC is run by and for LGBT people.

In addition, the Unitarians and Universalists and the Quakers have a long history of being in favour of science and reason (e.g. Tim Berners-Lee, Servetus, Robert Darwin, Newton, etc.). And the Unitarians (in 1904) and the Universalists (in 1860) were the first to have women ministers. I'm less well-informed about the history of Quakers, but they're very liberal too.

Norwich Pride Interfaith Service

2010-07-30T05:40:00.002-01:00

The Norwich Pride 2010 interfaith service will be held at the Octagon Unitarian Chapel in Colegate in Norwich city centre. The service is at 6pm on 31 July. The church's beautiful walled garden will be open to picnickers prior to the service.

Stephen Lingwood, an ordained Unitarian minister, will lead the service entitled 'Coming Out as a Spiritual Practice'. He also plans to march in the parade with the diversity banner. He said he is pleased to be involved with Norwich Pride.

Ooh I would very much like to go to that. Well done to all involved. I wrote some bits about coming out as a spiritual practice as part of my essay on LGBT Spirituality.

Is religion inherently harmful?

2010-07-22T20:18:00.002-01:00

Some atheists have argued that religion is inherently harmful. There are certainly harmful aspects of religion, but I do not believe that they are essential components of religion. And the effects of religion are often beneficial.

Harmful aspects

It is harmful to believe that your deity, or some other cosmic imperative, commands various body modifications (circumcision, genital mutilation, foot-binding, wearing all-over body-coverings that give you rickets, etc.) or that it is cosmically necessary for women to be second-class citizens, or not to use contraceptives, or to be stoned to death for adultery. These are all features of fundamentalist religions that believe they know what God's will is, and want to take the least possible liberal interpretation of books written hundreds of years ago in another culture as divine commandments for how to live. This attitude stems from a fearful, narrow and legalistic perspective on what religion is, and a basic pessimism about human nature. Not all religions do believe in this sort of thing; it is not a necessary or sufficient feature of religion.

It is harmful to think that your religion is the only truth (Christianisme, je t'accuse) and that adherents of other religions must be forcibly converted or die. Fortunately this attitude is increasingly a minority view (albeit held by a vociferous and powerful minority), as is well-attested by the growth of interfaith dialogue and religious tolerance generally.

A much more subtle problem is that when one is with a group of like-minded others, working on inner issues, one lowers one's guard, and can often be too trusting too quickly and then get hurt. I guess this would also be a problem in group therapy or amateur dramatics. I think this danger is outweighed by the benefits, but it is something that should be carefully guarded against.

Beneficial aspects

Experiencing a sense of community with like-minded others
Rubbing off the corners in social interactions (in grove, church, coven, sangha, etc.)
Being able to band together with others to bring about positive change in the world (of course this can also be done in secular contexts)
Being able to meditate and sing and do ritual with others is more effective than doing it on your own
Having a shared sense of meaning and a shared set of symbols
Sharing one's sense of awe and wonder at the Universe
Finding out about poetry and spiritual texts that one otherwise might not have found out about (this is certainly true of Unitarianism, anyway, where a wide range of readings from poetry, science, world religions and so on are welcomed and encouraged)
The opportunity to know some really wonderful people
Being able to share one's problems
Finding your "tribe", the people you click with

Dissent in religion

2010-07-22T06:35:00.004-01:00

I suspect that wherever there is a rigid dogma, there is someone dissenting from it - either quietly or loudly. In our own day, the hideous spectre of Christian Fundamentalism (and other fundamentalist groups) has given rise to a particularly intolerant form of atheism that cannot see any value in religion at all. Its model of religion is simply "belief in a supernatural deity" and that deity is a personal God, usually accompanied by a literal reading of the Bible (though obviously this is because that is what Christian Fundamentalists believe in). Other, more liberal, forms of religion are dismissed as "not religion" because they do not fit this narrow model. This is rather like the approach of the 19th century Christian missionaries who went to China and assumed that Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism were not religions because they did not resemble the European religion of Christianity.

Distinguished scholars of religion such as Jonathan Z Smith have pointed out that religion does not exist as such - it is a human-invented category, not a thing. This seems to me to be a much more fruitful approach through which to critique religion. Religions are discourses or languages which describe a particular way of engaging with the world. They involve shared symbolism and culture, and a body of shared spiritual practice. The more conservative forms of religion assume that there are divine laws which humans must adhere to, which curiously enough often resemble their own opinions. This is not a necessary or sufficient feature of religion.

If you assume that all religion involves an unthinking acceptance of a rigid set of beliefs and strict adherence to an outdated moral code, then it's pretty obvious that it should be abolished. No-one could argue with that. However, not all religion does involve these things. If, on the other hand, you observe (from studying it) that religion is a cultural form which evolves over time, then it can be changed and modified and improved (which is what has happened over time). In practice, you can make religious belief a private matter, and not allow religions to dictate what happens in the public sphere (though surely they can contribute to discussion about it, as that is part of the democratic process). But you will never succeed in extirpating the spiritual impulse; and attempting to crush religion and spirituality would be just as illiberal as attempting to crush atheism. So you might as well work with and encourage the liberal, heretical, mystical and dissenting aspects of religion - the thinkers and the lovers.

People brought up in the Christianised West assume that belief (and adherence to a set creed) is a necessary and sufficient feature of religion. That is not the case either; this view is peculiar to Christianity, and to the atheists who have reacted to it. In Islam it is adherence to the sunna which is more important in the case of Sunni Muslims, and adherence to the law which is more important to Shi'ites, according to Albert Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples. In liberal Judaism, the culture is more important; and in conservative Judaism, adherence to the practices laid down in Torah is more important.

The reason that belief and dogma became so important in Christianity is probably because early Christians were being persecuted in this world, they looked to the afterlife to provide them with hope. The idea that Jesus had already been resurrected gave them belief in life after death. In order to shore up this rather improbable belief, they had to create a whole raft of other dogma with which to support it.

A history of dissent
Having created a body of improbable dogma (a Triune God, a resurrected Saviour who was both human and divine, Original Sin, and so on) there were bound to be people who disagreed with all or parts of it. The earliest form of heresy was the Gnostics. (The word heresy comes from haeresis, a school of thought. In classical paganism, it had been perfectly acceptable to have different schools of thought, as it is in Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism etc.) There was also the Arian heresy (the belief that Jesus did not exist from the beginning of time and so was not an equal member of the Trinity). This was denounced at the Council of Nicaea, but flourished in Europe until the 9th century, and then resurfaced in the Reformation as Socinianism, which ultimately led to the development of Unitarianism. Then there were the Cathars, who were a form of Gnosticism, though not descended directly from it. Then there were the Lollards, who were the first to translate the Bible into English (Wyclif's 14th century translation). After the Reformation, the Dissenters arose. The history of dissent is long and complex, but usually involved disagreement with the unpleasant doctrines of Calvinism, and a move towards more freedom of belief, including the freedom not to believe in things.

Mostly, when a group of nonconformists disagreed amongst themselves, there was then another schism and the group split into two groups with different doctrines. But in the 16th century, a very important development occurred. Unitarians realised that they were never going to agree on everything, and therefore decided to agree to differ, and embrace diversity of belief. As Francis David said, "We need not think alike to love alike". Thereafter, Unitarianism moved steadily towards increasing diversity, placing more importance on the values of freedom, reason and tolerance than on belief. The process was patchy and went in fits and starts (and was accompanied by much persecution from more orthodox groups), but it did help to create more freedom.

Similar developments occurred in Islam with the growth of Sufism. Many Sufis were non-theists, and focused on the mystical aspects of the spiritual path. They emphasised the importance of love.

Some very important groups among the Dissenters were Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends), Unitarians, Methodists, and liberal Baptists (Universalists in America). These groups campaigned for the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women, education, freedom of thought and conscience, better treatment of animals, and social reform generally. Unitarians were campaigning for the emancipation of women as early as the 1840s. Unitarian belief (as opposed to Trinitarian) had only been legalised in 1813 - previously Unitarians had been persecuted. The list of distinguished Dissenters is long and varied, and includes many scientists (e.g. Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley), social reformers (e.g. Elizabeth Fry, John Wesley), animal welfare campaigners (e.g. Frances Power Cobbe) poets (John Milton, William Blake) and other luminaries. We are the heirs to their struggle for freedom. Let's not forget their struggle and insult them by dismissing all religion as irrational and repressive. These were people with a profound faith, who worked tirelessly for a better world, and the world is better for their efforts.

Mystical and liberal religion is a very different phenomenon from conservative and fundamentalist religion. Mystical and liberal religion acknowledges and celebrates the existence of other metaphors for the way the world works, and recognises that it's all about feeling connected to the universe and becoming a more loving person.

I'm a non-theist

2010-07-20T12:06:00.000-01:00

... or, why I don't call myself an atheist even though I am one.

Atheists are pretty strident about how much they dislike religion. And they have a pretty narrow definition of what religion is (usually, "belief in the supernatural"). I find religion fascinating and frequently inspiring (that is the liberal and mystical varieties of religion)
I consider myself a spiritual person - in other words, I get feelings of peace and joy from feeling connected to nature and other people, and I get those feelings in places where people have practised religion (possibly because of the beautiful architecture)
I like doing spiritual practices in the company of other people with similar values. That's what I call religion
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, atheists
I am open-minded as well as sceptical
I am not a reductionist, and certainly not a logical positivist
I like Paul Tillich's definition of God as the Ground of All Being
I pray (into the Void, the Silence, the darkness, the Tao) and meditate, and find this to be a helpful spiritual practice
I love stories and symbolism and mythology and Jungian archetypes
I think fundamentalist atheists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists
The main difference between me and a liberal theist is that they think God is a person and I don't. Otherwise our conclusions about the world are pretty similar.

What is liberal religion?

2010-07-20T08:23:00.000-01:00

What is liberal religion? Some have derived the word religion from the Latin wordreligare, to reconnect; others have derived it from relego, to re-read. I like both these meanings, as the first implies compassion and connection, and the second implies the living of the examined life, the interpretation of experience, and the pursuit of knowledge. Religions have been compared to languages, in that they are embedded in particular cultures; even when a religion claims to be universally applicable, it is still modified by each new culture that adopts it. A religion is a set of shared practices, values and narratives that make the world meaningful for its adherents. Most of the world’s religions are not based on shared beliefs in the same way as Christianity, but rather on a shared worldview.

