Cats, opiates and other distractions
Indeed. Cats know they don't like chilli sauce. Particularly those cats that have tried it before and turned their feline noses up at it in a thoroughly non-equivocal style. So why, then, are they obsessed with trying to eat your kebab, which they know is drenched in chilli sauce? Clearly, they just haven't thought it through.
In any event, we move on. As we all must.
I was on a train, yesterday (or, to be more accurate, the day before yesterday, since as I write this, it's considerably past midnight...) Two things inspired me to write this. One, a piece of extremely unpleasant toilet based graffiti (or whatever the singular of graffiti is...) which read "Islam is for retards" and Nick Cohen's Observer article, in which he gave a (mostly) reasonable argument for opposing Blunkett's bill to make incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence. Any reasonable individual reading the toilet graffiti would be offended, and quite rightly so. However, as the increasingly right-wing and increasingly mendacious Cohen points out, legislation is not the answer (as an aside, I used to like Nick Cohen, much as I used to like Christopher Hitchens. However, as Hitchens becomes more and more obsessed with ensuring he retains his invitations to those fashionable Washington drinks parties, his attachment to the truth has diminished. A similar criticism can be made of Cohen, although without the same rationale. To cite just one instance, he (and indeed, Hitchens) stated that all leftist, secular groups in Iraq supported the US invasion. Not even remotely true - both journalists are well aware of the existence of the Kurdish communist party - both used to quote it a few years back, when they pretended to care about these things - and yet both ignored its opposition. And that was just one of the largest groups. But I digress). Legislation would just be used to increase censorship - and the blasphemy laws already allow enough of that (albeit from a purely Christian perspective). Not merely that, it would also be futile - as Cohen correctly recognises, all religions believe that they alone posses The Truth, and that any deviation from this will inevitable lead to a fiery doom for all eternity (or some such equivalent). As an aside, an ex-girlfriend of mine once told me I would go to hell. Which was nice. She, obviously, wouldn't, since she accepted Jesus as her saviour (although she didn't seem to pay too much attention to the prohibitions on pre-marital sex, which just goes to show how these "philosophies" are pretty much "pick and mix"....) Did I really write that? These things clearly still grate, even after all these years!
Anyway, where was I? The truth, I believe. Fundamentalist Christians believe that, if you fail to accept the Christian bible as the literal truth, you will go to hell. Fundamentalist Muslims feel much the same way about the Koran. Similarly fundamentalist Jews and the Torah. Since most of these documents aren't even internally consistent (and ask any fundamentalist what the value of Pi is - if they say anything other than 3, they've not read 1 Kings 7:23. If they say 3, don't trust them to navigate anywhere. Ever.), the chances of various disparate sects ever agreeing is minimal. And since they're all duty bound to convert the others, to save their immortal souls, they can only accuse each other of peddling falsehoods, and breaking the laws designed to protect them and their ridiculous beliefs.
Having said all that, Cohen's article does betray his unpleasant side - for example, accusing Ken Livingstone of being political allies with fundamentalist Muslims. I'm no great admirer of Livingstone - indeed, I believe him to be something of an opportunist - but that sort of criticism would be akin to someone describing the BNP as being political allies of Cohen, since they share similar opinions on Iraq (and, it seems, on Islam).
One does wonder what's prompted his move to the right. One can only really conclude that it's down to watching his hero Hitchens doing the same thing, and possibly the idea that he could get a much bigger salary spewing out Melanie Phillips-esque bile for the Daily Mail than writing a thoughtful, questioning column in the Observer. Which is really rather sad.
On a brighter note, hello to my friend Laura, who reads this. You're wasting your time, though, Laura. It's all pointless drivel.
In any event, we move on. As we all must.
I was on a train, yesterday (or, to be more accurate, the day before yesterday, since as I write this, it's considerably past midnight...) Two things inspired me to write this. One, a piece of extremely unpleasant toilet based graffiti (or whatever the singular of graffiti is...) which read "Islam is for retards" and Nick Cohen's Observer article, in which he gave a (mostly) reasonable argument for opposing Blunkett's bill to make incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence. Any reasonable individual reading the toilet graffiti would be offended, and quite rightly so. However, as the increasingly right-wing and increasingly mendacious Cohen points out, legislation is not the answer (as an aside, I used to like Nick Cohen, much as I used to like Christopher Hitchens. However, as Hitchens becomes more and more obsessed with ensuring he retains his invitations to those fashionable Washington drinks parties, his attachment to the truth has diminished. A similar criticism can be made of Cohen, although without the same rationale. To cite just one instance, he (and indeed, Hitchens) stated that all leftist, secular groups in Iraq supported the US invasion. Not even remotely true - both journalists are well aware of the existence of the Kurdish communist party - both used to quote it a few years back, when they pretended to care about these things - and yet both ignored its opposition. And that was just one of the largest groups. But I digress). Legislation would just be used to increase censorship - and the blasphemy laws already allow enough of that (albeit from a purely Christian perspective). Not merely that, it would also be futile - as Cohen correctly recognises, all religions believe that they alone posses The Truth, and that any deviation from this will inevitable lead to a fiery doom for all eternity (or some such equivalent). As an aside, an ex-girlfriend of mine once told me I would go to hell. Which was nice. She, obviously, wouldn't, since she accepted Jesus as her saviour (although she didn't seem to pay too much attention to the prohibitions on pre-marital sex, which just goes to show how these "philosophies" are pretty much "pick and mix"....) Did I really write that? These things clearly still grate, even after all these years!
Anyway, where was I? The truth, I believe. Fundamentalist Christians believe that, if you fail to accept the Christian bible as the literal truth, you will go to hell. Fundamentalist Muslims feel much the same way about the Koran. Similarly fundamentalist Jews and the Torah. Since most of these documents aren't even internally consistent (and ask any fundamentalist what the value of Pi is - if they say anything other than 3, they've not read 1 Kings 7:23. If they say 3, don't trust them to navigate anywhere. Ever.), the chances of various disparate sects ever agreeing is minimal. And since they're all duty bound to convert the others, to save their immortal souls, they can only accuse each other of peddling falsehoods, and breaking the laws designed to protect them and their ridiculous beliefs.
Having said all that, Cohen's article does betray his unpleasant side - for example, accusing Ken Livingstone of being political allies with fundamentalist Muslims. I'm no great admirer of Livingstone - indeed, I believe him to be something of an opportunist - but that sort of criticism would be akin to someone describing the BNP as being political allies of Cohen, since they share similar opinions on Iraq (and, it seems, on Islam).
One does wonder what's prompted his move to the right. One can only really conclude that it's down to watching his hero Hitchens doing the same thing, and possibly the idea that he could get a much bigger salary spewing out Melanie Phillips-esque bile for the Daily Mail than writing a thoughtful, questioning column in the Observer. Which is really rather sad.
On a brighter note, hello to my friend Laura, who reads this. You're wasting your time, though, Laura. It's all pointless drivel.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home