Author: R J Adams

“A’right, luv, how yer doin’?” is a fairly standard greeting in the streets of my native Liverpool, even to strangers. That is, so long as they’re female. Anyone old enough to remember the Beatles in their heyday will recognize the well-known accent, and the use of “luv” to greet any member of the opposite sex, whether they be six or sixty.

When I first moved to America, I got some strange looks from the women I addressed in this manner. Apparently, it’s not the ‘done’ thing in the US of A.

I soon learned not to use the title, and switched to “Hon” instead, which appears much more acceptable.

“Sweetie” is another informal salutation used benevolently in the UK, when a male addresses a female. I’ve not tried that one in the United States, probably because I’d got into enough trouble over, “Luv”.

I understand some women find it insulting to be so addressed. I’m not sure why. There’s no sexual innuendo involved, and any or all of these greetings imply a warmth and friendliness from the person using it. I can think of far worse things to be called.

America is so much more ‘touchy’ over such matters than Britain, so it came as some surprise to discover the BBC running a story about Barack Obama addressing a female reporter as, “sweetie”.^[1]

Obama apologized to the reporter when he realized what he’d said, and the story is definitely not newsworthy. Given the present problems in China and Burma, for the BBC to concoct a full page article out of this is truly to highlight trivia.

I rang a friend at the BBC, thinking I might pull his leg over the story, only to be told he wasn’t there. I could get no further than a young girl on reception. She listened to my rant, then in a bored tone, concluded, “I’ll see your message gets to him. Anything else I can help you with today – luv!”

^{[1] ” Obama sorry for ‘sweetie’ comment”, BBC, May 15th 2008}

Filed under: Media pettiness

Two weeks ago a deadly cyclone hit Southern Burma, devastating the region. Around the same time, in the worst tornado season for umpteen years, whole towns in the mid-western United States were destroyed with little or no warning. This week, a horrendous earthquake has flattened much of central China and killed upward of 15,000 people. Now we learn of yet another cyclone spinning to a potential frenzy somewhere off the Burmese coast.

Today, George W Bush began his visit to the Middle East. Is there any connection?

Probably not, though it may seem to those with a fertile imagination that God, or the planet, or both, are a bit upset right now with the dominant species on earth. After all, presidential nominee McCain’s ally, Pastor John Hagee, said of Hurricane Katrina that it was God’s punishment for an immoral and corrupt New Orleans.

The city had a “……level of sin that was offensive to God.”

Is this indicative of wickedness throughout China and Burma? Surely, not in those mid-western US towns hammered by record tornadoes recently? After all, they’re plum in the middle of the American Bible Belt, and isn’t it pure coincidence Tornado Alley just happens to run through the same area?

Of course, we all realize John Hagee is just a loud-mouthed religious egomaniac with a control fetish, but what of George W Bush’s attempts to bring peace to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Could this, in some way, be offending the Divinity?

It’s possible. If only because God realizes George W Bush is a liar.

His much publicized trip to the Middle East was purported to move the peace process forward, yet Bush is not intending to even set foot on Palestinian land.^[1] He went directly to Israel where he will take part in celebrations to commemorate sixty years of Israeli statehood. During speeches, Israeli prime minister Olmert and the American president fawned over each other’s camaraderie and alliances. Bush said:

“We consider the Holy Land a very special place and the Israeli people our close friends.
I look forward to discussing how I believe our two nations can continue to advance our ideals and approach our next 60 years of partnership with confidence and with hope.”

No mention of any friendship or partnership with the Palestinians. In fact, as Bush was speaking, four Palestinians were dying at the hands of Israeli troops, once again footloose and trigger-happy in the Gaza Strip.

It’s obvious Bush’s so-called attempts at a “peace process” are no more than a shallow move to bolster his historical legacy, already doomed by eight years of failed policies.

Bush is in Israel to show US support for the Jewish state, on behalf of his Jewish friends and colleagues in Washington. His actions raise a finger in derision at Palestinians who watch forlornly, like concentration camp victims hopelessly clinging to the wire, while their captors celebrate outside.

If I were God, it would make me angry. That this man had used my name to create death, suffering, and black-hearted mayhem throughout the planet I had created, would make me furious. I’d have no trouble whipping up a few tornadoes, cyclones, and earthquakes to illustrate my feelings.

