h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Squadders, Fanny, squadders.

Admit it, TFTD gives you, or rather gave you, something to get the old gnashers into

Isn't that why you read this thread Chips?

We had daily prayers (Anglican) before school, so we got them off by heart. I was slightly bemused by the one that thanked the Lord for bringing us safely through the perils and dangers of the night, and ended with the wish that "we, being defended from the fear of our enemies, may pass our time in rest and quietness" -- the indolent life of a protected pet.

What rankled was, who are those enemies I am being given here? Do I want them?

Well, if you go back to the times when the Bible was written, the enemies were anyone who was not a Jew.

These days, of course, the texts cannot logically be applied to just Jews so the real basis for the texts are realy lost i.e. instructions to Jews on a) how to live and b) how not to be over-run by gentiles etc. Which is fine by me they were looking after themselves.

Thought for the Day, 2 October 2007
Akhandadhi Das

Good morning. Yesterday, the second phase of the new Mental Capacity Act came into force. One of its provisions allows patients to assign power of attorney so that a relative or friend can decide what interventions should be avoided at a later stage.

I have a close friend suffering from a degenerative motor neurone disease. He knows he faces prolonged and terrifying "air hunger" as he slowly loses the ability to breathe. He has concluded that, when the time comes, refraining from all food and liquid would give him a more controlled and mindful demise. This illustrates how the legislation might work from the patient's point of view - but, such "living wills" are contentious as they may oblige doctors to act against their conscience or religious convictions. It seems to strike at what it means to be a doctor. Or what Hindus would call "dharma" - something more than just duty or responsibility, dharma defines the essence of a profession,

In the ancient epic, Ramayan, Rama brings the royal physician of his adversary to heal his injured brother. At first, the doctor objected to helping his king's enemy and warned Rama: "how do you know that I will not intentionally harm your bother?" Rama replied that he trusted the physician to put his dharma as a healer above any other consideration and asked him to act according to his heart……

I have long contended that it's unethical to compel doctors, whose very reason is to prolong life, to end it, either through the termination of pregnancy or euthanasia. The Mental Capacity Act raises the converse issue: Doctors can be stopped from providing life-preserving treatments by the wishes of their patients. Some might feel that this compromises their vocation as a doctor.

For me, the question then becomes: is acquiescing to a patient's refusal of all interventions contrary to the dharma of a physician? Hinduism approaches it from the underlying philosophical principle that life belongs to the soul residing within the material body. The soul is an eternal spiritual entity and the body is a mechanical vehicle to be employed to best advantage whilst it lasts.

The general injunction is that the individual should strive to keep the body healthy and active and doctors serve that objective. However, inevitably, our mortal coil reaches a state when it is no longer productive to maintain life within it. When it is clear that the next phase for the soul is preparing for departure, the dharmas for the individual and the doctor change. A higher purpose prevails and the dharmas of both patient and doctor coincide in trying to provide the best possible circumstance for the soul to leave the body in peaceful and enlightened consciousness.

Post 42 - Arnie, of course.

Now the above TFTD is exactly what I have spoken about previously.

I will pick out a few lines:



Is the role of a doctor to prolong life or do the best for the patient?



Ah, right pro-life slant here.

I would contend that it is unethical and sadistic to allow human beings to be in the sort of pain that animals would not be allowed to suffer. The pain of cancer and simply the body giving up but not dying naturally is something approaching torture. And yet a human being is not allowed to make the decision to end their own life or not. So much for freewill.



Not at all. I would suggest that doctors can refuse to carry out abortions or euthansia however they should state this specifically and allow other doctors who are prepared to do those things to treat potentially terminally ill-patients etc. Absolutely no compromise there at all.





Ah, of course, here is the crux: decisions and stances based entirely on the teachings of ONE of the hundreds of religious texts.
Mr Das: not all Dr's are Hindu's, not everyone believes in the soul or dharma.

Why should your beliefs define what how everyone else has to run their lives i.e. what gives you the right to CONTROL and define how someone should/should not be allowed to die...possible the most personal thing in a persons life?



I quite agree.



Newsflash: not everyone beliefs this soul stuff.



OK, if you say so.



No: A higher purpose prevails for both the patient and doctor in trying to provide the best possible ending of that persons life. Unfortunately, due to the consistent objections from the religions this is not yet possible. The laws are still in place which allow people to die in undignified agony because some people believe in gods and only those gods can decide when someone dies.

I confused two prayers in post 43. The one about being defended from the fear of our enemies is the "second collect" for evening prayer, and seems to date from 16th-century England.

