How would you go about showing that the public’s will is in line with your policy? Watch the following excerpt from Yes, Minister and find out.
How would you go about showing that the public’s will is in line with your policy? Watch the following excerpt from Yes, Minister and find out.
Creation is perfect, since God is perfect, all-knowing and omnicompetent. And yet human children must be surgically augmented to please him. Did he make a mistake when he “designed” them? Obviously, Godmust be pleased at seeing the scalpel taken to the prepuce of an infant. Though what kind of mind rejoices at such an undertaking? Yet it must be some sort of a priority for God. Perhaps he relaxes safe in the knowledge that the earthly interpreters of his word are serving him well in the struggle against the foreskin and clitoris!
The moronic and dangerous conviction that religious practice, merely because it is religious, should be left outside of the field of scrutiny and criticism implies that razor-wielding child-molesters, although God-fearing ones – ought to proceed unimpeded. If you mutilate the child, that’s fine. If you don’t, that’s fine. What refined ethics!
Genital mutilation is harmful physiologically and psychologically, never mind whatever dogmatic “revelation” nonsense-merchants peddle in temples and mosques (not to mention the innumerable and utterly unsafe instances of genital mutilation that occur in Africa every day). Spare a thought for the child, bleeding, in pain, stripped of dignity and robbed of the chance later in life to fulfil her natural and human urge to enjoy her own body. All this at great risk of infection and long-lived (if not permanent) psychological trauma. It’s ok though, because as long as she bows to the God in whose name this crime is carved into her life, perhaps with so crude an instrument as a sharp stone, she will be saved.
I’ve little doubt the mutilation of sexual organs by the pious, without, incidentally, the consent of their victims, is fuelled by the perpetrators own repression. Religion, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, have all a grotesque record of suppressing, repressing and demonising sexual practice. That revered Jewish sage Maimonides stated explicitly what it was all about:
“With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet state as possible. It has been through that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally… In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is teh real purpose of circumcision… The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.”
Thus we see the baby is born in a state of moral arrears that can only be paid for with mutilation. Mutilation to subtract the natural mating instinct for later on in adulthood. For mating, of course, as all of nature testifies, is abhorrent and must be avoided, and, if it is unavoidable, it must not be enjoyed! That’s not why God made the nether regions so easy to arouse! No! It is so as to test the skill of the pious quack; every orgasm surely betrays his incompetence in extirpating that unholy sexual impulse!
The fact of it is this: we are mammals. Mammals reproduce sexually. By nature. And in our case it can be a fulfilling and healthy activity. If you don’t agree with this part of God’s immaculate work, take it up with him, not with children’s genitalia.
It is circumcision, not sex that ought to be taboo.
BlueRat presents the now infamous interview between Chomsky and Andrew Marr of the BBC, in which Chomsky explains to the disbelieving journalist how the media serve power interests. Notably, Marr offers the Watergate example of how the media are independent. Chomsky disagrees. Why hasn’t Marr heard of CoIntelPro then? This interview dates back to the late 1990s and was originally broadcast on The Big Idea in Britain. (approx 30 mins)
Religious tensions in the Middle East are a palpable truth of the region’s realpolitik. Frequently, atheists or humanists (or people adhering to both views) will contend that religion is the source of much (if not all) of the unrest in the world’s political makup, and that, if only religion would be abolished, the world would be a better place. Such arguments are made on the back of claims that religion is either wholly or for the most part irrational, untestable, unverifiable, and a uniquely potent driver towards violence. In short, a mechanism by which people drive themselves to conflict with others, rather than a force for harmony. The argument is interminable and often misguided. But regardless of whether either party is right, which one that may be, or whether both are mistaken, a related problem remains.
The United States is unique in that it is the sole country on the planet (and readers may correct me) in whose constitution the separation of Church and States is enshrined as a principle by which the affairs of the nation ought to be run healthily. The violation of that is in evidence with every word a US political figure utters in public support for his religion (invariably Christianity) and with the never ending court cases relating to the Decalogue being proclaimed on court walls and the teaching of “intelligent” design in schools. So it is a far from perfect system, even by its own criteria. But at least the sentiment is there in that political scripture: state and church are not to mix.
