Youth drinking

Three posts in one day, I think that’s a record!

Recently the government have released plans to cut down on underage drinking by raising the price of alcohol. The idea is that if the alcohol is too expensive, kids won’t spend their pocket money on it. Is it just me or do they seem to have missed something? Surely if you want to cut down on underage drinking, then you get more tough on under 18’s buying alcohol and on places that sell to under 18’s. If you increase the cost, you’re not targetting young people, you’re targetting poor people! Where has this correlation between age and wealth come from?

I know plenty of teens with wealthy parents or with jobs who will still be able to afford to buy alcohol, and I know plenty of people over the age of 18 who can’t afford it as it is (me included)! I think they’re barking well and truely up the wrong tree here, and it’s all down to dodgy logic.

The Case for Christ

I promised a couple of weeks ago that as soon as I finished reading The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, I’d post a full review. Well I’ve found a couple of reviews that are much more extensive than I could ever be bothered writing, so instead of writing a full review here, I’m just going to link to those, and pick out maybe a couple of things I took from it.

There’s one tiny thing that I did find a little convincing. I’ve already said how it’s pointless trying to compare evidence for the gospels with evidence for secular documents, because they deal with very different issues, but one thing that was repeatedly said was that if the gospels weren’t true and Jesus genuinely hadn’t risen from the dead, then the apostles and the early Christians wouldn’t have claimed so for the rest of their lives, leading them eventually to rather gruesome deaths at the hands of the Romans. This was a problem for me whilst reading; I could dismiss a lot of the other things, but this kind of stuck. So I’ve thought about it myself, I’ve been reading around a little bit, and I think I’m past it.

The review I linked to above has a section on this assertion (the first part of “The Circumstantial Evidence”, near the bottom, page 246), which makes the assertion that plenty of people have died for their faith in the past, Mormons and Muslims for example, which doesn’t prove that what they’re saying is true. This only partly answers my problem. The objection in the text is that although plenty of people have died for something they believe is true, none would die for something they know is false, which if Christ didn’t rise from the dead, the disciples would know, since they were the witnesses of it.

Since finishing this book I’ve started on ‘The Portable Atheist’, a collection of exerpts by various authors, put together by Christopher Hitchens. There are a number of chapters by or about David Hume, the famous Edinburgh philosopher, which half addresses this problem. Hume says that miracles are miracles because they go against the human experience, they’re not what we normally see. This amounts to as great a proof as any human experience can provide. Therefore, if there is human testimony which supports the occurrence of a miracle, you have to weigh that testimony against your own, subtract the difference of strength between them, and then you will naturally incline on the stronger side, albeit with a diminution of certainty.

He goes on to state that “no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact, which it endeavours to establish: And even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.” In simpler terms, is it more likely that the testimony come from someone who was deceived, or trying to deceive, or is it more likely that it’s true and the miracle took place? I think that in all cases I can think of, it’s more likely to be untrue.

Even the miracle of the sun at Fatima, where 70,000 people were reported to have seen the sun move and dive down towards the earth, can be explained using this logic, as Richard Dawkins writes in Unweaving the Rainbow. Would it be more likely that these 70,000 people were deceived into thinking the sun moved, or that the rest of the world were deceived into thinking it didn’t move whilst it actually did? That the people wouldn’t have been burnt up by the sun? That the physical effects of the sun’s nearness would be felt by the whole planet and would likely still be measurable? (In reality apparently there is some inconsistency in the reports of the crowd; Wikipedia says that some saw it dive down whilst others saw it zigzag. There are also no photographs of the event, despite photographers and reporters being in the crowd.)

Remembering George Carlin

I was very sad to hear the news this week that the legendary American comedian George Carlin has died of heart failure aged 71. His comedy has been a pillar of the anti-establishment movement for 50 years and I know he and his work have affected the lives of many people. I’ve just been watching a few of his routines on Youtube, but for me, this one will always be the best. Enjoy.

Anonymous witnesses

I’ve been confused over the past week or so by the Law Lords’ decision to ban anonymous witnessing, and today, within one week of the decision, a case has been halted because of it. The Law Lords’ argument is that defendants should have the right to know who is accusing them of a crime, in the interests of civil liberties. Now normally I’m all for the protection of civil liberties, but this one’s a bit of a stretch even for me.

