"John Hirst defends votes for murderers, rapists, paedophiles... "

Over at:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-hirst-defends-votes-for-murderers.html
Cranmer bemoans the fact that prisoners are to be allowed to vote.  The commenters universally share his views and the righteous indignation is palpable.  I suppose we should expect nothing less of an avowedly right wing blog, but it saddens me that people should be so narrow minded.  I added a comment in support of the proposal to give prisoners the vote.  I won't hold my breath for a response!

Text of my comment::
Perhaps I am a lone voice amongst your acolites, but I have to say that I agree with extending the right to vote to those in jail. This surely continues the trend of removing restrictions on universal suffrage. It was not so long ago that women did not have the right to vote. Who are we to declare someone unfit to vote because they have committed a crime? Where to next? No votes for those who are unemployed for over 6 months? No votes for those who cannot read or write? All these are part of our society and surely entitled to have a say in how things are run.

Furthermore, prison is not just about punishment. It is about rehabilitation, and trying to change the habits of recalcitrant offenders. By excluding them from the democratic process we encourage them to think that society is "someone else's problem". If we want criminals to have a social conscience we need to encourage them to feel a part of society.

Give them the vote say I!

Always Hope: NSS gets in a tizzy again

Always Hope: NSS gets in a tizzy again

Saw this post and kicked myself for not realising it before.  Charlie has nailed why the NSS struggles to build its membership.  Any organisation that is so focussed on the negative is going to struggle!
Ironic that it took a Christian to produce this emperor's new clothes moment!

Catholics and Natural Law

What is "Natural Law"?  Look it up in Wikipedia and you would be forgiven for believing that it can mean almost whatever the user wants it to mean. 

Catholics appear to define natural law as the rule of conduct which is prescribed to mankind by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed mankind.  Recently I've come across the expression several times in discussion with Catholics, who declare it as a kind of self-evident trump card.  As in "homosexuality is wrong - It's against natural law".  When looking natural law up at a website calling itself "Catholic Encyclopedia" I was surprised to be given as an example of natural law that in certain circumstances Polygamy can be lawful but that polyandry can never be lawful, presumably because of something written by a misogynist in the Old Testament.

I find myself wondering how laws which to a modern reader often appear bizarre, and are prescribed by a supernatural being, can possibly warrant the title of "natural".  Moreover, not even Catholic scholars through the ages can agree on the detail. Is it perhaps time to drop this rather unhelpful expression?

Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

When I visited the Pro-life "prayer vigil" outside Central London Marie Stope clinic I was handed a glossy leaflet aimed at persuading people not to go ahead with an abortion, and suggesting that awful things were likely to happen to those that did go ahead. I looked up one of the website referred to in the brochure (http://www.flionline.org/) Family Life International (FLI) describes itself as a "Catholic Pro-Life/Pro-Family non-profit making, world-wide organisation".

I was struck by the piece on "Natural Family Planning" (NFP).  It seems that any form of artificial contraception is wrong, but "natural" contraception is ok, and advice is given on how the husband and wife can help each other to confirm when the wife is and is not fertile.  The piece ends with the sentence: "SAFE's design encourages the involvement and participation of a husband in the charting of his wife's menstrual cycle, thereby allowing him to be aware of his wife's fertility."

I just can't get my head around the double standard here.  It seems to be saying that it's ok after all to have sex just because you enjoy it, as long as you use the 'natural' method.  Surely if contraception is viewed as wrong it really should not make any difference what method is used.  Am I missing something?

What happens when a nation becomes secular?

I could not resist reproducing the following snippet from the today's NSS newsletter:

According to polls, Norwegians define themselves (depending on how you interpret their definition) as up to 71% non-believers.

What has secularism done to Norway? The Global Peace Index rates Norway the most peaceful country in the world. The Human Development Index, a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standard of living, has ranked Norway No. 1 every year for the last five years. Norway has the second highest GDP per capita in the world, an unemployment rate below 2 percent, and average hourly wages among the world's highest.

Interesting....

