confusion

Form The Economist [economist.com]:

America intends to use Iraqi oil revenues to finance the country’s reconstruction. But France and Russia have a list of oil contracts waiting to go ahead once sanctions are lifted, and both countries are among Iraq’s biggest creditors. America may find it has to promise that the new Iraq will honour those debts and that, even if old oil contracts are not honoured, opponents of the war will not be excluded from new contracts. Failure to give such assurances might tempt the French and Russians to wield their vetoes on the Security Council.

Weather you agree with America or with France/Russia/Germany, with the war or not, I think the above paragraph speaks for itself. It’s a pity that there has been no creditable voice for or against the war—one without political or economic motives. Perhaps they are out there and it is just that they are not interesting enough for the media.

Outside it’s raining. People scurry by the window with umbrellas or hoods puled low over their faces. The clouds deepen the early evening darkness. Street lights create little pools of radiance as their light reflects of the falling rain drops. Cars speed past down Connecticut Avenue. The light from inside illuminates an anti-war poster tapped to an ugly tree just outside.

Inside the air is filled with quiet jazz and conversation. Baristas call out orders, people chat as they drink their coffee, or tea. The window reflects the modern counter, high celling, drop lighting. It reflects the purple chairs. I sit in one of the chairs, my copy of this weeks Economist in my lap, an empty cup on the table next to me. Looking out at the rain.

My thoughts are half a world away in another coffee shop. Standing at the door, ready to head out into the rain. We wait for the light on Goswell Road to change, then dash out and cross the road. It’s only a couple of blocks back, but the rain is cold and the wind drives it around the umbrella no matter how you hold it. The two of us huddle behind the umbrella braced against the wind, she wraps her arm around mine and huddles as close as she can.

Little memories just sneak up on me all the time, vivid images, reminding me of how much I miss that time. Walking past a brick wall reminds me of a pub in Oxford, sitting with J███████ talking about nothing. The pattern in a carpet brings back the hallway of a hotel in Milan, A—– and I exhausted after a long night wondering the city. But most of the memories remind me of how much I miss her. The way she smiles, the way she pushes her hair behind her ear, the sound of her voice, the feel of her hand when she held mine. Nights spent walking around London, days spent sitting in coffee shops. Not a day goes buy that I don’t think of her, that I don’t wish I could find some way to be near her.

I miss you Tati

In an age where the president of America thinks he was chosen by God to defend freedom and an untold number of people are willing to strap dynamite to themselves and kill in the name of the same God, I think it is safe to say that terrorism is not the biggest (or worst) problem facing the world today—that honor goes to all religion’s extremist followers. Be they Jew, Gentile, Muslim, Hindi or followers of any religion, violence in the guise of faith is growing around the world.

Telling people that their faith is more or less violent than someone else’s is pointless as ALL faiths have followers who cloak their hate and aggression in prayer and penitence. No religion can claim to be free of such people, Christianity has it’s Catholic and Protestant para-militarist in Ireland—as well as it’s crusades, Islam has it’s many well documented extremist, Hindu’s are not so innocent either, even Tibetan Buddhist have had blood on their hands in the past. Religion does not fix the problem it only focuses it against people of ‘other’ faiths, and then blesses it.

The best solutions I have come across in my life are from Peter Singer and his camp—grounded in Utilitarian beliefs and in the ideas of Secular Humanism. The radical and extreme utility which Singer writes about arouses harsh, and loud, criticism from many religious camps (and quite a few others!) but secular humanism is an idea which has been mostly quiet. The biggest proponent of I which I have encountered is Salman Rushdie, a man with some experience dealing with religious extremism.

Rushdie is described by Michelle Goldberg, in this article [salon.com], as:

… A defender of an idea even less fashionable, at the moment, than moral relativism—secular humanism. It’s a cause some of our best thinkers, such as Hitchens and Martin Amis, are increasingly taking up. Though hardly politically expedient, the fight against religion’s tyranny makes intellectual and emotional sense right now. It could even replace the struggle against first-world imperialism as the organizing principle of radical thought, encompassing as it does the fight against the lunatics of al-Qaida, the butchers in Gujarat, the hard-line settlers in the West Bank, the rapists in the Catholic Church, the bombers of abortion clinics and, of course, our own attorney general.

That article was the fist time I had heard it called secular humanism, but the ideas permeate Rushdie’s none fiction writings—especially Step Across this Line. Googling on ‘Secular Humanism’ brings up the Council for Secular Humanism who define their idea this way:

• A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
• Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
• A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
• A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
• A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
• A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
• A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Sounds like a good idea… problem is, the rest of the web page for the Council on Secular Humanism reads more like a religion, and has a anti-faith ring to it. Now I consider myself an athiest– mostly I could not care less if there is or is not a god out there, whether is it only one God or many gods. I am here and I value my life, my relationships (with people of many faiths,) and I understand that by doing things to help those around me and those with bigger problems than mine, I can make my world a better place—an inherently selfish idea. If there is/are a/some higher authorit(y|ies) than pure chance and my life does not get me into a good position for any possible afterlife then I guess I am screwed… C’est la vie. I just don’t believe it. I don’t buy into Pascal’s Wager [wikipedia.org].

Anyway, in the end the only real use of any of this would be if all people value others lives, accept others religious beliefs, and learn to take responsibility for their own actions and situations—stop blaming them on fate, others faith, your ancestors, my ancestors or anyone else and fix what you can and accept what you can’t.

get the faq’s!