More Facebook Memes Completely Miss the Point.

If you are on Facebook you have probably seen the following statement doing the rounds as a "cut and paste" status comment.

"Two planes landed in England yesterday...One brought back a group of overpaid, underachieving footballers.The other brought back seven coffins, each with the Union Jack draped over them. Footballers play for our country, soldiers FIGHT for our country.Footballers give ninety minutes, soldiers give their lives....I know who I respect more. R.I.P. Our Boys. Copy & Paste this to your status, show your support!"

Strong stuff indeed. On the face of it, the sentiment of the message is not without foundation. Yeah footballers are (IMO) overpaid, and the England team did very poorly, considering all the dosh, high flying lifestyle and praise heaped on them. But this comparison doesn't make any sense. These are two separate groups of individuals. No member of the England team has compared the World Cup to fighting a war. These are two unrelated flights, the sentiment of the message is rather skewed. But I don't think that is the real root of the sentiment behind this message. I think it is down to something else.

The sight of England's ejection from the world cup, coincided with the bodies of seven British soldiers being flown to RAF Lyneham (four were killed in a Land Rover accident, unrelated to front line combat) a fact that cannot have missed most peoples attention. It can't have slipped peoples mind that on the greater scheme of things, the stakes on the outcome of a football game are pretty low. There are people out there who have (and have had) much more to lose, without a hundredth of the personal recognition. Something like this can bring home the true scale of what matters. Is it not too much of a stretch to say that this chain status note, is on some level an attempt by some to guiltily readdress their priorities (almost everyone who has posted it gave a blow by blow account of the match, their opinion on the ref ... etc.). I want to point out that this post is in no way a dig at the troops. From what little I know about serving soldiers, I think they find this "our boys" stuff; not their kind of thing. They do the best job under a bad situation. I just feel that some of the shouty sentiment (of course some is genuine feelings for the troops) has more to do with making the poster feel that they are demonstrating their support, without putting that support into more practice. There is much people can do. From donating to HfH, to raising money for those injured in war. Help the British Legion sell poppies and donate at remembrance day. That sort of thing is of more practical help than trying to look patriotic and good on Facebook.

Nice Work If You Can Get It.

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but is it just me who expects that 11 people who are richer than avarice. Drive cars that we can only dream of owning, have all the trappings of a superstar lifestyle, have personal adulation up there with Jesus and Muhammed. Who probably spend more on personal grooming in a month, than a cleaner earns in a year (or even biannually). Yeah taking all these little job perks (coz by gum they've earned them. Hmmm) into consideration. Is it too much to ask the England football team to perhaps apply themselves a little harder next time, especially in the winning part. We wouldn't want them to be accused of being pampered, and overinvested.

I Can't Join in the "St. John" Line

John Lennon is one of the last century's most well known cultural icons. The Beatles, the bed ins, the granny glasses and the long hair. Pretty much everyone knows who he is, and of course he receives the customary (posthumous) adulation that this level of fame brings, which is a lot. His advocacy of the peace movement that formed in his lifetime due to fall out from; amongst other things the Vietnam war and the harsh backlash to the civil rights movements has cemented him in the eyes of his fans, as one of the key figures of the time. Songs like "Give Peace a Chance" and "Imagine" in particular have become almost secular hymns in their own right. I'm even sure the Jesus like long hair, and the white suits and robes played their part in his almost saintly mythos. I had a first hand experience of the St Lennon phenomenon at a "Bootleg Beatles" concert at the Manchester Apollo a few years ago, on the anniversary of his death. The renditions of "Imagine" and his Christmas tune, accompanied with his portrait had the feel of a quasi religious eulogy. In a way this is understandable on some levels. Lennon's senseless death was a genuine tragedy, and such a waste of a genuine talent. There is a grim irony that such a vocal advocate of peace was violently gunned down in the street. But as I thought when I saw this, and when I watched a BBC4 drama about Lennon, from when Brian Epstein killed himself to Yoko and him moving to the US, Lennon really wasn't an angelic figure. If you see past his genuine talent, and the good (as well as dodgy or naive) causes he espoused, he was a man, and a flawed one at that.

Almost anything written about Lennon's life will openly demonstrate that he was; what we would now say was "emotionally retarded". He was troubled, and had a troubled upbringing. Abandoned by his feckless father, and palmed off by his mother to an aunt who brow beat him mercilessly, and had little appreciation of her charges musical talent. He comes across in even sympathetic biographies as chippy, and unable to empathise with people on a normal emotional level, to the point of callousness. Less sympathetic biographies point to him openly mocking disabled strangers and his insensitivity towards his friend Stuart Sutcliffes girlfriend when Stuart died of a brain hemorrhage.

But the two people who really received the brunt of his callous nature where his ex wife Cynthia and his son Julian. Cynthia was rather conventional and straight laced, compared with her wayward and unconventional husband (seems likely they only married because she fell pregnant) he had little appreciation for this situation, and could never understand that she could not apply herself to his more wayward lifestyle, as many wouldn't be able too. He did manage to even bully her into taking acid. In Ray Coleman's sympathetic biography of him, Coleman all but berates her for being a bad wife for being to square for her husband. He was certainly very cruel to her as a husband, for very little justification. The way he blankly didn't react when she returned home to find him having a post shag smoke with Yoko, was really setting the bar for spousal twattery. He seems to have needed to have it spelled out to him that a woman whose marriage has fallen to bits might be a bit down, when he accuses her of being glum for "winning the fucking pools" in the divorce settlement. His lack of empathy almost seem to border on anti social disorder.

If Lennon was a lousy husband, he didn't get extra marks for being a father. One thing the program about him focused on was the childhood abandonment he faced at the hands of his parents. When they both forced him to chose at 6, which parent he wanted to live with, is the worst sort of mental torture you can think of to subject a kid to. For someone so badly stung by his parents selfishness, it is just terrible that he went on to virtually abandon his eldest Julian, rarely seeing him, and berating him for laughing and crying (pretty standard kid behaviour).

If "Lennon Naked" shows one thing, it is that John Lennon was seriously flawed. Although he gave us some great songs, and great biting witty observations. He was emotionally damaged. He had some lousy family values, and was guilty of the same kind of neglect he condemned his own family for. The advocate of peace, was temperamental, and verbally (as well as physically) aggressive. His heroin abuse, and the more mutually self absorbed indulgences aspect of his marriage to Yoko, didn't make him as profound or touched by musical genius as he might have liked to have thought during that period. Often the opposite. His death was tragic, and he went way before his time. But he wasn't a saint. And I think John himself, would have been uncomfortable with some of the more hagiogic sentiment around him.

