Tag Archives: religion

Religion and liberty


David Davis

My younger boy had his first communion today, nine years after the other one who blogs sometimes on here. Unlike many other hard-libertarians, I see no conflict whatsoever between the profession of  libertarian ideas, and (with my hard-scientist-hat on) the hypothesis that the astonishing level of observed order in the Universe and its Laws of action _/may/_ be the result of what goes on in God’s Mind.

Creationists have tragcially got the wrong end of the stick. They take folk-tales like the Book of Genesis, written down as the Apostle Paul said quite clearly, “through a glass, darkly”, and try vainly and without hope of success to conflate their supposed meaning to overlay and explain observed reality. It will never work and will only lead to more ructions and maybe “rivers of blood”, but I hope not. Only if the socialists, who cleverly encourage these sadly misguided people for the useful idiots they are, manage to get all the lights turned out and the food-production facilities destroyed, as they wish to do.

The older one has no problem being a libertarian, while heading for a scientist of some kind who can also gig on stage with an electric cello or guitar, and yet can calmly stroll up to the Priest  in Mass. Perhaps the younger will be as lucky. Perhaps this intellectual integration can only be properly accomplished in the Anglosphere?

Advertisements

Army “criticised” for”depicting” Mosques on firing range


Here is one report. Here is another, hopefully with a published comment by me.

David Davis

There is a tragic human confusion and dilemma. It invloves these two concept: on the one hand that of astonishingly beautiful Cosmic Order and underlying logic – which can be observed and is of course validated by the study of Physics and Maths. And it involves also the seemingly innate yearning for some kind of “supreme being” who has (of course) supervised all this created order …. (it MUST have been created, mustn’t it…? Er?) This yearning must have arisen sometime in the last 80,000 – 90,000 years, a timeframe in which modern humans seem to have practised formalised burial-rites, with “grave-goods” and the like. This indicates beliefs in the possibility of an “afterlife”, or an esistence in the presence of others whom we can’t perceive, either “souls” or a “god” or both.

As a scientist, I have never had problems in appreciating the high degree of order that we observe, while also being quite relaxed about the _/possibility/_ (a hypothesis that we cannot currently test as we don’t know how) that there _/might/_ be a divine Intelligence (you can call it what you want) which initially set up some numbers, and them left the mathematical-model running “to see what it might do”. Perhaps “it” was just messing about. We of course do not know and right now we cannot know.

The problem starts to arise in a context where a tribal set’s beliefs become so formalised, and so “having to be adhered to” (in fear of…what exactly?) that any sort of sleight against the vulgate of that tribal set is taken really really personally. Specially if the “offence” is committed by a competing tribal-set. I don’t know if this emotion-set springs from primeval conflicts about access to usable grazing-land, or to oases, or to cattle to farm and milk, or to women for breeding with: perhaps it might.

But what seems to happen is that the symbols – such as (supposedly) Mosques in this case or even churches, become confused with the reality of the beliefs. As I said over at the Daily Mail, no Moslem can possibly think that Allah lives in any particular Mosque, just as no Christian would believe that God inhabits “any” church in particular. If He – Allah or God –  exists as God, then he is nowhere and everywhere simultaneously,  just like “God” is. The dangers arise when irrationality about the nature of The Person of God, and what (if anything) He inhabits, other than the minds and hearts of individual human beings,  interferes with one’s judgement about how other people behave.

My secular-oriented-guess about this little matter is tha some passing GramscoFabiaNazi has spotted these firing ranges near Bellerby (quite pretty, only 90-odd-miles from here), and has tipped off the local Imam, to see if any “p-p-p-political capital” can be made for the race-hate-religio-hate-industry.

The Moslems in the UK ought to wake up and calculate that they are being set up as useful idiots through their more hot-headed “respected scholars”, by this government. This is as a precedent for a group that can be made unpopular, so that “when THEY COME FOR THEM, nobody will speak up for them.” Everybody will say…”bloody Islamic Terrorists! Always complaining and whingeing about something unimportant! Good riddance!”

