Outing oneself.

Today saw the Christmas holidays end and a brief return to school before we were all eventually allowed home due to the weather. Today also saw me in effect, 'joining' The Out Campaign; wherein participants simply brand themselves with an ironic scarlet 'A' on a badge for example. I placed mine on my school blazer. It's a harmless enough device, it's subtle, it's not really an advertisement, and my logic behind was simply this, "If I am branded as a *insert tag* due to this school blazer(there is a Biblical quote on it), then surely there is nothing wrong or crass in wearing a badge to earmark my disagreement with the labeling brought by this blazer." [Of course I could just not wear the blazer, but that would 1) miss the point, it's a school uniform, and 2) be very very cold]. I also made it a point to not, in effect, shove it in people's faces, or walk up and declare the meaning of my new accessory. Though I was not going to attempt to hide it. I will also briefly give some background to the scarlet A idea. It is in fact taken from American novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne. In his book The Scarlet Letter, a woman is forced to wear a scarlet 'A' across her chest for life to represent the adultery she has committed. So in effect the 'A' symbol is a sign of religious oppression, not simply as the declaration of the lack of belief in the supernatural. Which I think is a wonderful meaning to have. I also recommend this book to anyone as it is fantastic.

My point with writing this is not really so as to defend myself, as I don't feel I have done anything to defend myself against, but more so as to give comparisons where they are fitting, and present the logic of why it is not provocative or trouble-seeking to wear such an accessory. Note, I would not be doing this if I did not feel, if not hostility, then certainly an uneasy feeling in response to the badge. I got that feeling that people were saying, "What's the fucking point." I submit though, that they are missing the point by asking such a question.

So, is there anything wrong with wearing things that will label yourself to others with a glance? Does this portray an ego-centric solipsism wherein said person simply wants to garner attention and stir the pot with regards this labeling? There is no doubting, that this can be the case. Wearing a Celtic top in certain parts of Belfast is, more often than not, a commitment to a particular Christian sect, a political affiliation, and seemingly lastly, an affirmation of support to the particular Glasgow team. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with this provocative clothe wearing then? For me, I believe it depends on the case. Should this person be actually able to argue/present the case for reasons why 1)they are a part of this Christian sect or 2)they agree with a certain political goal, then why shouldn't they be allowed to wear it? (I am not listing 'argue reasons why you support the team' as a needed accessory, as it is both linked with the other two, and is off the point). Whatever risks are involved, are ones that they will be more than aware of, so should this be the case, let them wear it. It only affects those who let them affect it. Similarly, wearing a crucifix around your neck is a form of branding, the same rules apply here. Wearing a badge with Obama on it saying, "Change," is a form of branding, the same rules apply here. Wearing a Che Guevara top is more a form of branding than people realise, the same rules apply here. As can be seen, there are a plethora of examples. It applies to such a huge variety of our discourse; religion, politics, social issues, football(or any sport) and so on. Either you allow them all or you allow none. That is to say, if one person can wear a crucifix, then where does the logic follow that a badge is an attention seeking thing to wear? It seems, that the fact that I(and in fact a couple of my good friends, shout to out Ciáran here, who has a badge of his own, I don't think anyone will disagree with me here when I say simply, that Ciáran is a buck) am in the minority in the grander scale, that I am simply being contrarian and an attention seeker for adopting an accessory. I will make clear again the idea that it is subtle, and my idea is that I will only discuss it if asked.

Contradictory though it may seem, I felt the desire to lay out this brief particular piece of writing.

Thought on theism(with an a at the start)

Today in what is more or less a discussion class in school(Social Religious Education) we had to position ourselves in accordance with our own view, or supposed view, on the idea of the existence of a deity, not primarily focusing on the school's most humble Roman Catholic one(hmm). Ironically enough, non believers were told to sit on the right wing of the room.
We went, or nearly went, around in a circle when people gave their reason(s) for their respective position. Two things stick in my head which I will get of the way briefly.
(i)The first being one particular persons' claim that whether or the not there is a god, that we should act as if there is, as it gives us someone, or something, to answer to with regards our morals. The teacher proceeded to then say he would have no moral qualms with robbing a bank should he not harbour the aforementioned belief. Though he admitted this was a reductionist claim to make. I thought it polite not to give my own personal response on a degree too insulting as I would eventually, as the saying goes, get my turn. Though I will outline my position here nonetheless - Is it not an insult to human solidarity to say that we need a divine judicial court to prevent us from doing wrong? I am by no means a moral exemplar but the idea that I was any more discouraged from commiting any sort of atrocity when I did have a certain belief would be an insult not just to me, but to my family. I feel this is the kind of response everyone should adopt when told, more or less, that they are immoral without biblical supervision. We must be aware of the moral zeitgeist innate in our own perception of society, not the so called moral code set down pre-medieval times.
(ii) Another class member also stated that whilst the theist belief may not be one he finds plausible to adopt, his outview leaned towards a karma-type system wherein this could be a way of deciding morality and non-morality. My own response to this would be that while it is impossibe to disprove "justice" as a universal law which irons throughout society scientifically, it is one that can be disproved in the sense that we can see the injustice around us and before us. An easy example is that surely Hitler deserved a more horrifying death than the one he did suffer? The idea of karma simply doesn't hold up in my perception primarily because it poses that our own universe actually cares about us, which I simply cannot see any degree of evidence for. It is in fact, a direct contradiction to my own sympathy towards Camus' Adsurdism which whilst my knowledge is limited on, I find it both compelling, morally superior and above all, rational. I would not say this of the person who said this in the class, as it would not be true, but I feel there is an arrogance in saying that the laws of physics and nature vibrate towards justice.