I Don't Get Glastonbury

I consider myself a modern progressive sort of guy. Musically I don't want to return to the days of "How much is that doggy in the window". I like music, and I'm eclectic about it too. But I just don't get Glastonbury at all. Not one bit of it, and its continuing popularity. I can just about see the appeal 40 years ago when the whole thing started. A bunch of the more eclectic music bands take up a Somerset farmers offer to use his field as a rock venue in the dying weekend of June. Keep a bit of the 60's alive into the next decade. Perhaps re-create a spirit of Woodstock festival in the green and Gentile interior of rural England, reputedly where Jesus stood in ancient times. (so some historians reckon.) But like many things it seems to have dissipated it's original cause in the face of growing popularity (the numbers attending continue to grow.) and public recognition. I just can't fathom what is about today? Apart from bands plugging themselves, and an opportunity for 47 year old Guardian lifestyle correspondents to look hip by association, when they write about how they rubbed shoulders (and spliffs) with Pete Doherty in a puddle of mud. Or if it has some greater meaning than just a well known concert in a muddy field. It doesn't seem to cater to any particular musical taste. It seems like anyone who's famous in music and who wants to show up with their band is free to do so. I certainly don't think I'll be showing up there any time soon.

I have nothing against the festival and the people who go there. Good for them. But Glasto would only end up depressing me. I nearly got roped into going about 6 years ago, but it all fell apart for one reason or another. (a clash with a holiday I recall.) And the only thing I felt was relief. I just knew in the back of my mind, that if I had gone; it would just be four of the most depressing days of my life. Firstly it involves camping. Camping is horrible and stupid. I've only done it twice, both in the Air Cadets, and I hated everything about the whole fucking experience. From setting up a tent (It'd have been easier setting up a new nation in that Yorkshire field, from what I remember), to feeling cold and depressed. To that constant smell of rain and soil. I remember thinking that I'd missed watching "Wings of the Apache" in the comfort of my own home for this! Camping was utter crud. How anyone can call sitting in a bit of cloth, in a soggy field - fun, I'll never know. It was the antithesis of fun. Everything about it is designed to drive even someone with the emotional robustness of Mr. Spock off Star Trek, into a primeval state of rage and teary angst. It was awful. Don't talk to me about getting back to nature. Why did our ancestors spend thousands of years getting out of it in the first place?? Exactly. And to top it off, if the camps flood at Glasto, and everyone gets caked in mud and dirty water, and other waste (work it out.) That's supposed to be even better. Brilliant! That is called a humanitarian crisis, and a gateway to a medical crisis, in anywhere else in the world. Not called fun. Glastonbury is basically a displaced persons camp, with better music to bolster spirits, and populated by non conformists and trendies. It is a recreation of the sort of refugee camp that would spring up if lots of Daily Mail readers created an army, conquered most of England (except Somerset obviously) and sent all the undesirables into exile in a field.

Secondly it is commercialised these days. I'm not saying that's 100% bad (it was pretty much inevitable). But it means queues and high costs. I'd imagine 70 percent of Glasto involves queuing. 56 hours for a cold overpriced burger and a warm overpriced drink at a food tent. 230 hours to cross the camp to see an act performing. 567 hours to get in the entry and pitch a tent. 7 weeks to get out again. And several years in a tailback on the M5 all the way to Weston Supermare, getting home again. That doesn't sound too great. I know it is an inevitable consequence of popularity, but the commercialism of the event would also gnaw away at me. However much it might want to deny it, Glasto is as commercial these days as a Tesco Express in Macclesfield. I know they have all those spiritual tents these days, but Waterstones has spiritual books, so there. This would jar more at Glasto, than say somewhere like Disneyworld. I don't just hate everything commercial. I liked the latter for a start. But the latter doesn't really disguise it's links in the way Glasto would like to so I suppose that would make it more of a "betrayal" if that is the right word.

I might be sad, but I feel more at home watching a band in a pub, than I would at an open air concert. Better booze, more comfy. They have a wonderful invention called the roof, which keeps out the rain. And there isn't quite the same risk of catching dysentery from gallons of contaminated mud. Perfect.

All This Asylum Seeker Bashing Ends With Stuff Like This.

The Yarls Wood Immigration Removal Centre was mentioned in a Telegraph article this week, highlighting the emphasis on closing it down and providing a more suitable and humane alternative for holding failed asylum seekers and their children until they can be removed from the UK. Yarls Wood -if you take a moment to look at testimonies on it (here, here and a full PDF on the conditions there; here) is quite simply a national disgrace for a Western democracy. I don't even mean the reports of hunger strikes, racial and sexual abuse, and the fact that these people have been detained indefinitely for committing no crime. The conventions say that anyone can claim for asylum in Britain (not to say that you will be accepted) so many of them haven't broken any laws. You can be rejected for many reasons, so we can't even say that they are committing fraud . Some I imagine are genuinely frauds, but many may not have had the resources to have a testimonial portfolio about the dangers they face. That can be tricky in a place in turmoil.

No the real stinger is the fact that children are being imprisoned INDEFINITELY!! We are the only European country that does this (how wonderful). I know immigration is a passionate hot potato. There is a hell of a lot of hostility towards what people perceive to be Britain's indulgence to immigrants. Even if it were true (a lot of it isn't) then it is the governments fault, and they should carry the can, not the immigrants themselves. Hand on my heart I don't blame people from hell holes, and places where the choices boil down to a life of poverty, or a life of having no cash, staking their hopes in Europe for a better life for them and their kids. I'd do the same in their shoes. (I'm also sure Northernbloke would go down well with the party line in Somalia and Taliban controlled Afghanistan too.) I'm not invoking a completely open door policy here either. Britain can't take everyone obviously; for a start. Also Britain has a lot of underprivileged (way too many in my view) native citizens as well. Their needs have to be factored in. It's a balancing act and will require a pan European mechanism to see how our appealing and affluent neck of the woods will deal with people from a lot of other parts of the wood where it isn't so rosy. Some of the abuse towards asylum seekers seems hypocritical, when many who do the abusing would -if the situation was reversed; do exactly the same thing if they were in that situation. For all the Mail and the Sun bang on about "people who seriously question immigration are branded racist", the level of hostility (which is NOT seriously objectifying the immigration question) they show towards people like the inmates of Yarls Wood, seems designed to go out of its way to incite anti immigrant sentiment, and it is working to a terribly successful degree.

