Prejudices......
So I took a personality test, not sure how serious it was meant to be, it was an online thingumy. Anyway, I wont put the full results on here but one thing it did give me was 70% Religious. Which I think is just about fare.
But..... when I clicked on the option to tell me what Religious actually meant it said the following
"Closest confident is a Higher Power, has more belief than doubt, prefers to let religion not themself decide the meaning of their life, opposed to strip clubs, believes that life is meaningful, reveres holidays and traditions, considers themself very spiritual, more likely to be politically conservatie, opposed to euthanasia, fears being corrupt or evil, old fashioned, thinks abortion should be outlawed, has faith things will work out, would sacrifice their life for a good enough cause, caring, honest, generous, prude, modest, drawn to public service, purposeful"
Some of those are right but theones I have highlited are completely the oposite of what I think, with several others (eg strip clubs) being things I am titally ambivilent about.
Simply having religious faith does not make anyone prude, conservative and unable to think for themselves. Why do people automatically believe that?
Sorry, but we're not all the same and it's time people realised that.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Parents
You are the parent of a Cub. At the end of January a camp is advertised for the end of May which you then sign your child up for.
Various reminders are issued saying that we need payment and health forms by a certain date in April.
In the mean time you have decided that you are not sending your child on camp, instead you are going on holiday.
Which is fare enough.
However given this do you
Let the cub leaders know that your child will not be attending. (ie a spot of common courtesy)
Completely ignore all the reminders and leave the leaders to chase you for payment etc. (ie bloody thoughtless)
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. I do this for free. The rest of my team do this for free. We do it in our spare time. Sometimes we piss off our family and friends doing it.
Do the maths.
You are the parent of a Cub. At the end of January a camp is advertised for the end of May which you then sign your child up for.
Various reminders are issued saying that we need payment and health forms by a certain date in April.
In the mean time you have decided that you are not sending your child on camp, instead you are going on holiday.
Which is fare enough.
However given this do you
Let the cub leaders know that your child will not be attending. (ie a spot of common courtesy)
Completely ignore all the reminders and leave the leaders to chase you for payment etc. (ie bloody thoughtless)
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. I do this for free. The rest of my team do this for free. We do it in our spare time. Sometimes we piss off our family and friends doing it.
Do the maths.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Priorities
Today at lunch time, as is quite common, I checked the news healdlines on the BBC website.
Top headline (on "world news" as oposed to "UK" news I might add) was the fact that one group had bid £10.7 billion and another £10.9 billion for control of the Boots group.
Now this is a frightening amount of money and given the private equity nature of this finance and the reputation such people have for asset stripping and the number of people that Boots employ (tens of thousands in the UK alone, I am led to believe) this is worth reporting, this is people's livelyhoods we are talking about.
However, all things are relative.
At 5th in the list of stories was what is happening in Somalia right now, where the capital is now devoid of women and children because of the fighting, where the African Union forces have less than 20% of the man power they need for peace keeping operations, where civilian areas are being shelled by heavy artilliary.
And we are worried about share prices.
I wont bang on.
Please, just think about it.
Ok?
Today at lunch time, as is quite common, I checked the news healdlines on the BBC website.
Top headline (on "world news" as oposed to "UK" news I might add) was the fact that one group had bid £10.7 billion and another £10.9 billion for control of the Boots group.
Now this is a frightening amount of money and given the private equity nature of this finance and the reputation such people have for asset stripping and the number of people that Boots employ (tens of thousands in the UK alone, I am led to believe) this is worth reporting, this is people's livelyhoods we are talking about.
However, all things are relative.
At 5th in the list of stories was what is happening in Somalia right now, where the capital is now devoid of women and children because of the fighting, where the African Union forces have less than 20% of the man power they need for peace keeping operations, where civilian areas are being shelled by heavy artilliary.
And we are worried about share prices.
I wont bang on.
Please, just think about it.
Ok?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Our Dear Friends Across the pond……..
Ok, first of all, if any Americans saw the video in the post below and are in anyway offended please understand that was not the intention. It was posted as a bit of light hearted teasing.
I have met only a small number of Americans but my impression so far has been that you struggle with the concept of gentle teasing. You should try it more often, it’s actually quite fun!
Which kind of leads me onto a more serious point, the shooting at Virginia Tech earlier this week and maybe what it says about the differences and similarities between the USA and the UK.
There have been many calls in the media, certainly in the UK, for there to be tighter gun controls in America and I have to say that I whole heartedly agree. I concede that given that I British and not American it is perhaps not my place to make such judgements but nevertheless I have my opinions and this is where I post them! I do not though agree for the reasons that you might expect.
