Religion as a conversation stopper

Others (more informed and eloquent than I) have already commented on the recent hoo-hah about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

(This, for example, is particularly good. As is most of the stuff here).

To be honest, I've been unable to work up much annoyance about the whole thing because a) some religious figure or other kicking up a fuss at Easter was inevitable and b) I think that MPs should be able to vote with their conscience on all issues.

What I will add, however, is that the whole thing illustrates the problem with bringing religion into political debates perfectly. The title of this post is that of an essay by Richard Rorty in 'Philosophy and Social Hope', in which he argues that bringing religion into the political sphere is to be discouraged because to say that “My God disapproves of X” is to say no more than “I dislike X”. When pushed upon the issue, the religious can only retreat to a “divine sense” that is inaccessible to the rest of us mere mortals.

It is an end to the conversation rather than a contribution to it.

Yep

I find myself in complete agreement with Chris Dillow on this whole oath of allegiance crap:

It's a great university entrance test. Any student who, when asked to swear such an oath, fails to use the words "shove" and "arse" should be declared unfit for higher education.

While we're at it, could we not get a better national anthem? Appealing to an imaginary figure to protect an outdated institution doesn't exactly make me come over all patriotic.

...and on and on it goes.

From the Times Online:

Hillary Clinton vowed that she would win the Democratic nomination today after securing desperately needed victories in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas, a triple triumph that means her titanic struggle with Barack Obama will continue into the spring — and possibly to the nominating convention this summer.

Can they not just flip a coin or something?

I'm getting bored now.

UK Libertarian Party

As someone sympathetic to the libertarian outlook (even if I disagree on certain practicalities) it's great to see British libertarians getting organised - even if the UK Libertarian Party fails to rise above minority status it's still good to have groups opposed to statist tendencies involved in politics, on any level.

However, could they not have chosen a better heading for their website's opening page?

Seventeen Million People Can't Be Wrong

Yes they can, actually. Quite easily and quite often.

Civil Serf

Via Dizzy, I've found an interesting "new" blog providing an insider's view of the civil service*:

Every organisation has a memory. Some of them (like Guinness) build museums to celebrate their heritage. Others (like Nestle) try to bury it out of shame for all their past wrong-doings. Then there's the civil service, who try to remember (because it would be very useful if they could) but they can't, because they've not filed anything correctly and they keep forgetting what they’re looking for…..

The sheer scale of the civil service is mind-boggling so the effort required to keep track of all its outputs would make the NHS look like a mere hobby. Consequently we’ve all but given up and we work tirelessly to reinvent the wheel everyday.

In short there is strong stench of deja-vu in the land of serfdom. We recycle the same policies with different names; ministers repeatedly make the same announcements; the same political foot-balls get kicked around the office…

(*Okay, I know it doesn't sound that interesting, but it is)

You choose

US Presidential nominations

or

Star Wars battles in Lego

Knee-jerk policies

Obsolete is well worth reading today. As he is everyday, really.

The best policies on crime and punishment, or indeed on everything are however reached in the cold light of day, not motivated by vengeance or to buy off campaigning newspapers or individuals. The very last thing that should be indulged is knee-jerk reactions that aim towards ever harsher penalties, but rather focus on what works; outrage and apoplexy, along with the momentum that a tragedy provides a person with, have worked to huge disadvantage in the past. You only have to examine the dangerous dogs legislation or the video nasties farce to see what moral panics bring about.

Presumed consent - the least worst option?

While I have some sympathy with the opponents of "presumed consent" when it comes to organ donation, it's hard not to agree with Justin McKeating's argument that it's a case of "putting your principles before the lives of dying people."

In an ideal world, the matter of organ donation would be left to individuals or their next of kin to decide. But the problem in leaving this to the free market is that the incentives to donate just aren't strong enough - we all agree that people dying from organ failure is a Bad Thing that should be prevented where possible, but as it generally happens to people we don't know there's little pressure on us to do anything about it.

So while "presumed consent" may not be ideal, it might well be the least worst option.

Bringing people together to discuss why they hate each other

Well, at least 'Liberal Conspiracy' has managed to kick-start some debates, mainly about what libertarianism really means: swearing and non-swearing versions are available.

