polydaidaloi.com

The SMH reports on the findings of one Anna Crabb (no, not her) on the religious proclivities of Aussie pollies.

Ms Crabb said the findings demonstrated a break with the past in Australia where politicians had rarely put their faith on display and had been careful to maintain a separation between affairs of church and state.

She said there were several reasons for the breakdown of this traditional separation. They include the demise of sectarianism, especially inside the ALP, which had contributed to a greater willingness to use Christian ideas in political debate.

Conscience votes on stem cell research and abortion legislation had also prompted more MPs to discuss their attitudes towards Christian moral teachings.

But Ms Crabb sees the main explanation as lying with the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The attacks had not only led to significantly more references to Christianity in speeches on foreign relations but had also prompted a wider erosion of the traditional view that political decision-making should be based on rational arguments rather than on religious faith or doctrine.

Of course we should be advocating that “political decision-making should be based on rational arguments rather than on religious faith or doctrine.” But rational arguments does not come into it with politicians. The modus operandi is simply to get re-elected, spin the news cycle and gain a rhetorical advantage over their opponents. Introducing religion into the discourse is less to do about being pious and more about attracting or keeping a demographic.

More »

The Exclusive Brethren are a particularly pernicious cult.Their ties to the previous Howard Government was a disturbing connection given that the Brethren do not vote. Another troubling aspect of the cult is that when someone leaves the Brethren they invoke the “doctrine of separation” which prevents any relationship between the person that leaves the Brethren and those that stay.

And that seems to be the major part of a custody battle between an ex-Brethren father and his wife who stayed with the cult.

With the facts of the case only known from the newspaper article, I can’t comment properly the full nature of the relationship between the parents and who is wrong or right (leaving the religious aspect to one side). But the comments of the case by the judge a worrisome indeed.
More »

Goodbye Peter.

The events that lead up the to the death of “Ribs” Ward are horrific. The victim of the callousness of bureaucracy that has no concern for those they are responsible for. ABC’s PM program had this information:

But there was an arbitrary and inflexible rule that all prisoners should be considered high risk in the case when there’s only one person being transported and should be placed further away from the cabin.

MARK COLVIN: What did he say about the officers?

DAVID WEBER: Well, he said that the officers in evidence had said that they thought the air conditioning was working and really at this point he hasn’t been able to give us any detail on what should happen to the officers.

The officers were not… no action was taken against them by the company GSL because a representative from the company said that they hadn’t broken any of the procedures or rules and they had said they didn’t know.

The dead man’s crime? Drink driving.

The statement that no action was taken against the officers responsible for transporting the prisoner because procedures were not violated is morally repugnant. You would think that common sense and a duty of care would mean that procedures were relaxed to ensure the safety of the prisoner.

It is amazing how inhumanity and avoidance of responsibility is still easily justified through company policies and procedures. Just because something is not illegal it doesn’t mean that your actions weren’t wrong.

It internecine battles mark the maturity if a movement then atheism has reached a high point with the stoush between Jerry Coyne and Chris Mooney. It all started with Coyne’s review of two theistic evolution books in the New Republic. This was followed some criticism from Barbara Forrest and then an exchange of blog posts at dawn between Coyne and Mooney. Needless to say there is more to come.

Coyne does a grand job showing the inadequacies of certain strain of theistic evolution in his New Republic article. A provocative and well argued review that has reverberated around the community where evolution and religion is discussed. It is a civil review and Coyne is at pains to ensure that he was fair in both praise and criticism. Unfortunately, it has lead to the creation of an unfortunate term “accomodationist” to disparage those that find no problem with the like of Ken Miller. Accomodationist is a stupid term and is a distraction from the main game. I don’t see why we simply name Miller et al as collaborationists and call for their removal from the order of proper sciency folk.

I’m not really sure what the point of this stoush really is. It seems to be based around that any religious ideas are poisonous and if scientists have religious ideas it will corrupt science. But science has accommodated religious beliefs for centuries with no problems. And given the religious nature of some of the past evolutionary science heavyweights, I see no danger if someone does have religious beliefs yet is quite happy to accept evolution as is.
More »

I’m very sad to hear of the death of Koko Taylor, the Queen of the Blues. Anyone who was a blues fan will recognise that her claim to the crown was more than legitimate. She was a true legend of the genre.

Back in the mid-1980s I had a cassette titled Blues Explosion Montreux Jazz Festival 1982. Very hard to find now but was a tape I played to death back then. Not just for the breath taking and legendary performance of Stevie Ray Vaughan. Koko Taylor’s version of Wang Dang Doodle was just thrilling if not a more earthier performance.

I’m lucky that when I had a chance to see Koko at the House of Blues in LA around ‘96 I took the chance. It was a great show and she was one of a kind.

Amanda has unearthed a vintage performance of Koko performing “Wang Dang Doodle” for her place. Worth checking it out.

I’ve gone for one from just last year that shows her powers were not diminished.

Via Amanda, I learned that online music provider eMusic is not only changing its pricing structure but has also signed a deal with Sony to distribute its back catalogue via the site. This has caused a lot of consternation as evidenced by the number of comments on the issue.

I for one am dismayed. Not because of the predictable and pitiful angst over eMusic losing its indie cred but because the Sony back catalogue will most likely be restricted to US residents only.

What I, and many other users, love about eMusic is that is a treasure trove of hidden gems. All sorts of obscurities and bands you may never have come across normally somehow find a way into your download queue and subsequently onto the iPod. I’m sure the Sony catalogue would also present opportunities to find long lost and forgotten albums

But with the pricing change and likely (though I hope I’m wrong) geographical restrictions, eMusic has lost a customer. Why would I want to pay full price for a restricted service?

There will be other ways and means to find new music but eMusic was for those truly, madly and deeply in love with music. It is now effectively gone and that has made me quite sad.

But thank you eMusic for John Fahey, Steve Earle, Joe Pass, Sol Hoopii and all the Hawaiian cats, Blind Boys of Alabama, Five Horse Johnson and the many other artists and genres that you allowed me to fine and explore.

I least I still have the music.

Much of atheism seems concerned with the eternal debates about the existence of god and the utility of religion. Indeed, many of the arguments are becoming trite and clichéd (debates over the existence of Jesus especially). Atheists can be seen for good reason to be stuck in an insular world where the main game is slapping each other on the back after pointing out an inanity of religion.

Much of the conversation seems to be to the choir. When we do engage with religious folks, it tends to be at the opposite ends of spectrum as in the debates between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D’Souza. And while these debates are often entertaining, they serve little purpose other to sharpen rhetorical wit and confirm prejudices.

The conversation (and this is what is should be. Not a debate or a haranguing) atheists should be having is with those of challenged faith or those that see the problems with institutionalised religion. It is in these conversations that the positive aspects of atheism can be better elucidated and also allies found.
More »