The shootings in Virginia were tragic, the horror of what went on is unimaginable to those that were not there. I am not though convinced that tighter gun controls would have prevented it. Here in the UK we have very tight gun laws and despite that we have had incidents in Hungerford and Dunblane that stand along side Columbine and Virginia Tech in their horror.
What these incidents all have in common is that they were carried out in a pre meditated fashion by misguided and/or mentally ill individuals. The bloody minded intent means that I have no doubt that they would have found a way of obtaining the weapons they had regardless of what the law said they could and could not have.
My concern is more the over all levels of gun crime in the USA.
On channel 4 news last night it was reported that there were around 82 gun deaths A DAY in the USA. Scaled down based on population that is like having around 16 a day in the UK. Currently in the UK we have around 50-60 gun deaths a year. That is too high but 16 a day? That is a staggering number!
There are legitimate reasons for owning a gun. Target shooting is a legitimate sport. Learning how to correctly and safely handle a fire arm helps instil self discipline and confidence and air rifle shooting is something I have done with my Cubs on many occasions. Hunting is legitimate (I may be a vegetarian but I also respect that I am in the minority there and frankly wild animals shot for food have probably had a much better existence that those in factory farms), in rural areas of USA there are still dangerous wild animals and a shot gun in the house may be a sensible idea.
So I would not propose banning their ownership altogether.
However, there is no reason to own a sub machine gun, or an assault rifle, or a gun that has a magazine that holds dozens of bullets. Similarly to ask for someone to confirm themselves that they are not mentally ill is madness, or to allow some one with prior convictions to own one is madness. To allow someone to have one simply for the sake of owning is madness. It is not 1788, the USA is not trying to get independence from ruthless European rulers, they are not trying to survive against native Americans, they need have no fear f their own government (despite its many current faults). The deep south people who want everyone armed to defend their rights need to grow up a bit.
There are too many guns in circulation in America and many of them are too powerful and this can only be contributing to the number of gun deaths.
By restricting gun ownership you make it a lot easier to spot the villains. At the moment if someone is topped by the police and they are carrying a gun they are simply exercising a constitutional right. Stop with heavy restrictions in place and suddenly they need an explanation and odds are they will be up to no good. I’m thinking of drug dealers and the like.
Fewer guns = fewer people shooting = fewer deaths.
There is the argument that if the other students had been armed the Virginia tech incident could have been prevented.
If you want a world where we all go round with guns to defend ourselves against each other then go ahead. Count me out though.
I want a world where we trust each other, not fear each other.
Ok, first of all, if any Americans saw the video in the post below and are in anyway offended please understand that was not the intention. It was posted as a bit of light hearted teasing.
I have met only a small number of Americans but my impression so far has been that you struggle with the concept of gentle teasing. You should try it more often, it’s actually quite fun!
Which kind of leads me onto a more serious point, the shooting at Virginia Tech earlier this week and maybe what it says about the differences and similarities between the USA and the UK.
There have been many calls in the media, certainly in the UK, for there to be tighter gun controls in America and I have to say that I whole heartedly agree. I concede that given that I British and not American it is perhaps not my place to make such judgements but nevertheless I have my opinions and this is where I post them! I do not though agree for the reasons that you might expect.
The shootings in Virginia were tragic, the horror of what went on is unimaginable to those that were not there. I am not though convinced that tighter gun controls would have prevented it. Here in the UK we have very tight gun laws and despite that we have had incidents in Hungerford and Dunblane that stand along side Columbine and Virginia Tech in their horror.
What these incidents all have in common is that they were carried out in a pre meditated fashion by misguided and/or mentally ill individuals. The bloody minded intent means that I have no doubt that they would have found a way of obtaining the weapons they had regardless of what the law said they could and could not have.
My concern is more the over all levels of gun crime in the USA.
On channel 4 news last night it was reported that there were around 82 gun deaths A DAY in the USA. Scaled down based on population that is like having around 16 a day in the UK. Currently in the UK we have around 50-60 gun deaths a year. That is too high but 16 a day? That is a staggering number!
There are legitimate reasons for owning a gun. Target shooting is a legitimate sport. Learning how to correctly and safely handle a fire arm helps instil self discipline and confidence and air rifle shooting is something I have done with my Cubs on many occasions. Hunting is legitimate (I may be a vegetarian but I also respect that I am in the minority there and frankly wild animals shot for food have probably had a much better existence that those in factory farms), in rural areas of USA there are still dangerous wild animals and a shot gun in the house may be a sensible idea.
