Geoff Coupe's Blog

Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…

Category: Society

  • The Centre Cannot Hold

    I’m not a Christian, nor even religious, but I have respect for Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury. I say current, because it was announced today that he will be stepping down at the end of the year from his post and returning to academia.

    I couldn’t resist a wry smile at this quote from the article:

    …he has been respected on all sides for his gifts as a preacher of great eloquence and flashes of clarity.

    Yes, “flashes of clarity” – I confess that I find his writing a bit of a struggle to comprehend. A clear writer he is not. I sometimes amuse myself by putting his prose through the reading comprehension tester in Microsoft Word. Inevitably it will rate the text as being difficult to understand.

    I think that he’s basically a good man, who has been trying to do an impossible job as leader of the Anglican Church. It will probably come as a relief to be able to pass on the poisoned chalice to his successor. That looks as though it may well be John Sentamu, whose hard-line views will contrast greatly with Williams. I can’t say that I feel particularly well-disposed towards Sentamu, based on his past performance. Still, I shouldn’t think that’s going to worry him one iota.

  • This Isn’t A Pub Anymore!

    Yesterday’s Jesus and Mo is a humorous allegory on a current topic. Cardinal Keith O’Brien is credited as the scriptwriter.

  • Feet of Clay

    One of my daily joys is walking the dogs in the nearby woods. Since I bought my Windows Phone, I’ve got an additional dimension of joy by listening the podcasts of In Our Time, a weekly radio programme on a wide range of subjects (e.g. Science, Religion, Philosophy, History, etc.). Each 40 minute episode nicely times with the morning walk in the woods. The programme has the format of three experts on the week’s topic being led in a discussion by Melvyn Bragg (now Baron Bragg of Wigton).

    Now I like Melvyn Bragg – I think he’s a good writer and broadcaster, and In Our Time deals with serious ideas in a way that does them justice.

    So I was somewhat shocked at this attack on Richard Dawkins from Bragg. I had expected better of him. As Ophelia says:

    He’s either bullshitting or totally confused, and since he’s a knowledgeable guy, I’m guessing he’s bullshitting. Yes feelings are important; yes we mostly don’t rely on reason; no it is not therefore the case that emotions and feelings are reliable sources of knowledge. He implies that they are. I call bullshit.

    Baron Bragg is proudly displaying his feet of clay.

  • You Couldn’t Make It Up!

    That revered institution, the Thought For The Day on BBC Radio 4, is still carrying on churning out platitudes. I always read the Rev. Dr. Peter Hearty’s merciless skewering of the Thoughts. Yesterday, we had Canon Angela Tilby’s thoughts on gay marriage.

    The poor woman was a bit caught in the middle, as she likes to think of herself as a liberal, but she couldn’t quite bring herself to say that the Churches had got it wrong.

    I particularly liked the moment when she actually said:

    The point about sacraments is that they can’t be made up…

    Ah, but Canon Tilby, the whole point is that they are made up. Humanity has created its gods, not the other way around, however much you might want to believe that.

    Meanwhile, I suppose we are into hearing more of the same from churchmen (and women) saying that same-sex marriage is simply wrong. The UK has clearly got some distance to travel before they arrive at the point that we enjoy here in The Netherlands. As a commentator (who lives in The Netherlands) wrote in response to Canon Tilby’s piece:

    It’s obvious from the pronouncements from a variety of god-botherers over the last week or so, that they still think their Church, (whichever one it happens to be), still owns marriage, and consequently they have the right to decide who may or may not get married. But marriage, in this country [the Netherlands] at least, is not a religious institution, but a social and legally binding secular contract. Although couples may choose to have a religious ceremony, the marriage still has to be registered with secular authorities in order to be valid. Weddings not so validated, as sometimes happens with ones carried out according to Islamic rites, are not recognised in law, and the couples do not have the rights of married couples regarding property, custody of children, inheritance, etc.

    As I understand it, there is no suggestion that any church or religious institution will be forced to conduct gay marriages, but equally they should have no right to dictate who should or should not be allowed to marry outside of religious buildings.

    Quite.