Even in the traditions that have codified beliefs that their adherents are supposed to subscribe to, individual interpretations of their creeds can and do vary wildly. Many Liberal Jews are atheists. Also, Jews (Orthodox and Liberal & Reform) say that there are many different interpretations of the Torah - they really enjoy debating them in the schul / yeshiva attached to the synagogue. In Christianity, there are 17 different models of the Atonement, and in practice, individual believers do not all believe the same things, even if they pay lip service to the idea that they should do. Even though Islam has a fixed set of beliefs, there's still room for interpretation of the Qu'ran. Surprisingly, the word fatwa means an interpretation or an opinion. So if you are unsure about what to do about a particular thing, you go and ask a mullah or a qadi for an interpretation of the Koran. So it is not assumed by most Muslims (except Wahhabis) that there is only one possible interpretation of the Qu'ran. (Personally I'd just do as I saw fit.) Even in evangelical Christianity, there are a variety of opinions about being gay (there was a study of this by Kirsten Aune, a sociologist).

There is religion as it's officially supposed to be according to the doctrine of the tradition in question; and then there's the reassuringly messy, fuzzy and human way that people actually do it. The problem is that no-one apart from liberal religionists will actually admit that the fuzzy messy human way of doing it is actually the best way.

In liberal religion, where the "divine" is usually viewed as immanent in the world, or as so diffuse that it's not a person, the source of authority is viewed as the self (as in one's conscience) and not a "higher power". Fundamentalists and orthodox types believe that God is the source of moral commandments. I do not believe this. There's an excellent book by Richard Holloway called Godless Morality which explains exactly why God being the source of moral commandments can't possibly work even if you actually believe in God (which he doesn't). The reason is this: because we cannot be sure what "God" wants, or even if s/he exists, we cannot claim in our moral pronouncements to speak for God. If two people both claim to be doing what God wants, but do exactly the opposite, how do we decide between them? By using ordinary evidence, reason and compassion to decide.

Many Unitarians prefer to emphasise shared values as the basis of religion, rather than shared beliefs. I think this is an important feature of Unitarianism, and is what holds it together despite the diversity of beliefs within it. It is there from the earliest beginnings of Unitarianism, in Francis David’s famous saying “We need not think alike to love alike”, and the tolerance of different beliefs is the basis from which our core values of freedom, reason and tolerance gradually emerged.

For myself, I see liberal religion as spirituality practised in community. Spirituality is another concept that is difficult to define, but I regard it as a sense of mystical connection with the universe and all beings within it. In feeling this sense of connection, we experience compassion for the sufferings of other beings, and empathy with their joys. We can enhance this sense of connection by finding a community with whom we can practice compassion and mindfulness; if we don’t engage in spirituality in a community setting, it can become self-centred and shallow, disconnected from everyday reality. We need the experience of actually living and sharing with others to enable us to grow and become our authentic selves. This can be done by the creation of a community of shared values, which models in microcosm the desired qualities of human community. Of course there will be conflicts and tensions, but it is in how these are resolved that the real values of the community will be tested and refined. It is only by this kind of radical openness and humility that the beloved community can become strong and genuinely inclusive.

I believe that the religious life is a shared spiritual journey towards greater communion with the cosmos, where Spirit descends into matter rather than escaping from it – but this communion does not involve the effacement of individuality; rather it is the celebration of diversity and the quest for authenticity, because the "divine" (the vision of ultimate worth) is the potentiality of all life to share in mystical communion. But we must expand our compassion to all beings, not just to those whose values we share, and we do this by engaging in social action – caring for the poor and the oppressed, protecting the environment, standing up for human rights, and promoting freedom, peace and justice.

Fundamentalist religion is often the cause of compassion being withdrawn from people whose beliefs are not shared. My ethics trump religion every time. I left Christianity when I was 15 or 16 because huge swathes of it conflicted with my ethics (it was homophobic, sexist, anti-life and believed that the only way to salvation was through Jesus' death on the cross — there are huge ethical problems with all of that). I left Paganism when I realised that it was in conflict with my ethics. I would do the same with Unitarianism if it was in conflict with my ethics. I am sure that not everyone feels this way, but I know a lot of other people who do.

Indeed, we cannot really expect others to be convinced that we are "mystical" or "spiritual" unless we put compassion into practice by helping others. The two aspects of religion go hand-in-hand: without a sense of connection there is no basis for compassion, and without the expression of compassion in the form of caring, the life of a mystic can be barren and unproductive.

Note: By "mystical" and "spiritual", I do not mean anything supernatural - I mean a passionate, poetical sense of communion with all that is. I know that atheists are capable of mysticism - e.g. Richard Dawkins describes a mystical experience he had in the introduction to The God Delusion.

Further note: I do not think that religion is necessary to promote ethical living. There are many highly principled atheists.

secular humanism

2010-07-09T06:38:00.000-01:00

My latest Belief-O-Matic results (crikey, I'm turning into a rationalist). Last time I was 100% UU and 99% secular humanist, now it's the other way round. But I am now 92% Pagan, whereas last time it was 87%. Problem is, the Belief-O-Matic seems heavily weighted towards variations on Christianity.

1.	Secular Humanism (100%)
2.	Unitarian Universalism (99%)
3.	Neo-Pagan (92%)
4.	Liberal Quakers (90%)
5.	Theravada Buddhism (86%)
6.	New Age (80%)
7.	Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (73%)
8.	Taoism (72%)
9.	Nontheist (71%)
10.	Mahayana Buddhism (69%)
11.	Orthodox Quaker (63%)
12.	Reform Judaism (62%)
13.	Jainism (55%)
14.	New Thought (53%)

Will atheism supplant religion?

2010-05-25T09:33:00.002-01:00

According to a blog at Psychology Today, atheism will replace religion because it provides a better explanation of how the world works. This is based on a Frazerian/Tylorian assumption that the primary function of religion is to explain how the world works.

I would argue that the primary function of religion is to provide a community of shared meaning, values and practice. Belief is secondary to these functions. Of course fundamentalists' explanations of how the world works (both morally and physically) are way off reality as evidenced by scientific research, personal experience, and any sense of spirituality.

The article suggests:

The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs.

Not all religions require "slavish adherence to unscientific beliefs". The liberal and mystical tendency in religion has been questioning dogma for centuries. In the West, this questioning has resulted in four great liberal traditions: the Society of Friends (aka Quakers), the Unitarians, liberal Judaism, and the Pagan revival (which includes various traditions). None of these traditions requires adherence to a creed or even belief in God(s). They are about exploring the meaning of life (drawing on both secular and sacred sources of inspiration) among a community of shared values. In Islam, the mystical tradition of Sufism fulfils a similar role; and Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism are similarly diverse and include liberal perspectives. Please do some research before dismissing all religion as irrational and dogmatic.

The second aspect of this argument, that religion is about providing reassurance in an uncertain world, depends on what is meant by reassurance. Liberal religion provides the reassurance of having a community of shared values and interests, but it does not provide reassurance on the subject of life after death. Liberal religion is about enjoying being alive now, not about a future existence which is very uncertain.

Should school visits to religious buildings be compulsory?

2010-05-13T12:47:00.003-01:00

A Catholic schoolgirl has been branded a truant for refusing to wear a headscarf and trousers to visit a mosque.

The way this story is presented seems unduly alarmist to me.

If I visited a Christian church that had certain modesty requirements (e.g. Orthodox churches in Greece), I would comply with them out of respect to that tradition, even though I am not a Christian. Surely Christians can pay the same courtesy to other religions, even if they don't agree with them.

When I have visited mosques, gurdwaras etc I have sometimes been asked to cover my head, sometimes not, but whilst I am not keen on doing so (for feminist reasons), I comply with the request out of courtesy.

The Catholic girl was not asked to take part in Muslim worship.

On the other hand, I suppose that whether or not you are prepared to visit the religious buildings of another faith is up to your own conscience. I would decline to visit a Wahhabist mosque, for instance; and I know some Pagans who won't go into Christian churches. So I would support the right of a member of any faith to choose not to visit the religious building of another faith, even if I disagreed with their reasons for declining to visit. The schoolgirl in this case could have learnt about Islam in another way. So I think the school has overreacted. Parents have to the right to withdraw their children from religious assemblies; surely this is the same sort of choice, and the pupil in question is entitled to make it?

Mythology and religion

2010-05-10T14:48:00.000-01:00

New Scientist: The imperfect universe: Goodbye, theory of everything

But are we really getting any closer? Do we dare ask whether the search is fundamentally misguided? Could belief in a physical theory that unifies the secrets of the material world - a "hidden code" of nature - be the scientific equivalent of the religious belief in oneness held by the billions who go to churches, mosques and synagogues every day?
Even before what we now call physics existed, ancient Greek philosophers pondered whether the diversity of nature could radiate from a single source, a primal substance. Thales, regarded by Aristotle as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition, proposed that everything was made of water, a substance he believed represented nature's dynamic essence. Later, Pythagoras and his followers believed that nature was a mathematical puzzle, constructed through ratios and patterns that combine integers, and that geometry was the key to deciphering it.
The idea of mathematics as a fundamental gateway to nature's secrets re-emerged during the late Renaissance. Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton made it clear that the mathematical description of nature succeeds only through the painstaking application of the scientific method, where hypotheses are tested by experiments and observations and then accepted or rejected. Physics became the science of the "how", leaving the "why" for philosophy and religion. When Newton was asked why matter attracts matter with a strength that weakens with the square of the distance, he answered that he "feigned no hypotheses"; it was enough to provide a quantitative description of the phenomenon.
That, however, is only half the story. To Newton, God was the supreme mathematician and the mathematical laws of nature were Creation's blueprint. As science advanced, the notion that god interfered explicitly with natural phenomena faded away, but not the idea that nature's hidden code lay in an all-encompassing mathematical theory. Einstein's "God" was far removed from Newton's, as he famously said: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists." His search for a unified field theory was very much a search for the essence of this natural god.

I agree that many of the assumptions made by physics and other sciences are hangovers from religious discourse. For example, the idea that the universe has laws seems to be a hangover from the idea of a Lawgiver (i.e. God).

But the passage quoted above runs together some very different theological concepts. The "oneness" allegedly espoused by "the billions who go to churches, mosques and synagogues" is very different depending on which of those billions you ask. Many members of the Abrahamic traditions believe that God is the ground of all being and not literally a person. Christians are usually Trinitarians (that's a very different idea of "oneness", and interpretations of the Trinity vary wildly, even among people who are supposed to subscribe to the same doctrine on it). And neither Muslims nor Jews nor Unitarians believe in the Trinity.

