Firstly, no it's not a spelling mistake. It's a pun. Not my favourite pun. And one I'm happy to not take the credit for. The pun, combining religious and ridiculous, is the title of a documentary film depicting Bill Maher running all over the world debating with religious people. I was intrigued to meet some of these religious 'nuts' and find out their points of view, and as a fan of Bill Maher and of the soundtrack (The Who, Bob Dylan and 'I think we're alone now' by Tiffany all feature), it was a fairly well spent two hours of my life and left me once again pondering my beliefs, firstly in God, and then in regards to religion.
Of course, Maher is an atheist trying to show the ridiculous side of religion, which he does extremely well when meeting the likes of a man who claims to be 'a Jew, not a Zionist' who also denies the holocaust and a man in Amsterdam who claims smoking marijuana allows you to connect with God. However he also claims to be promoting 'doubt', an idea I can relate to immensely. For me, 'doubt' is surely the only way anyone can feel about God, because there isn't hard evidence for his existence or not. However, Maher doesn't seem remotely doubtful. He is absolutely sure there is no God. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Maher's main argument that religion creates fanatics who believe in and do stupid things. But it also does the opposite. Some of the best people to walk the Earth have been religious: Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Malcolm X, Cat Stevens...
Personally, I like to call myself agnostic, however it's more likely I'm an atheist. Perhaps I'm hoping there is a God more than anything, but atheism gives a firm answer to, at the minute, a near unanswerable question. I think I also like to distance myself from the atheists because the majority don't have open minds on the subject. Most are adamant that there isn't a God and hence must argue with any nearby religious people. For me, what you believe in regards to solely the existence of God isn't important. What matters is how you act upon your beliefs. I agree with Stephen Fry when he said on QI once 'If they want to believe it, that's fine, but they mustn't push it down our throats'. He was referring to religious people, but surely this has to apply to atheists as well. The only difference between a religious preacher and Bill Maher (other than of course fundamental beliefs), is that Maher is funny. Both take things out of context. Both are forcing their beliefs down our throats.
This has been a hard article to write as I found it hard to place myself on the religious scale. Being overweight, I've never liked scales, but at least the ones confirming my obesity have the ability to place people at any point of the scale. This isn't the case in religion, or indeed politics. Weight scales also don't have people on either end willing to denounce you to the other end of the scale for disagreeing with them on one of a number of relevant points. Apparently you can't pick and choose from religious books, or two parties' manifestos, if so, you are an outcast to both ends of the scale, both thinking you belong at the opposite end. The same if you have no particularly strong opinion on an issue they do. This very much reminds me how I, being from the Midlands, have been considered by other people from more northern or southern regions of England. I'm a southerner to a Yorkshireman, and a northerner to a Londoner. However I'm neither, am I? I'm from the Midlands. A Midlandser if you want. Likewise to religious people I'll always be an atheist and to atheists I'll be dumb for acknowledging the possibility of God.
The film itself is entertaining and I think Maher's ideas are correct. My interpretation of his ideas are that he believes religion causes extremism, terrorism and could ultimate create a war that will destroy the Earth and by attempting to convert people he can help stop this. This I can understand and I also disagree, as I suppose most people do, with these religious ideas. I am also with him as he disagrees with religious attitudes to homosexuality. However he uses that general disapproval to manipulate people into condemning any kind of religion. Whether religion and God are right or wrong, people believing it on a low level, going to church on Sundays doesn't conjure evil or a nuclear apocalypse. If anything it creates good people. Most charities were started on a religious basis. What threatens the world is the religious argument, augmented by outspoken believers and preachers. So, a bit of advice that should be written in everything ever written, we should all listen to Stephen Fry.
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Thursday, 29 December 2011
A Parliament of Owls?
There are some unusual collective nouns (thank you English Language A level) floating around; a congregation of alligators suggests that in between munching on innocent (probably cute) creatures they all get together, sing hymns, eat and drink the bread and wine of alligator Jesus and repent their sins; a court of kangaroos suggests that they have some kind of expertise in judgment; and a nursery of raccoons suggests it wouldn't be a bad idea to leave your kids under their supervision. But the one that gets me is a parliament of owls.
When did someone decide that owls are wise? Who received advice off an owl that made them consider these creatures so special? And what exactly did the owl say? Don't get me wrong, I like owls. They're aesthetically pleasing and I like their hoot, but never have I considered them wise, despite the common misconception surrounding them. So what drives this misconception? Firstly people have drawn attention to the face of an owl, its eyes and markings that create an image of age and wisdom. I agree that owls' faces do give off that impression but looks can be deceiving. I bet Icarus looked pretty wise with his big wings.