I'd like to think that even the most vociferous "close the borders" proponent would baulk at kids being locked up (since when are they to blame for their parents decision to seek asylum?) indefinitely. That Yarls Wood should be seen as a modern day equivalent of the internment camps that Asian Americans were put in on the West coast of the USA after Pearl Harbour. That the asylum seeker father who hung himself in this very centre so that his son wouldn't be deported (as he was now an orphan) exposed a horrifying underbelly to this situation. But still we get charming comments like these on this case.

"Seems to me like a good case for immediate deportation and problem solved. Justice care solutions?* Perhaps something else we could look at saving public expenditure on.Sometimes tis better to remain silent when thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

*Justice Care solutions is a think tank that the author of the Telegraph article directs.

"It doesn't seem any more of a hardship than my old boarding school, and I'm sure the food is better."

"Your picture of Yarls Wood looks a very modern establishment. It is not exactly Dartmoor now is it? I bet everything possible is laid on for these people's comfort."

"Most immigrants know that in the UK children are the geese that lay the golden eggs of free houses and money, more than the vast majority could even dream about from where they come from. There are even baby farms producing for this purpose, and children are handed around immigrant families for the purposes of benefits and housing. Benefits provided for children are regarded by the parents as personal reward and children are primed to say whatever is expedient to create maximum pathos, tearing at the hearts of those liberal professionals that really should be able to see through the charade."

"People who come here and are detained in such centres often enjoy the best standard of living they have ever had. A roof over their heads, clothing and regular meals are a luxury to many. They would not be making every effort to slip into the UK illegally if their living conditions were better at home - the vast majority are not fleeing injustice and persecution as they would have us believe. Any other country would place them in a detention centre and then repatriate them forthwith. Only in the UK can they stall the proceedings so long that they are allowed leave to stay or are simply able to disappear.If these children are not placed under lock and key, many will be used for thieving, begging and prostitution so this is a way of protecting them.What should ring alarm bells is the number of children sent to the UK unaccompanied, which has been going on for years now. This means that any council landed with them is obliged to fund their keep and education fully until they are 18! How about that as a law to be arasites on the hard-working taxpayers. They come here expecting to be supported and are not disappointed."

"Children must be removed urgently from wherever their safety and welfare is at risk."Absolutely.Get 'em deported ASAP.I'm sure they'll find conditions far, far more congenial in whatever benighted Third World slime pit they originated in."

"Wise words Simon. We are not running hotel standard services for transitory visitors. Too many do-gooders want better conditions than we offer our servicemen.You are spot on, get them out quicker.."

This story reminds me of a Comic Relief appeal I saw in 2005, for a charity that helped child survivors of the massacres in Kosovo come to terms with what happened to their families and neighbours. The commentator had to remind people not to be prejudiced by the coverage about asylum seekers when donating. I remember thinking to myself "That's pretty fucking bad when you grow to be indifferent (at best) to children who have done nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time." But [Yarls Wood] is the logical conclusion of this nasty little campaign towards immigrants. The government wants to look tough to nasty little bastards like the commentators above (there are lots more on other discussions too. Even the wikipedia article on the centre has been vandalised by racists.) and the hostility cascades down to official channels. It's futile (not to mention immoral) to pander to this stuff anyway. People who think a centre condemned by just about every child welfare agency you can list, is fricking Clarreges, can't really be placated. So there we are.

Hopefully the Coalition will press on with closing this centre.

Sometimes a Cigar is a Cigar

There's been a right hoo hah over nothing regarding a story about how the PC Brigade / militant non smokers have defaced the name of Britain's greatest war leader, in their non ending mission to establish a PC sandal wearing utopia of left wing debauchery or whatever. Yes it seems that a copy of a 1948 picture of Churchill opening a military facility, has had the cigar he is smoking removed from the picture. (See Above.)

The sans cigar doctored photo has subsequently been superimposed on to a wartime image wall montage of a WW2 "Britain At War" museum in London. From the admittedly tenuous information we can get from the story, it seems the alteration was not noticed by the owners or staff at the museum (they certainly didn't doctor the photo themselves.). And it is implied that this has been the case for over 20 years. That is until a visitor by the name of David McAdam spotted it, and was only too keen to jump to lofty conclusions.

"I pointed out this crude alteration to a museum steward who said she hadn't noticed the change before, nor had anyone else pointed it out.

Viewing the now disfigured image reveals just how unhinged the vociferous anti-smoking lobby has become. So much for the notion that only communist tyrants airbrushed history."

The museum owners don't know who altered the image and why they did, and even when it was altered. That didn't stop a colleague of the Churchill Archives Centre, jumping to more conclusions either.

"'The cigar is part of what makes Churchill an iconic figure and of course it was very much part of his image as war leader - it went hand in hand with his victory salute and the uniforms he wore.

What's politically correct for 2010 was not politically correct for 1940."

To be fair I suppose he is only reacting to second hand stuff he is being asked to comment on. So it's a fair mistake. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the boneheaded sort of people who get really wound up about spurious stories like this, will openly abuse the owner of the museum for being the PC fanatic he isn't. It would be regrettable if he lost business over it. Indeed - hidden amongst all the self righteous huffing, the article in the Mail does explain that the museums owners didn't know that the picture was altered, and indeed why it was altered. But looking further into the story I discovered this interesting article on the Heresy Corner blog that possibly explains where the cigar went. It would be hugely ironic that (if the doctorer is this man) the Mails getting worked up about PC zealots airbrushing out cigars, when the airbrushing was done by a libertarian blogger pranking about, in response to what he saw as a PC zealot, in regards to a vocal complainer wanting smoking scenes edited out of Tom and Jerry cartoons!

The irony increases up a notch again with this ridiculous story. The Mail has gone and done what the mischievous libertarian blogger did in regards to the earlier "PC gone mad story"! Photoshopping various iconic images of hard men poses to take into account the sensibilities of the PC / H&S brigade. Stuff like those builders sitting on a suspended girder on a Manhattan skyscraper now wearing hard hats, and Arnie the Terminator on his motorbike now wearing a crash helmet. This at least highlights how easy it is for a doctored photo to enter the public domain, and being distributed. A plentiful; futuristic, fertile source of shit, that can be flung at the PC zealots when hard news is a bit thin on the ground.

Superb.

