Woof Woof Woof

As I said below, I was intending to post a serious point or two on the nature of belief, truth and so on...and still will if I have more than a few minutes.

However this caught my eye this morning.

Dog lead goths 'hounded off bus'

A goth who leads his girlfriend around with a dog lead and collar was stopped from getting on a bus amid fears for passenger safety, a bus firm confirmed.

So the bus company believe there's a chance that the driver may brake sharply and propel these two love birds forward in such a way that the chain wraps itself around old Mrs Baker from No32, thereby strangling her to death.

Yes, of course they do.

But then why do many buses allow dogs on leads (in fact they tend to insist on leads). Surely there's as much chance of "Rover" killing me under heavy breaking as the young lady goth in question.

And what about guide dogs? All that harness...deadly on a sharp bend.

And although I haven't seen such a claim yet, I'm just waiting for the first "this is demeaning to women" comment to surface as justification for insisting they take the "lead" off.

Well yep, it probably is; although the girl is adamant that it was her idea.

But if we are going to ban any female dressed in a way that demeans women, I'm guessing a large proportion of girls under the age of thirty will have to take alternative transport. Just consider how many are fooled into thinking the only way to be attractive to a man is to walk around half naked like a Britney Spears lookalike...if that's not deaming to women, I'm not sure what is.

Or at the other extreme (sort of), would the bus company refuse to let a Muslim woman travel for wearing a veil?

Of course it's all crap...the driver(s) don't like...or understand...or perhaps are a little fearful of this couple.

Well fine...I don't understand the goth thing particularly either. A fair proportion of my children's friends have been into it at some time or the other. I just thought they were a little weird...which I should think is partly the point anyway - my parents thought I was weird; and that made me very happy!

But lets not dress it up(goth or otherwise)...it's discrimination, plain and simple.

discrimination liberty freedom goth fashion

Hugs all round

I read a lot of blogs...and I comment on them in the same manner as I blog...in short bursts of furious activity followed by silence.....

So over the last week I have commented on dozens!!!

One that caught my eye was this post by yellow.

Originally I was caught by the post itself...His point was (he is a university chaplain, obviously)

I was looking at the postgrad prospectus the other day and one line about the chaplaincy struck me:

“Embracing all faiths the chaplaincy welcomes all students”

Now the second part of that statement I agree with but I found the first part troubling. Firstly it’s just not true.

I thought to myself "I couldn't agree more". Of course we (Christians) should accept, love and care for all people, whatever their beliefs...but wait a minute - embracing all faiths?

I'm sorry, when the church (or parachurch) starts to talk like this, you know they are missing the point! Jesus did not embrace all faiths - and anyone who claims that He did has either not read or has not understood the plain meaning of the New Testament!

There is a huge difference between accepting another human being (whether Hindu, Muslim or Atheist) and embracing their faith.

Now it is just possible that those who wrote that prospectus didn't actually mean it to come out like that - perhaps they meant it in the sense of "not turning anyone away, whatever their faith".

But I don't think so...and clearly neither does yellow...

I was more concerned with the idea that I embrace all faiths. Clearly I don’t.

Good on you, mate! But what led me to want to comment was the next bit.

I’m not talking here about Muslims or Jews or Sikhs or Hindus. These are all respectable faiths; I’m talking here about the Scientologists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Mormons. How can we embrace their doctrine?

Some things people believe... well, they are just weird aren’t they? I’m not being a blind bigot here. Can anyone seriously expect me to take a world view with Xemu the alien ruler of the Galactic Federation depositing souls here on interstellar Douglas DC-8s as seriously as... say... the Quran? Can I put the Mormons on the same footing as Hindus?

Whoa hold on a minute...what makes something a "respectable faith"? How do we sort out some kind of hierarchy of belief?

That made me think, if push comes to shove how would it look? I guess my list would start with Christianity as the only perfectly sensible one, followed by Judaism (Well, they're nearly right, aren't they?). And at the other end, the extreme nutter end, I would probably agree and put Scientology up there ( my goodness, have you heard Tom Cruise lately?) and right at the end would be Atheism (I wonder what would upset an atheist most, that I call them nutters or that I include them in a list of faiths? - but I digress).

My problem with this is that it is basically random. How can we decide which set of beliefs is more sensible than another set? What we consider to be loopy is as much to do with our culture and worldview as any subjective judgement. Now I've read the Hindu scriptures...frankly I think the JWs are less nutty....at least they believe in one God!

But that's not my point either...

Christianity is at the same time exclusive and inclusive.

