Shakespeare down the tube

Recently I used the London Underground (tube)
Where I sat I found myself confronted with one of the "Poems on the Underground".
It read:

"Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep"

Well, I read it a couple of times and I thought:
What does the "it" in the seventh line refer to?
Ah yes, I see, to "this vision".
The play has ended.
The actors had conjured "spirits", insubstantial characters which now have vanished
They had no substance.
"We" Is that the players, or wider than that. Is it us?

Religion: a threat to personal freedom?

Earlier today I went to a conference organised by the Birmingham Humanists with the title:
Religion: a threat to personal freedom?

We drove up in the early morning. We talked on the way and I gather from my travelling companion that he is seriously concerned by the threat of Muslim violence. I don't mean at the meeting but in the wider society. He said he could understand Christians and felt he could come to an accommodation with them but Muslims and the Koran was something alien and threatening.

Originally a Muslim cleric from Birmingam had accepted an invitation to speak at the conference. However when at very short notice the cleric announced that he couldn't attend in the light of the Pope's recent speech I was asked whether I could think of anyone that might step in. I had only recently met for the second time someone active in the Muslim community in West London. He was someone whom I felt I had a certain rapport with from the very first. I asked him and he agreed. On our arrival we were told that he and his family had been delayed but would be there within the hour. He had only the previous day collected one of his daughters, his son-in-law and their three-year-old son from London airport where they had arrived from Pakistan. I don't think any of them had had much sleep since. The whole family were on their way to the meeting.

The Secretary of the Birmingham Humanists seemed well organised if slightly fraught. Everyone had a name label (I think I later noticed a crescent symbol on the label provided to the Muslim speaker) and we were greeted and invited to make ourselves a hot drink. Soon Keith Porteus-Wood of the NSS turned up with his colleague Terry Sanderson and also the Christian speaker who, I think, brought with him a couple of friends or colleagues. The rest of us were either members of the Birmingham Humanists or Humanists from other areas. We were in all about 35 or so people.

Eventually the Muslim speaker, Amir Ahmed, turned up with his family. They were warmly greeted by a relieved gathering.

Then a little later than scheduled the conference proper began.
Keith Porteus-Wood from the National Secular Society (I am a member but this doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with eveything done or said by the NSS ) presented, in a very cogent, confident and yet measured way, the not inconsiderable areas of concern we have regarding religion impinging upon personal freedoms. Actually I think in most of the examples provided it was religious institutions that were seeking to restrict freedoms. I was impressed (but not surprised) at his polished exposition.

The young (that's not intended to be patronising merely factual) bible-believing Christian, danced magnificently on the head of a pin and seemed as fascinated by the works and supposed 'beliefs' of what he clearly regarded as the Humanist and secularist 'high priest', Richard Dawkins, as some of my fellow Humanists are with biblical and koranic texts and what they perceive are the problems or contradictions therein. The speaker, whose name I forget and who was also replacing a person who had originally been listed to speak, said he preferred the term "bible-believing" to "evangelical" so as to avoid confusion with the excesses of US evangelists. I think he used a more perjorative term than "excesses".

Personally I would have liked to see some more engagement with the topic of the meeting by everyone, but nonetheless I still found it all fascinating.

Just an aside: I am curiously puzzled at how I find such pleasure in the company of some people (here I am thinking particularly of Amir Ahmed and his family and also one of the Christians, Jonathan ( I didn't catch his surname) whom I talked with at some length after the meeting) even though I know we would disagree profoundly on some matters and suspect that if we were to dig deeper we would probably find we hold some views which the other might regard as abhorrent and yet I find myself very uncomfortable with some Humanists/atheists with whom I am sure I would fundamentally agree on many issues. I don't for one moment suggest that there is anything very peculiar or unique to me about this. It is very human but it is also quite puzzling.

Amir made it clear at the onset that whilst he and his daughter were both Muslims and quite knowledgable he was not a cleric and neither of them were scholars. I thought the contributions from Amir and his daughter, I hope I have remembered the name correctly, Naseem, were very interesting. Knowing as I do how tired they all were and how Amir was also in pain from an attack of gout, they were more than interesting, they were remarkable.