The idea of the single source of all existence is a neoPlatonic concept, again very different from Abrahamic ideas of God, both then and now. And Spinoza was a pantheist (though the article does point out that his idea of God was different from that of Newton).

The tweet alerting readers to the posting of the article said:

The quest for a "theory of everything" is driven by the same urges as religion - so we should stop http://bit.ly/ckZJX1

... implying that if religion does it, it must be wrong for scientists to do it (or am I being paranoid?)

My response was:

please don't lump all religion together - not all practitioners of religion believe literally in their mythology

followed by this:

do you have any scientific evidence for the urges that drive what you refer to as "religion"? #SoBoredOfLiteralMindedPeople

Anyway, the article is really interesting, and the author seems to know a bit more about theology than the sort of people who usually write these things; and I appreciate that it's difficult to be subtle in a tweet. But I'm fed up with the way some scientific commentators persist in lumping all practitioners of religion in one box, marked IRRATIONAL, DO NOT OPEN.

Also available on my Tumblr blog.

Happy St George's Day

2010-04-23T13:04:00.001-01:00

There's quite a bit of interesting folklore about St George. In Russia, apparently, women leave clothes under bushes on St George's Day. If a leaf falls on their item of clothing, they believe they will get pregnant. George is also (possibly) associated with Khizr or Khidr, the Sufi saint and inner Friend in Islam. So George is a symbol of verdant renewal.

In Orthodox Christianity, George's title is Holy Glorious Great Martyr, Victorybearer and Wonderworker George - now that's what I call a proper title.

The patron saint of England was originally Edmund Martyr, who was murdered by Vikings. They chopped off his head, which was then guarded by a wolf until some Christians came to bury him (at Bury St Edmund's).

The next patron saint of England was Edward the Confessor, who married a Norman lady and thereby paved the way for the Norman Conquest. The Normans presided over the increasing Catholicisation of the English church, which had been doing liturgy in a unique Saxon style. Obviously the Synod of Whitby had scuppered the Orthodox date of Easter and the Celtic tonsure, but there were still some differences in liturgy which may have been more similar to Orthodoxy.

George only got made patron saint of England during the reign of Edward III.

The Bible: take it or leave it?

2010-04-17T09:05:00.002-01:00

I have just been followed on Twitter by an atheist whose slogan is "The Bible... Believe ALL of it, or, Believe NONE of it!"

That is such a simplistic attitude that I nearly didn't respond, thinking it was scarcely worth it. However, I had one of those xkcd moments... so here goes.

The Bible is a book (or better, a collection of books) with different authors, all of whom seem to have had very different ideas about God, and what God wants. The earlier books of the Bible have YHWH demanding blood smeared on the horns of his altar; then the prophets bemoan the hard-heartedness of Israel and their inability to just be nice to people for a change (see Amos 5:24 for example). The theology expressed by Jesus is quite different from that of Paul, which is different again from James and Peter. (I think that's why I found it so very confusing when I tried, a very long time ago, to take it at face value.) All this is well-documented by liberal biblical criticism.

If you don't want to take liberal biblical criticism as your source, try Richard Dawkins, who says we should regard the Bible as a work of literature. Quite right - it is a work of literature, and has just as many insights into human nature as any other pre-modern work of literature.

Obviously (if you read other things I have written on this blog), I do not literally believe the cosmological accounts given in the Bible. They are metaphors, just as Pagan creation myths are metaphors. I also don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but I do think his mythology is a version of the stories of other Middle-Eastern dying-and-resurrecting vegetation gods, and if you read it as mythology, it is a good account of the archetypal experiences of the human psyche (the death of the ego and resurrection of the greater self, as outlined in the Hero Journey).

The method I use for interpreting the Bible is to compare it with the wisdom texts of other spiritual traditions. If you read what Jesus and other prophets said in the light of what the Buddha said, or what Lao Tsu said, it makes a lot more sense. Personally I find it easier to read the Buddha and Lao-Tsu, because I don't have to filter out the noise of conservative interpretations of Jesus' thoughts that I was brought up with. But this doesn't mean that the Bible is worthless. It means that if you're going to read it, you should read it carefully to see if its ethical guidance resonates with your own experience. And if it doesn't (as in some of the very dodgy statements in the Pentateuch), then reject it. It's not a supernaturally inspired book, it's a document of the spiritual journeys of a bunch of people, and should be read as such.

As the Buddha said,

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

I wonder if this is what Jesus meant when he said "He who has ears to hear, let him hear". If so, I wish he had been a bit less cryptic!

The Houdan Hen

2010-04-15T10:52:00.001-01:00

The Houdan hen was never drawn into the cult of Sredni Vashtar. Conradin had long ago settled that she was an Anabaptist. He did not pretend to have the remotest knowledge as to what an Anabaptist was, but he privately hoped that it was dashing and not very respectable.

(from Sredni Vashtar by Saki)

Some Anabaptists are certainly dashing and not very respectable. Others sound quite conservative. I suspect that the Houdan hen was a Universalist or a Unitarian. I was going to suggest that she might have Humanist leanings, but then she's a chicken.

Religious civil partnerships are on!

2010-04-14T07:39:00.000-01:00

Equality Bill Passed
I am pleased to report the successful passage of the Equality Bill through its final Commons stages on 6 April 2010, in what is known as the 'wash-up' before Parliament was dissolved yesterday for the General Election. This will mean civil partnerships can be celebrated on some religious premises as supported by the [Unitarian] denomination, the Quakers and Liberal Jews. Looking to the future the Bill provides for an order-making power to register religious premises for conducting civil partnership ceremonies in England and Wales.
Derek McAuley, Chief Officer, Unitarians

Oh that is marvellous news, I am so pleased. How wonderful. (Next goal - marriage & civil partnership available to all, whether same-sex or opposite-sex relationships.)

religion and science

2010-03-29T20:43:00.001-01:00

Just been watching the absolutely marvellous Wonders of the Solar System (episode 1). Lots of beautiful imagery, lots of fascinating information about the solar system, and how the cycles of the sun drive river systems, and how to work out how much sunlight actually falls on the Earth.

Only one teensy little quibble. In the first five minutes of the programme, Prof Brian Cox says "science is different from all the religions that have been practised here in Varanasi; you can test science's explanations for things, you don't have to take them on faith".

Yep, that's true. Except that most religion is not about explaining how the universe works. Hinduism, the main religion of India, has multiple creation stories, all of which exist happily in parallel with each other and with science. They are symbolic stories.

I know there are lots of mad fundies who think that their religion explains how the world works, and I know they shout really loudly, and grab all the media attention, because for some reason journalists just love watching religious people frothing at the mouth (look how much media attention that old hypocrite Ratzinger gets).

But lots of religious people belong to a religion because they want the sense of community, and the mythological structure, the shared values, and the spiritual practices that go with it (meditation, prayer, singing, contemplation, yoga, whatever).

Most Unitarian Universalists and many Pagans and Quakers do religion because it reflects the inner reality of the psyche and they can share their spiritual journeys with others who share the same symbolism. It's not about belief, it's about spiritual practices (the efficacy of which can be verified empirically, by seeing if the people who do them are happier, calmer, etc.)

Many liberal people of religion enjoy science and find it fascinating and beautiful. I enjoy science very much, and wish that some scientists didn't think that all people of religion are nutters, just because some people of religion are out-and-out bigots and fools.

As Carl Sagan once said, "A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." (But this should probably be taken in context with everything else that he said about religion.)

That Jesus character

2010-03-29T09:22:00.002-01:00

The thing that both atheists and fundamentalists fail to realise about the likelihood that the gospels' account of Jesus is almost entirely fictional is that it really doesn't matter - in fact it's better as myth than as history.

It’s taking myth literally (whether you're an atheist or a believer) that is the problem. That's what causes all the wars and arguments.

Just because something is a myth, that doesn't make it irrelevant. Myths are powerful stories that inspire people. Robin Hood and King Arthur were probably entirely fictional (or very exaggerated versions of historical figures) but they have inspired people down the ages to emulate their values. Jesus may well be entirely fictional too (and I am certain that his miracles are entirely fictional and symbolic), but he is still an inspirational figure. (And the same goes for the other solar dying-and-resurrecting vegetation gods such as Horus, Mithras, Attis, Adonis, Tammuz, Dumuzi etc.) Unfortunately there are things which Jesus is reported as having said that inspire fundamentalist bigots. But Jesus’ message of non-violence also inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King. It’s a mixed picture.

Most of the stories about Jesus can be given a mythological reading which fits in well with the archetypal stories of the Hero Journey, or other myths. The same stories (virgin birth, massacre of the innocents) are told about other deities such as Krishna, Mithras, and so on.

Bill Darlison has shown how the Jesus myth fits in with an astrological initiatory system. Joseph Cambell showed how it fitted with other versions of the archetypal Hero Journey. The gospel of John in particular can be read symbolically (and was various scholars have shown that it was intended to be read symbolically). Various authors (notably Timothy Freke) have explored the similarities between Jesus and pagan gods. It's all mythology, and that's good.

Finding Ada: Lisa Barone

2010-03-24T04:00:00.001-01:00

This blogpost is part of Ada Lovelace Day, which is an international day of blogging to draw attention to the achievements of women in technology and science.

But many women go on to achieve great things in site of all this, and Lisa Barone is one of them. She writes:

I hate talking about gender. I hate talking about what it feels like to be “a girl” in tech or on the Web because it all feels like a bunch of crap and silly excuses. I’ve never felt hindered by my gender, never felt like I was looked down upon or treated differently. Never felt like I wasn’t put on a panel because I pee sitting down. But there are also a couple of things I’ve had working in my favor.
I’m 27. I entered a workplace where ceilings were semi-shattered. I know that my mother did not.
I’ve never treated myself or acted like I was inferior.
I’ve never allowed others to make me feel that I was.

According to her profile:

Lisa Barone is Co-Founder and Chief Branding Officer of Outspoken Media, Inc. Lisa has been involved in the SEO community since 2006 and is widely known for her honest industry observations, her inability to not say exactly what she’s thinking, and her excessive on-the-clock Twittering.