The main point of this was to outline a thought that entered my head on the subject. It can be said that we are all, more or less, agnostic. In that we cannot prove or disprove 'God' in the same way we cannot prove or disprove pink unicorns, Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster, a tea pot in space, and so on(shamelessly plucked from 'The God Delusion'). Though I will say this, does it not depend on how you define God, to say whether or not it can be proved or disproved? My own aim here is to outline how I believe it is feasible to disprove a Catholic, or Christian God, for example.

Let us take into account a god which cannot be disproved. The god of many of the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution. I am talking in particular about Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Paine. This god, in simplified terms, flicked the first domino of our existence, but has since found more consuming things to occupy itself with. It cares nothing for our continued existence, much less about whether or not some of us are homosexual, or whether we eat pork, or whether or not our foreskin has been bladed off, or more commonly hacked off with a stone. This god cannot be disproved by its' very definition. To say that this god set the laws in place but has since taken no interest is a losing game from the outset. A deist could say the proof exists in us, and the lack of any other form of proof, is in fact further proof. It is what I call a logical circle. This god cannot be proved, or disproved. We can be nothing but agnostic towards deistic beliefs.

A Christian God is a bit different, is it not? A Theism such as this has the inherent arrogance to say not only that the Deist God is there, but he is infact still here, and takes great interest in the things I mentioned above. That is to say, a Christian should believe that the deists are partly right, but would go one step further to say he has revealed himself through the prophecies, the scriptures, the magificence of the Earth, and so on. This is why I believe, very plainly, why it is possible to be an atheist with regards this God.
Those who are raised Christian, as I was, are told that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent(yet of course we still have free will, privacy and there is still a lot of evil in the world). The main reason I say that He can be disproved is because of the obvious lies, and obvious contradictions, within the book He supposedly penned. I will be brief and touch only on the points which are most obvious; there is no recognition of dinosaurs existing, there is no reason to believe that there was a Noah's Ark, or that there were ever Jewish slaves in Egypt, or that there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, I could go on but I won't. As well as this, Jesus claims in the New Testament that his return, admist galactic warfare and chaos, will come soon, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." [Luke 21:30-32]. As well as this, very simple things like the Virgin Birth are only mentioned in two of the Gospels.
My point is this, if the God of the Christian religions is what they claim him to be, then why is his own book littered with lies, contradictions, fallacies and obvious tripe? In other words, why do the claims he make not stand up? This is not a scientific attempt at a disproof by any means but I feel that the points I have raised are something which have to be considered when judging your own definition of god, atheist and agnostic.

This is why I believe it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic.

"Land belongs to the Jews,"

Again today whilst reading The Guardian, I came across an article that reeks of the same sort of self-righteous, ill-founded and immoral tripe that yesterday's creationist article stank of.
Major Adrian Agassi, who is an Israeli army judge and military judge is a man who only emigrated to Israel(or the "State of Jews" as he prefers it to be called, which he feels would have avoided confusion) from England after he had been born, bred and educated there. Yet he still feels that there is weight in his sentiment that Jews have God-given, Bible certified right to lay claim to Israel and increasing the amounts of 'settlements in the West Bank' - which is effectively stealing Palestinian land and leaving thousands homeless. In his opinion, the land is Jewish inherently, but peace is not even an aim that can be considered, calling the idea, "against nature," seeing as Jewish-Arab conflict dates back to Biblical times. A little argumentum ad antiquitatem in true religious fashion. Indeed he doesn't even try to deny that this is a war based on so called pages of 'holy scripture', "Is this not a religious war?"
What can we take from this though? This Englishman, from London, comes from a family of Rabbis from Baghdad. Is it unfair to assume that his family would coax his mental development of opinions to think in way he displays? This idea of the 'promised land' is leading to increased conflict, death and religious hatred. No signs of it shoring up are evident from the observable tide.

"54% back the teaching of creationism."

The headline is taken from an article from today's issue of The Guardian written by Jessica Shepherd. It outlined a few harrowing but unsurprising facts(unsurprising that is, if you have been following headlines like this). The poll was taken from 10 countries and it encompassed just under 12,000 people(it was an Ipsos Mori survey). 973 were Britons and around 54% agreed with the statement, "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism." Note that this figure is higher than the US figure, where 991 were surveyed and 51% agreed with the statement.
What is to be taken from this though? Is this an expected figure considering that the vast majority of the populous would still identify themselves with a particular faith should they be questioned on it, and a response leaning towards intelligent designed(ID) is to be expected?
It is becoming increasingly less embarrassing to submit openly that you are a history denier(Richard Dawkins' coined term for those who submit that they do not 'believe' in evolution). A peek at Dawkins' new book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" gives us a wealth of evidence on why it should be embarrassing to claim to the contrary. As far as things becoming 'facts' in science go, evolution is as close to the line as something is likely to get.
I myself was debating with a fellow pupil from my school just last week along a similar tangent. I was referred to as an 'evolutionist' simply by citing that it is foolish to consider creationism a theory at all without opening up the entirity of The Bible to scientific scruntiny, including evidentially bogus events such as Noah's Ark, slavery of Jews in Egypt, and all 'miracles'. Creationism claims that the entire Universe came into existence after the domestication of the dog, and that we are all inbred(I've always been interested in the idea, that if human existence began with one man and one woman, where did the point arrive where skin colour started differing, I've never heard what the creationist approach is on this issue).

Regardless of what your 'opinion' is on the matter, it is still a wholly worrying statistic. Save the bogus religious theory for the church. Scientists, intellectuals and activists are not complaining that 'equal time' is not given to evolution in Sunday mass. Knowing how one sided I appear on the matter, I invite criticism of whatever facts I pointed out, and whatever ones I seemed to have omitted. Also, the picture has little relevance to the topic, but it is hilarious.