The World Cup. Boooooring

The world cup is always a strange and frankly depressing affair for me, a male non football fan. It's the biggest party in town you're not invited to. Admitting to disliking football as a bloke (a northern bloke of course. Which is worse as most of the biggest teams are north of Watford Gap services) still brings out looks of incredulity in some people. At worse you will be asked the stupidest question in the entire universe that isn't a Daily Express rhetorical headline. "Are you gay or something?" (Happened to my cousin last week.) Yes being a non footie fan is a bit of a soggy fart in a pint glass, over the world cup season. Only this Saturday I felt a pang of sadness as I walked into my local pub and watched solemnly and incomprehensibly at almost the entire clientele in their England shirts, on the edge of their seats, glued to the telly on the wall. They were wrapped up in a world I can never enter, and it dawned on me that I will always be doomed to travel alone, the marginalised outcast.

I have actually tried to get into football. I've actually been to two stadia. The first is Aston Villa's one. I was so bored I ended up spending more time working out how the tidal flow system worked on the Aston Expressway, than I did as to what was going on on the pitch. As well as dodging out the way when an aggrieved fat Brummie kept sounding off, who looked like a third Mitchell brother who had not just eaten all the pies, but the pie stand and the pie man; his pie wife, and their children as well. Let's just say he had a bit of constructive criticism (i.e calling him a blind fucking wanker) in regards to the referees decisions, at various points in the match. I also watched a match at Bolton Wanderers old stadium. I don't remember anything about the match (Oh I do... It was in Bolton.), but I do remember you had to urinate in a drain pipe. So I mustn't have been to bowled over with the game itself. And that leads me to my main source of bafflement about football. How did such a boring game ever catch on in the first place to become what it is today? Why am I the weirdo for not liking it?

Football is set up all wrong. At it's core soccer is about maintaining the status quo, until a set time (whistle blows.). It's an attrition based game. One team of competent men, have to prevent a ball from being launched into their territory by another group of equally competent men. Thus you get 99% standoff tactics to maintain the status quo, and 1% action when the balance of favour tips (which has the added insult of resetting the staus quo, if a goal is scored.). It's long periods of boredom; punctuated by a few seconds of excitement. That doesn't often make for interesting viewing. Would Star Wars have been as good if the rebels had a Death star as well? With the rival battle stations trying to find each others weaknesses to secure some kind of victory? No! It's the underdog against massive odds, it's exciting. Or in "Gladiator" when Russel Crowe kicks the Germanians asses. It was a one way fight, but it was bloody exciting. The action never slowed. Would Gladiator have been such a hit if it had consisted of Richard Harris and some big smelly man with a beard sat in a tent in a muddy forest, hammering out a land border? Of course not. So why not extrapolate this logic to football then? If it's getting bit boring out there, take inspiration from the Gladiator film and unleash a few tigers and lions onto the pitch? "OOH and Rooney has taken a hell of a mauling from a Bengal on the offside!!" I'd watch it! Or take inspiration from those power ups you used to get on the Arkanoid video game, which changed the rules. At random intervals you could have three balls in play at one time. Or a goal post that randomly changed size. Or arm the players with planks to hit the opposition with, over an allotted 5 minute period? Or fit those 9 feet tall spikes in the ground that you used to get on Mortal Kombat, to randomly pop up on the pitch, to skewer unsuspecting players? Or better still, if it comes down to penalties at the finals - use those vuvuzela trumpets that are pissing everyone off for good use. Someone could toss a coin, and if it lands on say heads (for it to work, the players wouldn't know which caused which); then the player taking the shot has to have a toot from someone honking a vuvuzela (preferably dressed as a comedy mascot. It would be ten times funnier.) right in their ear before they hit the ball. It'd be bloody hilarious!! More than the Jackass golf course sketch with the air guns. Imagine the reruns of the hil-arious scenes of the players being put off at the crucial moments. Iconic viewing. It'd give Chiles his own DVD to front. "World Cups funniest penalties"

I'd watch it anyway.

Great Comment on Charles Speech

I just read one of the best online comments ever written in response to that Prince Charles speech about the soulless world of science destroying nature, on the Times coverage of the story. Absolutely sums up the nature of it brilliantly.

Bruce Gorton wrote:

Its very easy to harken back to the age of peasantry when you wouldn't be one of the peasants.

Truer words have never been spoken

Prince Charles and Hot Air

The Prince of Wales has delivered an interesting speech at Oxford university, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies, of which he is patron. I don't say that the speech is interesting because of the prose and the quality of what was said. It is pretty typical Charlie fayre. Boring, long winded, repetitive and veering on random tangents, almost haphazardly. And very ... VERY long!! (TRANSCRIPT HERE). Although Charles appears to be an advocate of a certain school of postmodernist thought, that decrees "Western Empiricism" (the dreaded hegemony.) is just one (very horrid) paradigm, and an "innate" Eastern Spirituality is another equally valid way at looking at the world. Thus the world is divided into immutable and exclusive blocs of thought, which I just think is slightly patronising, but that's just me. It is ironic therefore, that as this picture below points out, perhaps the one universal constant, that can surpass any intelectual boundry of thought is that Charles is a bit boring.

The speech focuses on [what he sees as] the need to apply the wisdom of "Traditional Spirituality" to combat climate change. The talk isn't a call to arms to follow Islamic practices to combat climate change as some have claimed. But is a discussion on the need to heed "traditions" which emphasised the unity of man and nature , to allow us to live in harmony with our environment - not just relying on the "materialistic rationality" of the contemporary scientific method, which elevated man beyond nature (most biology textbooks would disagree!!) and caused the problem in the first place, by borrowing from ying; to pay yang .... or something.

Now I don't have a problem with such a well known figure highlighting climate change, and indeed the perverse way the third world bears the brunt of it. Good on him for not being put off by the vocal deniers as well. However like many speeches he gives on scientific things like climate change; medicine, and technology -he has to pepper the few sensible points he makes with a lot of rather strange concepts about "soul" and "wisdom of nature." He seems to have this idea that nature has some "essence" or "spirit" that Western thought has forgotton (or hubristicly chooses to ignore.) but our ancestors, and the mystic cultures of the "East" still recognise and nurture. What he fails to grasp is that when he berates science and its "empiricism" for ignoring the "soul", is that science is (by definition) under no obligation to do so. He's making that same mistake about science. That it is just another ideology and belief, and is there to provide an all encompassing world view. It isn't! Science is just a (very effective) means of studying the world. There is no onus in factoring in unfalsifiable things like the soul, that is just a matter of opinion, and that is what Charles should be told before he sounds off.