He and his younger daughter were eloquent and there were also contributions from other family members present; Amir's wife and elder daughter.

I was aware of what I thought were a certain amount of understandably barely supressed emotions which it is difficult to put into words. I think on the part of some there were concerns that politeness might render the meeting so anodyne as to be pointless. However this may have caused a few people to express themselves, as I saw it, badly.
Suggesting as one contributor did somewhat sarcastically that he had heard many definitions of god and would the panelists care to give theirs seemed not very helpful. Maybe I am wrong on that. Another adopted a browbeating stentorian tone, causing the Chair some considerable exasperation, to question the Muslim speakers on their attitude to what he (and most of us) would consider some unacceptable aspects of the Islamic penal system, including the apostasy issue, in other countries.

There was someone else who I surmised from his appearance, accent and contribution could well have been brought up as a Muslim but was now a Humanist who asked about apostasy.
He stated that in Islam apostasy was a capital crime and wanted to know what the Muslims present thought of that.
There was a response of a type which is, in my experience, often given to such questions and which seems to strike the non-Muslim as equivocation but is in fact the sort of contextualisation that most Humanists should understand and appreciate. However it seems too tempting to feel that you have somehow hoisted the Muslim on their own petard and that they should crumble and admit defeat. The answer given was that it is true that the Koran states that this is a capital offence but it must be understood that there was a historical context at the time, that the requirements to satisfactorily prove the guilt of an individual are of such a scale as to make it virtually impossible, that in countries which are not Islamic countries the overiding edict derived from the Koran is to obey the laws of the country in which the Muslim resides etc. etc.

The Christian speaker had made much of the importance of Truth and added that he shared this concern with Richard Dawkins. From the notes handed out the speaker had also intended to question the veracity of the Koran but due to lack of time he said he left that out. The note simply said
"Koran
Historicity?"
He did provide a series of well crafted and argued reasons why the Truth of the bible was the only sensible thing to believe. I don't believe any of the Humanists/atheists were either really very interested or persuaded. I think the speaker felt that this was what was required of him: to explain his belief. I think the Muslim also thought that this was part of what was wanted. Actually I think, and I may well be wrong here, that what many people were after was reassurance (or maybe confirmation of the opposite) that these religious beliefs were not such as to demand the suppression of some cherished liberties of the individual and, in the case of Islam, by violent means. I think some who had read or heard about various bits of the Koran (and Bible) couldn't see how it could be otherwise. I think, understandably not much progress was made in this, except to say that the Muslim and Christian representatives made it clear that they were law-abiding and advocated being law-abiding. What we didn't consider was what we can or should do to counter those who use religion or other ideologies as grounds for carrying out violent attacks. Everyone seemed to accept that political change in the UK should take place through the democratic process.

In the discussion that followed the speeches there was a brief attempt by one of the Christians to question the veracity of the Koran. There was also a comment from Terry Sanderson of the NSS to point out that there would appear to be some dissent between the Muslim and the Christians. This resulted in immediate handshakes and smiles and claims that there was always friendship between them. Interjections reminding of the situation in Nigeria and other countries where Muslims and Christians were at each others throats received short shrift for it was clear and unsurprising that the guests here were all non-violent people. I say this with no intention of sarcasm. I genuinely am convinced that all speakers and everyone present were peaceful, law-abiding people.

There were some revealing moments which stick in my memory. After the points were made about apostasy and some implicit hostility to Islam had been moderately voiced, the elder daughter of Amir spoke quite passionately about how she now lived in Pakistan with her husband and child and was very happy and wouldn't want to live in England where she had suffered considerable discrimination and been physically attacked. The younger daughter who spoke at length also told us of being assaulted.

There was mention made by the Muslim speakers of the balancing of rights. If there was freedom to be insulting did they not have a right not to be insulted. They said by way of example that they would not want to come to this meeting dressed and saying things which would be insulting.
I thought that this was interesting: what I wondered is it that they could have said, or worn, or not worn, that would so insult me that I would wish legislation enacted to prevent them from doing or saying it? My answer is that I could think of nothing that was not already illegal and I could even think of somethings which are illegal, which I am not sure I would actualy really care about i.e. if they had turned up naked.
However I was interested to hear later a fellow Humanist say how insulted and offended he is by the very sight of a woman wearing a burka. (Amir's daughters were not in full burka but in full-length modest dress but with their faces uncovered.)