    Here, couples who are religious will always have their civil marriage ceremony in the local Townhall first, before trooping across the market square into the church for the religious marriage ceremony. Even Prince Willem-Alexander and Princess Máxima did the same. They were married, by Amsterdam’s Mayor at the time, Job Cohen, on the 2nd February 2002 in a civil ceremony in the Great Hall of the Beurs van Belage, before going to the Nieuwe Kerk (the New Church) for the religious ceremony.

  • A Voice of Sanity

    After Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s very unpleasant outburst on the possibility of the UK’s legalising same-sex marriage, it comes as something of a relief to be able to point to a voice of sanity on the subject. It belongs to the philosopher Norman Geras.

    Actually, he has two blog posts on the subject. The first is a reaction to the Cardinal directly, in which Geras notes how feeble the arguments put forward by the Cardinal are.

    The second is his reaction to the text of a letter co-signed by the Archbishop of Westminster and the Archbishop of Southwark on the subject of same-sex marriage that will be read out 2,500 Catholic churches in the UK next Sunday. As Geras says:

    I make no attempt to judge these remarks in the light of Catholic teaching, since I’m not competent to do so. But if we measure them against the more general understanding of marriage in our society, the exercise suggests that what the two Archbishops define as the true meaning of marriage is an insult to many people’s marriages.

    By the way, I found it instructive to read the comments on the article in the Catholic Herald that gave the text of the letter. It was mostly a singularly unpleasant experience. Clearly there are plenty of Catholics who align themselves with Cardinal O’Brien. Bigotry is alive and well.

  • Raising the Drawbridge

    I’ve written a couple of times before over my worries that the Dutch government will make it illegal to hold dual nationality.

    We seem to be getting close to that position. Last Friday, the Dutch Cabinet decided to go ahead with legislation aimed at reducing the number of people with dual nationality.

    The idiotic thing is that it will not affect those who are presumably the real targets of this xenophobic drive. The real targets (in the sights of the “Little Hollander” view of the PVV and its supporters) are the Turks and Moroccans who settle here. Unfortunately (from the PVV’s perspective), they are required, by their country of birth, to hold onto their original nationality. So the proposed law cannot apply to them. Meanwhile, others, whose country of birth is more relaxed about the holding of dual nationality, will be required to renounce their birth nationality, simply because the Dutch government can make it so.

    So I’ll be forced to renounce my British and Manx nationalities, merely to satisfy the xenophobia of the Dutch government and the PVV. A plague on them both.

    Meanwhile, in other news, Geert Wilders, leader of the PVV, announced today that the Netherlands should leave the Euro and return to the Guilder.

    The drawbridge is being raised a little further every day…

  • The Sins of the Fathers

    Richard Dawkins writes about the phone calls he received recently from journalist Adam Lusher, who began the first call somewhat as follows:

    “We’ve been researching the history of the Dawkins family, and have discovered that your ancestors owned slaves in Jamaica in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. What have you got to say about that?”

    Dawkins replied:

    “Your ancestors probably did too. It’s just that we happen to know who my ancestors were and perhaps we don’t know yours.”

    After a second call, in which Lusher demonstrated his total lack of understanding about genetics, the fruits of his labour were duly published in the Sunday Telegraph. The article is at best laughable, and at worst low, cheap and out of order – and that is apparently the view of a fellow journalist at the Telegraph.

    For the record, I can trace my family back to Sir John Gordon of Embo, who died in 1779. I note that my great-great-great-grandfather (George Home Murray) had two uncles on his mother’s side (Dr. John Gordon and George Gordon) who were both, as I understand it, plantation and slave owners in Jamaica. It’s not unusual.

  • Secularism and Tolerance

    The recent pronouncements on “militant” secularisation by Baroness Warsi have triggered a flurry of comments, both pro- and anti- in the media. I found this piece by Julian Baggini came close to summarising my own thoughts on the matter. But then today I found this comment by Norman Geras on Baggini’s piece introduced two important qualifications that brought things into focus for me.

    Baggini’s central point is something that both Geras and I wholeheartedly support:

    Secularism, in the political sense, is not a comprehensive project to sweep religion out of public life altogether… Rather it is – or should be – a beautifully simple way of bringing people of all faiths and none together, not a means of pitting them against each other.