Here's a few excerpts of what he said;

" Over the years, I have pointed out again and again that our environmental problems cannot be solved simply by applying yet more and more of our brilliant green technology – important though it is. It is no good just fixing the pump and not the well. When I say this, everybody nods sagely, but I get the impression that many are often unwilling to embrace what I am really referring to, perhaps because the missing element sits outside the parameters of the prevailing secular view. It is this “missing element” that I would like to examine today. In short, when we hear talk of an “environmental crisis” or even of a “financial crisis,” I would suggest that this is actually describing the outward consequences of a deep, inner crisis of the soul. It is a crisis in our relationship with – and our perception of – Nature, and it is born of Western culture being dominated for at least two hundred years by a mechanistic and reductionist approach to our scientific understanding of the world around us. So I would like you to consider very seriously today whether a big part of the solution to all of our worldwide “crises” does not lie simply in more and better technology, but in the recovery of the soul to the mainstream of our thinking. Our science and technology cannot do this. Only sacred traditions have the capacity to help this happen."

He tacitly admits it is just an opinion of his here. The speech is loaded with gratuitous self pity that no-one takes his received wisdom at anything more than face value (I'd say he was being generous to himself. I doubt many listen to practically anything he has to say on this matter.) He doesn't seem to understand that no one is obliged to take an unsubstantiated opinion at more than face value, and usually people don't. It's pretty much a rant about how everything would be great if it wasn't for horrid old technology.

"In general, we live within a culture that does not believe very much in the soul anymore – or if it does, won’t admit to it publicly for fear of being thought old fashioned, out of step with “modern imperatives” or “anti-scientific.” The empirical view of the world, which measures it and tests it, has become the only view to believe. A purely mechanistic approach to problems has somehow assumed a position of great authority and this has encouraged the widespread secularisation of society that we see today. This is despite the fact that those men of science who founded institutions like the Royal Society were also men of deep faith. It is also despite the fact that a great many of our scientists today profess a faith in God. I am aware of one recent survey that suggests over seventy per cent of scientists do so. I must say, I find this rather baffling. If this is so, why is it that their sense of the sacred has so little bearing on the way science is employed to exploit the natural world in so many damaging ways? I suppose it must be to do with who pays the fiddler. Over the last two centuries, science has become ever more firmly yoked to the ambitions of commerce. Because there are such big economic benefits from such a union, society has been persuaded that there is nothing wrong here. And so, a great deal of empirical research is now driven by the imperative that its findings must be employed to maximum, financial effect, whatever the impact this may have on the Earth’s long-term capacity to endure. This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in Nature but quantity and motion. This is the view that continues to frame the general perception of the way the world works and how we fit within the scheme of things. As a result, Nature has been completely objectified – “She” has become an “it” – and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo’s scheme."

The empirical based view of the world he complains about is the only view science can take. BECAUSE IT IS A METHODOLOGY NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM!! Ditto for religious scientists (70% sounds WAY too high, but he doesn't quote the source.). They don't apply the two together, because they are two different things! As for a decline in the belief in souls, and an increase in secularisation with tech / science. That tends to happen. People rely less on supernatural explanations, as things can be explained objectively. Most of the time anyway.

"I hope you can just begin to see my point. The utter dominance of the mechanistic approach of science over everything else, including religion, has “de-souled” the dominant world view, and that includes our perception of Nature. As soul is elbowed out of the picture, our deeper link with the natural world is severed. Our sense of the spiritual relationship between humanity, the Earth and her great diversity of life has become dim. The entire emphasis is all on the mechanical process of increasing growth in the economy, of making every process more “efficient” and achieving as much convenience as possible. None of which could be said to be an ambition of God. And so, unfashionable though it is to suggest it, I am keen to stress here the need to heal this divide within ourselves. How else can we heal the divide between East and West unless we reconcile the East and West within ourselves? Everything in Nature is a paradox and seems to carry within itself the paradox of opposites. Curiously, this maintains the essential balance. Only human beings seem to introduce imbalance. The task is surely to reconnect ourselves with the wisdom found in Nature which is stressed by each of the sacred traditions in their own way."

The only view of "our deeper place in the world" that gets unfashionable is Charles opinion of humans place in it. Look in one of the many good books on popular biology / nature, for a good (and well researched too) narrative on humans role in nature. It's a zillion times more interesting than the iffy new age cobblers, based on nothing but his royal opinions, on offer here.


"Such instruction is hard to square if all you do is found your understanding of the world on empirical terms alone. Four hundred years of relying on trying and testing the facts scientifically has established the view that spirituality and religious faith are outdated expressions of superstitious belief. After all, empiricism has proved how the world fits together and it is nothing to do with a “Supreme Being.” There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God so, therefore, Q.E.D, God does not exist. It is a very reasonable, rational argument, and I presume it can be applied to “thought” too. After all, no brain scanner has ever managed to photograph a thought, nor a piece of love, and it never will. So, Q.E.D., that must mean “thought” and “love” do not exist either!"

Oh Charlie! What shall we do with you! Any study of animal / human behaviour will show evidence for love (or more accurately some kind of altruism / getting ones rocks off combination that we would class as "love" ) Ditto anything written, spoken and published, kind of hints that something we call "thought" exists. Both may be subjective terms, but science can show that the brain / hormones produce an empirically observed sensation, which can then contribute to sensations that can be called these things by the philosophers and poets. etc.. The evidence for God is bit more thin on the ground though.

"The Modernist ideology that has dominated the Western outlook for a century implies that “tradition” is backward looking. What I have tried to explain today is that this is far from true. Tradition is the accumulation of the knowledge and wisdom that we should be offering to the next generation. It is, therefore, visionary – it looks forward.

Tradition is a broad school. A bunch of customs and idioms passed down through the generations. It can be visionary, profound, or complete bollocks. Starting something that becomes a tradition may be an attempt to look forward. But respecting traditions is - by the nature of tradition, "backward looking". Where the hell else are we supposed to get them from?

