The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
Archive for the 'Quotations' Category
Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music.
I was rather appalled to find some comments by Nick Griffin about Haiti on the BBC website. They're from a couple of weeks ago, and apparently he published them on his Twitter site.
Mr Griffin's original postings, on Facebook and Twitter, said: "While the Haiti earthquake is terrible, the winter death toll in Britain will be similar. No aid here though."
About 45,000-50,000 people have died since Tuesday's 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Haiti's capital, Port-au-Prince and 300,000 have been made homeless, according to UN estimates.
The Pan American Health Organization has estimated that the death toll could be as high as 100,000.
Now, it is estimated that there will be something like 45,000 extra deaths this winter, which is high, but nowhere near 100,000 (and I have heard reports on the news that it could be up to 150,000).
In response to criticism, Griffin and his deputy Simon Darby refused to back down. Griffin wrote,
"Individuals should give whatever they feel appropriate, but Britain is bankrupt. Fifty thousands pensioners will die... of cold this winter.
"Boys get blown to bits because we can't afford to armour their Land Rovers.... Sending aid to rioting ingrates while our own people die is stinking elite hypocrisy."
I suppose it shouldn't have surprised me that Griffin should make such comments, given the kinds of things he has said before. But it did – there is a total lack of compassion for anyone outside his little box, no concept of humanity as a whole.
When asked about Griffin's comments, Darby said,
"I'd rather see that £6m that we spent keeping our own people alive. You look after your own first.
"If they've got surplus money to give away to Haiti – how many people have died because we didn't have the infrastructure to grit the roads?"
Now, I can see where statements like this come from – 'charity begins at home' and all that – after all, it wouldn't be right for children to starve just so their parents could give generously to Comic Relief. But that is an example in extremis. If you wait until you are sorted yourself, if you give away only your 'surplus', how much help would we wealthy westerners be to the developing world, whose poverty is often a direct result of our own exploitation of their natural resources?
Any sensible person knows that you are never 'sorted'. There are always extra expenses, more things we 'need'. Our country's infrastructure cannot be sorted for £6m, but many lives can be saved in Haiti. We share a common humanity with these so-called 'rioting ingrates', and the responsibility of those who have to help those who don't would, I suspect, look very different to Griffin and Darby were Haiti the rich developed nation, and Britain the poor country hit by a devastating earthquake.
Charity does not begin at home, and we should not look after our own when we should be helping others. Yes, we need to be sensible and help elderly people pay their fuel bills, maintain our country's road network, etc etc, but we also have a responsibility to help those in dire need, all over the world, simply because they are people too, and no less deserving to live than we are.
The right to live belongs to all humans everywhere – even Nick Griffin and Simon Darby.
Don't you wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence? There's one marked 'Brightness,' but it doesn't work.
I watched an excellent programme on BBC One last night, called the Narnia Code.
One of the points of the documentary was that CS Lewis preferred a medieval understanding of the universe to the modern scientific one, which he claimed made things cold and mechanical.
A couple of the interviewees (which included John Polkinghorne) made this point: science is very good at answering its own questions (how does this work, what happens if we do this, etc).
But there are two important questions that science can't answer:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why is nature ordered and comprehensible?
I'm sure there are others, but these two are a good start. This is from The Voyage of the Dawntreader:
"In our world," said Eustace, "a star is a huge ball of flaming gas."
"Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of."
We need to ask both kinds of questions, I think – and use science and theology together to enrich our understanding of the universe.
Writing on John 4.20, Calvin writes that error lies in 'the confusing of different ages':
Later generations devote themselves to the examples of the fathers, not thinking that a different law of action has been enjoined on them by the Lord. We can ascribe to this ignorance the huge mass of ceremonies with which the Church under the Papacy has been buried. Immediately after the beginning of the Church they began to sin in this way from a foolish and undue affectation of Judaism. The Jews had their sacrifices; and therefore, that Christians also might not be without a show, the rite of sacrificing Christ was invented. ... This madness later broke out more strongly and spread beyond all bounds.
Therefore, that we may not fall into this error, we must always heed the following rule: Incense, lights, sacred vestments, altar, vessels and ceremonies of this kind were formerly pleasing to God; and the reason was that nothing is more aceptable or precious to Him than obedience. We must therefore regard what He enjoins us in the Gospel, so that we may not unthinkingly follow what the fathers observed under the Law. For what was then a sacred observing of the worship of God would now be a wicked sacrilege.
John Calvin, John 1-10 (trans. THL Parker), Paternoster (Carlise, 1995): p.96-97.
The Anglican Church tries to hold together those who lean towards a more Roman Catholic practice of worship, and those who lean towards a more Protestant/Reformed simplicity. Many of us regard this as acceptable, that ceremony is a 'matter of indifference'.
However, here Calvin sees it to be a matter of great significance. He argues that if we 'unthinkingly follow' what was commanded of our fathers, and in so doing ignore what we are commanded to do, we are guilty of 'a wicked sacrilege'.
Calvin's argument is that the practice of ceremony, with 'Incense, lights, sacred vestments...' etc, belongs to a former time, and is not now commanded. In fact (if I understand him correctly) it distracts us from what is enjoined in the Gospel, and so is a matter of disobedience, not indifference.
I don't have an English accent because this is what English sounds like when spoken properly.
design © bcg mmviii
Recent Comments