The world breathes a huge sigh of relief. And I was moved by Obama's speech. Admittedly, I watched it online because I couldn't stay up that late- I needed to phone the doctor's surgery at 8... but I digress... What a speech. What an orator. What I particularly loved was his use of "we as a people", echoing Martin Luther King's reference to African-Americans, but applying it to the whole of American society.
Here's hoping he doesn't cock it up.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The Inevitable American Election Post...
Tonight the USA is voting for the next Leader of the Free World. Whoever wins, I hope he does a better job than the last one. I hope he travels far and wide, and gives the rest of us a break. Personally, I hope Obama wins it, as do most Europeans. McCain seems like too much of the same thing again, foreign policy-wise, which is what affects us. But it's not as simple as that. Americans don't all look at their leaders from a foreigner's perspective (heck, why should they?) and domestic policy probably takes precedence, so McCain is more credible than we expect him to be here in the Old World.
Many Christians are going to vote McCain today, mainly on the basis that he is pro-life as opposed to Obama's pro-choice stance. Us British pinko heretic would argue that there is more to politics than the abortion issue, but the Church in the States seems to me to believe this is important enough to decide who governs the country. My problem with the Republican Party in the US is that it holds out the anti-abortion carrot and millions of Christians follow. I was accused by an American voter today of being trite by saying that, and it probably is, but I wonder if McCain would be more "righteous" than Obama. It seems that Obama is actually a churchgoer (though liberal) whereas McCain is not. And so many other issues.
I'm not American, I don't have a vote, and I'm not pretending otherwise. But it would be refreshing to see an Afro-American in the Whitehouse, and to see a President of the USA who gives a monkey's about the outside world.
Many Christians are going to vote McCain today, mainly on the basis that he is pro-life as opposed to Obama's pro-choice stance. Us British pinko heretic would argue that there is more to politics than the abortion issue, but the Church in the States seems to me to believe this is important enough to decide who governs the country. My problem with the Republican Party in the US is that it holds out the anti-abortion carrot and millions of Christians follow. I was accused by an American voter today of being trite by saying that, and it probably is, but I wonder if McCain would be more "righteous" than Obama. It seems that Obama is actually a churchgoer (though liberal) whereas McCain is not. And so many other issues.
I'm not American, I don't have a vote, and I'm not pretending otherwise. But it would be refreshing to see an Afro-American in the Whitehouse, and to see a President of the USA who gives a monkey's about the outside world.
Monday, November 3, 2008
"Such certainty..." (Jo, Spooks BBC1)
It seems to me it has become fashionable to believe that the main problem with terrorists and other nasty people is their absolutist ideology and certainty in what they believe. The comment above refers to some nasty manipulated suicide bombers who try to blow up innocent Londoners. Now don't get me wrong, I deplore all this inhuman violence, but my problem is not with the ideology per se, rather the phenomenon of violence.
I hadn't realised that the perception of absolutism as the problem was prevalent in this country until tonight. We are all aware of the popular hate of any absolutist religious belief, although for some reason Dawkins and some of his popularisers (Marcus Brigstocke, Jeremy Hardy et al) seem to think that absolutist atheism doesn't fall into this category. But applying this to Islamic bombers worries me since it suggests that all those who believe strongly and earnestly in something are put in the same category. I believe this is seriously wrong. It is violence and exlusively violence that is the problem. And therefore I would argue that Ian Paisley is not as bad as George W Bush.
This belief in seeing ideology as the problem is very popular in the Madrid-based media in Spain. They see ETA (the Basque Separatist Terrorist Group) as erroneous because of their violence, obviously, but increasingly because of their ideology. It worries me that so many Spaniards can't understand the idea of believing storngly in a cause, and therefore they suspect a financial motive for terrorists' membership of the organisation. Because of this, the Spanish press has demonised all Basque nationalism and implies that it is nationalism that needs to be eliminated, not violence.
The solution is this: Even if someone earnestly believes you are going to burn in the fires of Hell, as long as they don't harm you- or seek to have you harmed, I cannot see a problem. If you don't believe in God, their belief is quite ridiculous so you shouldn't even take it seriously. If they want to hurt you, then that is quite another matter, regardless of their belief. They could even share the same ideology as you yourself, but if they want to cause violence they are in the wrong.
I know I sound like a lilly-livered (sp?) hippy pacifist, and haven't entered the whole Just War thing etc., but basically I just wanted to argue against the idea of Thought Crimes while supporting every step to eliminate violence from our world.
I hadn't realised that the perception of absolutism as the problem was prevalent in this country until tonight. We are all aware of the popular hate of any absolutist religious belief, although for some reason Dawkins and some of his popularisers (Marcus Brigstocke, Jeremy Hardy et al) seem to think that absolutist atheism doesn't fall into this category. But applying this to Islamic bombers worries me since it suggests that all those who believe strongly and earnestly in something are put in the same category. I believe this is seriously wrong. It is violence and exlusively violence that is the problem. And therefore I would argue that Ian Paisley is not as bad as George W Bush.
This belief in seeing ideology as the problem is very popular in the Madrid-based media in Spain. They see ETA (the Basque Separatist Terrorist Group) as erroneous because of their violence, obviously, but increasingly because of their ideology. It worries me that so many Spaniards can't understand the idea of believing storngly in a cause, and therefore they suspect a financial motive for terrorists' membership of the organisation. Because of this, the Spanish press has demonised all Basque nationalism and implies that it is nationalism that needs to be eliminated, not violence.
The solution is this: Even if someone earnestly believes you are going to burn in the fires of Hell, as long as they don't harm you- or seek to have you harmed, I cannot see a problem. If you don't believe in God, their belief is quite ridiculous so you shouldn't even take it seriously. If they want to hurt you, then that is quite another matter, regardless of their belief. They could even share the same ideology as you yourself, but if they want to cause violence they are in the wrong.
I know I sound like a lilly-livered (sp?) hippy pacifist, and haven't entered the whole Just War thing etc., but basically I just wanted to argue against the idea of Thought Crimes while supporting every step to eliminate violence from our world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)