The entire speech (and there is a ton more of it) is pretty much in the same vein. Berating science for becoming to big for it's boots, and for technology and secularism making us lesser people, whilst materially better off. He also accuses scientists of putting profit before principle, which isn't very nice. Now perhaps our more materialistic world has made us greedier and less in tune with nature (though we seem these days to increasingly value environmental issues and technological innovations to curtail the damage man has inflicted on the planet. I also don't recall that our "spiritual" ancestors had a green party either.). If the cause of some of the damage is by the products of science and technology (and can also be objectively analysed. You can't do that with a spirit, which negates his point about science pursuing that line of action. Hey I didn't write the speech!!), then can we not use the same instruments to assess and negate the damage? Shouldn't Charles have a bit more grace, and explain that it is only his opinion that our "spirits" being out of kilter is the root cause?

For all Charles' self deprecating grumbles about how he is the shunned rebel spouting the unfashionable and unorthodox. I doubt he would have the self awareness to admit that this is all just his opinion on how to tackle these issues, and that he doesn't expect anyone to give him any more intellectual credence with that in mind. I think he would be saddened to learn that a) In a scientific context, his arguments are bunkum, and show he doesn't understand what the scientific method is.. Which is a bit a bummer if you have a lecture that goes on for 30 years about the abuse of the scientific method. b) he just isn't a good speaker, or polemic. I truly am being generous to him with my criticisms. It really is shooting fish in a barrel. Every line in that speech is utter dross. It is hard to argue with Johann Hari, when he says that the only reason any of his stuff gets airtime at all is due to his royal status. Even with all the trappings his role entails him too, that we don't have, he still has trouble with what he says getting airtime! It is testament to the appalling quality of his writing, that someone as high profile as the heir to the throne can write this, without seeing the forest for the trees. I really would stick to opening supermarkets!

"I am slightly alarmed that it is now seventeen years since I came here to the Sheldonian to deliver a lecture for the Centre that tried to do just this. I called it “Islam and the West” and, from what I can tell, it clearly struck a chord, and not just here in the U.K. I am still reminded of what I said, particularly when I travel in the Islamic world – in fact, because it was printed, believe it or not, it is the only speech I have ever made which continues to produce a small return!"

How "People Just Making Stuff Up" Conquered the World (Well Sort Of.) Part 2

The Littlejohn retraction in the previous article ties in nicely with that other story I covered in a previous post about a women and her kid who were apparently kicked off a bus by one of those horrid forriners, who couldn't stand the sight of the little mites England T shirt, because they hate this country (or something.). Well in true Adam and Jamie style on "Mythbusters" the bus company in question looked thoroughly into the complaint (who can blame them. This had the potential to be a PR disaster) and thoroughly discredited it. The sweaty waft of bullshit that accompanied the surfacing of this tale turned out -surprise surprise to be genuine after all. This is a classic case of a totally made up racial urban myth, as seen from it's false origins, to it's conclusion As we see:

A MOTHER who claimed her two-year-old was ordered off a bus for wearing an England shirt has been branded a liar.

Sam Fardon, of Trent Vale, had claimed an Eastern European driver for First Bus had described her son Dylan Hall's shirt as "offensive" when they tried to board the 34A service from Newcastle Bus Station to Chesterton.
The 27-year-old said it was only when other passengers intervened that she was allowed on the vehicle.

But a First investigation has found nothing to back up her claims.


First Bus commercial director Paul De Santis said: "We have interviewed every single driver in the vicinity at the time and have not been able to find anyone who knows anything about the incident or who matches the description given to us.


"The complainant also stated she went to the office in Newcastle later that day and reported the incident.


"We can't find anyone who knows of any report and we did not have a lady on duty that day like the complainant said."


Miss Fardon was also asked by the bus company to provide details of witnesses.


But the firm says it has been unable to contact two of them, while the third gave information which conflicted with what Miss Fardon said.


Mr De Santis added: "I have come to the conclusion that, particularly from the point there was no Eastern European driving the services on the day in question, that the incident did not happen. Nothing we have subsequently done in terms of contacting drivers and speaking to witnesses has changed that."


Miss Fardon has now withdrawn her complaint. She said today: "I have continued to use the buses."


But it has emerged that several drivers have had problems with customers following publicity surrounding the complaint.

Mr De Santis added: "There have been one or two unsavoury incidents with our members of staff over the incident. We are very concerned that this has caused that and our drivers are not happy their reputation has been damaged. We now want to draw a line under this and get on with doing our job."


It has also emerged that Miss Fardon was prosecuted in 2004 for stealing from a couple who let her live with them in Swindon.


She was ordered to perform 200 hours of community service after appearing in court charged with five counts of obtaining property by deception, after admitting forging a signature on cheques.


Miss Fardon was also given further community service for charges of obstructing the police and theft."

Whether or not First Bus decide to take action against Farden is for them to know. It is just depressing to think that drivers have been victimised for a fictional event dreamt up by a compulsive liar. No witnesses or drivers to substantiate the story. A highly damaging story that should have been easily dismissed as nonsense, was printed as truth, due to over reliance on unsubstantiated wire stories, and it hitting the right emotional buttons in certain sections.

How uplifting.

How "People Just Making Stuff Up" Conquered the World (Well Sort Of.) Part 1

It's always nice to see that Britain's most highly paid columnist is really doing all the top notch research that justifies every penny of his 6 figure salary. So its not nice to see that this aforementioned columnist (AKA Richard Littlejohn) is doing no research at all. That's why he had to issue a retraction after a headteacher contacted him to say his "elf n safety" story about her banning football, was out of line, due to the fact that she hadn't actually banned it. A small error then;

"SHOULD I STAND IN THE CORNER, MISS?

On Friday, I reported that parents of children at a primary school in Essex were angry that playground football had been banned during the World Cup.

I've since heard from Marion Smith, the head of Thomas Willingale Primary, in Debden, who tells me she has only ever suspended playground football for a week to punish bad behaviour.

She has asked parents to give children lightweight balls to prevent injury, but was devastated by claims that she had banned it completely.

Ofsted has commended the school for its outstanding commitment to all sports, including football.

My comments were based on emails from parents and a report in the local newspaper, but the responsibility is all mine. I owe Mrs Smith and her staff an unqualified apology."

You Reckon??!!

Now I'm not a multimillionaire columnist, but even I know that the simplest and best way to verify the veracity of this story, is to ask the person who issued the ban that wasn't. Rather than rely on a few iffy e-mails. Wouldn't want a head to have to placate a load of parents who take news paper reports at face value do we?

It has been speculated that Littlejohn is not that popular at Mail HQ. That may explain why the comments he gets on the site tend to be more hostile than normal. (Or it could be due to the fact that he writes crap as well) So we end up with some good ones like these getting through the stringent moderators. (that were in the red though. Christ he admitted to screwing up, and still comments lambasting him for sloppy writing get marked down. Jeez!!!!)