So I would not propose banning their ownership altogether.
However, there is no reason to own a sub machine gun, or an assault rifle, or a gun that has a magazine that holds dozens of bullets. Similarly to ask for someone to confirm themselves that they are not mentally ill is madness, or to allow some one with prior convictions to own one is madness. To allow someone to have one simply for the sake of owning is madness. It is not 1788, the USA is not trying to get independence from ruthless European rulers, they are not trying to survive against native Americans, they need have no fear f their own government (despite its many current faults). The deep south people who want everyone armed to defend their rights need to grow up a bit.
There are too many guns in circulation in America and many of them are too powerful and this can only be contributing to the number of gun deaths.
By restricting gun ownership you make it a lot easier to spot the villains. At the moment if someone is topped by the police and they are carrying a gun they are simply exercising a constitutional right. Stop with heavy restrictions in place and suddenly they need an explanation and odds are they will be up to no good. I’m thinking of drug dealers and the like.
Fewer guns = fewer people shooting = fewer deaths.
There is the argument that if the other students had been armed the Virginia tech incident could have been prevented.
If you want a world where we all go round with guns to defend ourselves against each other then go ahead. Count me out though.
I want a world where we trust each other, not fear each other.
Americans are NOT stupid - WITH SUBTITLES
It's not big, it's not clever but bloody hell this is funny!
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Religion re-visited.
(twice in a few days, this is unusual!)
So there I was, first thing this morning, having crashed at my friend's house over night, flicking through the various random channles you can get on Sky Digital while I ate my Cheerios.
I came across one of those Deep South Christian channels and I stopped for a look out of curiosity. I have my prejudices against such channels (despite being Christian) as I have heard worrying stories about just how Conservative and also down right dishonest they are.
The language they used was not the kind of language I would use about my faith, despite believing roughly the same thing. But that is a cultural difference and not something that greatly concerns me.
What concerns me was their invitation to phone a premium rate number to tell one of their people about your faith.
That's right, a premium rate number, so you get to be shafted for loads of money to line the pockets of the preacher for the pleasure of telling someone that you've never met that you believe the same thing as them.
What a crock of shit.
And people wonder why I have so little time for organised churches.
(twice in a few days, this is unusual!)
So there I was, first thing this morning, having crashed at my friend's house over night, flicking through the various random channles you can get on Sky Digital while I ate my Cheerios.
I came across one of those Deep South Christian channels and I stopped for a look out of curiosity. I have my prejudices against such channels (despite being Christian) as I have heard worrying stories about just how Conservative and also down right dishonest they are.
The language they used was not the kind of language I would use about my faith, despite believing roughly the same thing. But that is a cultural difference and not something that greatly concerns me.
What concerns me was their invitation to phone a premium rate number to tell one of their people about your faith.
That's right, a premium rate number, so you get to be shafted for loads of money to line the pockets of the preacher for the pleasure of telling someone that you've never met that you believe the same thing as them.
What a crock of shit.
And people wonder why I have so little time for organised churches.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Religion......
It's not often I post on this subject, maybe I should be a bit more brave and do so more often, because certainly I have my views on it. Today though I shall do so anyway.
I make no secret of the fact that I am a Christian. It's not something I scream at the top of my voice, maybe it is to my own discredit that I don't. At the same time though I certainly do not hide it and would definately not deny it. If someone asks I tell them, if the circumstances are such that it is relevant I will volunteer the fact. What I am trying to say is that I am certainly no evangelical, I think my calling lies elsewhere.
I am not, however, a bog standard Christian. Although I have my beliefs I understand that ultimately they require a leap of faith. I cannot prove in a purely rational and scientific manner that God exists or that Jesus was the son of God. Equally no one can prove the opposite through raional or scientific means. To believe otherwise is equally a leap of faith. And that is why I try, where ever possible, to show respect to those of other faiths, no faith and those that simply don't know. In which ever way we jump we all make that same leap, even if it is in a different direction.
If you want to enter into debate with me about why I believe differently to you I will happily do so, over the net, over a cup of tea (although mine's a hot chocolate or hot squash if you're offering!) or a pint down the pub. And I would like to think I can do so in a manner that would be in no way insulting, nor would I criticise you for your beliefs. It also means that I would never wish to stand in your way should your way of life run contrary to what may be seen as a Christian way of dong things (although I should add I do stand at the very liberal extreme of Christianity, I live unmarried with my other half and am quite happy to continue to do so).
So what is the point of all this rambling on?