In another conversation I heard it questioned whether Muslims understood how insulted and offended non-muslims were. To be frank I am not really quite clear what exactly was the point being made here. In my discussion with my passenger on the way up I did mention my Jewish background and how, I felt it might give me some insight into how people belonging to a minority religious community might react to criticism and perceived attack. I wonder whether it actually does? I imagine that where it seems as if people are attempting to force you to renounce certain things using a particular form of words not of your choosing and that you suspect there is an ulterior prejudiced motive you feel obliged not to go down that route.
Of course, obviously I am not claiming to speak for Amir or any of his family but if I were a Muslim father in London I would not have a lot of confidence in the authorites dealing justly and fairly with anyone I 'shopped' for behaving in a manner that I thought was suspicious. Would I, in present circumstances and climate, just ignore my suspicions - no of course not - I would feel obliged to investigate them but I would imagine I would want to do so within my own community. This is not a state of affairs of which I approve but it is one which I think I can understand. It has also applied to other communities in the past including the Irish in the 70s and 80s.

I do think that we who attended the conference, are, if we want to be, only at the begining of a dialogue and yesterday showed us that along with some goodwill there is also suspicion and fear.

Thinking and feeling at the theatre

Today I went to see Bertolt Brecht's play, Galileo, at The National Theatre.

It made me think about those who say that religion, and most fashionably, Islam, is increasingly a threat to 'our' way of life.

People do things: not religions, not belief systems, not even institutions.

We do not need to succeed in persuading anyone that their beliefs are misguided. We need to persuade them that others have a right to their beliefs, misguided as they may seem to them, too.

What I need from you is to protect my right to be wrong.

Of the Muslims that are in this country very few are in positions of power. They are not able to restrict my freedoms, though some may wish they could. It isn't Islam I fear.

I am not saying that anyone should stop trying to persuade people that their beliefs, religious (of whatever persuasion) or political are mistaken or that their institutions are misguided. We need people to do that and maybe we need some people to champion their religious beliefs if for them they are the means to cope with the vicissitudes of living; for it is, after all, their lives. Of course, we need lies to be listed, exploitations exposed, hypocrisy highlighted. We need satire and we need protest. Those that can, should argue and persuade in favour of the rational, the reasonable and the goal of enlightenment.

However what I think is more urgent is to champion and defend civil rights, civil liberty; to champion and encourage the liberty and activity of the artist, the scientist and the academic and even more importantly to encourage the pursuit of excellence, of understanding and of progress. We need to insist that schools in this country explain the history behind the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention embodied in the UK Human Rights Act and their importance to the liberty of the individual, no matter what their beliefs. Most protections for the freedom of the individual are comparatively recent and could quite easily be removed. Most of us, at first, are not affected, we never are. Only those at the leading edge have the sharpness of their intellectual pursuit blunted. It is already happening. It is only after a while that the mobs will start beating us up.

I will need to read this through again a few times to decide whether I have expressed anywhere near satisfactorily what I feel and think.

Chemical substances - drugs

There are a lot of people with vested interests in retaining the present paradigm.
The fact that some dangerous drugs (alcohol, tobacco) are legal and many others available on a doctor's prescription whilst less dangerous ones are outlawed is an inconsistency which I am sure plays a part in making young people sceptical of most government, professional or parental advice.
It is self evident to most young people that, for example, ecstasy is a comparatively safe drug with very few side effects. I do not advocate their consumption primarily because their purchase involves breaking the law. Not being legally available also means that quality canot be guaranteed. Being illegal also means that in purchasing them you may well be dealing with someone who is one or two removed from people engaged in extreme violence and you are therefore indirectly supporting them.
To my mind all drugs should be legalised and then some should have their sale controlled and regulated.
However doing this would put a lot of people out of a job!