The third collect asks God to defend us from the perils and dangers of this night.

(including presumably things that go bump)

Thought for the Day, 5 October 2007
The Rev. Dr Giles Fraser

In all my fourteen years as a priest, I've never once met a member of my congregation who believed the world was created in seven days. Never once. Of course, I know that some Christians somewhere believe this - but the idea that creationism vs. evolution is the throbbing ideological zeitgeist is to get things way out of proportion.

Even so, this issue made the front page of The Daily Telegraph on Monday and it's just been a subject of discussion of this programme here this morning. But if I'm right about how few people in this country actually believe in creationism, why is it such a big topic and so high up on the news agenda? My suspicion is that, very often, the whole debate over creationism is, in fact, a phoney war - a proxy argument for a set of deeper anxieties about something altogether different. This can be clearly seen in the first great public battle over evolution in the US, the infamous Scopes/Monkey trial of 1925. John Scopes, a high school teacher from Dayton, Tennessee, was arrested, tried and fined $100 for teaching evolution - something that'd been made illegal by the Tennessee State legislature earlier in the year. The Governor who stupidly signed this law was actually a progressive Democrat, keen to win conservative votes with an empty symbolic gesture.

A New York pressure group advertised in the local papers offering to help any school who would test the law in court. And the declining town of Dayton, desperately poor after the closure of the local ironworks, took the bait, deciding to provoke a trial as way of attracting the attention of wealthy northerners and with it, hopefully, new investment. Scopes himself was the local football coach, game for a laugh. As it happened, he couldn't actually remember ever teaching evolution at all. The whole thing was a set up for the media and got turned into some great ideological circus largely by the famous columnist H L Mencken of the Baltimore Sun. What happened in Tennessee was ordinary people, with a limited knowledge of the world, exploited by politicians keen for votes and newspapers with empty pages to fill. The issue behind the headlines was that of poverty and the fear of rapid social change brought about by market forces. For many, the creation account in Genesis was an emotional anchor in an uncertain world. It was existential security. This is the real basis of fundamentalism, and it always has been. We do nothing to target these deeper concerns, if all we do is treat the question of creationism as little more than a school debating competition between the stupid and the enlightened.

Basically, what the speaker implied in the discourse above was: Creationism? Not a problem, it's not a big issue, it's just smoke and mirrors for pushing something else like politics. So no need to worry about it.

I find this naive.

Firstly, he says that in 14years he has never met a memeber of his congregation who beleived that the world was made in 7 days. Firstly, the old chestnut...it is says that specifically in the Bible and yet you say 'For many, the creation account in Genesis was an emotional anchor in an uncertain world. It was existential security' So why can't the rest of the book be existential security and simply made up?

Secondly, of course, your congregation will not believe in '7 day creation' that type of Christian will be going to Churches that wear that and other wierdo views on their sleeve.


The majority of his 'thought' was describing one particular instance where the matter of creationism was just a tool for politics.

However, lets look at other examples:

We all know about the Dover Creationism trial where governers of a school put stickers in books on evolution saying that it was 'just a theory'. - No, political bias there - simply trying to push creationism.

Reg Vardy, he of the Car Dealerships and an Christian evangalist, runs a number of schools which push evolution and creation equally(although as the Rob Liddle Channel 4 programme showed a number of years ago. 'Equally' is somewhat disegenous in that the teachers, alledgedly, say that the correct view is that the world came about by god's creation BUT to pass yuor exams you will have to give the other explanation: the THEORY of Evolution). Again, no politics hre just the mis-informing of future generations of adults. Those kids have no choice as to whether they go to those schols as they are replacements for state run schools.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1389500,00.html

Worryingly Blair had no problem with this and Brown was raised in the shadow of 'the cloth'.

And 'The Creation Museum'

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

That is all I will say on that.

Plus we have an American President who is pushing Intelligent Design. You could say this is political of course but it is more than that. It is once again a dangerous fact that American children are having their heads filled with this rubbish.


His last comment:
“We do nothing to target these deeper concerns, if all we do is treat the question of creationism as little more than a school debating competition between the stupid and the enlightened.”

Is very clever: inferring that those who believe in Creationism are ‘stupid’ while those who do not are ‘enlightened’ and that word ‘enlightened’ certainly brings in images of religion but he is actually using that word to describe, generally, atheists…

I also think he is being unkind to creationists: they are mis-informed, ill-educated…not stupid. The whole point of the inclusion of creationism into schools in the UK would be to show that Creationism is a nonsense and evolution is correct. The catch-22 situation is that once Creationism is in schools creationists will leap on that fact as showing that it has equal status as the theory of evolution. In much the same way as a flat earther would do if teachers started sayin ‘Flat Earth Theory is rubbish look at this globe.’

