The English Revolution

I have been considering revolutions today, thanks to a song put in my head by a certain friend of mine who shall remain nameless but not tagless. See below for details.

Anyway, my knowledge of revolutions has revealed a certain trend as to how they are undertaken. Namely, that a group of angry and determined men and women find some guns/swords/pitchforks/pointy sticks and charge up to the local place of government office and start taking heads. The French in particular were masters of this. But I got to thinking; what would the English do if suitably moved to revolution?

I can only assume, not a lot. We aren’t exactly the aggressive type, on the whole, especially when it comes to politics. We’re more the “angry letter writing” type.

And so; on that note, I present the most likely action that an English Revolutionary group will take once they move for power. Enjoy!

*  *  *

Letter to Head of State, Buckingham Palace:

Cc: Prime Minister, 10 Downing Street.

Dear Mrs Windsor-Royal-Saxe-Coburg

I represent a political group intent on releasing the workers of the country from their bourgeois masters and bringing equality and fairness to this great country of ours and, unfortunately, you represent a symbol of those that we would wish removed from the country. It is with great regret that we must request that you dissolve Parliament and relinquish you and your family’s position as Monarch, handing power over to us; as representatives of the people. We enclose a petition of 30,000 names signed to support this proposal and hope that you would accept this with good grace. Please be assured that we have only the interests of the country and its citizens at heart.

Whilst a small minority of us supported a motion to pursue this change of government through violent means, we as a whole agreed it was much more acceptable to follow a more diplomatic course of action to avoid uncivilised bloodshed. As a part of this, we are determined to ensure that you and your entire family are provided equal status with the rest of the country, rather than put you through the rigmarole of a messy execution. As equal citizens of this new British state, you will be expected to contribute along with everybody else and we appreciate that this will be an unusual experience for you. Rest assured, however, that upon receiving the benefits of an equal share in the successes of the State you will find this work very much worth your while and we hope you will enjoy the proposed residences that form part of our Comradeship Housing Scheme. I can tell you now I really am excited by what we have designed so far.

But I digress. It only remains for me to ask that, upon receipt of this letter, you vacate the Crown and invite us to take power within 17 working days. Failure to do so will result in a follow-up notice being served, followed by a final notice. After which, we will have to pursue legal action or a coup d’état. We hope that, like us, you would prefer not to go through such an ugly process and that you willingly accept our generous proposals listed above.

We hope this letter finds you in good health.

Sincerely yours,

Brother Thompson, Secretary for the Committee Members United in Solidarity Together (ComMUniST)

*  *  *

(Don’t mock, it took me ages to think of an acronym that worked.)

Something less theological.

I have a guitar.

This is not really news. It is more a reminder to myself more than anything. It is still there. Propped up against its amp. Calm, restful.

I used to play it an awful lot. Nowadays, I feel it is neglected. I still play it from time to time, but it feels like going through the motions. It used to be that I would see my guitar as a future, a way towards a dream. A means of getting a hit of the one thing I, and many others, want more than anything else: attention.

Maybe admiration is more appropriate. Or, perhaps, recognition. Whatever the accurate term, this guitar would be my means to that end. Part of a partnership that would both reach to the stars and scrape along the gutters and throw what it picked up from these colourful dwellings at the faces and eardrums of those caught in the middle. And I would float on the wave of appreciation that I received in return, blissfully satisfied at what I had created; what I had done to the world. Everytime I picked up my guitar in the past, I felt somehow attached to that future.

Now, however, that feeling is not there. Though I still feel a sense of relief as I let each strained and howling note or chord be my mental expression, this has now become tainted by a feeling of futility. I strum along the strings half-heartedly, each slipped accidental a surrender to apathy. A question as to why I even try. I play, knowing full well how much I doubt myself; my ability. And though the dream is still there, it is much more melancholic and distant. My future self seeing the truth of the make-believe. The fabrication that he both resides in and represents. The stars and the gutter are both there, but they seem empty, not worth persuing. Or more truthfully, whilst they are within reach, I doubt I would know what I sought even if I found it.