A couple of other things that might conceive wisdom are their nocturnality and their eyesight. Hedgehogs are nocturnal too. All they seem to do is get caught in football goals and get run over. Not wise. And the colossal squid has tremendous eyesight, however there's no way those things can be wise. There's no way an animal who I can very easily imagine moving frantically around going 'Blub blub blub blub blub blub!' be wise. I must confess that one is a very specific personal view... you... you probably don't feel the same.
I've been pointed the direction of some specific wise owls, namely Archimedes from The Sword and the Stone and the astutely named 'Owl' (genius) of Winnie the Pooh. Both these owls do show remarkable wisdom at times, however newsflash people... films aren't 100% accurate and often bend or exaggerate truths. I'm sure these two owls have average wisdom in real life, but in the films they're made out to be a lot wiser than usual. It's what films do! Do you really think all those Jews got killed like in Schindler's List?
So owls aren't wise and people shouldn't think otherwise, and a group of them certainly shouldn't be referred to as a parliament. This conveys that they'd be suitable to run a country when we all know that no one is... Come to think so it, the people in parliament don't seem too wise. Perhaps we don't need to remove this particular collective noun (I got an A by the way) from our vocabulary, however only if we are to stop thinking owls have any unnatural wisdom that makes them so special. Yes, without the imagination of wisdom, owls are a suitable analogy for a modern conservative parliament, strutting around try to pick off the mice to make themselves stronger, but that's another rant, and really, who gives a hoot (you see, I just had to put it in somewhere. I realise it isn't particularly relevant nor does it add anything to the article, but to have an article about owls and to not use that idiom is just ignorant, and I'd prefer to be a bad writer than ignorant).
When did someone decide that owls are wise? Who received advice off an owl that made them consider these creatures so special? And what exactly did the owl say? Don't get me wrong, I like owls. They're aesthetically pleasing and I like their hoot, but never have I considered them wise, despite the common misconception surrounding them. So what drives this misconception? Firstly people have drawn attention to the face of an owl, its eyes and markings that create an image of age and wisdom. I agree that owls' faces do give off that impression but looks can be deceiving. I bet Icarus looked pretty wise with his big wings.
A couple of other things that might conceive wisdom are their nocturnality and their eyesight. Hedgehogs are nocturnal too. All they seem to do is get caught in football goals and get run over. Not wise. And the colossal squid has tremendous eyesight, however there's no way those things can be wise. There's no way an animal who I can very easily imagine moving frantically around going 'Blub blub blub blub blub blub!' be wise. I must confess that one is a very specific personal view... you... you probably don't feel the same.
I've been pointed the direction of some specific wise owls, namely Archimedes from The Sword and the Stone and the astutely named 'Owl' (genius) of Winnie the Pooh. Both these owls do show remarkable wisdom at times, however newsflash people... films aren't 100% accurate and often bend or exaggerate truths. I'm sure these two owls have average wisdom in real life, but in the films they're made out to be a lot wiser than usual. It's what films do! Do you really think all those Jews got killed like in Schindler's List?
So owls aren't wise and people shouldn't think otherwise, and a group of them certainly shouldn't be referred to as a parliament. This conveys that they'd be suitable to run a country when we all know that no one is... Come to think so it, the people in parliament don't seem too wise. Perhaps we don't need to remove this particular collective noun (I got an A by the way) from our vocabulary, however only if we are to stop thinking owls have any unnatural wisdom that makes them so special. Yes, without the imagination of wisdom, owls are a suitable analogy for a modern conservative parliament, strutting around try to pick off the mice to make themselves stronger, but that's another rant, and really, who gives a hoot (you see, I just had to put it in somewhere. I realise it isn't particularly relevant nor does it add anything to the article, but to have an article about owls and to not use that idiom is just ignorant, and I'd prefer to be a bad writer than ignorant).
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
The World is a Frog
The World is a Frog
There was a scientific discovery not too long ago that if a frog is placed into boiling water, it will realise it's too hot and hop out. However if it's put into cold water and it's heated up, it won't realise and it'll die. As pointed out by Frankie Boyle, 'Scientists have way too much time on their hands'.
