Cameron's Christianity Codswallop

David Cameron's pronouncements yesterday on Christianity are confused and send out mixed messages. He trumpets that we are a Christian country, when for many practical purposes we are not (see here) - Cameron himself said he was only a vaguely practicing Christian and over half the country said they were non-religious in the latest social attitudes survey! He calls for the revival of traditional Christian values but says he is full of doubts on major theological issues (see here). He's hardly setting a Christian standard is he, so what is he playing at?

His stated idea is that the return of Christian values would help us fight our 'moral collapse'. He's wrong to think that Christianity and the Bible or any other religion and its texts are the basis of our morality. Human beings developed a sense of what is right and wrong long before any formal relgions existed and very likely for evolutionary reasons.

Instead of pronouncing on Christianity his focus should be on effective, practical action to tackle the poor moral standards so evident in politics, policing, banking and financial services, in the media, and in the Christian Church itself. I'm fed up with expenses scandals, police corruption, greedy bankers and business-people, 'mafia-like' newspaper organisations, sexism, homophobia, child abuse scandals...and the advocacy of materialism we've long had from all political colours.

He should be looking at the privileged, influential position of Christianity in the UK and planning to make us a better secular society. He should think through whether the Bible is actually a consistent guide to anything at all. Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that '...the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unkown to each other, spanning nine centuries...unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living.'

David Cameron should recognise that actually his doubt is a good thing. Doubt means you are thinking. It means you are asking questions, not accepting the status quo - seeking change for the better. Doubt helps us break away from unjustifiable traditions. With no evidence for the existence of God - quite the contrary in fact - and no convincing arguments either, why believe? If there is a God why is there so much undeserved suffering in the world eg those homeless, cold, hungry, thirsty, lonely, subject to war, terrorism and crime, in hospital...? As Woody Allen said God 'is an underachiever' !

The 400th anniversary of the King James Bible that prompted David Cameron's comments has its significance of course. This book is a major, if not the major work of English literature. Atheist Richard Dawkins sums this up nicely in The God Delusion, '...the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them.'.

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16231223

*http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/952

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16224394

*http://www.bristol247.com/2011/12/12/your-say-on-what-grounds-can-we-claim-to-be-a-christian-country-68525/

Capitalist ideology dominates cuts decisions

Excellent piece by George Monbiot (see quote below). The spending cuts process is dominated by Tory capitalist ideology more than practical necessity. The Lib Dems are backing the Tories to the hilt - so much for Vince Cable's concerns about capitalism (this never did have substance anyway especially given that he is privatising the Royal Mail and backs the establishment of a free market in tuition fees...ie he is extending capitalism!! More on this issue soon.).

Monbiot.com » Britain’s Shock Doctrine

...Public bodies whose purpose is to hold corporations to account are being swept away. Public bodies whose purpose is to help boost corporate profits, regardless of the consequences for people and the environment, have sailed through unharmed. What the two lists suggest is that the economic crisis is the disaster the Conservatives have been praying for. The government’s programme of cuts looks like a classic example of disaster capitalism: using a crisis to re-shape the economy in the interests of business....

Wealth: water or diamonds? What is worth more to the thirsty and hungry?

Ed Miliband drew on the well known Oscar Wilde quote ‘What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.’ in his first conference speech as Labour leader. Strange coming from a man who directly equates ever increasing money flow through our economy (GDP growth) with progress and wellbeing. Ed, along with Tory David Cameron and Lib Dem Nick Clegg, supports and advocates a corrupted notion of wealth which is narrow, materialist and cash-value centred.

Wealth creation has come to mean the stockpiling of affluence, running down finite natural resources, wasting and mismanaging potentially renewable resources like water such that many people around the globe struggle even to get enough to drink and wash. What is worth more to the thirsty and hungry – water or diamonds?

‘Value’ is largely what can be bought and sold if you have Ed’s (and Dave’s and Nick’s) view. The rich continue to hoard, deny the poor, and build for their leisure, recreation and luxury. The poorest around the globe continue to be unable to meet their basic needs such as decent public clean water supply and healthy sewage disposal systems. In fact the rich (and relatively speaking that’s most of us living in the Western hemisphere) are rich precisely because others are poor – GDP growth, Ed’s, Dave’s and Nick’s primary focus, has been very large over many decades and in many countries but numbers unable to meet basic needs are also very high!

We are GDP growing out of proportion to the proper, healthy working of life support systems. These systems include: those that can continually supply rainwater; those that keep our climate in a reasonably stable balance; those that process our soils, keeping them productive; many that keep ecosystems in a diverse state. Furthermore, we are sapping the energies and threatening the existence of the whole interconnected water, air, soil and biodiversity system – yet this is the source of our resources and the basis of our lives and thus is our true wealth.

We are also GDP growing out of proportion to the healthy working of socio-economic systems. Acting on the notion of wealth creation as increasing money flow through our economy has resulted in relatively small numbers of individuals and institutions with inordinate, concentrated cash and property. This inequality and unfairness decreases quality of life and as time passes is increasingly destabilising. Very strange, then, that Ed – and Dave and Nick – talk so much about building a fair society.