Are religious people more altruistic, or altruistic people more religious?

It appears to be perceived wisdom that religious people tend to give more to charity, they get more involved in helping those less able, and they have more of a sense of serving the community.

Let's assume that this is all true - (and I have no reason to doubt it).  Is it their religion that makes them more altruistic, or is the fact that they are inherently predisposed towards altruism that means that they find a natural home in religion?  Are we confusing which is cause and which is effect? 

If it is true that altruistic people are naturally drawn to a group where they can express this, then there is a future for humanity without religion.  As religion continues to wane, perhaps we need to find a way to replace religious groups with equivalent secular groups.

If, however, it is belief in a supernatural God is what drives people to be altruistic, then perhaps we need to continue to accept that religion is a necessary civilising influence, even if most of us are no longer believers..

An eye for an eye?

I'm always perplexed when I read about religious people advocating the death penalty for murder, on the basis of Biblical or other Holy book justice.  I saw an article recently which addressed this in a rather interesting way - Would those same people who advocated death for murder feel the same way about the State blackmailing those who blackmail, or raping those who rape?  I sincerely hope not.

Who gives? Do women make the best Humanists?

I find myself more interested in reading other people's blogs than writing my own, but this blog still provides me with a useful tool to track the progression of my thoughts and attitudes.  It really doesn't matter if nobody reads my posts, or if I repeat myself.  This is mostly so that I can capture some of my thoughts before they evaporate.  Anyway, I digress. To the subject in mind:

Last weekend I spent hours standing outside a supermarket collecting for the local Air Ambulance.  The supermarket serves a mostly affluent local population who predominantly vote Conservative or Liberal.  The thing that struck me was that probably 95% of those giving donations were female, and of those the vast majority were certainly over 50 years old.  By contrast, most men, of all ages, went out of their way to avoid me, and slunk by into the store.  This is also in line with previous experiences.

Why is this?  I can't empirically prove the answer, but perhaps these women are better able to empathise with those in need, and to feel their need, even though they have no direct relationship or benefit from helping these unknown people.

Perhaps I should come back to this having thought some more on it.

Young Earth Creationism - The lengths to which supporters go...

An article by a Young Earth Creationist caught my eye today.  It was about the "problem of distant stars".  In it he considers the probem that if the Earth is indeed only about 6,000 years old and was a part of the 6 day creation of Life the Universe and Everything by God, then why is it that we can see the light from any of the myriad of stars which are clearly at distances significantly greater that 6,000 light years...

The author tries hard to convince us that this is possible because Newton's and Einstein's laws do not apply, but the logic he uses, and the pseudoscientific ideas he postulates are laughable to anyone with a broad education and even a moderate scientific knowledge.  It seems though that the author is utterly convinced of his logic, and one presumes that so are those who already believe as he does, against all the actual reputable natural evidence that already exists.

My puzzlement is why they seek so hard to explain what is to them a supernatural event by recourse to natural laws.  Why do they think this is necessary? 

There are also those among the more moderate believers who believe in miracles, and believe in supernatural intervention, but who under scrutiny simply say that these are in fact natural events, but ones which are outside our understanding, and known only to God.  Hmmm...  That's a cop out if ever I heard one.

I can understand why people might possess faith in a higher being.  What I fail to understand is why they try to rationalise or to "prove" this by pseudoscience. Not only is it counterproductive, but also uneccessary.

Spurious correlations

I heard the following snippet on UK Radio 4's pick of the week, by Chris McManus of University College London.  I may not have recorded exactly correctly but I hope this gives the gist of it:

"People are extremely good at making explanations of things they find in the World, but those explanations may not be true. People are also very good at spotting differences such as red hair, left-handedness etc but then they often make spurious correlations such as "she's a writer, she's left handed; She must be a writer because she is left handed. -  And then we boring scientists come along, sort it out and then find there is no correlation at all."

Perhaps this human propensity to make any connection rather than none (no matter how bizarre) and avoid having to admit that the real answer is not yet within human capability to understand;  is part of what is behind enduring religious belief.