For starters, since when is it a civil liberty to know who is accusing you of a crime? I don’t remember seeing that in the declaration of human rights. As far as I’m concerned, it’s more important what the witness says, than who the witness is. I can see how the credibility of an anonymous witness could become an issue, but surely it’s possible for the judge and jury to know the background information on the witness, without the defendant themselves knowing? This would protect the anonymity of the witness whilst solving the problem of credibility. But nevertheless this isn’t the problem that the Law Lords are trying to solve. They specifically bring up the civil liberties of the defendant in their argument.

Really, what is the problem with anonymous witnessing? I really can’t see any practical advantage that a defendant should know who it is that’s giving evidence. I understand that defendants should know what they’re being charged with and that they should see and hear the evidence put against them, but in practice it’s just not always feasible for a witness to be identified. Think about the kinds of cases where they use anonymous witnessing. It’s not at all often, usually just in very high profile cases involving the most dangerous criminals, for the safety of the witness. If anonymous witnesses are not allowed, then these are the kinds of criminals who will not be being prosecuted. How can you prosecute such a dangerous person if noone is willing to come forwards and give evidence? Gangsters will once again think they are immune to the law, the kinds of people who used to run the criminal underworlds of cities like Manchester and London.

As you can probably tell, I think this is a really serious issue, and fortunately Justice Minister Jack Straw agrees. He’s made it a priority to enshrine the right to anonymity in the law. Hopefully the problem will be solved, and the Law Lords and the government can work together in addressing the balance between the rights of defendants and the practicality of the police and the courtroom.

Democracy

Democracy is a term that is often bandied around, most commonly by the likes of George Bush when he’s talking about Iraq and the Middle East. Never mind the irony that he’s the President of one of the least democratic “democracies” in the world, with allegations of election fixing, jerrymandering, bribery, as well as a generally undemocratic electoral system (even moreso than ours in the UK, and that’s saying something), he’s a disgrace to the very concept of democracy!

There are 2 things happening in the world at the moment that bring me to the theme of democracy. The happenings in Zimbabwe are one of the biggest man-made crises happening in the world at the moment (by no means the greatest but it’s up there). Robert Mugabe is no less than a dictator. Democracy in that country is a sham. I think it’s quite ironic how the Zimbabwean system has been a response to apartheid (remember that Mugabe and Zanu PF gave a lot of support to the the ANC in its armed struggle against the National Party). You would think that a response to a racist undemocratic system would not itself become a racist undemocratic system! There’s massive political violence, widespread election rigging (isn’t it interesting that recounts are so often called when the party in power loses an election? *coughFloridacough*), as well as accusations on both sides of trying to manipulate the electorate, in a way which means democracy cannot flourish. Which is why it’s so important that the people do get their chance to speak out, even if it does end up being rigged.

Morgan Tvangarai and the Movement for Democratic Change announced this morning that they are considering pulling out of the run-off Presidential election. I think this is a mistake. If the election is unfair, the election observers in the UN will say so, so it doesn’t matter if the election is rigged against them. In the meantime there is the chance that it will be fair, and that Robert Mugabe will be voted out, and I think they should take that chance. Lives can be saved, much more than the 70 of the MDC’s supporters who have been killed so far.

In the meantime, there is a problem with a more direct form of democracy. The Irish people have voted against the Lisbon treaty in a referendum. Now you may say that there is no purer form of democracy than a referendum, because the people literally vote on the individual issue, so it couldn’t be any clearer, but in many ways it is too simplistic. Many political analysts are saying this is the Irish telling Europe to ‘feck off’. But it might not be. If I were to vote in a referendum on this issue, I’d vote against it, but not because I don’t agree with the general principle of European integration. The treaty makes the EU less democratic, putting power firmly in the hands of the commission rather than in the Parliament that the people have voted for, which is why I disagree with it. So a no vote has many more layers than just “no”.

Apologies for this being such a ramble.

Minimum wage

I’m very interested in the rights of minority, vulnerable or marginalised groups. This post will specifically deal with one issue close to the rights of workers and young people.