Twenty-four frets and six strings; a language I once knew but struggle to speak these days. And I'm not sure I really want to sometimes.

What will become of my writing? I write so infrequently as it is and with no real direction. I conceive ideas but cannot face raising them. Like my music, I also question my writing. Can I really take it anywhere? Or is it just another illusion, a distraction from deciding on a life between the gutter and the stars?

I don't like being introspective and I will probably regret posting this when I wake up. I'm not sure what the purpose of posting this will be. But I'm not really sure I've been being myself when writing lately. I've been trying to be important, trying to make sure I could justify each entry. Trying to write about the world, so that I might work a space for myself in it. But no-one remembers a news article. Everyone remembers a song.

X-Treme Atheism!!!

It seems the role of aged, conservative and self-important men to say or do really stupid things. Us in the UK have the bastion of foot-in-mouthery in the guise of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Show him the opportunity to be awkwardly racist and he will take it with both hands, both feet and all guns blazing.

But it seems there is a new pretender to this heavyweight of ignorance and awkwardness. And what's more, he has God on his side. In the blue corner; in the Papal Pants of White and Gold and the impressively pointy hat, His Eminence, His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI!!

For as the Pope took to the spotlight in his first appearance in Britain; now classified a "Third World Country" by his representatives in the Vatican, he gave a speech offering the hand of friendship in the hope of improving relations between Britain and the Vatican and was full of praise for our efforts in defeating the Nazi's.

He then proceeded to elevate that hand with a bend at the elbow, put his thumb to his nose, wiggle his fingers and proclaim "Nuh nuh nuh-nuh nuh!

Yey, for it was that then His Holiness decided to warn of an impending terror, bigger than any ever before faced on our planet, and possibly worse than Aliens with evil intent. No, not the ignorance displayed by important world leaders but the perils of extremist atheists! And just like our country kept the tyranny of God-hunting Nazis at bay, so should they, with equal disdain, cast out the Evil Atheists, lest they destroy the world.

Well done, Benny. Well done.

So, admittedly, this isn't going to piss off the country as a whole. The Daily Mail are sure to love it, and will be spouting anti-atheist rhetoric and Bible quotes a-plenty in the weeks to come. Atheists are not the majority by any stretch of the imagination. But what a great way to show off the benefits of the Religion you have made your employment as well as vocation. By going out and comparing atheists to the Nazi regime. Peace and Love to all men!

I am, as is probably very clear by now, an Atheist. I could list the reasons why, but this blog is long enough. To put a long story short; I like science too much to harbour the belief it was all created. Deifactured if you like. Random chance is what gets me off. Putting an overall architect in the mix is just boring.

But, on the whole, I don't care if what you live and die by is the all-encompassing belief in a God being at the centre of all this magic. I accept the diverse nature of human frailties and that a large number of people feel that life is much more than what can be rationalised. Fair enough, there is a lot of crazy shit out there. If you want to put that down to the intervention of the Omnipotent then I'm not to say that you are misguided. We are all guided by our own individual influences and reasonings. I will happily leave you to it.

So why can't you leave me to my atheism? Why does the Christian Church feel so obliged to meddle and to poke at atheists, hoping they'll crack and follow their God's will? I single this to Christianity simply because a) I'm talking about the Pope and b) I have only ever been bothered by Christians in this way. Never before have I been walking through the High Street only to be bothered by a Hindi asking me if I have let Ganesh into my life and; if not, given me 5 reasons why I will be reincarnated as a tapeworm if I don't.

Getting back on track, to say the Pope's comparison is unfair would be a cataclysmic understatement. Yes, the Nazi's attacked religion. But mostly Judaism. And, though my Nazi History is a bit rusty, I'm pretty sure this was due to extremist Christian assertions that the Jews were to blame for the death of Jesus. Not because Hitler was a really angry atheist. There was also, I think I am right in saying, a Nazi church with Christianity as it's principle guidelines. And of course, famously, the Pope at the time of Nazism, Pope Pious XII, did nothing to stop Hitler throughout his time in power. So, essentially, the Catholic Church stood and watched whilst Hitler went about destroying the Jewish, Black and Gay population of Europe, as well as others. I, as an atheist on the other hand, have barely enough motivation to write this blog against the Pope's crazed ramblings, and I am deemed worthy of condemnation as an extremist, comparable to Nazi persecution. Slightly disproportionate I feel.