In a nutshell...

Never Trust a Hippy:

In the case of political blogs, you have to do something to become really popular, it seems. You have to provide a hospitable place for trolls in your comments box and you have to write knockabout posts that simplify and personalise issues.

There's more than one kind of liberal

"Super-blog" Liberal Conspiracy looks set to become a must-read in the world of political blogs. It's just a shame that by positioning itself as a strictly left-wing site they've ruled out contributions from some of the most interesting political bloggers out there.

It's a shame, because the most interesting projects to come out of the political blogosphere - the Usmanov protest and Iraqi asylum seekers campaign - were notably non-partisan.

A non-sectarian blog, focusing on issues such as democracy and civil liberties, would be slightly more deserving of the "super" prefix.

(The Wardman Wire has some more considered thoughts on the subject)

Conservatism and libertarianism

Mr Eugenides has a fascinating post on the tension between his conservativism and libertarianism in light of recent criticism of the police over the de Menezes shooting:

But these are sometimes difficult issues for libertarians, or those with libertarian leanings, to grapple with – witness DK’s recent suggestion that the monarchy should have more power, an idea questioned by Freeborn John. Libertarians don't see every issue the same way; we don't all come from the right in traditional political terms, we disagree on what the minimal functions of the state should be, and even when we do agree we don't necessarily share the same view of what how the government should discharge those functions. The Tory party has, belatedly, embraced social liberalism at the same time as it seems, to many of us, to be stepping back from the economic liberalism that attracted many of us to it in the first place - and that gives those of us who've for so long considered it 'home' something of a problem. Some libertarians now see UKIP as their natural home instead, for reasons that don't start and finish with the EU; others put their faith in microparties like the Libertarian Party; still others, like me, are loath to embrace the supposed 'purity' of fringe politics.

Atheists of the world...

It should come as no surprise to most of the people who read this blog (all two of you) that I'm an atheist.

I believe that naturalistic accounts explain the universe better than theological ones. I believe that most of the arguments put forward for the existence of Gods (and the supernatural in general) are flawed and unconvincing. And I believe that a belief should stand or fall on the amount of cogent evidence that supports it. Assertion and intuition rarely convince anyone.

However, I'm not sure that the attempts to create organisations around atheism are that desirable. The term simply denotes a lack of theistic beliefs – within that category you get naturalism, scientism, humanism, agnosticism, objectivism, nihilism, etc. all of which look at the universe in quite different ways.

Stand me next to another atheist and – beyond the absence of religious beliefs – there's no guarantee that we'll have any values or outlooks in common. In fact, I find some atheists misguided, even repugnant in some of their views.

Just as I believe that religious moderates need to organise against the extremists in their midsts, non-theists need to promote the values at the heart of their worldview – my agnosticism, humanism, naturalism and rationalism define who I am far more than my views on the supernatural. Indeed, there are even theists who are closer to my views than some atheists. Which is why I don't display the attempts at an atheist symbol (no matter how snazzy they might look). Atheism isn't a value – it's an absence. Rather than defining ourselves by what we're against, we need to define ourselves by what we're for.

Conspiracy theories

Atheist Ethicist on the supposed 9/11 conspiracy:

Planning Officer: Then, we rig Building 7 over here with controlled explosions so that it will collapse apparently on its own without any real cause several hours after the original attack.

Andy (one of the planners): Why?

PO: To make the attack even more dramatic!

Andy: Having the two World Trade Center towers collapse is not dramatic enough?

PO: No! No! Not at all. This will be better, you see.

Andy: But, we’re already allegedly rigging the two towers to collapse using controlled explosions. The idea is to bring them straight down. Then, all of the sudden, another building, with might not even get damaged in the original attack, is supposed to collapse. Don’t you think that this might look a bit suspicious?

P.O.: Okay, obviously we have to rig the Towers to do damage to Building 7, so that we can at least have something that we can blame the collapse on. Good job, Andy. I’ll tell the demolition team now.

Andy: But, sir, why go to all this work, adding layers of complexity and significantly increasing the chance of discovery? Why not just crash the airplanes into the buildings and let the concrete fall where it may.

