Don't pay, it only encourages them

Performance pay for MPs…

…that’s the way to go. I was going to go on and on, but the first comment under the Guardian article with the 10% payrise news suggested just that. Pay ‘em minimum wage (I didn’t think of that one, genius) and then according to how well they do (and the track record suggests no bonuses for any of them).

No pensions for corrupt policemen

Rightly so. I thought you could combine this with the performance pay so the treasury mob that got us into the financial mire, Tone and his war crimes, so on, could be included in the no pension gang.

For God’s Sake

The book asks four Australian writers this: Doesn’t religion cause most of the conflict in the world?

Rachel Woodlock is a muslim. She says this:

“Religion is powerfully motivating and belligerent humans fight over it. Heck, religion has caused conflict even in my diverse and tolerant family. Taking our daughter to visit her Irish-Catholic relatives, I asked my husband to make sure they didn’t give her any pork. Like Jews, Muslims steer clear of anything with an oink. My gentle, peaceable mate, wanting to avoid one of those conversations, said: “Mam, Yazzy doesn’t like pork so don’t give her any”. A few days later, my beaming mother-in-law proudly announced: “She does like pork, I gave her some sausages and she ate them right up!” It took a few days for my blood pressure to return to normal.”

Sorry Rachel, nice and laid-back and sensible as all that seems at first glance, there’s some sinister undertones. Pork isn’t some deadly poisonous fungus, neither is it magic mushrooms likely to produce hallucinations and LSD-like effects. Why steer clear of something perfectly edible while eating other stuff other religions are not so keen on. Are you so sure that you’re 100% right about pigs while others are 100% wrong about cows? Blood pressure should be elevated because climate change deniers are given the time of day, because barbaric cruelty to animals goes on to test cosmetics and so rich folk in red coats on horseback can get their rocks off, because hospitals and running tracks are closed while the MPs doing the closing give themselves a ten grand pay award. But because your daughter ate a sausage? Try to develop some empathy, love. What’s someone like me, who thinks the whole shebang’s deeply irrational to begin with going to think when you write as if pork-aversion is a natural and understandable stance. To my mind it’s the adult equivalent of a small, spoilt child spitting out peas or broccoli, forcing themselves to retch and demanding a M^cDonalds.

Antony Loewenstein is a jew. He says this:

“Neo-atheism, the belief that science is the only path to truth and all religions are equally deluded and destructive, has taken hold in much of the debate over atheism. The movement, whose key figures include Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens…is an ideology that arrogantly celebrates an understanding of everything through supposed reason and proof. … It’s clearly an exaggeration to suggest atheists are rampaging through the streets demanding the end of religious belief but the last decade has seen an ever-increasing number of atheists feeling the need to ridicule or damn people who do believe in a god.”

The late Christopher Hitchens wasn’t an enemy of religion, but an enemy of shoddy, rubbish thinking. He also had a huge intellect and wasn’t given to backing down or letting stinking thinkers off the hook. Naturally the religious don’t like him, as he routinely tore their intellectual champions a new one in head-to-head debate. But he did the same to politicians and non-religious folk when they spouted nonsense, too. No, the only street-rampages seem to be by the religious, hacking people to bits in Woolwich.

He goes on:

“None of this is an excuse for the undeniable barbarity unleashed by religionists over the centuries. The misogyny, beheadings, terrorism, killings, beatings and cruelty are real. They continue…[including] an anti-gay crusade led by some Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders that threatens the sanctity of life itself.”

Now. If that was what I’d signed up to, I’d de-sign up to it, wouldn’t you?

Simon Smart is a Christian. He says this:

“Take the inquisition. Diner party guests are likely to nod in agreement when someone mentions the “millions killed” at the hands of the church but historians now suggest around 5,000 – 6,000 over a 350-year period. That’s less than 18 a year.”

I’ve some questions here: what historians? Is eighteen a year acceptable? Would we see Fred West in a different light if he was a Westarian cleric offing eighteen a year and sticking them under the patio? Simon. Really.

All three point fingers at Stalin, at Pol Pot, at Tito, at Mao Zedong, and they tortured and murdered millions. But us atheists, we don’t have that faith, that signing up to the regime we live under, and so the message is this: leave me and my family alone, don’t teach my kids that creationism garbage, and we might, just might, settle on an uneasy truce. All four of the defra scumbags heading up the badger slaughter are religious. Most of the major religions take the line that other species are only here for us to exploit, treat with contempt and cruelty and eat. What a cop-out, guys.

Jane Caro, an atheist, tells a story:

“As 14 year-old Malala Yousafzai sat on a bus in the grounds of her school in Pakistan's Swat Valley, a gunman shot her in the head. After proudly claiming responsibility, the Taliban told the world that the teenage education activist's work represented "a new chapter of obscenity, and we have to finish this chapter". The "obscenity" was the education of girls. The Taliban felt no shame. They know that what they have done is right because their god tells them so. Gods have been used to justify almost any cruelty, from burning heretics and stoning adulterers to crucifying Jesus himself.”

The sacred Tone, son of the blessed Margaret, committed no war crimes, because he was led down the right path by his god. I’m sure that’s an immense comfort to grieving relatives and limbless servicemen and women.

“Indeed, while the religious have murdered throughout history in the name of their god, I've been unable to find any evidence of atheists killing anyone in the name of atheism. Atheists are no more or less capable of evil than anyone else, but it seems that murder, particularly mass murder and war, is a sin of commission. In other words, human beings are generally only prepared to fight and kill in the name of something. It can be a god, but it can also be a political philosophy – like nazism or communism. Many fight for patriotism: for country, tribe or race. Some kill because they're psychologically disturbed, but none – so far – in the name of atheism.

So, while I don't agree that only religion causes conflict, I'd argue that all mass murder and war are fought in the name of a bigger-than-self philosophy or idea. Atheism, simply lack of belief in a god, has not yet proved compelling enough to motivate murder. So far no one has gone into a crowded public space and blown themselves up while shouting, "No god is great!".”

I suppose this hits the nail on the head as far as I’m concerned. Belief is something I lack, distrust, and don’t understand, at all. In god, in political dogma (may as well be dogturd), in humanity in general, in others. With the benefit of history, with scientific evidence, with experience, how can any rational person do otherwise? Prophets ascending to the heavens on the backs of winged horses? Please.