Notable Achievements
Selected as a ‘Person to Watch’ for 2010 by Hudson Valley Magazine
Invited Guest, Google Search Relevancy Panel, Google Corporate Headquarters
Blog Editor, SmallBizTrends
Columnist, Search Engine Land
Columnist, Search Engine People
Columnist, Search Engine Guide
Nominated, Search Engine Journal’s Best Overall Search Marketing Blog, 2007
Nominated, Search Engine Journal’s Most Giving Search Blogger Award, 2007
Winner, 2007 SEMMY, Category: Best Search Tech
Winner, 2007 SEMMY, Category: LOL Funny
Expert Judge, 2008 SEMMYs
Expert Judge, Search Engine Strategies Awards 2008
Expert Judge, Search Engine Marketing Scholarship 2008
Featured Entrepreneur, All Over Albany

My other Finding Ada blogposts:
Hedy Lamarr
Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin

Hooray for Philip Pullman

2010-03-22T20:25:00.001-01:00

I was talking to some fellow Unitarians on Sunday and we all said how much we are looking forward to reading Philip Pullman's new book, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, as the ideas in it sound very Unitarian. We also remarked that the Unitarian concept of God is far closer to Dust than to the Authority, since many Unitarians are pantheists or panentheists who believe that the Divine is immanent in the world.

Unitarians have been in existence as a denomination since the 1500s in Poland (they were driven out of Poland for their heretical views), the 1600s in Transylvania, and the late 1700s in Britain, and throughout that time have asserted that Jesus was just a man. He may have been special and inspired, but he was just a man.

Unitarians and others in the 19th century learned much from the new Biblical criticism coming from Germany in the 19th century, and realised that the Bible is a palimpsest of different voices and editors. Nowadays atheists and humanists and agnostics are welcome to be members of the Unitarian movement.

Pagans also love Philip Pullman for his positive portrayal of witches, and the wonderful idea of daemons, which are rather like the concept of totem animals which is popular with many Pagans.

So it was with some dismay that I just heard that fundamentalist Christians have been issuing death threats to Philip Pullman because they don't like his latest book, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ. Stupid, ignorant, narrow-minded, bigoted fools. It is fairly obvious to anyone who has read the Bible with an open mind that the Jesus of the gospels and the Christ promoted by Paul are very different. Christ is a mystical entity whose body is the church (and who should never have been conflated with Jesus). Many liberal Christians say that Christ is an archetype within the psyche (or words to that effect).

In any case, even if you think Christ is the supreme ruler of the universe, issuing death threats is not the way to convince non-believers that your faith is worthwhile - quite the opposite. And if Christ really was the supreme being, I daresay he could look after himself. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord"; "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Goodness me, haven't these people actually read the Bible?)

I am very much looking forward to reading Philip Pullman's new book, and hope that these evil people do not carry out their threats. I am sure that all decent people will be praying for his safety and protection.

Email disclaimer

2010-03-22T09:58:00.001-01:00

Annoyed by email disclaimers? Add this to your email footer, and get your own back!

Holden's Disclaimer

IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressees named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour, or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word auscultation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email; although the Collie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert.

Notice from Microsoft: However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk, and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.

Those mysterious snakes

2010-03-17T11:17:00.000-01:00

Carl McColman has an excellent blogpost reflecting on St Patrick's Day and why Pagans don't regard it as a celebration. It's well worth a read.

That old chestnut about Patrick driving the snakes out of Ireland does, as he suggests, seem a somewhat tenuous quote on which to base an accusation that he drove paganism out of Ireland. As he says, it went underground, and was most likely driven there by the entire power structure of the church and the higher echelons of society who had embraced Christianity because everyone else in Europe was doing it.

But it's a great shame that Christianity decided to abolish the old deities (or at least, the ones it couldn't assimilate as saints). When Buddhism arrived in new countries, it simply declared deities irrelevant to its message and let people carry on honouring them.

I do agree with his conclusion that everyone should work together for the eradication of slavery and the promotion of social justice.

religion for cats

2010-03-14T08:55:00.000-01:00

I have just seen a photo of a "my cat is an atheist" T-shirt on Facebook, taken at the atheist convention in Melbourne. I commented that one of my cats is a pantherist, the other is a worshipper of Ceiling Cat (well she spends a lot of time lying on the floor staring at the ceiling). She also liked to sit on the back of my broom - I think she was hoping it would fly.

So, I give you: religion for cats.

Pantherism: the belief that the ideal state is to be a panther or other large predatory cat.

Pollytheism: the worship of parrots as sacred food.

Minnowtheism: the worship of fish as sacred food.

Belief in Ceiling Cat: Transcendent monotheism.

Belief in Basement Cat: the feline equivalent of satanism.

Hedonism: the natural default religion of all cats.

Cat-o-lick: belief that cats are deities and should be worshipped.

Klein Test

2010-03-14T07:39:00.000-01:00

This is a much more subtle measure than the Kinsey Scale, though it is based on the Kinsey Scale. Interesting. It asks questions about past, present and ideal sexual preferences, and whom you like to socialise with.

You Shan't Go To The Prom!

2010-03-12T11:03:00.005-01:00

I've just seen a shocking story about how a school in Mississippi won't allow a lesbian student to attend the prom with her girlfriend, and they wouldn't let her wear a tuxedo either.

Here's the email that I sent to tmcneece@itawamba.k12.ms.us, twiygul@itawamba.k12.ms.us

Dear Superintendent McNeece and Principal Wiygul,

I am writing to point out that lesbian and gay students have a right to bring a same-sex date to the prom and wear clothing congruent with their gender identity under the First Amendment, and the US Supreme Court has ruled that a policy or public entity that is based on discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

Simply cancelling the prom seems like a disproportionate response to a simple request to bring a same-sex partner. Please reinstate the prom and allow Constance McMillen to bring her partner as her date, and wear a tuxedo if she wishes.

I am deeply dismayed by your discriminatory practice, and feel that it should be a matter of regret to you that your school is now infamous around the world for this bigoted, disproportionate and unjust response to a lesbian student and her partner.

Yours sincerely

I would encourage Stroppy Rabbit readers to write to the school on similar lines. You can get more information from the ACLU's letter on Constance's behalf (PDF).

Update: apparently the email addresses above are now closed (wonder why?)

The ACLU has produced an online resource for LGBT students who want to take their partners to the Prom.

Omega point

2010-03-04T10:53:00.004-01:00

Andy Pakula has written an interesting blog-post critiquing the view that we are evolving towards greater consciousness. He writes:

I have nothing against a good story, as long as we recognize that it is a story - to be taken metaphorically rather than as a fact. The problem with false facts is that they are eventually revealed, leaving behind the wreckage of shattered faith and lives roughly stripped of the meaning that sustained them. The world that we are told is evolving spiritually is also the site of tremendous hostility and hatred, an increasing gap between rich and poor, and catastrophic environmental degradation. Will these contrary trends not rattle the new stories?

The whole thing started with Teilhard de Chardin's concept of the Omega point, and was also put forward by Oberon Zell in his Gaia thealogy (which he also derived in part from the process philosophy of A N Whitehead and others).

I'm rather enamoured of process philosophy and its related ideas, but I can see how it could be seen as unrealistic in the face of all the negative stuff out there. I must admit, I would be quite reluctant to give it up, but would be forced to do so if it was shown to be contrary to evidence.

Next steps

2010-03-03T09:50:00.002-01:00

A press release from Peter Tatchell:

Ban on church civil partnerships voted down by House of Lords

Next battle: End the ban on same-sex civil marriage

London – 3 March 2010

Last night’s vote by the House of Lords to end the ban on religious civil partnerships is “another advance for gay equality and religious freedom,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of the LGBT rights group OutRage!

“Allowing faith organisations to make their own decisions on whether to conduct same-sex civil partnerships is the democratic and decent thing to do.

“By banning religious civil partnerships, the current law is denying religious bodies the right to treat gay couples equally. It is forcing them to discriminate, even when many of them do not want to.

"The Quakers, Unitarians, Metropolitan Community Church and liberal synagogues wish to conduct civil partnership ceremonies and should be allowed to do so.

“Following a change in the law, we expect civil partnerships will be conducted by gay-affirmative religions, including the Unitarians and Quakers, and some Anglican churches and liberal synagogues.

“Our next goal is to secure marriage equality, to end the prohibition on lesbian and gay couples having a civil marriage in a registry office. Already, 61% of the British public believe that same-sex couples should be able to have a civil marriage, according to an opinion poll conducted by Populus and published by The Times in June last year.

“The gay rights group OutRage! is planning to challenge the bans on same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships in the European Court of Human Rights. Our aim is full equality for homosexual and heterosexual couples. We hope to file an appeal to the European Court by summer of this year. Already, four couples have agreed to join the legal challenge.

“If we win in the European Court of Human Rights, the government will be required to change the law to allow gay partners to have a civil marriage and to allow heterosexual couples to have a civil partnership. It will ensure, at last, full equality in the laws governing relationship recognition and rights.

“Last month, the Greens became the first and and only political party in Britain to officially support an end to the ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship. Their Spring party conference voted almost unanimously to end the prohibition on religious civil partnerships.

“I may disagree with religion and want a separation of religion from the state, but I still object to religious same-sex couples being denied the option of having a civil partnership in their place of worship. If that is what they want, it is up to them. Exclusions based on faith or sexuality are wrong,” said Mr Tatchell.

A victory for common sense

2010-03-03T09:06:00.006-01:00

This is fantastic news!

The House of Lords has voted by 95 to 21 votes to allow civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises. This means that denominations and religions who want to can marry same-sex couples.

Stonewall UK, Peter Tatchell, Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal Jews and the Metropolitan Community Church have campaigned for this change. The liberal think-tank Ekklesia has also welcomed the news.

However, what is needed now is a push towards full marriage equality for LGBT people, and also for other groups who are currently excluded, such as Pagans and the polyamorous.

Pagans also want to do same-sex legal weddings. However, Pagan opposite-sex weddings are only legal in Scotland, but they are not allowed to do same-sex legal weddings there. Hopefully this change in the law will also mean that LGBT Scottish Pagan couples can have legal weddings, even if neither opposite-sex nor same-sex English Pagan couples can.

Good and bad theology

2010-02-28T18:33:00.007-01:00

According to Stevencarrwork, a commenter on the amusing article by PZ Myers, The Courtier's Reply over at Richard Dawkins' website:

There are no facts to decide what is good theology and what is bad theology.

Good theology is what you can sell to the believers.

Bad theology is what does not sell.

Actually this is wrong. Yes, OK, so according to atheists there is no objective reality which theology describes (and as a non-theist myself, I am inclined to agree). But some theology is definitely far more harmful than other theology, and some theology can be beneficial.

For instance, the kind of theology that says that God dislikes LGBT people is obviously harmful; whereas the kind of theology that says God is Nature and Nature is God, or that God is Love and Love is God (and not a person) is harmless, and probably beneficial as it encourages ecological awareness; and the kind of theology that encourages people to be nice to everyone because "we are all made in the image of God" is surely beneficial. Also the kind of theology that says we don't know if God exists or what She wants (e.g. Godless Morality by Richard Holloway) seems like a good thing to me, as it encourages people to be more humble and tolerant of others' beliefs.

