So, I have managed to to be called evil by two seperate people within a week. Albeit the first one more by implication. Yes I have been busy charming people.
I think in many ways certain people resorting to the whole 'good and evil' struggle are usually either desperate to win an argument, or have suddenly realised they have a good argument to begin with. Sometimes a combination of both.
So my good athiest self was enjoying a good carol service in Bristol Cathedral (yes I am an athiest, I can still appreciate a good choir through all the worship to the Sky God) in polite company. And then came the Christmas message. The usual talk about the real meaning of Christmas ("real" in terms of ignoring it's pagan roots) drifted on, I listened politely. And there came nice uplifting talk about the remarkableness of human endeavour through the curing of the terrible plague of Small Pox. This was oh-so cunningly crafted to the Christmas message (ie a miracle happening in a cowshed with the birth of Christ and the discovery of Small Pox, clever eh? The vicar should consider speech writing in politics). All was still well and good, thus far.
Then came the rude upset at the end. The Vicar sung his praises about the so called "Alpha Course". For those not in the know the Alpha Course is apparently a 'free discussion' group about the meaning of life. So free in fact that sources inform me that nearly everyone who attends walks out as a convert to Christianity. To highlight how great it is the Vicar told us a story about a young couple, one agnostic and an ardent athiest. Long story short both were having a crisis of faith due to the death of their baby. Both were turned into happy Christians. What got my blood boiling was how much the husband (the athiest) was described as confused and "cynical" repeatedly. Until he changed his evil ways. Reminds me of the Santana song of the same name "Evil Ways" (listen to it, Santana is a great band).
So there we have it a nice and otherwise inoffensive message ending with "by the way, do the right thing and don't be evil like he was". This isn't the first time I have been implied as evil by a Christian before. About two years ago I was talking on an online chatroom with an Evangelical minister (it's amazing what boredom can bring you to do). The battle to have me converted to the ranks of the righteous began very shortly after introductions. What ensued was a battle of words. Exasperrated I came down to the mainstay of my position: Why am I still a sinner if I look out for my friends and family? Then came the answer: Every kind action I perform is MEANINGLESS, not weak, MEANINGLESS until I surrender to "God's Will". And that is what slapped me in the face and made me decide that further debate was pointless. I congratulated him for his efforts, but politely let him know that he had lost this battle. After that we had a few laughs since he put my online avatar on a bonfire in a Witch burning scene, I congratulated him for his with. He departed on his Stairway to Heaven, I descended on my apparent crevice to hell.
So here's the deal. I am athiest, and I am avowed secularist and will be for the forseeable future. Maybe I'll one day change I don't know. What someone else believes in, insofar as it doesn't single out hategroups of people (ie various forms of extremism) I couldn't care less. It's quite literally your funeral guys. If I like what I see on the Christian side of the fence, rest assured I will come and ask what I need to ask and find out what I need to find out. Otherwise, please leave me alone. If I ask for your opinion, by all means give it. But I believe that so called "spreading the gospel" or "preaching" in contemporary Britain or anywhere else demeands religion, and makes it seem evermore suspicious and threatening to agnostics and athiests. I don't appreciate arrogance, and the deepest arrogance is to proclaim oneself eternally good over someone eternally bad. Are Christians that surprised at how much athiests relish in speaking about their ideas (to be sometimes dubbed militant) when instead of showing their views respect, they liken secularists to an evil Genghis Khan-like horde? In my book, the only time we should become such a threatening horde is when one of the believing camps tries to get more of a foothold than the other. Ideally one religion shouldn't have an an entrenched position more than the other. Yet the C of E does majorly. And yet certain people in the Christian hierarchy still have the nerve to talk about their faith being under threat. And it being the fault of us secularists. I suggest, people having differing opinons notwithstanding (heaven forbid they do), maybe the church would be more successful in maintaining it's appeal by looking at problems in it's OWN camp. No one is perfect, believers or non-believers included.
In large part what we have seen is not surprising. The US State Department and the Presidency writes Silvio Berlusconni off as a degenerate, corrupt, alcoholic sex maniac who is doing his best to keep his country more corrupt than Botswana (which is factually true by Transparency International Figures). That hardly surprises. Yet Prime Minister David Cameron is seen as at loggerheads with that unstable mafioso (called president in polite company) Hamid Kharzai chief in Afghanistan. This promptly lead to the two shaking hands and playing nice for the cameras. How sweet. All comments from Cameron about not being able to trust Kharzai, and Kharzai verbally urinating on the graves of British falled soldiers was quickly hushed up. More disturbing news has arrived though about Pakistan where the details of essentially a secret war in Pakistan, bordering on the scope of the pre-troop deployment stage in the Vietnam War is rearing it's ugly head. Among this, disconcerting noises are made by the US about it's confidence in the Pakistan Civilian Government being able to stave off threats by the military.
What is extraordinary is how the left and right on the political spectrum have already politicised the positions in this debate. For the right (sensible and otherwise) this is a case for law and order and protection of state secrets, Sarah Palin typically has called for Assange to be executed. The left consider the releases important, and potentially a powerful stick to wave at the blatant dishonesty of their governments. Perhaps unsurprisingly I stick to the latter camp. If respective governments are embarrassed at some of the things being revealed, perhaps they should start at their root causes. Going on about how the information got their in the first place is a blatantly cheap way of getting out of answering the difficult questions they bring up.
And now I hear Julian has been arrested for the rape of a few women in Sweden (2 I believe?). If he did it (in politics anything is possible) then he is a fool who has squandered his heroic deeds. But I can't help thinking how potentially convenient this is to those who wanted him locked away for a long time. Not to trivialise rape, like I said if he did it then he should be processed accordingly. But recently the prospect of him being shipped to the states to get a spanking on espionage charges, via extradition has raised it's head. Convenient for some no? Time will tell how true the rape allegations are. Despite this I stand by my line that the information he released is a vital jolt of honesty delivered to contemporary western societies that have had their fill of whitewash. More lies are not needed to make things right.
No comments:
Post a Comment