grahambinns.com

So, it turns out that the story that I blogged about the other day has even more to it than I thought.

Rather than try and summarise the matter here - for I don't fully understand it at the moment; it's late, I'm tired and I'm busy watching the fantastic An Inconvenient Truth. Instead, I'll let Terry Sanderson of the Grauniad explain pretty much my feelings on the matter here.

More over, I learned this evening via the ever-wonderful Pharyngula that on Friday morning's Today Programme Richard Dawkins managed, in three minutes, to not only rip holes in Murphy O'Connor's comments but to also slam John Humphrys for his attitude when interviewing religious figures.

Now, I personally dislike the way that John Humphrys interviews people. I find him arrogant and irritating and particularly dislike the way he interrupts people when they're actually trying to answer the question (I have no objection to him interrupting people who are trying not to answer the question). So it did give me a little tingle to hear Dawkins tying him up in knots. But more important than that was that Murphy O'Connor said this of reason leading to terrorism and oppression, which Dawkins pointed out:

Danger because, if you go just by reason, I think, without faith, without belief in God, you can imagine, for instance in the last century, some of the faith(less), or supposedly faithless societies - people, whether it's like Hitler or Stalin, bringing up - having a country in which, if you like, a God free zone, a dictatorship ruled by reason, and where does it lead? To terror and oppression.

Which is so eye-crossingly stupid I can't even find it in myself to be seething mad about such a statement. Still, I'm sure that plenty of people will be mad on my behalf.

richarddawkins.net has clips of Dawkins' interview with Humphrys, the BBC Radio News item about the Cardinal's speech and an interview by Humphrys of the Cardinal himself (in which, to be fair to Humphrys, he does give the Cardinal a harder time than one would usually expect). You can find them all here. Enjoy.

There's a nice story on the BBC news site:

The public perception of open source software is changing fast, said Mark Shuttleworth, who leads distribution of the Ubuntu operating system (OS).

"There has been a sea change in the way people think of Linux, which is very healthy," he said.

"We have seen a real shift in the last six months from folks seeing open source as either a super-specialist thing for people who run data centres or as an enthusiast thing, to something which is energising a lot of the straight commercial PC industry," said Mr Shuttleworth.

Hardy comes out on Friday. Ladies and gentlemen, start your bittorent clients*.

*Because it's easier on the servers than a metric assload of HTTP downloads.

Oh, and whilst we're on the subject the photography stuff I posted about earlier, there's a petition on the Downing Street website that UK citizens and ex pats can sign:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to clarify the laws surrounding photography in public places.

Through history, we have documented the world around us, whether through written word, art or photography.

Photography in particular has provided fantastic insights into the past and present, and is a hobby enjoyed by millions of people worldwide.

But today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to take photos of our surroundings, particularly in cities like London.

In recent years, the price divide between professional and consumer equipment has blurred, and it's quite common these days to see amateurs and hobbyists carrying around tripods, SLR cameras and a backpack full of equipment.

Yet, we are constantly harrassed by security guards and police officers in the name of preventing terrorism. They seem to be operating under a different interpretation of the law to the rest of us, believing that somehow the length of your lens, or size of your camera is relevant.

We would like clarification by the goverment on the law regarding photography of buildings and landmarks from public locations.

Seems like a worth sentiment. If you feel you've got an interest, please sign it.

So, as a follow-up to yesterday's post, this just in from the BBC (link):

Crowds of people have marched in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to call for UK teacher Gillian Gibbons to be shot.

...

According to some agencies, some of the protesters chanted: "Shame, shame on the UK", "No tolerance - execution" and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad".

One demonstrator told reporters that it was unacceptable to take a toy and call it Muhammad.

"We can't accept it from anybody. Even if they can do that in Europe, they cannot do it here in Sudan. We ask our rulers and judges to review what they have said. Fifteen days is not enough."

I have no words, really. But once again:

The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (Fosis), which represents more than 90,000 Muslim students in the UK and Ireland, said it was "deeply concerned" at what was a "gravely disproportionate" verdict.

The federation's president, Ali Alhadithi, said: "What we have here is a case of cultural misunderstandings, and the delicacies of the matter demonstrate that it was not the intention of Gillian Gibbons to imply any offence against Islam or Muslims.

Which shows that you don't have to be a nutter to be religious. But I can't help thinking that Stephen Fry was right when he said: "Religion. Shit it." 

From BBC news (link):

A British teacher has been found guilty in Sudan of insulting religion after she allowed her primary school class to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, has been sentenced to 15 days in prison and will then be deported.

Which is bad enough. I mean it's a teddy bear for heaven's sake. And it was named by children. But oh no, no, this woman deserves to go to jail.

That's not the best bit though. Read on and you'll find:

But Sudan's top clerics had called for the full measure of the law to be used against Mrs Gibbons and labelled her actions part of a Western plot against Islam.

Now, before someone starts telling me how I'm being anti Islamic or failing to understand the religion or some other such nonsense, I'll point out that (again according to the BBC) Sudanese bloggers have roundly condemned the whole business:

Other comments on the site (sudanesethinker.com) criticised Sudanese Islamists: "Once more, Islamic hard-liners are making their religion look ridiculous. How sad."

"Astonishing backwardness, oh people!" said another posting, in Arabic.

"I hate the stupidity of this," one entry on the forum said. "More attention will hopefully mean the release of Ms Gibbons without getting jailed or lashed so bring it please!"

Pretty much everyone who reads this will know that I have little truck with religion, though I've often expressed my envy of those who do believe in supernatural things. But tolerant as I'd like to think I am I have nothing but contempt for people who use their religion as an excuse to mete out unnecessary punishments for crimes that nobody apart from them - and by that I mean nobody in their own religious group, never mind us Godless heathens - recognises as a crime in the first place.

Stephen Law made a good point the other day when he said:

Religion, it seems to me, is a bit like nuclear power. Immensely powerful and (arguably) useful. And, perhaps most of the time, it runs quite happily, doing not much harm.

But unless it is extremely carefully controlled and monitored, it can very quickly run out of control. Indeed, just as with nuclear power, you can predict the unpredicted. Somewhere along the line, something probably will go wrong, and when it does, you have an extremely toxic situation on your hands. A religious Chernobyl.

This isn't quite that bad. Maybe it's more of a religious-fire-at-Buncefield than a Chernobyl, but even so.

Religion can be a wonderful thing and for a lot of people can bring meaning and hope to their lives that they may have struggled to find elsewhere, I'm not denying that. But wherever you find a religion you find someone willing to twist it, even if they're just twisting it into something ludicrous (as in this case) rather than something terrifying (like, say, 7/7 or 9/11).

People, as always, are a problem.