    It all goes back to how we understand the core secularist principle of neutrality in the public square. Neutrality means just that: neither standing for or against religion or any other comprehensive world-view.

    Geras then states two reservations with Baggini’s thesis: first, concerning Baggini’s claim that ‘we are obliged to talk to each other in terms we can share and understand, not in ways that are tied to our specific “comprehensive doctrines”‘. Geras thinks that no such obligation exists; we may not be persuasive if we do not use terms that we can share and understand, but that is not the same as making it an obligation.

    Geras’ second point concerns the tenor of Baggini’s last paragraphs, where he (Baggini) is asking “us secularists that we be more relaxed towards religion, not acting as its enemy. It’s a plea for a more tolerant attitude than some militant atheists today display”. I think Geras puts it very well when he says:

    Though (once again) I know what motivates his saying what he does, and share his feelings about a certain kind of relentless discourse of hostility towards religious belief and religious practice, I also think the plea for tolerance in this matter ought to be bounded by clear limits. There are believers who, in the name of religion, act to silence, harm and sometimes indeed kill others, and there is, unfortunately, a lot of this sort of thing about. No secularist is obliged to adopt a relaxed attitude towards it. On the contrary, in defence of freedom of belief, they should be intolerant of it. Secularism, just like genuine liberalism, does not entail tolerance of the appeal to religion to justify intolerant, cruel or murderous ends.

    Exactly.

  • Hamza Kashgari

    It is one of life’s ironies that at a time when Baroness Warsi frets about the rise of “militant secularisation”, she is ignoring the very real danger of militant religion. Just one example:

    Hamza Kashgari is under threat of execution by the Saudi authorities for blasphemy.

    There’s been a petition set up calling for his release. Please sign it.

    Apparently, there’s also been a Facebook page set up to support him. I don’t do Facebook out of principle, but I understand that it has something like 2,500 signatures. I note in passing that at the same time that the Baroness talks about a rise in secular intolerance of religion, the rival Facebook page set up calling for retribution against Kashgari for tweeting about Mohammad has 22,500 signatures.

    The Baroness chooses to ignore examples of the real intolerance of freedom of expression (and human rights) by religions and speaks instead of chimeras. Phrases such as motes and beams spring to mind. Perhaps she should pause for a moment and give some thought to the plight of a fellow Muslim.

  • “Militant Secularisation”?

    I see that Baroness Warsi believes that Christianity in the UK is under threat from “militant secularisation” and worries “that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant”. Music to the ears of the Pope, it would appear.

    It seems to me rather that the established religions are finding that they are no longer getting a right to control in the public sphere, and are finding it hard to adapt to being given an equal voice alongside everyone else.

    Personally, I have no problem with the established religions putting forward their points of view – that’s what it means to live in a secular society – but they, in turn, should accept the fact that some of their views will attract ridicule and robust rejection. So it’s no surprise that the Baroness is attracting much of the same for her ridiculous hyperbole: Ophelia and John are both worth reading on the subject.

    The Baroness is behaving like a bully, and is being called out on it.

  • Japanese Archery

    I often drop by Jeffrey Friedl’s blog. He’s a computer scientist living in Japan, but in addition to this, he’s a keen, and talented, photographer, and his blog usually has stunning images of Japan and Japanese society.

    He recently attended a Japanese Archery contest for the first time, and has written a number of blog posts about the experience. Do go and take a look; I suggest you start with this one, followed by this and this. There are others in the series as well.

  • If You’re Not Angry, You’re Not Paying Attention

    That’s the culmination of an excellent speech and article by Maryam Namazie. Please, just go and read it. Her argument rings true.

  • I Don’t Believe It!

    You know, when I was at university, in the dim and distant past, back at the beginning of the 1970s, the LSE (the London School of Economics) was viewed as a hotbed of student activism. So recent events at the LSE have left me completely at a loss.

    It appears that there has been a mass invasion of politically correct body snatchers that has resulted in a Students’ Union that has completely lost the plot about what free expression and the ability to criticise means.