"My comments were based on emails from parents and a report in the local newspaper, but the responsibility is all mine. i owe Mrs smith and her staff an unqualified apology".

Having bored us all with pompous calls for politicos to step down for playing fast and loose with the truth over the years I reckon Littlejohn should do the decent thing and resign!"

"See, that's what happens when you don't bother to do basic research before slinging round your kneejerk criticisms: innocent people like Marion Smith who have done nothing wrong get hurt. I hope that this might lead you to doing a bit of work in future checking your facts."

The Fox Attacks and Nature of Nature

The story of the mauling of nine month old twins Lola and Isabella Kouparis; by a fox in the bedroom of their London home, has become big news. Primarily because fox attacks on humans are rare, and secondly any attack on such small children is terrible, and invokes a "there but for the grace of god; go I" feeling in many parents. It's a story people can easily get emotionally involved. Of course the media are describing the attack in highly lurid prose. We have lots of emotive verbs like "savaging" and "mauls". How else were they going to handle it? No; - I was interested by the tone of the debate on the attacks on listening to today's Jeremy Vine show on R2. (a habit I picked up doing a repetitive clerical job.) The fox (I shall be pedantic and explain that "fox" means the red fox; Vulpes vulpes we see in UK), seemingly more than any other creature in Britain seems to elicit a very emotive response from its detractors. Fox haters seem to have a deep personal grudge against them, it is quite bizarre. Listen to a fox hunter, or someone who has lost livestock to them. They will describe them as evil, or vicious killers. Other "problem" species such as rats or mice never seem to elicit such hatred. Yeah they aren't liked, but it is accepted that they are just that way, because they are that way. Too bad for them when they have to be controlled. But the fox seems to be seen as an almost demonic, aberration of an animal. It is claimed they will kill livestock for the hell of it -regardless of their dietary needs. Gruesome tales of a whole coop of headless chickens being found, and the cute cuddly pet rabbit taken from its pen. They are the red furred Hannibal Lector of nature.

I don't know how much of this stuff is true. I know naff all about farming, and rearing livestock. Fending for myself is bad enough, let alone sheep, hens and a manky looking cow. The fox is a wild animal and a predator. It will instinctively attack small livestock, and have that blood lust. It unfortunately seems that a hazardous side effect of foxes being attracted to suburbia's waste bins full of treats, and well intentioned but IMO; slightly naive people who actually feed them (they are wild animals. Emphasis on wild.), that the more adventurous animals are losing thier innate fear of humans, and tragically in this case, went for the most vulnerable - the young.

Unlike a lot of the commentators on Vines show, I don't think that foxes are intrinsically "evil". Evil is a human concept. You can't apply human standards to wild animals. It's facile. Nor does this anthropomorphacised view of nature that seems so prevalent in this country, help in how we deal with the man made world / natural world balance. These ARE wild, carnivorous creatures. They can be dangerous. I don't support fox hunting. But I do see the need to try and keep them out the cities and towns. They aren't bushy tailed semi pets. (Perhaps on some level the dislike of them is due to their similarity to dogs. How can something so superficially like or cute; waggy tailed friends act so viciously?)

Michael Hanlon. How do you do it?

Michael Hanlon must have the most thankless job in Fleet Street. The mails science editor. I suppose that must sometimes feel like being the president of Al Quiedas LGBT society. Paul Dacre and science aren't exactly bedfellows. Scientists are only too often portrayed as sinister authoritarians who want to poison our kids (MMR scare), want to perform freak experiments on animals, or grotesque ambitions to change the face of humanity as we know it (any scare story on genetic engineering; cloning, or embryology.) A dangerous cabal of zealots who want to play god, you know the spiel. That great scene from the comedy, "The IT crowd" where they fool the women about "the elders of the Internet." is an apt parody of some sections of societies view of science (and computers) as a closeted Freemason like sect, unknowable and following its own secretive agenda. But I also noticed something else when I read Michael Hanlons new blog (it's very good as well.), as well as other articles he has done in the past. He is a very good popular science writer (and we need more of those), and he actually knows about science, rather than being a journalist who has to explain as best they can, science stories via secondary information. He should be perhaps better known; publication wise - to the public than he is. However it is striking reading his work - and now his blog as well; how much he can "get away with" in his articles. Stuff other columnists wouldn't.

The tales of Dacre's controlling nature in his editorial role are pretty infamous. He is obsessed with every sentence in the paper toeing his party line. Even something as innocuous as the film reviewer, Chris Tookey seems to be possibly being memoed to write shrill fire and brimstone "video nasty" reviews of films like "Kick Ass.", which aren't actually reviews at all, but "ban this filth" polemics. Suspicious Dacre soundbites appear in seemingly unrelated articles. He runs a tight ship, like some ultra controlling patriarch, dictating every aspect of his families lives to an obsessive degree. Hanlon however doesn't seem to be under as much scrutiny. He has produced sensible and well argued articles on climate change, easily shrugging off the deniers "claims". He has dismissed scare stories his own paper has pushed. He has only published about 5 blog articles so far. But is striking how much of it runs counter to the papers official "stance". His article about the vast clean up of the seas around Britain, highlight (supportively) the EU's role in bringing about legislation that allowed that to happen. Whilst simultaneously he damns the privatised utilities for putting profit ahead of public well being (isn't that what Dacre would call socialism?) He supports tax payers money funded manned space missions, and thinks it serves a more profound, emotional purpose to humanity, than just for military or commercial profit. He wonders why many scientists are left liberal, and astonishingly for a Mail writer; doesn't hold this against them. He is critical of the decay of scientific funding and prestige under Thatcher (ironically a PM with a science degree!), and the contempt the Bush government had for science. There's more! He defends Craig Venter, the biologist who created the "syntia" bacteria, by constructing its genome in a lab and transplanting it into a prokaryote. He doesn't denounce him as a monster who is building hideous new megabacteria to wipe out mankind, and puts what he achieved in context. That we aren't at a stage where a new life form can be built totally from scratch. This is bordering on heresy! I reckon by next week, we may have articles on the benefits to the scientific community of an experiment in which Paul Dacres mother is hit in the face with cricket bats; by two professors in lab coats, and that scientists have discovered that conservatives are more likely to have lower IQ's, smaller penises and uglier wives than liberals.

