e-mail sent to Muslim colleague after discussions with an atheist

The problem with the Godless is that they work all their morals out from a false premise - which they believe are "first principles", whereas we work ours out from the word of God and/or the divinely inspired writings/thoughts of others. As they don't believe in God, they find our starting point ridiculous and thus all our conclusions.

They generally believe in moral relativism until we cross their line - then we're just idiots who base our morals on "fairy stories".

As I'm a moral absolutist, I know they're wrong. ;-)

Catholic churches around Reading

Let us start with the most impressive church, the Polish community's Sacred Heart of Jesus (between town and the RBH).

Now, for Pugin's beautiful St James (next to the Prison).

The slightly austere St William of York (where Latin Mass takes place) up near the University.  Lovely Masses and a beautiful statue of Mary.

This next picture is of my Parish, Our Lady of Peace and Blessed Dominc Barberi (at the traffic lights on the Wokingham Road). Built in 1970s and looks it; there are, unsurprisingly, very few pictures on the internet. The inside of the church proper is an octagon! (What were they thinking?)

Here's St John Bosco, Woodley (where I did my RCIA). The outside doesn't do it justice. Despite being only a few years older than Our Lady of Peace, the inside is both beautiful and serene. Honest!

St Anne's in Caversham. Looks a bit better from the other side. Has a shrine. I've never been in it.

Haven't been over to Tilehurst to see this one, but English Martyrs certainly seems impressive!

Finally, here's Christ the King in Whitley. Haven't been here either, but I like it's traditional proportions.

Catholic bloggers for Libel Reform - Fight for Free Speech

Yes it's not just your favourite left-wing comedians and evidence-based scientists who want libel reform, it's us, too: your friendly, neighbourhood Catholic bloggers who are open to attacks by our current ludicrous system. (Not that this blog is exclusively about Catholicism, but there you go).

The image and text below is taken from the wonderful Red Maria's blog entry.

This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law; a law which is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.

In light of recent events on the British Catholic blogosphere, Catholic bloggers should be particularly aware that English libel law is a pernicious tool in the hands of bullies everywhere.

The English libel law is particularly dangerous for bloggers who are generally not backed by publishers and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.

Priestly bloggers face the additional threat of being abandoned to their fates by the very bishops who should be supporting them as a matter of principle.

You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. The campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.

The British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel but it is imperative that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they keep their promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at 

http://www.libelreform.org/sign 

You can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.

The current situation is untenable; English libel law is the most censorious libel law in the democratic world. It serves established interests at the expense of freedom of speech and expression. It must be reformed for the good of everybody and for the good of the Church.
We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at 

http://www.libelreform.org/sign

On Student Finance

Some advice to students to help them stop extending their debt:

• Don't buy a car, you don't need one. Walk, cycle, catch a bus if necessary.
• You do not need designer clothes or accessories. These can wait until you have an income.
• Don't smoke. It's seriously expensive, not good for you and does not make you look cool/counter-culture/working class. It makes you look like a twat.
• Don't take drugs. They're also expensive, can affect your ability to learn and also turn you into a twat.
• Keep your drinking down. Binge the odd time, but not every week and drink somewhere cheap.
• Eat cheap. I ate shed loads of lentils & rice (with varying curry powders). You are not a gourmet; you have no money.
• Don't eat out. Make your own sandwiches.
• Don't go to expensive coffee shops.
• Don't go to Glastonbury/Reading/etc.
• Don't even think about going on holiday.
• Get a job in the long vac. Every year.
• Don't take up an expensive hobby or collect stuff.
• Don't buy a gaming PC - you're meant to be working on it.

On University Tuition Fees

Some quick, confused thoughts on both sides of the argument, from one man: me.

• You can't blame any one of the three major parties. In the end, they all agreed on it.
• Why isn't income tax from all those highly educated people enough?
• Isn't this a stealth tax?
• Shouldn't we just reduce the number of numpties attending University and bring courses back to their pre-1986 standards?
• Some Universities are better than others, shouldn't they be allowed to "get more money"/"charge more" per-head?
• Are fees really that bad then?
• Isn't this another way of de-hypothecating tax? (You must pay for Trident, wars, abortions in China, the EU through hypothecation, but don't let a self-made man pay for bloody students). Hmmm.
• Don't forget to donate to your old Uni to reduce fees for current and future students.

Ooh. Android.

So it appears I can blog from my phone. I'm not entirely sure I'd want to, but if push came to shove, I could.

Happy X10 Mini owner.

Android FTW!

On Politics (Addendum)

I forgot to point out (to those that do not know me) that I don't agree with all the issues raised in my last post, On Politics. Some are merely echoes of what I perceive to be popular opinion.

Also, @edwestonline retweeted this (originally tweeted by @charlottegore with a fine bit of sarcasm):

CharlotteGore Charlotte Gore 

 by edwestonline

This page is not remotely biased. It does not gently nudge you in any particular direction. http://idontgetpolitics.co.uk/right-left-wing

This unbelievably naïve piece seems to have been written by a 13 year old with no knowledge of the "right" at all. To caricature one's opponents so badly shows one's general ignorance on all things political.