This is ignoring both the fact that Ratzinger was a Nazi Youth himself and the rather prominent consideration that; in terms of criticising extremism, the Catholic Church doesn't have a leg to stand on, particularly in the realms of religious persecution (Inquisition and the Crusades anyone?). This is because, in my most logical eye, the current Pope is hardly to blame for either the Nazis or the previous actions of the Catholic Church. What Pope Benedict is responsible for, however, is the progression of the Catholic Church. In this, I can only see that he is failing at his task. He had a chance here to genuinely offer a friendly hand, attempt to reason the benefits that Religion could offer the world and change the perception of the Catholic Church for the better. Sadly; he resorted to auto-Christian and, instead, chose to attack those who disagree with religion in an attempt to belittle their claims as extremist nonsense. And so, once again, progression is cast aside in favour of redrawing battle lines with those who are different.

As a closing thought, I wish to share the thought which allows me to take pleasure in this unpleasant man's ignorant comparison. During my Philosophy degree I was introduced to the idea of the Reductio ad Hitlerum. Put simply, this is where an argument is made against a policy because of similarity to Hitler and the Nazi party, suggesting that this similarity means that acceptance of the particular policy will lead to further, Nazi-like evils. The man who highlighted this form of argument, Leo Strauss, regarded this as a false form of argument. A form of scare tactic to end debate and interest in a policy using guilt tactics. Essentially, when an argument reaches a Reductio ad Hitlerum, the argument has failed.

And so, I can sleep restfully, safe in the knowledge that I am not a Nazi and that the Pope is just a desperate old man who just wants to hide in his castle.

Time to step on some shaky ground...

I don't like talking about religion. I know that there is a part of me that stores up the rage felt at every hateful and ignorant thing said in the name of a God and just yearns to turn it back, in one massive wave of anger, at every single person that believes it is right to hate and discriminate because of their particular faith and It wouldn't stop until every single one had broken down in tears. And I'm not really very keen to give it the opportunity. I don't want to be that person.

But the events set to dominate this week are distinctly of a religious nature. Today saw the remembrance of the events of September 11th 2001. Whilst there was a clear hope for many that today could be a catalyst to bring the country together and start on a stronger future for all in America, this hope was undermined by a minority with anger as their driving force. In the days leading up to September 11, the vicar of a small church in Florida announced he was planning to burn a copy of the Koran on the anniversary, as a means of protesting the planned installation of an Islamic centre and Mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero. This was, perhaps inevitably, put on hold due to the intervention of the FBI and other influence from the Government. In retaliation, however, a small group of Muslims burned a US flag outside the embassy in London during the rememberance events. I can only really express my disappointment, but not my surprise.

When I first heard about the proposal to build a Mosque near Ground Zero, I knew instantly it was a catastrophe waiting to happen and, most likely, the straw that breaks Obama's hopes of reinstatement. Whist I could not argue with the intended sentiment and the potential act of unity that would be a worthy beacon to show the terrorists that their actions are not working, it was never going to work. The divide in America runs too deep, the majority too set in their ways for the country as a whole to unite behind a common goal; togetherness. As much as I can hope for this Mosque to succeed as a symbol that religious tolerance can happen, I can understand the feelings of those who see it as belittling the memory of those loved ones that were killed. But, I would beg that those people consider that Islam has also been damaged irreperably by the events nine years ago and that, perhaps, building a Mosque should similarly be a memorial to Islam and its followers, which is now blamed on mass for the actions of an extreme minority with a severely distorted view of their religion.