First principles - thing things through #2 Humanism and its implications

Humanism and its implications

Humanism is a private belief.
There are manifestos http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm.
There are books of a rare and wonderful significance http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/.
None however are thought to be inerrant. The necessity of their fallibility, or, to put it another way their potential for improvement, is at the core of the Humanist outlook. That Humanists are convinced of the value of their beliefs is not unique. Most people are convinced of the value of their beliefs.
The wish by Humanists to publicise and proclaim their worldview can be for a variety of reasons:
altruism - to share and promote a good thing;
pragmatism - a belief that the world would be a better place the more Humanists there are;
identity - to better define to others and to themselves who they are;
fellowship - to establish a sense of community;
education - to simply inform others of a non-theistic, naturalistic worldview;
Apart from self-promotion and publicity what other activities could flow from Humanist beliefs? Even for those who believe (and I am not one of them) that it is either possible or desirable to persuade most people to become Humanists there is clearly a very long way to go to achieve this goal!
In the meantime there is an imperative to develop, refine and advance the means whereby human beings holding wildly differing beliefs can live together and prosper in harmony. There are a multitude of ways to contribute to this goal. One important way is to promote support for the declarations and conventions setting out agreed principles of human rights and obligations. (note: It is important to recognise that all rights automatically imply obligations.)
In order to protect my right to my beliefs, unless I rely on violent coercion to suppress the rights of others, I must promulgate, establish and encourage adherence to, and respect for, an agreed set of principles. No matter how these agreed principles are derived they must be treated as fundamental. Some may conveniently claim that for example the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is merely a subset of their own beliefs writ large, translated, simplified or slightly modified for the benefit of the easier understanding of others. The accuracy or otherwise of such claims is far less important than whether there is practical adherence to the code of behaviour embodied by the Declaration. If some think it means that Christians are behaving like Humanists or Muslims behaving like Christians etc. or any other permutation it matters not a jot.
It is insufficient for Humanists when arguing in support of such rules, codes, laws, constitutions, declarations and conventions to simply demonstrate or claim that they are the embodiment of the Humanist ideal or compatible with or derived from Humanist principles. What is required is to marshal imaginative and rhetorical skills to persuade others no matter their beliefs to accept as a matter of practical necessity for the well-being of themselves, their family and friends the primacy of these edicts.
To gain acceptance, for example, for shared understandings of what it means to excercise personal autonomy or what constitutes torture or cruel and inhuman punishments, or why children should be complelled to undergo education, are all matters requiring skilled advocacy and crafty diplomacy.
Even on issues susceptible to scientifc reasoning it will be necessary to persuade those who are unimpressed, ignorant or even hostile to science that the conclusions are nonetheless valid. In my opinion Humanists should support science as a rational method for better understanding the way things are. They should also campaign against superstition and argue in favour of democracy (however ill-defined a concept) etc. However in arguing for these matters there is no logical reason why they should not find themselves in the company of those holding apparently diametrically opposed fundamental beliefs i.e. a belief in a god and a supernatural realm. Some Humanists may find it difficult to understand how a belief in a god can be reconciled with the acceptance of the scientific method but this doesn't mean that the religous person necessarily sees it as a problem.
In fact it is self evident that most do not.
The Humanist can and should where appropriate explain the basis for their beliefs but in the end what matter is whether those other people, who are not Humanists, are capable of interpreting their own beliefs in such a way as to accept an overarching set of laws, rules, conventions constitutions etc. What is to be aimed for is not the impossible full agreement by absolutely everyone but merely a sufficient and growing concensus.

First principles - thinking things through #1 Words

WORDS
Words are taken for granted.
They are not, after all, things like rocks or trees that would be there even if we were not.
Human beings didn't always have words.
We replicate our ancestors. Born without words it is only with considerable effort that we achieve them.
Words are magical, mysterious, practical, addictive and deceptive. Naming things, real or imagined, tangible or ethereal, is an act of amazing audacity. When I employ a word I think I know what I mean and also I think I know what it will mean to you.
There are measures of success.
"Go to that tree" and you go to "that tree" but "tree" won't mean exactly the same thing to you as to me - but close enough in this instance.
To say things plainly is illusive, for things are always varnished.
The truth is a lustrous concept.