At the bottom, that old chestnut (and favourite of LibDems), "the political compass" gets mentioned. I'm not a fan, but at least it shows that the one dimensional left-right axis is wrong, but it is amazing how many people then take it as read that there are two and only two dimensions to consider.

As I proposed (although I can not be the first) in my last post, there are n-dimensions to be considered, yet just 3 major parties, leaving large proportions of the population unrepresented on many of their core beliefs.

On Politics

OK, I'm not an expert in politics, but I'm more interested than most. I'm a member of a political party, but sometimes I wonder why.

Over recent years there has been a change in politics which leaves many of us, from the left and right, disenfranchised. Who do we vote for when the major parties no longer represent us?

On the right, in the UK, we've seen the rise of UKIP as an alternative to what is sometimes seen as a centrist Conservative party. In the US, the Tea Party movement is a true grass-roots movement, where the right of the Republican party are making their voice heard.

In the UK, the Labour party has moved far from its roots and being the voice of the poor and lowly paid. Indeed, as many point out, it has become the party of the metropolitan, liberal left, guilty of

• showing contempt for all rural issues and thus the rural working class
• ignoring concerns of the working class about immigration
• deliberately suppressing any sense of national pride (English or British)
• imposing liberal values on the nation, leaving social conservatives unrepresented

Indeed, conflating the fact that non government supporters shift their political view further to the opposite end of the spectrum than the government of the day, Labour's ignoring of the opinions of their traditional supporters may have helped push people to the far-right parties. 

With many of the general populous' concerns actually being about immigration, and this basically being hobbled by our EU membership, it is no wonder that people feel frustrated with the consensus amongst the three main parties.

Perhaps party politics is now permanently broken. The left-right axis is but one in multi-dimensional, political space, ignoring social conservatism vs liberal ideals, immigration, patriotism, the Union of the United Kingdom, multiculturalism, Europe, the environment, religious freedom and many other issues. Other than holding referenda on everything, how do the people get their politics back?

The Smoking Ban Must Stay

I am completely bemused as to why anyone would want the smoking ban rolled back in any area. This article is in response to David Nuttal MP's rather confused thinking in this post.



Freedom

 "[The] Erosion of our freedoms"

Governments are not only about allowing the people to act as they please, they are also here to protect the populous from stupid decisions they may make. 


Smoking in the first place is a bad decision; smoking indoors is even more so as you will be inhaling the passive smoke from your own and everyone else's cigarettes at higher concentration than outside. If we follow right-wing thinking that making a bad choice is your fault and the government should not help you out, that would translate to no NHS treatment for the many smoking related diseases. That's inconsistent, which leads us nicely to the next section.


Consistency

"I believe the principle of freedom ought to be consistently applied by politicians who claim they believe in it, and its outcomes"

If you wish to be consistent in allowing people to use life-shortening substances (indoors), then you're clearly one of those liberals who thinks that drugs should be de-criminalized and allowed. "Hey - it's your choice." Except, you're not one of those wooly-minded liberals are you David?


Subsidarity

"I believe in devolving power to the lowest possible level and the matter of smoking in pubs and clubs is one of those very issues which should surely be decided by publicans and, ultimately, their customers or club members"

I look forward to the government devolving all speed limits to the most local level. And drug policy. And prostitution's legality. Smoking indoors and smoking are public health issues which the central government has a right to mandate. Why not say that the minimum smoking, drinking and even sex age should be set locally?


Straw men and falsehoods

"The strongest argument for the smoking ban is that smoking causes diseases and even death. I don’t deny this but then car drivers injure and kill people too"

This is a straw man, plain and simple and as such shall be ignored. Let us move on.

"It’s quite wrong to ban something which is a perfectly legal pursuit just because you don’t like that something and Tories need to fight those who do go down this route with vigour"

This is a classic Tory (and liberal) argument, where you say something that is illegal is in fact legal just because you think it should be legal. 


The Sadness of Pubs and Clubs Closing

"I have been increasingly concerned about the effect [the smoking ban] has had on [private clubs and public houses]" including "the closure of many pubs"

Mr Nuttal does concede that this is not the only reason to force closure and indeed may just be "the straw that broke the camel's back", but is that really such a bad thing? Surely this more efficient alcohol supply structure should be applauded by a conservative? 


Don't give me that flannel about pubs being some sort of social meeting device, we aren't talking about idyllic village pubs from some halcyon era, we are talking about the over-abundance of over-priced drinking establishments in urban areas. Is it such a bad thing that these places close? I would contend that in the majority of cases, it is not.


Future Non-smoking pubs

"I know that some pubs and clubs would remain non-smoking places if the ban was lifted – that’s the whole point. It should be up to them to decide"

Seriously, David: how many? The free market will mean that all smokers and their friends will gravitate to the smokers' pubs, so the others will eventually drop their own "ban".

Really this sort of ivory-tower, principle-following ad absurdum is one thing I do not expect from today's Conservatives.