The thing is, governments rely on promoting an 'us and them' mentality in the public that follows it. It used to be the basis of how the Labour party ran its campaigns, Hitler used it to gain power and America was practically founded on it. It is especially useful during wartime to encourage public support for military action (see the Cold War, the Vietnam War, every Civil War and every act of Empire building ever). It is also highly encouraged by religious practitioners, especially in modern times of Gay marriage and female equality. And so it is that Reverend Terry Jones (at one point "Terry Jones" was trending on Twitter. I wondered what the former Python was getting up to. Imagine my disappointment) feels he must take a stand against what he sees as the Devil's work and announces his plans to burn the Islamic Holy text. Again, I can only say how this disappoints, but does not surprise me. Recent history is stacked full of examples of Christians showing just how much thier religion makes them tolerant. A friend of mine had an encounter like this only today. And they all miss the point of the religion they so dearly love to throw in our face.

I want to point out now, this is not exclusive to Christianity. The retaliatory attack in London by Muslims burning the American flag is just as disappointing, if only because of how much today should mean to Islam as well as America. Similarly, it needs to be remembered that these actions on both sides will most likely meet with condemnation by members of each aggressor's own respective faith and that, in the end, these extreme minorites do not speak for the religion itself. But it wont be. These actions or threats will go onto the list of reasons why each extremist group hates the other and the divide will grow even deeper. Everyone will focus on the label and overlook the ignorant nature of the individual.

And if this crazy religious controversy wasn't enough, we in the UK are faced with our own batch when Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger (not to be confused with John Ratzenberger; or Cliff from "Cheers", like I did), visits the country. If you're living outside the UK, then you may not know that everyone here is somewhat miffed that we're allowing this man of God into the country, due to his being a thoroughly unpleasant and dastardly individual. His actions have allowed a large but unknown number of Catholic priests to avoid punishment (by non-omnipotant beings at least) for the rape of children all over the Catholic world, doing everything in his power to silence the victims and cover up the whole case. Add to that his message to Africa, that condoms help spread the HIV/AIDS virus and the fact this visit will be at the cost of the taxpayer to the sum of around £20 million and it's not hard to see why the country is less than pleased.

Once again, one man's interpretations of a religious text has sparked anger and led to a huge degree of injustice in the aim of protecting the Catholic Church. This man has clearly done a great deal of damage to many lives around the world. And yet we are welcoming this man as a Head of State and showing him our greatest hospitality. And all because he is head of the Catholic Church. It's not even as if Britain is a Catholic country. Quite the opposite, in fact, considering there is still in effect a ruling which prevents any Catholic from taking the throne. So why are we inviting this man into our country when we should be actively condemning his actions?

I am not alone in my thinking this; there are a number of protests planned for his visit, and I'm not exactly saying anything that isn't already well known. But it highlights a point. In regards to the workings of religion, so much can often be decided by individuals with agendas. I have encountered a number of people who would criticise religion as a whole because of what the Pope has done, or what men like Rev. Terry Jones preach to their respective flocks. The actions of the Westboro Baptist Church has inspired a lot of resentment towards Christianity. But, in reality; despite my beliefs that religion, on the whole, is outdated, I cannot lay the blame at what I would understand to be the fundamentals of religion. It is not religion's fault that these individuals twist doctrine to suit their various inhuman needs. The fact is that, throughout history, people have been scared of those that are different and unwilling to understand why they are so different. Then, later on, when something unpleasant has happened, people have looked for answers and someone to place the blame on so that they can be dealt with to fix the unpleasantness. Religion just got roped into this mentality.

I've spent a lot of time writing this, mainly because I felt all I was doing was rambling inanely without really having a point. As a result, I am aware that this whole blog is probably pretty crap. But my point, considering it is probably completely lost, is that if the events of this week should teach us anything, it is that we are still completely blinded by the idea of religion, whether we believe in it or not. It always seems to inspire controversy because it is so easily brought up in any uncomfortable situation in society. But religion is a scapegoat, an easy explanation for something that is much more complicated and difficult for us to accept; that the human race has some serious issues and will always find someway of hating somebody else. In reality, religion is not out to harm people. It's the people who follow it blindly who cause all the problems.

The moral of this story, then; always question the crazy zealot who talks to God.