Theology can be tested empirically by its effects on people's lives. Bad theology will make people unhappy and cause harm; good theology will make people happy and altruistic.

NB in my book, good theology includes old-style atheism (i.e. the kind that was more tolerant of other views), agnosticism, naturalism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, universalism, unitarianism, a lot of mysticism, and the interfaith movement. Most of these theologies recognise that mythology is a metaphor for the process of living, and is best enjoyed in the mode of fairy-tale. They also show respect for other philosophies and religions.

Belief-o-matic

2010-02-26T18:25:00.000-01:00

I do the Belief-o-matic questionnaire occasionally as a sort of personal inventory. My latest results (interestingly, I am now only 87% Pagan):

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (99%)
3. Neo-Pagan (87%)
4. Liberal Quakers (86%)
5. New Age (79%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (78%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (76%)
8. Nontheist (70%)
9. Reform Judaism (65%)
10. Mahayana Buddhism (62%)
11. Taoism (62%)
12. New Thought (56%)

Secular Humanism was in third place, now it's in second place.

Solon's commandments

2010-02-24T13:01:00.001-01:00

The Ten Commandments of Solon:
(Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.60):

Trust good character more than promises.
Do not speak falsely.
Do good things.
Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
Learn to obey before you command.
When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
Make reason your supreme commander.
Do not associate with people who do bad things.
Honor the gods.
Have regard for your parents.

Greens vote for same-sex religious weddings

2010-02-23T12:08:00.003-01:00

A press-release from Peter Tatchell:

End ban on religious civil partnerships, Greens urge

Current law forces churches to discriminate against gay couples

London – 23 February 2010

The Greens have become the first and and only political party to officially support an end to the ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship.

The new Green Party policy would allow gay-affirmative churches, such the Quakers, Unitarians and Metropolitan Community Church, to host civil partnership ceremonies for the first time. They are currently prohibited by law from hosting religious civil partnerships.

The vote at the Green Party’s Spring conference, which took place in London on the weekend, makes the Greens unique among British political parties. No other party has the same commitment to end this discrimination.

By a near unanimous vote, Green delegates voted to strike down the ban on religious civil partnerships.

The motion was proposed by human rights rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who is also the Green Party’s human rights spokesperson. It was seconded by Darren Johnson, the openly gay Green member of the London Assembly and the Green parliamentary candidate for Lewisham Deptford.

A copy of the motion agreed follows below.

The new policy will now be added to the Green Party’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Society.

“The State is denying, by force of law, the right of religious bodies to treat same-sex couples equally. It is forcing them to discriminate, even when they don't want to,” said Peter Tatchell.

"Gay-accepting churches, such the Quakers, Unitarians and the Metropolitan Community Church, want to conduct civil partnership ceremonies and should be allowed to do so.

"The ban on religious civil partnership ceremonies smacks of authoritarianism. This injustice was written into the Civil Partnership Act by the Labour government in 2004, in a bid to appease homophobic religious leaders. At the time, the government refused all requests to remove the prohibition on religious civil partnership ceremonies.

“The Greens are supporting Lord Alli’s bid to amend the Civil Partnership Act to allow faith organisations to decide for themselves whether they want to offer religious civil partnerships to same-sex couples.

“If the law is amended, we expect that gay-affirmative denominations will agree to host civil partnerships. Some individual Anglican churches, and some liberal synagogues, are likely to follow suit.

“I may disagree with religion and want a separation of religion from the state, but I still object to religious same-sex couples being denied the option of having a civil partnership in their place of worship. If that is what they want, it is up to them. Exclusions based on faith or sexuality are wrong.

"The Unitarians are hosting a conference on marriage equality in London this coming weekend, where I will outline new campaigns to challenge the bans on same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships. The aim is full equality for homosexual and heterosexual couples," said Mr Tatchell.

Green Party conference motion RR507 (passed)

“The Green Party supports an end to the ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship, whilst recognising it is up to religious bodies to make this decision and not for the state to dictate to them prohibitions on civil partnerships.”

Pagans also want to do same-sex legal weddings. However, Pagan opposite-sex weddings are only legal in Scotland, but they are not allowed to do same-sex legal weddings there. Hopefully if this is sorted out, at least LGBT Scottish Pagan couples can have legal weddings, even if neither opposite-sex nor same-sex English Pagan couples can.

Liberal Jews also offer same-sex blessings in synagogues.

Where do ethics come from?

2010-02-20T17:37:00.006-01:00

The idea that religion is the only source of ethics is based on the idea that "God" (and I don't believe in him/her/it) dispenses laws or moral codes for humans to obey, and rewards those who obey and punishes those who disobey.

Anyone who does a good thing because they expect a reward for it from (or avoids a bad thing because they expect to be punished by) some cosmic lawgiver is clearly immoral. In Matthew 6, Yeshua is reported as talking about getting rewards in heaven for doing good on earth (or at least, that is the way that the passage is often interpreted). Eeeeeuuuuuwwwwwww!!!! Wrong wrong wrong.

I do what I believe to be right and good (the pursuit of justice and the comforting of the afflicted and oppressed, donating to charity, participating in campaigns for social & environmental justice) because I believe it to be right and good, and I hope that it will increase the sum of happiness, not because I expect a pat on the head from a non-existent person in the sky.

OK so I get satisfaction from seeing people looking & feeling better after I have helped them - but the amount of effort involved probably outweighs the reward. And OK so I also get satisfaction from doing what is good and right, cos it makes me feel as though I am making a difference, and it makes me feel better about myself, but I don't see why I shouldn't. Self-esteem is good, isn't it?

And anyway, empirical evidence in the form of numerous morally upright atheists (though not all atheists), and millions of bigoted religionists (though not all religionists), make it obvious that the sort of religions that have prescriptive moral codes are not a good place to get your ethics from. The sort of religion that is inclusive and tolerant and rational would be a better place to get your values from, but you should still check them against your own conscience, reason and experience.

There's an excellent book by Richard Holloway called Godless Morality which explains exactly why God being the source of moral commandments can't possibly work even if you actually believe in God (which Holloway doesn't, though he says he isn't exactly an atheist or an agnostic either). The reason is this: because we cannot be sure what "God" wants, or even if s/he exists, we cannot claim in our moral pronouncements to speak for God. If two people both claim to be doing what God wants, but do exactly the opposite, how do we decide between them? By using ordinary evidence, reason and compassion to decide.

I tend to use the word ethics to mean a set of best practices that have evolved or emerged from a group ethos (though that is not the etymology of ethics), and I use the word morals to mean a set of practices imposed by a moral code. In this sense, ethics are clearly more pragmatic and flexible and humane, whereas moral codes, because they are usually arbitrary and invented, are usually cruel and inhumane.

Ethics and altruism are clearly evolved characteristics — but that doesn't make them any less beautiful, especially as we usually have a choice about whether to do the ethical or altruistic thing. It's amazing and wonderful that both people and animals will help the injured and dying, often at considerable cost or risk to themselves — and people often help others who are clearly not genetically related to them, including other species.

Aurelius' wager

2010-02-17T07:44:00.006-01:00

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
-- Marcus Aurelius (121-180)

Well, it's better than Pascal's wager, because it is based on values and virtues, not belief, but it is still somehow unsatisfactory. I do not exercise virtue for any hope of reward (whether in the form of being welcomed by gods, or being remembered by loved ones) but because it is the right thing to do. OK so I gain some satisfaction from doing the right thing, so perhaps it's not entirely altruistic, but I'm still uncomfortable with Aurelius' wager.

I thoroughly approve of "If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them" — quite right.

Addendum: Richard Carrier wipes the floor with Pascal's Wager (and by extension, Aurelius' wager).

LGBT-friendly religions

2010-02-12T19:48:00.003-01:00

I was hanging out in a gay bar last night and we ended up talking about religion (yeah, I know, it's no great surprise when I'm around, as it's one of my favourite topics of conversation) and discussing which are the most LGBT-friendly religions and denominations. Some of the people had never heard of some of the religions.

So, in no particular order, here are some of the more friendly ones:

Unitarianism

The Divine has no gender.
Unitarians have ordained LGBT ministers since 1977, and passed a number of motions at General Assembly in support of LGBT equality.
Most Unitarian churches are willing to do same-sex blessings, and welcome LGBT members.
Find out more about Unitarianism

Metropolitan Community Church

A Christian church, founded by LGBT people for LGBT people
Find out more about MCC

Buddhism

All sex is liable to cause ego-attachments, so there's no particular prejudice against same-sex relationships
Buddhist sexual ethics do not preclude particular practices but rather promote considerate behaviour
Lots of androgynous statues
Find out more about Buddhism

Eclectic Paganism

Generally LGBT-friendly, but sometimes heterocentric.
Find out more about eclectic Paganism

Wicca

Sometimes heterocentric, but has the potential to be queered
Isolated covens can sometimes be homophobic, but the mainstream is not
Find out more about Wicca

Druidry

Generally LGBT-friendly, but sometimes heterocentric.
Find out more about Druidry

Polytheism

Deities of many genders and sexualities
Lots of LGBT adherents
Sometimes the deities are too gendered
Find out more about polytheism

Quakers

peace-loving, tolerant
recently approved same-sex weddings (they have been doing same-sex blessings for more than 20 years, apparently)
Find out more about Quakers
Liberal Jews
offer same-sex commitment ceremonies
Find out more about Liberal Jews

See also
LGBT movements in various religions
Sexuality and religion articles
Wikipedia: Homosexuality and religion
Religion Christianity • Islam • Judaism • Hinduism • Buddhism • Sikhism • Taoism • Shinto • Bahá'í • Confucianism • Scientology •Zoroastrianism • Unitarian Universalism • Voodoo • Wicca • Ásatrú

Religion	Christianity • Islam • Judaism • Hinduism • Buddhism • Sikhism • Taoism • Shinto • Bahá'í • Confucianism • Scientology •Zoroastrianism • Unitarian Universalism • Voodoo • Wicca • Ásatrú

Finagle's Laws

2010-01-22T08:07:00.000-01:00

as formulated by Aron K Insinga

Law of experiment

· First law — if anything can go wrong with an experiment or test, it will.

· Second law — everything goes wrong at once.

· Third law — experiments must be reproducible. They should all fail in the same way.

· Fourth law — build no mechanism simply if a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful.

· Fifth law — no matter how an experiment or test proceeds, someone will believe it happened according to his pet theory.