Is it possible that Dacre feels that science is such a fringe interestsw to his readership that he gives Michael Hanlon carte blanche to publish anything he likes? Does he even know who Michael Hanlon even is? Is Hanlon forced to work in a closet under the stairs. Has anyone in the Mails office even had contact with him in the past 5 years? Does he exist at all? Is he a Tyler Durden like figure existing only in Max Hastings mind? I have a feeling Michael Hanlon is so marginalised at Mail HQ, that he can be found at the papers Christmas party standing glumly on his own, sadly staring at the vol au vents, wondering when the alcohol will start to kick in and it doesn't matter that no guests wants to talk to him, and don't even know who he is. For that my friends is the status of science in our wonderful mass media. Bastards.

The Shootings in Cumbria

There is really little more that can be said about the massacre of thirteen people in Cumbria, by Derick Bird on Wednesday, that has already been said. The dreadful scale of events really speak for themselves, a senseless bloodbath of a family member, a work colleague and solicitor, then random passers by who had that perennial awful fate of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, by a lone gunman with a grudge - perhaps only ever known to him, and to no one else when he turned the gun to himself.

The media of course are running the story as lead. It is every bit as bad as is made out, a shooting frenzy that now takes its place in a ghastly trilogy, Hungerford; Dunblane and now the Lakes shootings. Of course the press and TV media are keen to look into Birds background. We hear tales of work troubles and arguments with other colleagues [taxi drivers] over fare touting, money troubles, disputes over a will with his murdered brother. There were dubious blown up photos of his son and his daughter in laws (who have nothing to do with the shootings) reactions to the crime. There was an equally dubious interview with a 9 year old kid who had a gun pointed at him; asking how it felt to have a gun in his face. Though the headlines are no where near as lurid (so far) as they could have been, and there is nothing as equally disgusting as the Sunday Express expose on the survivors of Dunblane coming of age, showing facebook pictures of them having parties and getting drunk. Bird seems to have been a quiet, ordinary man, not the local weirdo with a dodgy background; who just cracked. The blame game has begun in some quarters, with the police being accused of reacting too slowly. The police counter by saying Cumbria is a large county with a smallish police force, and has low levels of crime, so was swamped by the freak enormity of the crime. Both may be valid points. One commentator asked why they could quickly corner a wild cat on the M11 motorway in a relatively quick time, but not a gunman (presumably because tigers don't carry guns, and drive taxis, is a fair answer to his rhetorical question?) Littlejohn accused the chief of police in that area of insensitivity (he would know, the master of tact that he is.) after he said the area was now safe and "back in business", whether pragmatic damage limitation, or tactless, is really a matter of opinion. There will also be the eternal firearms availability debate, with the ultra prohibitionist on one side, and the pro guns on the other side. The weird phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" has already showed up on on line commentaries.

It is hard to try to explain the unexplainable. Why someone would be driven to blast away both family and complete strangers, even summoning them to their unwitting deaths. It shocks our common sense of humanity, and causes us to try to rationalise it, and human nature, with these debates mentioned above. Is it possible that there is in practice; nothing we can really do to completely stop these thankfully rare -terrible events from occurring?

Dawkins Vs the Pope... Or Not

It's been rocky times for the Catholic church these past few years. Pope Benedict XVI seems to have this ability to alienate his church from the rest of the wider world. He upset the Muslim world by requoting 14th century Christian leader Manuel Paleologus, who vented his spleen about Islamic wrongdoing, presumably after having a bad day in the office when the people he was sounding off against took Constantinople. He upset the Jewish community by lifting the excommunication writ on a bishop who was a vocal holocaust denier. He upset the Anglican church by starting an initiative to get the more "harder" proponents to jump ship to Rome, thus robbing the C of E of its finest tombola operators. (I doubt jumble sales in this country can ever be revived after this.) He caused upset in South America by saying that the native inhabitants had been silently really happy to have discovered Christs light when the Europeans showed up. How they felt about all the other "benefits" I think we can guess. Yes if you aren't a Roman Catholic and follow the teachings of a deity or religious belief, chances are Joseph Ratzinger has pissed you off with a Papal pop at your religion. And if you aren't religious (and if you are too), then the awful scale of the child abuse cover ups that have come to light in the Vatican, should engender similar feelings about how his church can act.

In an attempt to try and mend a few fences, the Vatican has decided to revive the "Courtyard of the Gentiles.", which isn't a bad 19th century novel; but a foundation set up by the current Popes more liberal predecessor (Benedict is apparently personally not to hot about it.) to improve relations with other faiths, and even with atheists / agnostics / light deists -through debates and dialogues throughout the year. I can see why the Vatican may have persuaded his popeness to do this sort of thing, even if he has reservations. They have been badly (and rightly so) battered by the child abuse cover ups, and some form of damage limitation is needed [from their perspective]. In an ideal world, it would also be a brave move in the current climate as well. The so - called "4 horsemen" of the vocal atheists; Sam Harris, Dan Dennet, and the Lennon and McCartney of the "new atheist movement; Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, have been capitalising on the scandals that have engulfed the church of Rome. Their criticisms becoming more vocal, and in my own personal opinion; more justified and relevant as well. This would be an ideal time for the Vatican to address them. So that is why they err....., not to put a finer point on it. Aren't. I quote:

" The foundation, he [President of the Popes council for culture] said, would only be interested in "noble atheism or agnosticism, not the polemical kind – so not those atheists such as [Piergiorgio] Odifreddi in Italy, [Michel] Onfray in France, [Christopher] Hitchens and [Richard] Dawkins".

Such atheists, he added, only view the truth with "irony and sarcasm" and tend to "read religious texts like fundamentalists".

Hmmmmm.

Call me cynical, but "noble atheist" sounds like code for "atheist who doesn't ask awkward questions." What the horsemen may call the "believer in belief". The atheist who doesn't believe themselves, but is not anti-theistic to any degree. Yes I don't have a problem with them being debated with, but if you are serious about dialogue, you have to debate with anti theists as well. Debate on your own terms isn't debate at all.

As for the reading of religious texts? Are they just symbolic metaphor or analogy, or the fundamental;- revealed word of God? Or whatever suits at a given time?

It is hard to find an example of such blatant evasiveness of public discourse as this. This kind of own goal in a damage limitation exercise for Gawds sake! It shows how much of a bubble the Vatican seems to live in. The new atheist movement will have an utter field day with this. Will the Vatican bite the bullet and take on the challenge? Watch this space!