However I find this a compelling analogy for the World and it's reactions to certain ongoings. Take for example the boiling water. For me this could represent happenings such as 9/11 and recent earthquakes in Haiti and New Zealand. The world's response to these weren't dissimilar to that of the frog's. The World put together charity and charity events looking to bring immediate aid to those that have suffered. Don't get me wrong, this is fantastic and I can't imagine anyone who objects to helping people who need help the most. This side of the coin, the World being like a frog, is by all means a good thing.
On the other hand, if you take Global Warming and famine in Africa as a couple of examples that synbolise the water being slowly heated up, it's harder to see a froggy world as good. There have been a few massive concerns in the World for decades, even centuries, that, by no means have been completely rejected, but haven't been combatted with the same cumulative passion and effort. For example, after the earthquake in Haiti, all the World's richest, most powerful countries all delivered relief in the form of billions of dollars worth of money. If it's possible to give money to countries in need, can't this be a regular occurance?
Now I remember the constant changing of amounts coming out of USA and China in the aftermath of the disaster in Haiti and how it almost seemed like a battle to see who was most generous. Not that I'm a fan of this macho competition, but it seemed to work. They seemed to want to outbid each other and seem more selfless. Again, this isn't my preferred brand of selflessness, but beggars can't be choosers.
What is more annoying, is we see banks, and now even countries, being bailed out with huge sums of money, money that could surely be used for some sort of aid in developing countries. We are bailing out countries that have had a chance to succeed. Shouldn't we give someone else a chance?
Moving on to Global Warming. This is no secret. The planet is trying to kill us. We know this. And it's society we live in today that's preventing us from overcoming it. I must confess, before I came to university, and before other significant bans in my life, I drove everywhere. I was (and still am) lazy. Now I'm at uni, I don't have that privilege so I walk and take the bus. This doesn't seem like a radical movement and it's not, but add that to the fact I take showers not baths, I don't overfill my kettle and I switch off all my lights when leaving a room, I'm a right hippie! But again, is it enough to rid the world of a slow, painful, inevitable death. No. We need another selflessness war! We need all the most powerful countries to invest in a cleaner future. And we need people to believe in these investments. People will moan that it's their tax money being spent on it, but it was your money being donated to Haiti, saving thousands of lives, and this could save the world, billions of lives; most importantly to some, your own life.
I find it necessary to bring attention and show my appreciation to charitable organisations who are trying to make the world a better place, and to those who donate and admittedly it all helps. However, until bigger powers than Bob Geldof start action, the World will always be a frog, unaware that the circumstances around him are becoming lethal.
There was a scientific discovery not too long ago that if a frog is placed into boiling water, it will realise it's too hot and hop out. However if it's put into cold water and it's heated up, it won't realise and it'll die. As pointed out by Frankie Boyle, 'Scientists have way too much time on their hands'.
However I find this a compelling analogy for the World and it's reactions to certain ongoings. Take for example the boiling water. For me this could represent happenings such as 9/11 and recent earthquakes in Haiti and New Zealand. The world's response to these weren't dissimilar to that of the frog's. The World put together charity and charity events looking to bring immediate aid to those that have suffered. Don't get me wrong, this is fantastic and I can't imagine anyone who objects to helping people who need help the most. This side of the coin, the World being like a frog, is by all means a good thing.
On the other hand, if you take Global Warming and famine in Africa as a couple of examples that synbolise the water being slowly heated up, it's harder to see a froggy world as good. There have been a few massive concerns in the World for decades, even centuries, that, by no means have been completely rejected, but haven't been combatted with the same cumulative passion and effort. For example, after the earthquake in Haiti, all the World's richest, most powerful countries all delivered relief in the form of billions of dollars worth of money. If it's possible to give money to countries in need, can't this be a regular occurance?
Now I remember the constant changing of amounts coming out of USA and China in the aftermath of the disaster in Haiti and how it almost seemed like a battle to see who was most generous. Not that I'm a fan of this macho competition, but it seemed to work. They seemed to want to outbid each other and seem more selfless. Again, this isn't my preferred brand of selflessness, but beggars can't be choosers.
What is more annoying, is we see banks, and now even countries, being bailed out with huge sums of money, money that could surely be used for some sort of aid in developing countries. We are bailing out countries that have had a chance to succeed. Shouldn't we give someone else a chance?