In countries permitting rule based on religious ideology, things are seen to faulter. An obvious example is the Taliban, whose fundamentalist Islamic actions represseed women, freedom, education and so many values that sane and rational people would hold dear. In Saudi Arabia, religous expression through government leads to a totalitarian rule. Note, incidentally, the hypocrisy of the western “liberators” and democracy bringers: they side with Saudi against terrorism, neglecting to mention that Saudi is itself implicated in it. This is not a staunch defence of democracy, but a staunch defence of the west interests. One fundamentalist group may be sacrificed and another befriended.
George Bush’s religious convictions may play to the tastes of his right-wing conservative god-fearing fans, but the rest of the world is worried, not only on account of the violation of the Church and State principle the US is failing to uphold, but also on account of the unaccountability of God. Democracy’s most treasured principle relates to the accountability of leadership and representation; people are to decide and it is to people that leaders are supposed to be accountable. Yet a leader who elevates God above the electorate surely sacrifices democracy at the same altar. No longer does the popular will suffice – policy decisions are to be ratified in a dialogue with the divine.
And in this way, religion undermines political ideals. American conservatives will shout at this till they’re blue in the face, but it is a fact. A president accountable only to the Lord, puts the people he serves second.
In Britain secular tradition extends deeper, despite the lack of a constitutional divide between faith and government. Britain has never shied away from producing the likes of David Hume, Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins as intellectual luminaries. It is for this reason that it was all the more shocking to discover, part-way through Blair’s premiership, that some of his convictions had their origins in religious belief. To appeal to religion for guidance is, however wise the passages of holy texts may be, to appeal to a source whose reasons are not accountable to the public will. And therefore, it is to mimic the retrograde ideologies of the very religious extremists modern US-UK policy seems bent on destroying (it’s link to such regimes as Saudi notwithstanding), and to undermine democracy.
Religious influence over political affairs and the ideal of democracy are not compatible.
Please watch the BBC’s coverage of Tony Blair’s admission that God guided him through parts of his own decision making processes during the last 10 years. Of particular interest should be his conviction that he will be judged by “other people” at the end of his tenure (perhaps on earth). Since the end of his premiership, speculation has arisen on Blair’s intention to convert to Catholicism.
The following article is taken from The Guardian, 2nd May 2002:
Scientists have turned living rats into remote-controlled, pleasure-driven robots which can be guided up ladders, through ruins and into minefields at the click of a laptop key.The project, which is funded by the US military’s research arm, Darpa, was partly inspired by the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US, and partly by the earthquake in India last January.
Animals have often been used by humans in combat and in search and rescue, but not under direct computer-to-brain electronic control. The advent of surgically altered roborats marks the crossing of a new boundary in the mechanisation, and potential militarisation, of nature.
Scientists at the State University of New York (Suny) created the roborats by planting electrodes into their brains, a paper in today’s edition of the journal Nature reports.Two electrodes lead to the parts of the rats’ brains which normally detect an obstacle against their whiskers. A third plunges into an area of the brain identified as far back as the 1950s as providing the rat with a feeling of pleasure when stimulated.
In 10 sessions the rats learned that if they ran forward and turned left or right on cue, they would be “rewarded” with a buzz of electrically delivered pleasure.
Once trained they would move instantaneously and accurately as directed, for up to an hour at a time. The rats could be steered up ladders, along narrow ledges and down ramps, up trees, and into collapsed piles of concrete rubble.
The Suny team suggests roborats fitted with cameras or other sensors could be used as search and rescue aids in natural disasters such as earthquakes, or in mine clearance.
Sanjiv Talwar, lead author of the Nature paper, said not only did the rats wearing electrodes feel no pain, but they were having a good time.
“If the rat moves left or right as commanded, it feels this burst of happiness,” he said. “It follows this sort of cue very accurately. They work only for rewards. They love doing it.”