· Corollary one — no matter what the result is, someone will misinterpret it.

· Corollary two — no matter what results are anticipated, someone will be willing to fake them.

Law of mathematics

· First law — in any collection of data, the figures that are obviously correct beyond all need of checking contain the errors.

· Corollary one — no one whom you ask for help will see the errors.

· Corollary two — everyone who stops by with unsought advice will see it immediately.

· Second law — if, in any problem, you find yourself doing a transfinite amount of work, the answer can be obtained by inspection.

· Corollary one — if inspection fails to yield results, judicious application of one of the methods outlined in the text following may be in order.

§ (See Finagle's Constant)

Law of systems

When a system becomes completely defined and all avenues of inquiry and expansion are explored, an uninformed, independent, amateur experimenter will discover something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Law of the inch

· In designing any type of construction, no overall dimension can be totalled correctly after 4:30 p.m. on Friday.

· Corollary one — under the same conditions. If any minor dimensions are given to ¹/₁₆ of an inch, -they cannot be totalled at all.

· Corollary two — the correct total will become self-evident at 8:15 a.m. on Monday.

Laws of revision

· First law — information necessitating a change in design will be conveyed to the designer after, and only after, the plans are complete (often referred to as the now-they-tell-us law).

· Corollary one — in simple cases, presenting one obvious right way versus one obvious wrong way, it is often easier to choose the wrong way so as to expedite subsequent revisions.

· Second law — the more innocuous the modification appears to be, the further its influence will extend and the more the plans will have to be redrawn.

· Third law — if, when completion of the design is imminent, field dimensions are supplied as they are, instead of as they were meant to be, it is always simpler to start over.

· Fourth law — it is usually impractical to worry beforehand about interference. If you have none, someone will supply some for you. (or first, second, and third above)

Law of understanding

· First law — if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

· Second law — if you don't understand the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question.

· Corollary one — if you have to ask the question. You won't understand the answer.

· Corollary two — if you understand the answer, you asked the wrong question.

· Third law — if you understand what you yourself are saying, invariably no one else will.

· Corollary one — if you understand what someone else is saying, you have probably grossly misinterpreted him.

· Fourth law — in any argument, the heat of the argument is inversely proportional to the amount of knowledge present.

Law of weather forecasting

· First law — whenever there is less than a 60 percent chance of rain, it will most definitely rain, and the rate of downpour will be inversely proportional to the square of the percent chance of rain.

· Second law — whenever there is greater than 44.8 percent chance of rain, it will rain and the rate of downpour will be directly proportional to the percent chance of rain.

· Corollary one — it will always rain in Delaware.

Law of bicycling

· First law — if you leave your bicycle outside over night, it will rain.

· Second law — if you ride your bicycle to class when the sun is shining and there are no clouds in the sky, when you ride your bicycle to your next class it will be pouring down.

· Corollary one — take a raincoat when you ride your bicycle. This will make you look like an idiot but it will also help to keep the rain away. In the event it does rain, you can wear your raincoat and laugh at everyone else who is getting wet. However, it is unwise to let them hear you because they will usually de-bike you.

· Third law — when you take your bicycle on a trip or away to school, the first week away from home you will experience an embarrassing problem called bike-have-um-flat

· Corollary one — if you didn't take a bicycle pump, and if you didn't take a tire repair kit, you will have a flat by the first day.

· Corollary two — if you didn't take one of the above items mentioned but took the other one, then you won't have a flat until the third day.

Editor's note — a reading of the Laws of Finagle as stated above will show that the compilation at this date is far from complete. Further research is needed, especially in the law of systems. Other work needs to be done to correlate Finagle's laws with the laws of the universal perversity of matter. Very little is actually known in this latter field, so in an attempt to at least begin systemization the known laws will be stated.

Laws of the universal perversity of matter

· First law — any mechanical or electrical device is most likely to fail the day after the manufacturer's guarantee has expired.

· Second law — any mechanical or electrical device is most likely to malfunction short of breakdown until the presence of any trained mechanic.

· Third law — matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value.

· Corollary one — if a mechanism is accidentally dropped, it will fall in such a way that maximum damage will occur.

· Corollary two — things fall at right angles.

Laws of computer programming

· First law — the computer is always right.

· Lemma one — programmers are occasionally right.

· Second law — the amount of time needed to debug a program is inversely proportional to the time allotted for debugging.

· Corollary one — programs never work right the first time unless there is virtually unlimited time left to complete the project.

· Third law — any programmer can find 90 percent of his bugs simply by explaining his program to any uninterested observer.

· Corollary one — the uninterested observer may be sleeping, dead, non-human, or in extreme cases, non-existent.

· Fourth law — the most difficult or nearly impossible programming problems appear obvious or extremely simple to anyone with little or no knowledge of programming.

· Corollary one — those problems most easily solved by a programmer, appear to be overwhelmingly complicated and marvellous to the layperson.

· Fifth law — computers are never more intelligent than their programmers.

· Corollary one — most computers are incredibly stupid.

· Lemma one — unfortunately abuse regarding the intelligence level of a computer is almost never associated with the party most deserving of the complaints, the computer programmer.

· Sixth law — the rarest bugs in any operating system or major programming effort will always show up during a demonstration of its use to prospective users or customers.

· Corollary one — these bugs usually cannot be reproduced and therefore cannot be located.

· Lemma one — customers will never purchase programs which appear to be riddled with bugs as verified by demonstrations.

· Paradox — most programs are unfit for sale.

To assist in the research suggested, the following rules have been formulated for the use of those new to this field.

Rules of experimental procedure

A record of data is useful. It indicates that you have been busy.

To study a subject, first understand it thoroughly.

In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.

Draw your curves, then plot your data.

Do not believe in luck, rely on it.

Always leave room when writing a report to add an explanation if it doesn't work out. (the rule of the way-out)

One of the more recent developments in the field of interpretation of

Experimental data, which expands the usefulness of the well known

Finagle constant and the subtle bougerre factor is the Diddle Coefficient. (These items are largely grouped, in mathematics, under

Constant variables or, as some workers prefer, variable constants)

The derivation of these useful concepts is as follows:

Finagle's Constant is used as a multiplier of the zero order term.

The main body of these laws was formulated during the time Finagle was trying to prove his fundamental discovery that if a string has one end, it has another.

Finagle's constant may be characterized as changing the universe to fit the equation.

The bougerre factor is characterized as changing the equation to fit the universe. Named after Bougerre, a French professor of mathematics, the more common designation, due to language difficulty, is "buggers".

The diddle coefficient is characterized as changing things so that the equation and the universe appear to fit without requiring any change in either.

Dr. Finagle was, actually, a German by the name of Von Nagel who moved to Ireland where his associates misunderstood the pronunciation of his name.

An example of the usage of the Von Nagel (Finagle) factor is the introduction of the planet Uranus. Since Newtonian laws did not coincide with the observed universe, the planet was introduced into the universe to make the universe fit the equations. Much later the planet was observed.

(Hat-tip to Makarios)

Blogging on the Ride

2010-01-19T15:06:00.003-01:00

I sponsored Jennifer Luu on the 2010 Soulforce Equality Ride, and have just heard that she's going to be blogging about the 2010 Ride at Advance Directive. Here's a sample:

If, as a member of an oppressed group, I take a stand against that oppression and decide that I will work against it, it doesn't make any sense to work only for my own personal interests. It doesn't make any sense for me to only fight for marriage equality when there are other queer people losing their jobs for being queer or killing themselves for being queer because THAT'S how much they hate themselves. (If you are unfamiliar with my usage of the word "queer," it goes like this: "queer" used to be a derogatory term aimed at LGBTQ people. It has since been liberatingly reclaimed by LGBTQ people to generally refer to that which is not heteronormative. The non-heteronormative part is why I like to use it-- it's shorter than LGBTQ and also rhymes with "cheer.") The people within my oppressed group that are more oppressed than I are more oppressed for reasons that inevitably have to do with issues of money/class and race. That is how I understand intersectionality. It's all connected. And it doesn't make any damn sense to forget about other oppressed peoples while I work my own way out of oppression because that doesn't do anything to end oppression-- it only ends MY oppression. It only moves oppression around-- shifts it from one group to another. Meanwhile, the dominant group stays dominant while the system they sit atop says, "suckeeeers!!!" And by forgetting and/or not recognizing the other oppressed, I become the oppressor. I'm not down with this. This is what "no one is free when others are oppressed" means to me. No one is better than anyone else.

Good stuff.

Quote of the Day

2010-01-08T16:20:00.001-01:00

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
— Susan B. Anthony

Moons of Jupiter

2010-01-07T16:22:00.002-01:00

January 7, 1610

Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei first observed three of the eventual four Galilean moons through his telescope:Io, Europa, and Callisto.

Wow. Four hundred years ago today, Galileo got out his telescope and observed the moons of Jupiter. There are now known to be 63 of them. Imagine how it must have been, discovering these new things which would undermine the commonly accepted model of the solar system. Exciting but scary.

Stop whining and get on with it

2010-01-03T16:27:00.003-01:00

Cat at Quaker Pagan Reflections has posted an absolutely brilliant rant (well, she says it's a rant, but it's actually very mild-mannered) asking Pagans who have left Christianity behind to stop moaning about it and start exploring their own spirituality, i.e. instead of talking about why they don't like Jesus, they should start talking about why they do like Odin, or Freyja, or Isis, or the Tao. If more than 50% of your blogposts involve moaning about Christianity or Jesus, then please read it.

I couldn't agree more. I shudder at the number of times I have had to sit through interminable rants about how dreadful Christianity is at pub moots, and the number of blogposts I have had to sift through that were whining about how all the ills of the world can be laid at Christianity's door, and how they stole the Pagan festivals, yada, yada, yada.

Yes, Christians can be bigoted bastards. And yes, the Inquisition was bad. But on the plus side of the balance sheet, there's charity and compassion (not uniquely the preserve of Christians, but they do walk their talk in that respect).

It could be because many Pagans have come from a fundamentalist Christian background. I sympathise, because I have been there. But moaning about it incessantly is not the answer. Go and get some really good therapy, deal with it, and move on.

But it's not just Christianity and Jesus that get the blame for all the ills of the world. Oh no - in fact it's monotheism that is the bad guy, according to some. Last year, during Pagan Values Month, there were a number of posts going on about how polytheism was inherently more tolerant than monotheism. I disagree - I have met tolerant monotheists and intolerant polytheists. It's taking things literally that is the source of narrow-mindedness, and fear is the source of bigotry.