Moving on to Global Warming. This is no secret. The planet is trying to kill us. We know this. And it's society we live in today that's preventing us from overcoming it. I must confess, before I came to university, and before other significant bans in my life, I drove everywhere. I was (and still am) lazy. Now I'm at uni, I don't have that privilege so I walk and take the bus. This doesn't seem like a radical movement and it's not, but add that to the fact I take showers not baths, I don't overfill my kettle and I switch off all my lights when leaving a room, I'm a right hippie! But again, is it enough to rid the world of a slow, painful, inevitable death. No. We need another selflessness war! We need all the most powerful countries to invest in a cleaner future. And we need people to believe in these investments. People will moan that it's their tax money being spent on it, but it was your money being donated to Haiti, saving thousands of lives, and this could save the world, billions of lives; most importantly to some, your own life.
I find it necessary to bring attention and show my appreciation to charitable organisations who are trying to make the world a better place, and to those who donate and admittedly it all helps. However, until bigger powers than Bob Geldof start action, the World will always be a frog, unaware that the circumstances around him are becoming lethal.
Manners
MANNERS
I recently watched Sean Penn's 'Into the Wild'. Overall I thought it
was an excellent film, until the end that is. I don't want to spoil it for
those who haven't seen it yet, but I mean after all that, it finishes like
that... I mean... that... not even a bear attack... no blood or anything...
Anyway I digress. What struck me was the main character's,
Christopher McCandless (played excellently by Emile Hirsch), lack of
manners.
The story goes that Christopher isn't happy with his family life and
doesn't have a great relationship with his parents; he also despises
'Society', also the title of one of the songs from a stellar soundtrack of
original songs written by Eddie Vedder. Thus he decides he wants to get away
and his ultimate dream is to live in Alaska, so he packs up his things and
leaves. Along the way he sees a lot of great things and meets a lot of great
people - some not so nice, with scary dogs. Now, he starts in his car but
soon abandons it, leaving the only means of travel to be hitching rides,
whether on freight trains or from strangers driving past.
What I found most shocking was his response to either the strangers
passing by, who were kind enough to give him a lift, and to the friends he
accumulated, who paid him money for work, offered to give him money or just
shared good times and morals. His response was always subdued and lacked a
certain display of gratitude. Most of the time his answer to their acts of
kindness was merely 'Thanks' (On ocassions he did manage to stretch to
'Thanks a lot').
My initial reaction was that of shock (not jump and of my seat and
phone Sean Penn and complain shock, just an slight 'oh' in the back of my
mind). But it got me thinking. Why would he think that simply 'Thanks' would
suffice? I mean, if my mum ever caught me just saying 'Thanks' to someone
who was kind enough to give me a free lift (forgetting the spanking I'd get
for hitchhiking) she'd kill me! And that's it.
My mum beat it into me from an early age, as I'm sure the lots of
parents do in Britain, and all around the world. 'Can I have a drink?' Can I
have a drink, what?' 'Can I have a drink, PLEASE?' 'There you go... What do
you say?' 'Thank you!!!' In that awful, droning voice children use to be
cute. Now it's sub-conscious. I show gratitude for the smallest things;
'Hold this for a second, please... Thank you'; 'Can you pass me my drink,
please?... Thanks a lot'. If I was in the situation McCandless was in I
would have had to shake hands and hug, perhaps a kiss on the cheek, while I
ramble on in the background, 'I really can't thank you enough. You'd ever so
kind. Again, thank you so much.'
McCandless on the other hand was happy with plain and simple
'Thanks'. Considering his rapport with his parents wasn't great, we can
assume he never got the beating, like I did, for not saying 'please' and
'thank you', or being a rebellious type, he chose to ignore it.
From this I draw that the two different upbringings has lead to a
sizeable difference in magnitude and a degeneration in the meaning and
context of the phrase 'Thanks'. For me, it's an informal expression of
gratitude for a minor favour, whereas I would imagine he would find it
appropriate to thank Spiderman after he'd saved him from certain death in
one of his webs.
This is a fine example of people having different interpretations on
meanings of words and the realisation that it isn't the words themselves
that matter, it's context. The people who McCandless thanked so briefly had
heard his story and felt 'Thanks' to be sufficient and frankly would
probably have thought he was ridiculing them had he taken my fore mentioned
approach.
Now McCandless' past lead him to keep and preserve a strong and
powerful meaning of 'Thanks' to what others, e.g me, consider informal and
inproper. There is a silver lining to the dreadful relationship with his
parents, well two in this case, the second being a book and film about your
life. But when the real controversy starts, it's over a controversial word.