The Jews – who could be portrayed as even more barbaric and unpopular than Moslems, as many are or have been “bankers” –  can’t be publicly demonised as the first “out-group” quite yet, as it’s still too near the Holocaust (which you’re not allowed to deny either) and this “topic” has not yet been successfully removed from the history “syllabus”. Although “Universities” are starting to denounce jews with “links to Israel”. The rot is setting in – it won’t be long now, before we are back to the 1,000-year-European norm in this matter.

But then THEY’ll come for you….one day…and there’s designed to be nobody left. Sadly, the Moslems here have their “useful idiots” too, who will happily whoop and whinge at inconsequential supposed sleights, over purely sumbolic matters.

The Queen cares more about being “Head of a Church” than…


…looking after her Subjects’ sovereignty.

David Davis

This actually upset me as well as making me realise that the Queen must have deliberately given assent to things like ROME, the SEA, Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon.

If a “Senior Adviser” to the Queen has asked for a meeting with the Asse-Hatte “Rowan” Williams”, then it must mean that the Queen asked for it to take place.

The Pope is perfectly entitled to try and “poach” “Anglicans” from England into the Universal Church, if he can. He’s a classic aggressive campaigning battling Christian Pope of the Old School, and good luck to him: he’s also fun to watch, and smiles often, which makes you want to like him as a person.You can imagine him on a destrier, in full armour, wielding his flanged mace (so as not to shed blood while killing) in the middle of the Battle of Hastings.

Equally, by sovereign constitutional precedent and settlement, the Queen as the Anglican Boss is entitled to try and hold on to her “farm animals”. She might also care to think about defending our liberties sometimes. But what she’s clearly doing right now is a harmless game that has no bearing on how we real individuals live our lives, which are our own: this is one of the few real comforts available to us in a darkening and less free world.

But the Queen – rather than get exercised about playing harmless games – ought to have spent most of the last 50 years resisting far far more dangerous and important threats, both to our status and hers: such as the encroachment of the fascist EU upon especially and in particular British Sovereignty – no?

That’s all very nice then


David Davis

Gordon Brown has said it’s inappropriate, so that’s all right then.

I was intrigued and then also simultaneously amused by the antics of Anjem Choudary, in stating – and then recanting –  the theme that he and his might march through Wootton Bassett with a number of empty coffins.

There is no reason why these fellas ought not to march there, or anywhere else for that matter. But it’s intended to be an insult, for they know we will take it lying down, and a slap in the face. I think it is impolite and is meant to be on purpose. If I was a GramscoFabiaNazi,  then I would do this to the enemies of a  socialist polity, if I possibly could. It is the right strategy to demoralise and upset them.

Poor old Wootton Bassett. Its torments will end with the appointment of another Foreign Secretary: I can’t think who it would be right now, but it would have to be someone good and tough. This town was never meant to have to do, what it now feels it has to do out of ordinary civility and politeness – since nobody from the dead chaps’ employers feels able to turn out.

My amusement of course was unlike what is now perceived by the majority of Middle England, which, owing to its current pre-occupations with celebrity and Wireless Tele Vision, is suddenly surprised and hurt by what the mountebank has said.

This stunt, which Choudary has admitted latterly, does not surprise me in the least, and I was expecting it. It is what I would do, in his position and with his belief-system driving me.

The comment thread here is illuminating and worrying for the future. The volume is staggering. And – they have not even got round to moderating mine, and I posted it 36 hours ago.

This might just work


David Davis thinks that “Burkha Barbies” may help to erase cultural gulfs between the actual world as it is and as it functions, and, er, Moslem young girls in unicultural households.

I don’t know if they’re allowed to play with dolls: I would suspect not. But this might be a transitional effigy, which would help to doconstruct the notion that a top-down/prescriptive/pre-modern survival guide is a religion.

Religions belong to the world of the non-material. Like Christianity, they can often inform liberalist-behaviour. but as recommendations.

« Older Entries