The work on guided rats was an offshoot of earlier research which showed that animals wired up to a processor could command a robotic arm by thought alone, a development which could potentially empower paralysed humans.
Asked to speculate on potential military uses for robotic animals, Dr Talwar agreed they could, in theory, be put to some unpleasant uses, such as assassination.
“Is it possible, objectively? I would imagine, if anybody wanted to do something as absurd as that. But yes, surveillance is pretty straightforward, although for these sort of operations you could use robots. You could apply this to birds … if you could fit birds with sensors and cameras and the like.”
Michael Reiss, professor of science education at London’s Institute of Education and a leading bioethics thinker, said: “It could be argued that we have, for 10,000 years or more, pushed farm animals around and directed their behaviour, but this clearly involves a degree of control and degree of invasiveness that in most people’s eyes is a step change.”
Prof Reiss said he was uneasy about humankind “subverting the autonomy” of animals. “There is a part of me that is not entirely happy with the idea of our subverting a sentient animal’s own aspirations and wish to lead a life of its own.”
Dr Talwar said that perhaps there needed to be a wider ethical debate.
But he argued that the roborat programme was not so far from training dogs. “The only thing different, and perhaps creepy, is that instead of whistling or giving food, you’re directly tapping into the brain,” he said.
J. Robert Oppenheimer (April 22, 1904 – February 18, 1967) was an American theoretical physicist best known for his role as the director of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to develop the first nuclear weapons, at the secret Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico. Known as “the father of the atomic bomb,” Oppenheimer lamented the weapon’s killing power after it was used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Famously, after the war he recounted his impressions of the bomb’s invention by quoting the Bhagavad Gita whilst trying to hold back tears on television.
In his book Heresies, John Gray reminds us that science is not the answer to mankind’s existential woes or spiritual shortcomings, nor an advance in its will to do good either; it merely amplifies our capacity to express these. Robert Oppenheimer died of throat cancer at age 62 in Princeton, New Jersey, in 1967. The video above should remind us of the responsibility mankind has in handling the fruits of scientific enterprise. The 42nd anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are coming up in August.
The picture above is a photograph taken of the first nuclear bomb test at The Manhattan Project. It was named Trinity by Oppenheimer.
In a 6-part series called Pandora’s Box, film-maker Adam Curtis has explored the continuing desire of mankind to fall for the illusion that scientific progress equates to progress for mankind on other levels. The theme of this unwarranted belief in science is explored in the last episode of the series, “A is for Atom”, in which Curtis examines mankind’s custody of nuclear capacity and the hope its discovery brought.
Apart from the political implications of “Intelligent” Design, and the movement’s obviously subversive intentions for school science curricula, consider what is wrong with the following video:
The fallacy is that evolution is a belief. It is not a belief. Belief is what you do when you are seeking to align your views with the most compelling explanation for a set of facts. Now, scientifically, evolution is a theory that seeks to do this, but at the same time, it is an observation, not an inference to an explanation. The inference happens later during the formulation of testable hypotheses on the back of the observation that evolution happens. Evolution is a fact. Not divinely revealed but observed by mankind. In The Devil’s Chaplain Richard Dawkins has written about his very clearly.
Even if they are nominally hypotheses on probation, these statements are true in exactly the same sense as the ordinary truths of everyday life; true in the same sense as it is true that you have a head, and that my desk is wooden. If scientific truth is open to philosophic doubt, it is no more so than common sense truth. Let’s at least be even-handed in our philosophical heckling.
On another level, evolution (and in the video the questioner implies biological evolution) is a process. For example, John McCain’s bald patch has evolved. The English language has evolved. It is a descriptor term for a series of events leading up the present state of affairs. In the scientific context specifically this can be traced back for living organisms and their speciation using a range of techniques from carbon dating, paleontology and genetics. That’s just observation. Trumping that with the dim declaration (one with no explanatory power whatsoever, incidentally) that “God” made things a particular way is a belief. And it’s one that demands a lot of work to maintain against the tide of evidence pointing to the better conclusion.