In terms of it's truth, in the claims of Jesus, it is utterly exclusive - He claimed to be the only way to God. I know that's not very PC or post-modern but tough...as the tee-shirt say "God said it -'nuff said".

In terms of it's love for mankind, it is utterly inclusive! Jesus doesn't care how loopy your beliefs is today (or for that matter how evil your actions) you still get a second chance with Him. And yes I know we, His followers screw that one up regularly...but then if we were perfect we wouldn't need a Saviour.

So I was going to comment as such on yellow's post...and I did comment, but I didn't say any of this. As I hit the comment button something else caught my attention...and that's the subject of my next post.

faith belief atheism christianity religion

Pandora Tomorrow? - Unlikely

I love Pandora!!!

If you don't know, Pandora is a site that streams music...

...the excellent aspect of it is that you create your own stations according to what they call a music "genome".

In essence, this means that you start a station by choosing an artist or even a single song and they then play music that has the same "qualities".

I have created several stations which I can play according to my mood....perhaps I want to listen to little celtic/esotric stuff...perhaps to a bit of rock...or maybe some indi...it's all there for me.

So what? Well I recently received an email from the site's founder which explained...

we worked diligently with the rights organizations to negotiate an economically workable license fee. After over a year of trying, this has proved impossible. Both the PPL (which represents the record labels) and the MCPS/PRS Alliance (which represents music publishers) have demanded per track performance minima rates which are far too high to allow ad supported radio to operate and so, hugely disappointing and depressing to us as it is, we have to block the last territory outside of the US.

Now, in the year or so since I discovered pandora, I have been introduced to at least twenty (and that's just the number I can remember as I sit here) artists that I hadn't heard (or had heard of) - nine of which I have since bought an album by!!!

As the email goes on to say...

It continues to astound me and the rest of the team here that the industry is not working more constructively to support the growth of services that introduce listeners to new music and that are totally supportive of paying fair royalties to the creators of music.

Too right...

More...

I don't often say such things, but the course being charted by the labels and publishers and their representative organizations is nothing short of disastrous for artists whom they purport to represent - and by that I mean both well known and indie artists. The only consequence of failing to support companies like Pandora that are attempting to build a sustainable radio business for the future will be the continued explosion of piracy, the continued constriction of opportunities for working musicians, and a worsening drought of new music for fans. As a former working musician myself, I find it very troubling.

And the consequence for me...

We have been told to sign these totally unworkable license rates or switch off, non-negotiable...so that is what we are doing. Streaming illegally is just not in our DNA, and we have to take the threats of legal action seriously.

Well, thanks go out to the music industry...

I have contacts/friend all over the world...some of them have not bought a piece of music legally for years (its ALL there if you know where to look!)

I tend to get on my high moral ground over this issue when I chat to them (especially being a musician - although never producing anything that was likely to make me any money!!!)...and I probably won't resort to illegal downloading...but frankly if more and more people do, the industry only has itself to blame!!!

Idiots!
pandora
music downloading illegal pandora

To donate or not to donate...

PM backs automatic organ donation

As a Christian, I of course believe that when I die I go to be with Christ...this has made my decision to carry a doner card over the years an exceptionally easy one...I really won't need this old body...I get a new one!!!

So...I have carried an organ doner card for the last twenty five years.

However, if this goes ahead, I shall (sadly) stop. And instead carry whatever I need to prevent them from using my organs.
Not because I am worried about some over enthusiastic doctor turning my life support off (although I would not rule that out!) or that I think they might whip out my kidneys while I am still breathing my last on the operating table...
But because I believe that it is not the state's place to decide what happens to my body after death!

I have struggled since the last change in the law, when they removed the rights of my wife or other relatives to go against my wishes...
My wife has always agreed with my decision to donate my organs (as I have hers) but in the moment of grief...yes, in that irrational moment of suffering, I wanted her to have the right to say "no!" - the right to be irrational...the right to change her mind...


...is this attitude selfish?...probably...

...is it logical?...probably not...

...but at my death, do my family's wishes come first?...too right they do!!!

Who do I care most about; who would I be most concerned about if I should die tomorrow? Surprise, surprise, it is my wife and children!

But I have managed to push this aside for what I suppose I belived is the greatest good...

...but now?

This proposed change might very well push me over the edge...sorry Mr Brown...hands off...

I say might...because there's a line in the BBC report...

unless people opted out of the register or family members objected,

(my emphases)

Is it possible that our government might be backtracking on this?

If this truly means that they would once more allow the wishes of relatives to take their rightful place, perhaps I can remain a doner...it would be against the trend of our nanny state, but let us hope!


organ donation health ethics rights christianity government state