PO: Because that is not how we do things around here. Even though the possibility of a leak or of people discovering our plans would be catastrophic, what we really need to do is to make this as complex as possible, involve more and more people, all of which must be sworn into secrecy.

50/50

Dizzy Thinks on the resignation of Ming Campbell:

Anyone notice that when Simon Hughes and Vince Cable announced Ming Campbell's resignation the whole press conference and tone was done as if Campbell had died? Simon Hughes said "I'm now going to let Vince Cable say a few words about Ming" like he was offering someone up to give a eulogy.

I happened to be channel-hopping* last evening when I stumbled across BBC News 24 interviewing some important Lib Dem about Campbell. Most of the interview was about how sorry the party was to see him go and for a good few minutes I couldn't figure out whether he'd resigned or died. Only when they cut back to the studio and one of the presenters said that there'd be more on his resignation later did I find out.

So now we get another Lib Dem leadership contest... should be interesting.

(*It was during the adverts of QI on the new channel 'Dave', which I absolutely love! 'Whose Line is it Anyway', followed by 'Top Gear', 'QI', 'Never Mind the Buzzcocks' and 'Have I Got News For You' - it's almost as if they sat down and asked themselves: "What would one of Matt's perfect evening line-ups be?")

Are we being a little unfair on dictatorships?

Brian Eno (former keyboard player in Roxy Music) defends dictatorships on the Guardian's 'Comment is Free':

"Dictator" is an automatically pejorative word. "Autocrat" is more neutral. There are many sorts of autocrats: from those who seek to control everything entirely in their personal interests to those who seriously care about those under their charge. Those latter can have the interests of the whole community in mind, and they can be "democratic" in the sense that they pay attention to the feedback they get from their people: indeed many tribal and clan systems of government are like this. Leaders are considered "wise" or "good" when they are able to synthesise what they hear about the state of the world and arrive at a decision which works well for most people.

The biggest objection to autocrats is not that they're automatically bad but that you can't get rid of them easily if they turn out to be. However, since the outcomes of our "democratic" elections are increasingly shaped by lobbyists, conditional campaign contributions and partisan media, it could be argued that we also aren't able to get rid of the real powers behind the throne, but just to occasionally change its occupant.

"Democratic" dictatorships?

The worst thing is that some of the comments beneath the piece actually agree with him!

National Motto-ry

Gordon Brown's comments about a national motto have sparked a number of suggestions over on the BBC website. Some of them are quite witty.

My own suggestion:

Britain: It's not so bad.

I think it sums the place up pretty well.

Mess with me, you mess with my whole family

It's always nice to see the power of the blogosphere in action.

For those of you who haven't been following the Usmanov story, the best summaries are here and here.

Basically, a number of blogs have been taken down and others threatened with legal action by an Uzbek millionaire after they repeated allegations made against him by Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan.

As Obsolete notes, this has been a pyrrhic victory at best: the news of Usmanov's heavy-handed tactics have spread like wildfire - bringing him and the allegations against him to the attention of most of the political blogosphere. Such has been the extent of this response that it's warranted mention in the Times, Slate, More4 News and The New Statesman website.

Style over substance

Lib Dem Voice asks the question very few people are really bothered about:

Is it time for a televised leaders’ debate?

Don't we already sort of have this with PMQs? If the public were interested in seeing Brown, Cameron and Ming go head-to-head then they could just set their videos every Wednesday (when Parliament's sitting). The fact that they don't would seem to indicate that the answer to the above question is: no.

Though putting some on flashy graphics, adding an irritating theme tune and getting a celebrity to act as speaker of the house might push viewing figures up a little.

Political moderate and humanitarian

From Lenin's Tomb:

I appreciate that my insistence that Lenin was a democrat and the Bolshevik Party a model of thriving conversational openness was bound to be provocative. And I'd be the first to admit that Lenin's often brutal language during the Civil War, imbibed very much from his era I think, is chilling. The 'Hanging Order', in which a number of bloodsucking capitalists were to be hung in public as part of a terrorist campaign against the White Army and the Entente forces, is not what one would typically understand as the language or action of a political moderate - but that merely goes to show how loaded the terms of moderation and extremism actually are.

Next up: Joseph Stalin - murderous tyrant or just misunderstood?