There's 'word police' everywhere pinning you down. Is it P.C gone mad?
People are scared to describe a black man as black, or a man wearing a
turban as the man in the turban, due to the threat of being called a racist.
And whose job is it anyway to determine what the desired meaning was?
There's thousands, probably millions of cases going on right now of
misinterpretation. What one person said and meant may not be what one person
heard and interprets. Hell, you probably think this whole article is a great
big stab at Jews.
I recently watched Sean Penn's 'Into the Wild'. Overall I thought it
was an excellent film, until the end that is. I don't want to spoil it for
those who haven't seen it yet, but I mean after all that, it finishes like
that... I mean... that... not even a bear attack... no blood or anything...
Anyway I digress. What struck me was the main character's,
Christopher McCandless (played excellently by Emile Hirsch), lack of
manners.
The story goes that Christopher isn't happy with his family life and
doesn't have a great relationship with his parents; he also despises
'Society', also the title of one of the songs from a stellar soundtrack of
original songs written by Eddie Vedder. Thus he decides he wants to get away
and his ultimate dream is to live in Alaska, so he packs up his things and
leaves. Along the way he sees a lot of great things and meets a lot of great
people - some not so nice, with scary dogs. Now, he starts in his car but
soon abandons it, leaving the only means of travel to be hitching rides,
whether on freight trains or from strangers driving past.
What I found most shocking was his response to either the strangers
passing by, who were kind enough to give him a lift, and to the friends he
accumulated, who paid him money for work, offered to give him money or just
shared good times and morals. His response was always subdued and lacked a
certain display of gratitude. Most of the time his answer to their acts of
kindness was merely 'Thanks' (On ocassions he did manage to stretch to
'Thanks a lot').
My initial reaction was that of shock (not jump and of my seat and
phone Sean Penn and complain shock, just an slight 'oh' in the back of my
mind). But it got me thinking. Why would he think that simply 'Thanks' would
suffice? I mean, if my mum ever caught me just saying 'Thanks' to someone
who was kind enough to give me a free lift (forgetting the spanking I'd get
for hitchhiking) she'd kill me! And that's it.
My mum beat it into me from an early age, as I'm sure the lots of
parents do in Britain, and all around the world. 'Can I have a drink?' Can I
have a drink, what?' 'Can I have a drink, PLEASE?' 'There you go... What do
you say?' 'Thank you!!!' In that awful, droning voice children use to be
cute. Now it's sub-conscious. I show gratitude for the smallest things;
'Hold this for a second, please... Thank you'; 'Can you pass me my drink,
please?... Thanks a lot'. If I was in the situation McCandless was in I
would have had to shake hands and hug, perhaps a kiss on the cheek, while I
ramble on in the background, 'I really can't thank you enough. You'd ever so
kind. Again, thank you so much.'
McCandless on the other hand was happy with plain and simple
'Thanks'. Considering his rapport with his parents wasn't great, we can
assume he never got the beating, like I did, for not saying 'please' and
'thank you', or being a rebellious type, he chose to ignore it.
From this I draw that the two different upbringings has lead to a
sizeable difference in magnitude and a degeneration in the meaning and
context of the phrase 'Thanks'. For me, it's an informal expression of
gratitude for a minor favour, whereas I would imagine he would find it
appropriate to thank Spiderman after he'd saved him from certain death in
one of his webs.
This is a fine example of people having different interpretations on
meanings of words and the realisation that it isn't the words themselves
that matter, it's context. The people who McCandless thanked so briefly had
heard his story and felt 'Thanks' to be sufficient and frankly would
probably have thought he was ridiculing them had he taken my fore mentioned
approach.
Now McCandless' past lead him to keep and preserve a strong and
powerful meaning of 'Thanks' to what others, e.g me, consider informal and
inproper. There is a silver lining to the dreadful relationship with his
parents, well two in this case, the second being a book and film about your
life. But when the real controversy starts, it's over a controversial word.
There's 'word police' everywhere pinning you down. Is it P.C gone mad?
People are scared to describe a black man as black, or a man wearing a
turban as the man in the turban, due to the threat of being called a racist.
And whose job is it anyway to determine what the desired meaning was?
There's thousands, probably millions of cases going on right now of
misinterpretation. What one person said and meant may not be what one person
heard and interprets. Hell, you probably think this whole article is a great
big stab at Jews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)