First, a little background. Asides from being a student, I’m a barman working in a sport and social club near my home. I started working there as a glass collector when I was 16 in 2005, and 3 years later I’m still there, although not whilst I’m away at university, then I have a different job. When I started I was earning £4.85 an hour, which at the time was minimum wage for over 21’s. That was pretty good for a 16 year old then, and the equivalent now with inflation is £5.52. Every member of the bar staff was on the same hourly rate.

Now I’m 19 and I’m back home working there. Technically I’m a new employee because I needed a P45 to give to my employer at university, and when I got my payslip for my first month’s wages this week, I was horrified to find that my rate of pay had dropped to £4.60 an hour. Apparently, since I’ve been gone and the new bosses have taken over, they’ve realised they can legally get away with paying their employees a lot less than they had been, so every new employee has been given the bare minimum rate of pay. This isn’t a massive problem for over 18’s because minimum wage is fairly decent, but for the glass collectors and waiters at 16, the minimum wage is £3.40 an hour. That was a terrible rate of pay even when I was that age! My predicament’s been sorted so I’m actually on more than I was before, but it means I’m standing next to someone who’s on less pay than me, even though we’re doing the same job. Why?

It makes me wonder why the minimum wage is different for people of different ages at all. At 16, I can leave school and home, go and get a job and survive on my own, if I wanted to. I could be doing exactly the same job as someone who’s 18 and they get paid more, and we could be doing the same job as someone who’s 22 and they’re getting paid even more. Why? 16, 18 and 22 year olds can be in the same financial position with the same needs, but they get paid differently.

There are arguments that a 22 year old is more skilled and experienced than an 18 year old, but that’s not always the case. I know people in their 20’s at university who’ve never done a day’s work in their life, and then I know 16 and 17 year olds who work hard for their money, often in customer service but also in construction and plumbing. If you want to reward experience and skill then the minimum wage shouldn’t merely be based on age. That is blatant age discrimination.

Fortunately, some employers (such as ASDA, and mine when I first started) see the nonsense in this and pay everyone the same if they’re doing the same job. It’s only when you start doing a different job when you enter a different pay grade. Maybe one day the government will see sense and will make the minimum wage for different aged groups either closer together (£3.40 is an outrage – I wouldn’t get out of bed for that), or the same.

Cultural religion

I feel this one’s going to be a bit of a ramble, I have a few things I want to get in.

I find it strange that there are so many different grades of religion. I’m speaking mainly about Christianity here, as usual, and not in the denominational sense. On the one hand there is Christianity, as in the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of the God of Moses and Abraham, but on the other there is ‘cultural Christianity’, where someone is a Christian only in the sense that they keep Christian traditions such as Christmas and Easter, although they do not believe in God or the Jesus of faith, as I like to call it. Among these we can count Richard Dawkins who says he sings Christmas carols because it’s a part of his culture. Some apologists may find it strange that such an oft-quoted uber-atheist would refer to himself as a cultural Christian, but I think it shows that Dawkins is a voice of reason rather than an illustration of the far end of an anti-religious spectrum. Personally, although I’ll happily spend Easter and Christmas with my family, I specifically opt out of the traditionally religious aspect, such as carols (which I’ve always seen as a form of prayer), and attendance at Christmas mass (particularly difficult in my family, but I don’t want to make it look like there are more practicing parishoners than there actually are). Strangely, I have no issue with singing along to Bob Marley, despite the religious imagery.

I was visiting a friend at Durham University last week. Durham is a beautiful city, but everywhere you look you see some symbol of religion, whether it’s the Cathedral, one of the seemingly millions of church buildings (which are actually still churches, as opposed to Edinburgh where they’re more likely to be kitchen showrooms), or the cemetery. My friend told me that the Christian Union go out of their way to convert students, staying behind after meals to talk to those who are still in the room, and using their late night toast-supplying events to try and convert drunks before they go back to bed. I looked forward to a full blown debate but it seemed most of them had gone home for the summer, and the only person who approached me had nothing to do with the University. This is an example of genuine Christianity, the evangelical wing, rather than the take it or leave it approach of the cultural Christians.

I was on my way to the train station when a guy in a sash handed me a leaflet advertising a DVD. I glanced at it and noticed the title (paraphrasing – it appears an over-zealous neat freak has thrown the leaflet out. I’m looking for it online but no luck) ‘The Christian Institution of the Family: A Dynamic Instrument for Changing Society for the Better’, and stopped in my tracks.