Trinitarian theology is mostly exclusivist, because it maintains that Jesus is the only gateway to the Divine Source; but all other forms of monotheism are conducive to the view that polytheism and monotheism are different perspectives on the same reality. But even some Trinitarians see their theology as a metaphor for other theologies.

So, unless you have made some effort to study other religions' theologies in some depth, don't assume that the narrow-minded fundamentalist mindset you were brought up in is typical of the whole of Christian thought. Some of the best minds in Europe were devoted to theological musing for centuries, so it's actually quite subtle.

Unless you are aware that there are several different models of the atonement, plus Christus Victor theology, plus the Arian heresy, and you know what theosis, kenosis, coinherence and perichoresis are, when original sin was invented and by whom, and what the causes and implications of the Filioque controversy were - then don't think you are qualified to hold forth on what's wrong with Christian theology.

Secular bigotry

2009-12-24T09:18:00.004-01:00

What the National Secular Society doesn't seem to realise is that the rise of religiosity is very different from previous such resurgences, as it's much more about individual spirituality and building community and being compassionate than the bigotry which is actually increasingly the preserve of a noisy few. For example: Stonewall did a survey recently and found that most Christians were far more tolerant of gays and lesbians than the doctrines of their churches would suggest. Needless to say this received almost no coverage in the mainstream media, whereas Lilian Ladele etc got loads of coverage.

Research has shown that most people think in terms of "occult" concepts like reincarnation and karma, rather than traditional Christian ones like salvation. Much of the renewed interest in religion and spirituality has gone into non-Christian practices, and even Christians do stuff like yoga and meditation and crystals.

Critiques of the Alpha course

2009-12-17T10:10:00.004-01:00

The Alpha Course is one of the most insidious phenomena of evangelism - and it's interesting to note that it has been criticised from inside Christianity as well, because there are still Christians out there with brains and integrity.

The theology propounded by the Alpha Course is not mainstream; it was developed by the same kind of people who 'discovered' the Toronto Blessing. It has been criticised by both evangelicals and liberals.

The course's homophobic stance has been widely criticised, and there is an analysis of it by the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association.

It's also deeply manipulative of vulnerable people, being run in prisons, workplaces, schools, colleges and military establishments:

"It was like to talking to a politician of the opposite persuasion. They were all very nice people, but I came out feeling exactly as I did when I went in," said Jill, who asked that her name be changed.

Among her problems with Alpha was her feeling that other faiths were not given equal status.

"I felt it was biased against other religions, whereas I believe all roads lead to one God," she said.

There was also an element of "therapy" about the style of the course, she said.

"It plays huge mind games with people. You have to be a strong personality to resist, but I did. They were working on me all the time. They said they would pray for me.

"I think they tend to prey on who is vulnerable. The whole thing for people is about being accepted and feeling like they belong.

"It's friendship I want, not spirituality."

It also uses sales techniques to manipulate people:

Debbie Herring, a former Alpha course leader in Sheffield, told the BBC that the techniques she was expected to use were similar to those of door-to-door salesmen.

“It became clear very early on that what Alpha was really about was high-pressure selling of a very narrow evangelical agenda, which dismisses and denies whole swathes of Christian teaching and tradition,” she said.

The course is also mis-sold as an opportunity to explore the meaning of life (which you would expect to offer a genuine philosophical discussion of the various ideas on offer):

It’s at that point you really see what the Alpha Course truly is: it’s not an invitation to explore the meaning of life, but a slickly marketed Christian conversion course. The objective of Alpha is not to educate people about Christianity, but to convert as many people as possible their particular brand of this religion.

The whole thing makes me sick, quite frankly.

Alpha Course is anti-gay

2009-12-17T09:47:00.002-01:00

Pink News: More schools running 'anti-gay' Christian crash-courses

There should be no place in schools for proselytising for religion. A person's choice of religion or philosophy should be freely made as an adult, not forced on unsuspecting children. And there should be no place for homophobia in schools either.

Christianity is not inherently homophobic; same-sex marriage was once a Christian rite, and the "clobber verses" in the Bible have been deconstructed numerous times. So there's no excuse for including this poisonous homophobic nonsense in the Alpha Course. I am not particularly surprised that it's there, though, given that the Alpha Course also teaches young-earth creationism. It's all of a piece, really.

One good point about this: being taught this nonsense in school will make kids rebel against it. I recall when I was a teacher, the headmistress invited an evangelical band in to do an assembly, and the kids were rightly completely up in arms about it. I told them I completely agreed with them that it was wrong for them to have religion forced on them in this way.

2010 Equality Ride

2009-12-09T16:27:00.002-01:00

Every day, thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people suffer harassment, violence, and discrimination at the hands of those who do not understand them. This oppression usually hides in plain sight, masquerading as rigid doctrine or timeless tradition. Consequently, it often goes unchallenged and unchanged. Guided by principles of nonviolence, we at Soulforce Q approach these controversial issues with a readiness to meet people where they are. It is our belief that open and honest discussion begets understanding and healing, and that philosophy is at the heart of our work.

The Equality Ride is a traveling forum that gives young adults the chance to deconstruct injustice and the rhetoric that sustains it. It allows emerging young leaders to unite in the struggle for common equality. The idea is this. We get on a bus and journey to various institutions of higher learning. Through informal conversation and educational programming we explore concepts of diversity, comparing the effects of inclusive and exclusive viewpoints. More practically, we share and gain insights about how our beliefs influence policy and culture, thereby impacting society. Our goal is to carefully and collectively examine the intersection wherein faith meets gender and sexuality. Such discourse, especially when it affirms the beauty of our differences, plays an essential role in creating a safe learning and living environment for everyone.

Thus far, the Equality Ride has engaged nearly seventy academic communities. Many have shown considerable hospitality in welcoming us, and our legacy at those schools is one of mutual growth and compassionate fellowship. In addition to panels and schoolwide symposiums, we have joined students in cafeterias and coffee shops, participated in Bible studies and worship services, and given presentations in packed classrooms. Unfortunately, not every school chooses to host the Equality Ride. Voluntary redemptive suffering in the form of civil disobedience may become our avenue towards progress if, and only if, a school ignores the urgency and rejects dialogue.

A Movement in itself, the Equality Ride is empowering future generations to put their faith in action and make social justice a reality.

Donate to the Equality Ride

Interesting religions

2009-12-09T03:08:00.004-01:00

A blog thing from Matt Stone, via Jarred, who tagged me.

what religions do you find most interesting apart from your own? Would you pick one of the major world religions? Say Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism or Judaism? Or would you pick something more obscure, like Wicca or Taosim or Rastafarianism or Gnosticism? Would you pick irreligion, say Atheism or Agnosticism? Or if you're not Christian, would you say Christianity?

To participate, state your own religion (or irreligion) as your first preference, state the other religions that interest you most as your second and third preferences, then pass onto five others. If you're feeling brave, say why they interest you.

OK, well, I practise two religions, Unitarianism (since 2007) and Wicca (since 1991), so presumably I can't have either of those on my list. I do this partly to remind me that all religions are metaphors for whatever is really going on (and this is made explicit in both Wiccan and Unitarian theologies). It is going to be quite difficult for me to pick three religions, as I find all religion fascinating, so I'm going to pick my favourites that appeal to me most at the moment.

I am fascinated by Taoism - I think the writings of Lao Tsu are the clearest expression of the mystery of life that has yet been formulated. Also, I like Taoism's positive attitude to life and the world (shared by both Wicca and Unitarianism).

I find Judaism really interesting - I love the rituals (though not the liturgy in many cases) and all the baroque twiddly bits. They also have great food, music and philosophy; they love life; and they cleverly integrate ritual and prayer into everyday life.

I'm currently really interested in spiritual and Christian atheism, as described by people like Richard Holloway, André de Comte-Sponville, and Andrew Brown. Holloway's books Doubts and Loves: What is left of Christianity, Godless Morality, and On Forgiveness are well worth a read.

Any mystical tradition that is based on a rational footing gets my vote, really: so Kabbalah, Sufism, the Quakers, Christian mystics and the Brahmo Samaj also interest me. And it's not a religion as such, but queer theology is really interesting. I also like religions with plenty of ritual and bells-and-smells (the only problem is that these often have elaborate theology to which I find it impossible to subscribe).

I disapprove of religions that think they have the only truth, or more truth than anyone else. Spiritual truths must be available to everyone everywhere in all times, and accessible by reason and intuition, not special revelation.

I tag Bo, Evn, Pax, D Miley, and James.

Sacrifice not required

2009-11-27T22:13:00.003-01:00

From the Tanakh (Hebrew scriptures):

[22] Yea, though ye offer me burnt-offerings and your meal-offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. [23] Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs; and let Me not hear the melody of thy psalteries. [24] But let justice well up as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. ~ Amos 5:24

From the Wiccan tradition:

I am the Gracious Goddess, who gives the gift of joy unto the heart. Upon earth, I give the knowledge of the spirit eternal; and beyond death, I give peace, and freedom, and reunion with those who have gone before. Nor do I demand sacrifice, for behold I am the Mother of All Living, and my love is poured out upon the earth.
~ The Charge of the Goddess, Doreen Valiente

From the Hindu tradition:

Offer to Goddess Durga the animal, the Pashu, of your inner evil trait of passion, of anger, of greed. Do not kill animals of the external world in the name of Balidana to the Goddess.

She wants your animal-man within. No Himsa should be committed on the excuse that it is for the Devi. You have no right or justification to hurt any living creature for whatever reason.

Ahimsa should be free from all exemptions whether pertaining to class, place, time or circumstances. Ahimsa is a universal vow to be practiced absolutely. No worship, no prayer, no act whatsoever in life can justify injury or harm done to living beings.
~ Swami Sivananda

The Buddha was also against animal sacrifice.

That's it

2009-11-26T08:27:00.010-01:00

I have stated before that I no longer identify as a Pagan, but I want to restate it now.

I am heartened by the number of Pagans opposed to the irrational and stupid campaign to rebury ancient human remains which was my one of my original reasons for dissociating myself from Paganism.

But I have noted an increasing drift towards a preference for tradition over reason and discernment.

I have also noticed a strong tendency to take the existence of gods and goddesses literally, and to treat them as if they were powerful people to whom their devotees owe unquestioning loyalty. In my view, this is potentially dangerous.

I have noticed a drift away from interest in Nature towards a focus on magic and spurious history.

I also don't think it is desirable to revive animal sacrifice or to condone the large-scale inhumane slaughter of animals.