The only difference would be, if I were God I’d make sure I took better aim.

Of course, all these meteorological disturbances may have nothing at all to do with Divine wrath. While the weather men still deny global warming, preferring instead to blame that much abused Latino couple, El Nino and La Nina, the steady rise in US tornado activity over the last five years, coupled with more frequent tectonic activity, is surely indicative of what we may expect as global temperatures increase.

On the other hand, it may simply be that God is just another frustrated Hillary Clinton supporter.

^{[1] ” Bush begins tour of Middle East”, BBC, May 14th 2008}

Filed under: Global catastrophes

The leader of Britain’s Roman Catholics, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has appealed to his flock to treat atheists and agnostics with “deep esteem”, according to a recent BBC report.^[1] He then goes on to accuse believers of being:

“…partly responsible for the decline in faith by losing sense of the mystery and treating God as a ‘fact in the world’.”

I think, for once, I’m in agreement with him.

Asked to comment on the Cardinal’s assertions, that other high priest Richard Dawkins, who is to Atheism as O’Connor is to Christianity, responded:

“There’s absolutely no reason to take seriously someone who says, ‘I believe it because I believe it.’ God either exists or he doesn’t. It’s a matter of the truth.”

Strangely, I’m in agreement with Dawkins also.

Where both these fine gentlemen go astray is in assuming an intransigence towards their beliefs that forces others to take sides. Dawkins talks of “truth”, but neither he nor O’Connor have the intellect, wisdom, or knowledge to make any decision on whether that known colloquially as “GOD” is a reality or not, and it’s the egotistical opinions of both that form the driving force of their opposing arguments.

The core of any religion is its belief in the existence of a supernatural entity, or entities. Given the vastness of the Universe, our total ignorance of its conception or what may lie beyond it, and the unlikelihood of us ever being in a position to find out due to the mind-boggling distances and time-spans involved, to deny the possibility of some divine intelligence is as patently stupid as insisting one exists. In fact, both stances are so crazy that only the human ego could ever conceive of such a reality.

A wise person would accept that the humble human brain, coupled to a mere five basic senses, is incapable of considering, let alone answering, questions surrounding the reality of a God-presence. Neither O’Connor nor Dawkins has anymore ability to form such a conclusion than a daisy growing in a meadow, or a cow about to eat the daisy. In fact, both bovine and compositae are probably better off for not contemplating the matter. After all, neither cows nor daisies slaughter their own kind en masse in the pursuit of persuading others to adopt their ideals.

At this point, Dawkins may well jump from his chair and accuse the religious of fostering wars, but neither Stalin nor Hitler were men of God. It is Homo sapiens who wages war, and whether he chooses to call it ‘Holy’, or not, war is one of the more irreligious and unholy of man’s activities, even when waged under the convenience of a God-banner.

It would seem that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor wishes to retain the ‘sense of mystery’ surrounding God, rather than accepting the Being as a fact of life. One has to wonder, given this admission, how someone of such stature within his church can continue to dredge the bowels of humanity in search of converts to his faith? If he prefers God as a mystery, rather than a ‘fact of life’, perhaps his faith is less firm than he would have us believe?

Of itself, that’s not a problem. Neither would it be a criticism, were he to contain his beliefs within the confines of his own thoughts. It becomes a problem when his office dictates how others should live their lives; employing itself as the foundation-layer of our universal morality.

Similarly so with Richard Dawkins. The media have set him up as a scientific cult figure, a position he seems happy to occupy, arrogantly denouncing the religious and holy as stupid and simplistic.

Dawkins is entitled to his opinions, as is O’Connor. Neither has the right to force their beliefs into the social framework of our societies.

To suggest we should all conform to an atheistic ideal on the basis that it is right, is no more excusable than the suggestion that non-belief in a God will result in an eternity of damnation.

Each may have its place. After all, as thinking beings, albeit of a primitive and unevolved form, we are right to ponder the unanswerable.

But, to unerringly believe we’ve discovered the answer is simply to defer to our own egotistical crassitude.

^{[1] ” ‘Respect atheists’, says cardinal”, BBC, May 9th 2008}

Filed under: Belief systems