To benefit people and planet, GDP growth needs to pass tests of: efficiency; renewability; respecting environmental limits; building stronger local communities; meeting needs now and in the future; local and global fairness; health, wellbeing and quality of life. This means taking a very different view of wealth.

For more on water and related issues see: http://blogactionday.change.org/

MPs' expenses – live | Politics | guardian.co.uk

MPs' expenses – live Politics guardian.co.uk

The '...zombie economy that inhabits a netherworld between life and death' (The Cuts Wont Work)

I agree very strongly with the second report of the Green New Deal group entitled 'The Cuts Wont Work' (extract below from the Executive Summary) available from the New Economics Foundation when they assert that their Green New Deal will reduce the public debt, cut carbon emissions, increase energy security and reduce fuel poverty:

*

The notion that the most acute financial crisis since the Great Depression is now a thing of the past sounds unerringly like the politicians who, in August 1914, promised that the Great War would be all over by Christmas. Instead, it was the start of a 30-year crisis that embraced two world wars, an economic slump unrivalled since the dawn of the industrial age, and the rise of brutal totalitarian governments. Just as in 1914, the global balance of power is changing, with China threatening America’s hegemony in the way that America and Germany rivalled Britain a century ago. Just as in 1914, an established economic order has been uprooted. Then it was the Gold Standard, free trade and unrestricted capital flows. Today it is the dollar, free trade and unrestricted capital flows.

Add in the new ingredients – the battle for control over resources and global warming – and everything is in place for a prolonged period of upheaval. There will be periods, similar to that in the middle to late 1920s, when the global economy goes through a benign patch, but the respite will be brief. Even feeble economies show occasional signs of health if they are provided with enough support. But make no mistake: what we have now is a zombie economy that inhabits a netherworld between life and death.

Yes to cleaning up politics - but lets get deep reform of the political system too!

Radio 4 – 21 May 2009, 8:40am, transcript of interview about cleaning up politics and deep reform of the political system.

(JN – interviewer James Naughtie)
(CL - Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader, MEP for the South East and Parliamentary Candidate in Brighton)

JN – "You, of course are not in the House of Commons."

CL – "Not yet"

JN – "Let’s not go there at the moment. Looking at it, from the
outside, do you think we going to get deeper reform than simply
cleaning up expenses and allowances?"

CL – "I certainly hope we do. I do believe that there really is a once
in a generation opportunity here … that there is so much anger, not
just about the expenses issue, but about the way that’s symbolic of a
Parliamentary system that is pretty rotten. If you look at how
unrepresentative the people are who supposedly represent us in
Westminster, the very few numbers of women, the very few numbers of
ethnic minorities, if you look at the way that there are so many safe
seats where people just don’t think it’s worth voting anymore. There’s
an interesting correlation between those in those very safe seats, and
those who are most likely to be abusing the system. Basically, they
have felt very complacent. We need to shake that up."

JN – "Then you’re making an argument for electoral reform."

CL – "Absolutely. We need to have a much fairer voting system, some
sort of system of proportional representation, where the people in
Westminster will look more like the people that actually elect them,
not just men in grey suits, doing things behind closed doors, that
people don’t understand, and when they do understand, they feel very
very angry.

JN – "We’ve been here before. The argument about PR has been going on
for, a very long time, let’s say, 25 years in the public context.
There has never been sufficient weight of opinion in the House of
Commons really to get it on the formal agenda. What makes you think it
will happen now?"

CL – "Because we are in completely unprecedented times. You spent the
last 24 hours talking about how amazing it is that the Speaker has
been forced out. Never done before in 300 years. We really do have an
enormous opportunity here. There’s that lovely phrase from the chief
of staff of the White House, "Don’t waste a crisis." This is a very
big crisis, but don’t waste it. We don’t need to just deal with the
expenses system, awful though that is. We really need a root and
branch transformation of our Parliament, so people can feel proud
about it again, so that public life is something honourable again – it
certainly isn’t today - so the whole parliamentary system is alive
again. Parliament shouldn’t just be something that happens behind
closed doors in Westminister. Politics needs to be much more vibrant,
much more alive. This is a real opportunity to do that.

MPs expenses and Nolan's Seven Principles of Public Life

Its all over the news that MPs are writing cheques to give back money they now think they should not have claimed on expenses etc. They certainly should pay back money. We'll still be left with the many MPs who showed themselves incapable of telling right from wrong when putting in expenses claims though. Yes the pay and expenses system needs to be changed (MPs should not be setting their own pay and expenses) but the lets also get rid of the MPs (and MEPs) devoid of scruples, oblivious to or contemptuous of what is right or honorable.