    Maryam Namazie points out the obvious: the LSE SU is supporting criticism of religion, just not that of Islam, which gets a free pass from them.

    It would never have happened in my days at Uni. What on earth is wrong with the students of today?

  • Burka Ban

    Five years ago, I thought that news that the Dutch government were considering a burka ban to be a very bad idea.

    Fast forward to today, and now the current Dutch Cabinet has voted in favour of the ban, despite advice from its most important advisory body, the Council of State.

    As I said five years ago, this is taking a sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nuts of between 150 and 200 women in the whole of the Netherlands (population: over 16.7 million):

    While I happen to think that the garments say more about the odd ways in which women are viewed by one religion (and gawd knows, it ain’t the only one), I don’t think that banning them is going to help one bit towards the avowed intent of integration into Dutch society. It’s more likely to drive the “us and them” wedge further into this society’s hearts and minds.

    What would be far more helpful is for public order to be preserved by coming down hard on extremists such as the Islamists who attempted to break up a public meeting in Amsterdam last December.

  • De Botton’s Folly

    A few days back, I wrote that I was not convinced by Alain de Botton’s presentation of his Atheism 2.0 thesis, and even less impressed by his use of a false categorisation of Richard Dawkins.

    Now I see that de Botton is back in the news today. He’s announced that he wants to build a “temple for atheists” in the City of London. It is to be a 46 metre tower, costing one million quid. According to the Guardian’s report, the tower is:

    to celebrate a “new atheism” as an antidote to what he describes as Professor Richard Dawkins’s “aggressive” and “destructive” approach to non-belief.

    Sigh. More false categorisation. As Dawkins has apparently said:

    “Atheists don’t need temples,” the author of The God Delusion said. “I think there are better things to spend this kind of money on. If you are going to spend money on atheism you could improve secular education and build non-religious schools which teach rational, sceptical critical thinking.”

    I can understand the tower as being a piece of public art (although hopefully not paid for by the taxpayer). The tower serves no purpose other than being a Folly, in every sense of the word.

    In passing, I note that the Guardian couldn’t resist a quote from the Rev George Pitcher:

    “This is a more constructive atheism than Dawkins, who is about the destruction of ideas rather than contributing new ones.”

    Ah, yes, the good reverend has previous form in such remarks.

  • “Verging On Fascism”

    There was unease last week in Amsterdam’s Orthodox Jewish community when it emerged that their nominal Chief Rabbi, Aryeh Ralbag (who lives in New York), stated that homosexuality was an illness that could be cured. As a result of this patent nonsense, the Chief Rabbi found himself suspended by the community.

    Now the US-based Committee for the Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality, which includes Rabbi Ralbag as one of its members, has opined that it is “shocking” that a chief rabbi in the Netherlands has been suspended for his statements on “centuries-old religious truths”, and that this action is “verging on fascism”. Welcome to Planet Godwin.

    I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. They are no different to the Catholic Church or Islam in their touching adherence to ancient and false beliefs about human sexuality. But what really raised an eyebrow was the report that

    …the rabbi believes his life would be in danger if he came to the Netherlands.

    Ralbag told the NRC newspaper: ‘I have strong indications that my wife and I would not be sure of our lives if we came to the Netherlands now.’ He declined to say what the threats were but did say he took them ‘extremely seriously’, the paper reported.

    I’m sorry rabbi, but you really are living in another world if you think that to be the case. The Amsterdam Orthodox community, and the rest of us, are merely pointing out what an idiot you are. Idiots don’t deserve death, they deserve education.

  • Atheism 2.0? Dear God, No…

    Alain de Botton is a philosopher. He recently gave a talk at a TED conference where he proposed “Atheism 2.0”, a form of atheism that would reject all deities and supernatural acts but cater to the “ritualistic side” of some atheists.

    It sounds like an appalling idea to me. I see that Jerry Coyne, over at Why Evolution is True, finds the idea to be “a facile attempt to appropriate the trappings of religion as something essential to an atheist world”. As Coyne says, “What we need, as sociological studies indicate, is not stained glass, potted lilies, and a gasbag orator, but a society that cares about its citizens”.