The point is this, I wish that more people, of all religions, and those of none, could try adopting the same approach. I get so tired of hearing the sniping that goes on between members of different faiths (and indeed between different branches of the same faith). Virtually every religion you can name ultimately teaches the same thing, in terms of way of life as oposed to theology, which boils down to try and be nice to each other! So it becomes highly frustrating when the healthy intellectual debate that I refer to above turns in to people hurling abuse at each other. Ultimately this leads to the kind of conflict we see in the Middle East, but it also happens on a much lower level.
I have a link on this page to the blog written be Hecate, an American Pagan. Much of what she writes about, particularly with respect to the environment and the war in Iraq, I whole heartedly agree with and sympathise with the way on which memebers of her religion often feel discriminated against. Yet equally, one recent post of hers regarding a Conservative Catholic who was upset by a chocolate image of Jesus (and to be fare this individual does seem to have gone off totally at the deep end, he seems to have read a lot more in to the whole thing that was necessary or intended) was unconstructive in trying to bridge this gap.
If Hecate is this reading this then I want to be clear that I'm not just picking on her! I'm sure that nearly all of us are guilty at times of being rather unhelpful in our words and actions at times in bridging that gap between different faiths, and I include myself in that. As we approach a time when Christians celebrate the corner stone of their religion (part of which has been blatantly pinched of pagans, I acknowledge that!) perhaps it is a good time reflect on how our words can affect others.
Whatever your view on Jesus I'm sure no one can disagree with the thought "Love thy neighbour". But maybe we should also try to respect our neighbours too.
It's not often I post on this subject, maybe I should be a bit more brave and do so more often, because certainly I have my views on it. Today though I shall do so anyway.
I make no secret of the fact that I am a Christian. It's not something I scream at the top of my voice, maybe it is to my own discredit that I don't. At the same time though I certainly do not hide it and would definately not deny it. If someone asks I tell them, if the circumstances are such that it is relevant I will volunteer the fact. What I am trying to say is that I am certainly no evangelical, I think my calling lies elsewhere.
I am not, however, a bog standard Christian. Although I have my beliefs I understand that ultimately they require a leap of faith. I cannot prove in a purely rational and scientific manner that God exists or that Jesus was the son of God. Equally no one can prove the opposite through raional or scientific means. To believe otherwise is equally a leap of faith. And that is why I try, where ever possible, to show respect to those of other faiths, no faith and those that simply don't know. In which ever way we jump we all make that same leap, even if it is in a different direction.
If you want to enter into debate with me about why I believe differently to you I will happily do so, over the net, over a cup of tea (although mine's a hot chocolate or hot squash if you're offering!) or a pint down the pub. And I would like to think I can do so in a manner that would be in no way insulting, nor would I criticise you for your beliefs. It also means that I would never wish to stand in your way should your way of life run contrary to what may be seen as a Christian way of dong things (although I should add I do stand at the very liberal extreme of Christianity, I live unmarried with my other half and am quite happy to continue to do so).
So what is the point of all this rambling on?
The point is this, I wish that more people, of all religions, and those of none, could try adopting the same approach. I get so tired of hearing the sniping that goes on between members of different faiths (and indeed between different branches of the same faith). Virtually every religion you can name ultimately teaches the same thing, in terms of way of life as oposed to theology, which boils down to try and be nice to each other! So it becomes highly frustrating when the healthy intellectual debate that I refer to above turns in to people hurling abuse at each other. Ultimately this leads to the kind of conflict we see in the Middle East, but it also happens on a much lower level.
I have a link on this page to the blog written be Hecate, an American Pagan. Much of what she writes about, particularly with respect to the environment and the war in Iraq, I whole heartedly agree with and sympathise with the way on which memebers of her religion often feel discriminated against. Yet equally, one recent post of hers regarding a Conservative Catholic who was upset by a chocolate image of Jesus (and to be fare this individual does seem to have gone off totally at the deep end, he seems to have read a lot more in to the whole thing that was necessary or intended) was unconstructive in trying to bridge this gap.
If Hecate is this reading this then I want to be clear that I'm not just picking on her! I'm sure that nearly all of us are guilty at times of being rather unhelpful in our words and actions at times in bridging that gap between different faiths, and I include myself in that. As we approach a time when Christians celebrate the corner stone of their religion (part of which has been blatantly pinched of pagans, I acknowledge that!) perhaps it is a good time reflect on how our words can affect others.
Whatever your view on Jesus I'm sure no one can disagree with the thought "Love thy neighbour". But maybe we should also try to respect our neighbours too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)