The 'Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life was set up in 1994 as a result of public concern about the financial probity of holders of public office. It was concerned with standards in public life generally and particularly where public funds were involved.' (details here). Many MPs have very clearly not stood by Nolan's Seven Principles of Public Life:

Selflessness

Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

Integrity

Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity

In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness

Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty

Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership

Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/12/mps-pay-back-expenses

Happiness: no laughing matter

Given the incessant drive for material gain, as expressed by the fact that the overwhelming priority of government is to achieve more and more economic growth, one could be forgiven for thinking that you can somehow buy happiness. On the contrary however, there is a wealth of evidence, as discussed at the Bristol Happiness Lectures held on May 17 2008, to show that this is not the case. Despite being much wealthier than in the 1950’s one survey for the BBC series The Happiness Formula showed that in 1957 57% of British people said they were very happy compared with just 36% in 2006. In most economically developed countries those saying that they are happy has been static or falling for 50 yrs.

So, what is going on here? Does wealth not count towards happiness at all? Happiness research shows that once people reach a certain wealth level, some say £10,000/yr, others the national average income of about £23,000, more money does not on average make people or the country happier.

Why this is so has been explored by people like psychologist Oliver James, one of the key speakers at the Bristol Happiness Lectures along with Dr Chris Johnstone from the University of Bristol, in his books Affluenza (derived from the terms affluence and influenza) and The Selfish Capitalist. An affluenza suffering society is where people are overloaded and stressed due to fast, urban lifestyles and long hours of work. They are often in debt, anxious, depressed and wasteful/polluting because of their dogged pursuit of more and more. People try to ‘keep up with the Joneses’ but gain no fulfillment from this as they go around the viscious circle of consumption.

Buying does not generally make people happy – apparently walking through a shopping mall increases stress and lowers self-esteem (whereas walking in the park or countryside relieves stress). Our society clearly does assign a high value to money, possessions and appearance, making affluenza and associated emotional distress more likely. It may also promote the banishment of negative thoughts in place of realism, even though people like James and Johnstone say this is not always advisable. Those banishing negative thoughts may well play down threats in place of facing them and may go further, taking riskier decisions than is wise. It strikes me that this could be a part of climate change denial for instance.

Enough of the negative! What can be done to make us happier? Dr Chris Johnstone says that its meaning, purpose and facing up to world problems that builds happiness. He sees very strong connections between sustainability and happiness issues – tackling one helps tackle the other. Contented families, strong local communities, meaningful work and building a future that is cleaner, safer and more efficient is what is needed then. Economically it mean addressing inequalities and emphasising stability, security and localisation in place of growth and globalisation ie different goals and adopting a different world-view. This means transforming politics, which is what Greens are about.

Robert Burns and today's debate on materialism

Many will be celebrating ‘Burns Night’ tonight. The anti-materialist poet and lyricist Robert Burns was born on this day in 1759. This years celebrations coincide neatly with live discussion on the issue of materialism (see yesterday’s blog entry on which sorts of economic growth are good for example). Also, Green MEP Caroline Lucas has said that ‘Happiness does not derive from infinite economic growth and material wealth, but from contented families, strong communities and meaningful work’ in a new book of collected essays written by very wide range of people. The book edited by Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundation and Joe Smith of the Open University, asks ‘Do Good Lives Have To Cost The Earth?’.

I find the poetry and songs of Burns inspirational as I’ve said in a previous post (see another sample of his work below). We have a good deal to learn from what he expresses. A new book on the man, written by my fellow Open University lecturer Alan Jackson, ‘Robert Burns – Icon or Challenger’, discusses how Burns might view today’s Scotland, compared with how Scotland today sees him. Burns vigorously opposed materialism, yet much of the modern world, Scotland included, persists in the belief that material progress equals the good life. We gear our economy and society to the aim of material progress, while scientific evidence, not least on climate change and human wellbeing, amasses showing the huge problems this is bringing.

"Is There For Honest Poverty", by Robert Burns, more commonly known as "A Man's A Man For A' That", (standard English translation):

Is there for honest poverty
That hangs his head, and all that?
The coward slave, we pass him by -
We dare be poor for all that!
For all that, and all that,
Our toils obscure, and all that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The man's the gold for all that.

What though on homely fare we dine,
Wear course grey woolen, and all that?
Give fools their silks, and knaves their wine -
A man is a man for all that.
For all that, and all that,
Their tinsel show, and all that,
The honest man, though ever so poor,
Is king of men for all that.

You see yonder fellow called 'a lord,'
Who struts, and stares, and all that?
Though hundreds worship at his word,
He is but a dolt for all that.
For all that, and all that,
His ribboned, star, and all that,
The man of independent mind,
He looks and laughs at all that.

A prince can make a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, and all that!
But an honest man is above his might -
Good faith, he must not fault that
For all that, and all that,
Their dignities, and all that,
The pith of sense and pride of worth
Are higher rank than all that.

Then let us pray that come it may
(As come it will for a' that)
That Sense and Worth over all the earth
Shall have the first place and all that!
For all that, and all that,
It is coming yet for all that,
That man to man the world over
Shall brothers be for all that.

For more on Robert Burns, you could do worse than read this Guardian piece.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2242983,00.html