I went back to this guy in the sash (who turned out to be American), and asked if his group was involved in the making of this DVD. Of course, was his reply, so my first question was “why does it say ‘Christian Institution of the Family’?”
“I don’t know what you mean”
“Well, do you for some reason believe that people didn’t have families before Christianity?”
“Oh of course they did, but Christianity really introduced marriage and monogamy.”
“So what you’re saying is that before Christianity, people had never heard of the concept of staying with one partner?”
“Err… well… not really, but Christians made it more commonplace”
“So this ‘Christian Institution’ is really more of ‘Christian tweak’ on an already existing institution. It’s a bit of an outlandish statement to take claim for something that was already there in the first place, don’t you think?”
“Well there are statistics on monogamy and success of the family unit, correlated with the Christian tradition, on the DVD”
“I’m sure there are but Christianity has flourished in Europe, America and Oceania, three of the richest areas in the world. I’m sure there are other reasons behind those statistics. Don’t you think it’s more likely that monogamy and the tendency to stay with one’s partner and family is a product of evolution, rather than a religion?”
“Oh, I don’t believe in evolution, Sir.”

On the other hand, I was in the pub with a friend of mine who I’ve known since I was 4, and her boyfriend, neither of whom are churchgoers. We got talking about the whole Catholic vs Protestant thing which is so prevalent in my area, and the boyfriend said “I don’t define myself as either, I just call myself a Christian”. I replied “I always say I was brought up Catholic, but I’m not a Christian anymore.” This led to a quick argument with my friend who was adamant that I am a Christian, simply because I was brought up Catholic and went to Catholic schools, regardless of whether I believed in Jesus Christ or not.

There’s a danger. Many people (admittedly those who care least about such issues) cannot or do not differentiate between a cultural Christian and a genuine one, and so it can be dangerous to label ourselves using the word Christian when we do not hold the specific beliefs that define a Christian. There are many people who’ll happily put down on a form that they’re Christian when they don’t believe in God, which elevates the status of religion in our society, and gives it an influence inflated above that it deserves.

Terrorism bill

The government seem to be obsessed with being able to hold people without charge for as long as possible! The latest development came today with a release of the concessions made on the bill. They want to be able to hold people for 42 days after the rebellion over the 90 day issue, although they’re conceding that it can only happen for 30 days after a significant event of grave danger, to be decided by the government. A couple of points.

Surely if they’re holding these people for 42 days, they’re going to be extracting information from them, which may lead to further arrests, for 42 days, so in order for it to be most effective, shouldn’t this power last for 42 days after any significant event? Otherwise they could get information about somebody on the 31st day, arrest them but only be able to hold them for 28 days or whatever the current limit is, which according to the government isn’t enough time to be able to form a case against them! It’s like they haven’t even thought about what they really need, they’re just making concessions so it’ll get through Parliament next week.

This further leads me to believe that they don’t really need to hold the suspects for this long anyway. Remember that, if I’m not mistaken, 28 days is already the longest period in any democracy in the world you can be held without charge.

 According to this chart which I think I remember first seeing on a campaign group’s website, even in the gungho US of A you can only be held for 2 days without charge, and they’re all terrified of these darkie muslims invading their good Christian conservative way of life! And in Turkey, with all its charges of human rights abuses, only holds suspects for up to 7 and a half days! Which begs the question, why exactly do we need a 42 day limit? Is our terrorist threat that much more serious than these other countries?

Anyone who’s ever studied the UK political system will know that a lot of it relies on tradition, custom and convention, as well as the good will of those in power. Now I’m not suggesting that the current government would use this law to arrest political rivals or protestors, but how exactly do they define the term ‘terrorist’? We have no entrenched bill of rights, no codified constitution, and as a result, the electorate is the only conservative force which keeps the government from doing whatever it wants, and we all know that it only takes the government to call marshall law for that force to evaporate, and then where would we be? The system is open to abuse and until we have certain guarantees, I don’t think we should be poking any more holes in our civil liberties. Even with its concessions, this law, alongside the stop and search laws and ID cards, is one step away from an Orwellian state.