    In fact, I like some rituals, such as walking the dogs in the woods, or going to the theatre or listening to a concert; but the idea of elevating those ad-hoc activities into prescribed rote and trappings is simply a bad one, and has nothing whatsoever to do with “atheism”.

    What really irritated me about de Botton’s performance in this TED talk, is that he opens it with a thinly-veiled sneer at Richard Dawkins, saying that “many [people] who live in North Oxford” simply find religion ridiculous. De Botton then has the effrontery to go on to say that:

    I’m interested in the kind of constituency that thinks something along these lines: that thinks, “I can’t believe in any of this stuff, I can’t believe in the doctrines. I don’t think these doctrines are right. But,” a very important but, “I love Christmas Carols, I really like the art of Mantegna. I really like looking at old churches. I really like turning the pages of the Old Testament”.

    So de Botton has created another Dawkins strawman by his sneer, because, in fact, Dawkins is in just the kind of constituency that de Botton claims he is interested in. Dawkins is on record as recognising himself as a cultural Christian, who loves listening to Carols, and who, in The God Delusion (p.344 in my hardcover edition), writes:

    …an atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education. And of course we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.

    I should note that I’ve read very little of de Botton that I have been able to nod my head in agreement with, or indeed, take seriously. Give me Daniel Dennett any day…

    On a side note, is it just me, or has the quality of TED talks gone down the toilet in recent years? There was a time when I enjoyed listening to them, but these days they seem to contain a high percentage of woo-merchants doing their happy-clappy schticks.

  • Forced to be Sterilised

    There are times when the law goes beyond being “a ass” as Dickens’ Mr Bumble famously said, into realms where the law is simply anti-human.

    I was amazed to learn this week that Sweden requires, under force of law, that its transgender citizens be sterilised. I was prepared, at first, to think that, OK, it’s a quirk of the law that no-one could foresee, but now that we are in the 21st Century, it will be changed tout suite.

    Not a bit of it.

    The Christian Democratic party in the Swedish Parliament, being key to the coalition, are against any change to the law. As an aside, I am really not surprised that it’s a political party with religious roots that is insisting on this barbarism – ‘twas ever thus.  However…

    As the Human Rights Watch organisation states:

    The Swedish transgender law stems from 1972 and is out of step with current international best practice and understandings of Swedish obligations under international human rights law.

    In July 2009 Thomas Hammarberg, the commissioner for human rights of the Council of Europe, made the observation about the forced sterilization requirement that in reality the state prescribes medical treatment for legal purposes, “a requirement which clearly runs against principles of human rights and human dignity.” This was followed up in the extensive report on human rights for LGBT people in Europe that the commissioner published this summer. The commissioner there recommends Council of Europe member states to do away with all physical requirements for people who want to change their legal gender.

    In March 2010 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended to member states, including Sweden, that requirements, including changes of a physical nature, for legal recognition of a gender reassignment, should be reviewed in order to remove abusive elements. The Committee recommended that member states should take appropriate measures “to guarantee the full recognition of a person’s gender reassignment in all areas of life, in particular by making possible the change of name and gender in official documents in a quick, transparent and accessible way.”

    I am mindful that the situation here in the Netherlands is not so far in advance of that in Sweden; however, the Dutch government, a coalition of the conservative Liberal Party and the Christian-Democratic party, has publicly acknowledged that its transgender law violates international human rights law and has published a law proposal which does away with the forced sterilisation requirement.

    Here’s Georg Elfvelin asking for your support to help change the Swedish law:

    And here’s where you can sign a petition to Sweden’s Prime Minister. I hope that you will.

  • Dedicated Comic

    I see that yesterday’s Jesus and Mo is dedicated to Rhys Morgan, Jessica Ahlquist, One Law for All, and Salman Rushdie. Quite right, too.

  • A Dastardly Plot

    I know that there are some intelligent churchmen around, but I do despair when I read bollocks like this:

    The Spanish Catholic Church is also concerned about homosexuality. During his Boxing Day sermon, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, said there was a conspiracy by the United Nations. “The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools.”

    It, quite literally, beggars belief.

    Update: Benedict also talks bollocks. Sigh.