I no longer believe that any of the models of deity offered by contemporary Paganism are helpful. I applaud the emphasis on the Goddess(es), but taken with the tendency to assume deities are real, I predict that this will ultimately lead to gender stereotyping and prescription of roles for women - and that the same will happen to men vis-à-vis the God(s).

In fact I no longer believe that the divine (the emergent conciousness of the universe), if it exists at all, has any personality or gender. I certainly think that whatever-it-is / whatever-they-are is/are immanent and not ontologically transcendent.

I now have somewhat of a dilemma in that I have three ongoing projects with the title "Pagan":

Accidental death in ritual

2009-11-25T08:20:00.003-01:00

So Houngan Hector has been cleared of criminal negligence and Lucie's death ruled accidental.

But the causes of death were identified as "the combined effects of 'physical exhaustion, ambient room temperature and an oxygen-depleted atmosphere'". So that's a failure of ritual health and safety, no less negligent than the behaviour of James Arthur Ray which caused the deaths of three sweat lodge participants.

I guess what happened to Lucie could have happened to anyone who uses a lot of incense and does rituals in a warm room with lots of dancing - but everyone needs to make sure that the members of their group do not suffer from any medical conditions which could be exacerbated by these environmental conditions. Even better, don't set up your ritual space so that it causes oxygen deprivation. Just use joss-sticks rather than pan incense, for one thing. And leave the door ajar, and make sure that anyone who has asthma knows where their inhaler is, and that other people also know where it is. And alternate dancing with other more restful activities like meditation.

More safety advice (essential reading for all ritualists):

NB none of the articles below were in response to the Houngan Hector incident

thoughts from a threshold » The question of safety: planning and running an event
Ritual safety from the point of view of the organiser.
thoughts from a threshold » The question of safety
Ritual safety from the participant's point of view.
Guttershaman – The Authentic Shaman – Body and Soul, Sweat and Coin « Cat Vincent's Oddities and Mutterings

Gadhimai Mela

2009-11-25T08:15:00.000-01:00

I don't usually disagree with Jason at the Wild Hunt, but on this occasion I have to disagree.

Yes, it's true that it's hypocritical that people get worked up about animal sacrifice in general but not about factory farming, millions of turkeys being killed for Christmas or Thanksgiving, cruelty in slaughterhouses, and so on. Most sacrifices are probably carried out fairly humanely, with the minimum of suffering to the animal.

But the animal welfare campaigners are campaigning on many issues (including factory farming), not just the mass sacrifice.

And Gadhimai Mela is a mass sacrifice that is not carried out humanely.

According to the Humane Society, the animals are not killed humanely - hence the reason for the protest:

"Cruelly, the animals are chased and hacked to death with knives in a competition to kill as many as possible within two days."

Here's an account by a Nepalese eye-witness of the event (takes a while to load, but should be read):

The sword-bearers cannot chop off the buffaloes' heads at one go because of the thick size of its necks. To make their task easier, the hackers first cut the buffaloes’ hind legs after which the animal falls on the ground. They then start hacking the neck until the head is separated from the body. It takes 20 to 25 swing of the sword to annihilate a big buffalo. The suffering the animals go through is unimaginable.

After witnessing the Gadhimai carnage, I started having terrible nightmares. I would see blood wherever I turned to look.

This is not on the same scale as the sacrifice of the occasional chicken in Santeria, where the chicken gets eaten.

Three to four days after the massacre, people start fleeing the Gadhimai venue because of the nauseating smell that starts to emit. Cars, rickshaws and cyclist start taking alternative routes. It is the people living in nearby localities who suffer the most. While the temple area turns into a breeding ground for disease, many fall sick. It takes months for the smell to go away.

That does not imply to me that all the meat from the slaughter at Gadhimai Mela gets eaten.

Alternative history

2009-11-18T20:25:00.009-01:00

You know those pivotal moments in history (the ones that Doctor Who isn't allowed to change)? Well just imagine that we lived in a universe where one of those crucial moments went differently. You can play this game with any pivotal moment you like (it's an amusing way to while away a winter's evening).

The crucial event I would like to imagine going differently is the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Picture the scene... Diocletian's reign of terror has only recently ceased. Suddenly the early Christians are no longer united in being persecuted - now they can turn on each other and start weeding out the heretics. Add to the mix the Emperor Constantine, who turns up three days into the Council of Nicaea and is presented with a bundle of papers representing the theological deliberations of the bishops before his arrival, which he promptly chucks on the nearest brazier. One of the most important arguments that is had at the Council of Niceaea is the controversy over the Trinity and the Arian heresy. The Arian heresy is the belief that Jesus was the Son of God from the moment of his conception, not from the beginning of time as Trinitarian orthodoxy insists. It was revived after the Reformation by Faustus Socinus (founder of the Socinian Brethren, which eventually became the Unitarian church in Transylvania).

The importance of the Arian heresy is that it makes Jesus either semi-divine, or divine by adoption, or divine by birth (rather than divine since the beginning of time). If this is the theological position one adopts, it means that he ceases to be seen as the sole means of access to the "Father" (the Divine Source in Neoplatonic terminology), because if he is a son of God, rather than the Son of God, then there are other sons and daughters. And this quickly leads to Unitarianism - the belief that the Divine is One and can be accessed by reason and intuition, and does not require revelation to be known. That's not to suggest we can fully know the nature of the Divine, but we can see it reflected in the world around us, in other people, and the beauty of the universe. It also means that if we are all children of God, then we all have the potential to develop our inner "Christ" / Messiah / Buddha / Enlightened One.

So, let's imagine that the Arian heresy had won out at the Council of Nicaea. Perhaps the word heresy would still have its original meaning of a school of thought, or a choice (from the Greek haeresis).

There would have been no need to convert most of Europe by force - because, as Jesus said in John ch. 14, other peoples have their own religions (including Paganism) by which the Divine makes itself known.

The doctrine of penal substitution (the idea that Jesus' death was a substitute sacrifice for humanity's sins) might never have arisen (it was formalised in 1098 by Anselm).

The story of Jesus' resurrection might have been seen as a triumph over death, or perhaps eventually as an allegory of psychological transformation.

Islam might not have developed as a distinct religion (it is possible that it evolved out of an Arian group - it certainly holds a similar view of Christ). There would have been no Crusades, because no need to wrest the control of Israel from the Muslims, because they would have been seen as fellow believers.

The Jews might not have been so viciously persecuted (Unitarian churches have long had good relations with Judaism).

The Reformation might have been very different: Calvin couldn't appropriate Anselm's penal substitution theology, because it hadn't been written. Nor would he be able to have Servetus burnt at the stake for his Arianism. Indeed, Servetus might have been a major mover and shaker in the Reformation.

Tolerance of other religions would have been much greater, which would have made the imperialist and colonialist activities of Europe very different. There would have have been no need for evangelical Christianity, because the "good news" that Jesus was killed so you didn't have to be fried for eternity would never have been invented.

I wonder if there really are multiple universes where different choices were made at pivotal historical moments? It would be so interesting to visit them.

If my alternative universe is too tame, try Sannion's vision of the Roman empire with zombies.

Fundamentalist Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so that he can remove from your soul an evil force that is present in humanity because a woman made out of a rib was tricked into eating a magic apple by a talking snake.

Same-sex marriages in churches campaign

2009-11-18T15:28:00.003-01:00

Pink News Exclusive: Stonewall to fight for civil partnerships to be held in churches

Unitarians have consistently argued & campaigned for same-sex marriage to be performed in our churches. Why don't Unitarians ever get mentioned in these articles?

New-Unity announced in March 2008 that it would refrain from conducting legal weddings until the unfair ban on religious content in civil partnership registrations is lifted. Thus, we will perform blessings of both marriages and Civil Partnerships but will not include the portion of a wedding ceremony where the marriage is legally registered. We are very happy to bless the previously established legal unions for all couples. (from New Unity website)

I think the amendment to the equality bill would be a helpful step forward for those churches who want to perform same-sex marriages, but it shouldn't be allowed to distract from the campaign for full equality in this area (i.e. civil partnerships for heterosexuals & legal marriage for LGBTs).

Also, the whole marriage campaign shouldn't distract us from the importance of preventing homophobic bullying in schools and teen LGBT suicides resulting from it.

White poppy, purple poppy

2009-11-10T12:34:00.005-01:00

The white poppy is for peace and remembrance, and challenges the war-condoning values of traditional remembrance and related ceremonies. The idea of decoupling Armistice Day, the red poppy and later Remembrance Day from their military culture dates back to 1926, just a few years after the British Legion was persuaded to try using the red poppy as a fundraising tool in Britain. The white poppy is sold by the Peace Pledge Union, which promotes peace through education.

The purple poppy commemorates all those animals who have suffered and died in human conflicts. Animals have been used as messengers, beasts of burden, for detection, scouting, rescue, and on the front line. They continue to be subjected to experiments in laboratories.

Well done Sweden

2009-11-09T14:01:00.001-01:00

See? It's not that difficult.

Christian intolerance in South Africa

2009-11-04T13:03:00.002-01:00

Sorry to see that South Africa is about 20 years behind the times in the matter of Christian nutters releasing ridiculous twisted slander about Pagan festivals. And it's a reminder for the rest of us not to remain complacent - extremist Christian slanders are always rumbling along in the background. But it's also important to remember that many many Christians want to live in peace with Pagans and actively promote genuine interfaith dialogue.

Minority Review - The Dance

In the southern hemisphere the feast of Beltain is celebrated on the last day of October and the first day of November around a celebratory 'May'-pole. The dance of the Maypole is a symbolic act of fertility magic in which male and female partners, each holding ribbons attached to a central pillar, dance in opposite directions whilst weaving toward and away from the pole, around an erect pillar of wood decorated with flowers. Maypole dancing is an ancient (pre-Christian) and wide-spread form of western European folk dance.

This year, as every year in living memory in this country under the fascist white Christian Nationalist government, amidst the Beltain celebrations, venerations, joy and laughter in covens and Pagan gatherings across the country, the feint reek of Christian agitation against Pagans once again focussed on Halloween. The agitators? Fanatical followers of Peter Hammond's Africa Christian Action network.

Dune kittehs

2009-11-03T22:24:00.001-01:00

Eat up your ice-cream

2009-10-27T21:39:00.002-01:00

Ben and Jerry's have renamed one of their flavours of ice-cream to HubbyHubby to celebrate the fact that same-sex couples can now marry in Vermont. Sweet!

Now you can eat ice-cream for equality. Fantastic!

Hat-tip to Isaac and Phaedra Bonewits, and best wishes to Isaac for a full recovery from his illness.