Scottish Independence

This is in reply to Andrew Copson, chief executive of The British Humanist Association who wrote the following tweet about Scottish Independence.

How can we best love-bomb Scotland? I genuinely want to get involved to ask them not to leave. Is there a way?
— Andrew Copson (@andrewcopson) February 7, 2014

I should nail my colours to the mast. I am pretty much pro-union, with a few things that may sway me the other way. I thought I should let Andrew know what those influences are and it might help to answer his question.

What is it that might tempt me towards Independence?

Since its opening, the Scottish Parliament has been largely secular, certainly more so than Westminster. The four words on the parliament's mace are "Wisdom, Justice, Compassion and Integrity". No pledge to a god, no pledge to a monarch, no pledge to the head of a church. So far, despite some disagreements over policy, these 4 simple principles have held and long may that continue (in a devolved parliament at least). Scotland as a whole has been dogged by religious in-fighting but the intentions of the parliament are sound, I think.

Secondly, I think Scotland has a slightly more humane (if shorter) record on human rights than the UK as a whole. See the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Cameron's pledge to abandon the Human Rights Convention. I suspect this stems from the founding of the parliament and the principles installed then (see above) and its history as a less imperial nation.

Lastly, The debates in the Scottish Parliament seem to be more constructive with MSPs working together far more often and consulting with the public far more widely (along the lines of other European countries) rather than the "yaboo-sucks" impression that is conveyed from Westminster. The working hours are friendlier, the debates are more calmly executed and a more evidence-based approach seems to be taken.

What "love bombs" should we see from Andrew and others?

We should remove the bishops from the house of lords and the unfair privileges that gives the church to veto bills and prevent them passing into law.

We need to fight for more Human rights in Britain as a whole. The fact David Cameron felt comfortable suggesting that we leave the human rights convention behind is very telling. He must have felt he would have had enough support for it. Human rights are there for the difficult times when we need to apply them equally to people with whom perhaps we wouldn't want to pass the time of day.

Fight to make debate in Westminster more co-operative. Make the working hours friendlier for women (and men) and make the whole democratic process more transparent. Make sure evidence is used when the government debates its laws and bows less to party politics with more un-whipped bills.

And finally, give England a regional parliament! England, I suspect, has felt a little pushed aside by all the attention Scotland and the other nations have been getting. England has ahead of it the task of working out its own priorities (regardless of the outcome of the independence vote) and the terms England and Britain have, over centuries, become synonymous. England has a great cultural and scientific history. It needs to re-discover those things.

One of my main reasons for wanting to keep the union, of course, is that I don't want family and friends who live in England to be stuck with a perpetual Tory government.

I have met Andrew a couple of times at AHS and BHA events. He is completely passionate about human rights so my reply is aimed at all of us and not at him personally. We all still have a say in the UK parliament and it's up to everyone to fight for these things.

Losing my humanity?

"And it came to pass at midnight, that Jehovah smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the first-born of cattle."

Exodus 12:21

For some reason, I have found myself talking to a few theists recently, or more specifically, Christians. The above quote from exodus is one reason (of many) that I left the church. So, it was interesting to ask them what they thought of the above passage.

Apart from the usual, "you are taking it out of context" answer, to which I say, "there is no context whatsoever that makes God's actions in Egypt morally justifiable", one answer in common was along the lines of, "God needed to show his power so that he would be respected"!

Anyone that uses that kind of violence to gain respect is not interested in respect, they are interested in fear. It is the justification a spouse uses when they use violence against their partner. God, of course, cannot bypass his own moral laws and commit genocide, unless he is a hypocrite, in which case why worship him?

Anyone who defends someone else's violence by saying they need to be respected and so need to show their wrath, has lost their instinctive ability to tell the difference between fear and respect. Is this the reasoning they would have used If one of the Egyptian parents had asked, "why did God kill my child?"

This reasoning, that is used to defend God's actions, is a sign of how far down the rabbit hole Christians have to be. They have lost that very human quality, empathy. Instead they look to the bible and their pastors for answers. They no longer trust their own thoughts and feelings, particularly if those thoughts and feelings are not seen, by their peers, to fit with the group-think that is their own church's interpretation of the bible.

If that kind of twisted logic is what is required to be a Christian, then I have made the right choice. I am right. I am free of that way of thinking and that I no longer have to twist my thoughts and feelings to obey any one particular church's interpretation of the angry whims of a jealous, spiteful, violent and abusive God.

Point to ponder. Why would an all-powerful God require a red mark above the door to distinguish households of his chosen people and those of the Egyptians? Other than to require absolute obedience (a very appealing characteristic, I'm sure) or to allow humans, who probably carried out the genocide, to tell which house was which.