"Some might feel that this compromises their vocation as a doctor."

Perfectly true comment. Some doctors may well feel that this is against their vocation. Indeed, you agree: "I would suggest that doctors can refuse to carry out abortions or euthansia ...." So why start your comment with "Not at all"?

TRiG.

Typical TFTD fodder. The nice rev saying, come on folks, lets be honest and say and self respecting Brit Christian understands that creationism is just a bit of intellectual symbolism. That literalist stuff doesn't wash over here. Intelligent design is fine for the likes of Bush but we deeper, profound, reasonable minded Christians know that it is 'the peace that passeth all understanding;' 'the mystery of the incarnation'; 'God works in mysterious ways' is where it's really at!

<"Some might feel that this compromises their vocation as a doctor."

Perfectly true comment. Some doctors may well feel that this is against their vocation. Indeed, you agree: "I would suggest that doctors can refuse to carry out abortions or euthansia ...." So why start your comment with "Not at all"?

TRiG.>

Good point! What I meant was: from my point of view it should not comprise thier vocation as a doctor as if they aren't willing to carry out abortions or euthansia(if it became allowed) in an NHS hosiptial, then leave, don't be a doctor or work in a religious hospital where these things would notbe expected as services from the doctors by the patients.

A doctor should be carry out 'things' for the good of the patient not to satisfy whatever religious text they follow. And if for the good of the patient means euthanasia then they should carry it out if thr patient wants it.

The tightropes priests are forced to walk. Notice he says he's never met a *member of his congregation* who believes in 7-days creation. Nice sidestep: he doesn't have to mention whether he believes it, or whether priests in general are required to state their belief in it.

Which they might, to placate the one member of his congregation who may require it of him tomorrow.

Exactly, have a read of the TFTD from last week ~05/10/07 from the Muslim lady who spoke about Sainsbury Supermarche allowing Muslims working there to not handle alcohol. She then went on to say where will it end? Not handling pork, selling contraception etc. BUT she never specifically said that she does not agree with the decision of Sainsbury…just ‘where will it end?’

Thought for the Day, 9 October 2007
Akhandadhi Das

Ralph Waldo Emerson said that, if you write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better mouse-trap, the world will beat a path to your door. One British company obviously wants the rest of us to come knocking. Their new mousetrap, the RADAR, promises to be less messy and hazardous than previous models. It's definitely more effective than one spoof device on sale - a mallet, with the instructions: "first catch the mouse".

With the RADAR, the curious mouse enters a chamber looking for food. Infra-red beams trigger trap-doors and the release of carbon dioxide and the mouse quickly loses consciousness from asphyxiation. The makers claim this is more humane and provides the mouse "a pleasant death" in accord with the 18th century treatise, The Complete Vermin-Killer. And, I suppose, improving on inhumane behaviour is generally a good thing.

This hi-tech mousetrap has been compared to a James Bond gadget and it certainly perpetuates his "Live and Let Die" attitude and the notion that humans have a licence to kill. But, this is Dalek mentality - if it's a problem, exterminate it. Perhaps, live and let live is a sentiment more worthy of humans.

One Hindu teacher of the last century was asked by some monks if they could kill the mice that were infesting their ashram. His response was, "why should the mice suffer for something that is your fault? If you keep the place clean," he explained, "the mice won't trouble you." He then told the story of his father who was a cloth-merchant. Mice would come each night and nibble at the expensive materials. His solution was to put out some rice which kept the mice happy and the cloth untouched.

Now, I'm sure Health and Safety regulations won't allow you to do that in a restaurant kitchen; but the story, at least, indicates that we can initially look to ourselves for the solutions - and I'm now thinking of our dealings with others in society. Can we actually get rid of all those who might be a threat to us - terrorists, rogue states, yobs on the street, drug-addled criminals - whether by war, force or incarceration? These tactics may be necessary as an absolute last resort, but only after we have first tried the two lessons I take from the mouse story.

One is that there's always something we can adjust in our behaviour to reduce the impact from other people's actions. That doesn't always mean compromise or sacrifice. For instance, keeping the ashram spotlessly clean is beneficial anyway. Secondly, often there are things we can do to serve the legitimate needs of people who pose a problem to us. It's easy to serve those we care about. It's a higher principle to serve the needs of those we have always regarded as pests.

What the transcript doesn't convey is the accent.

When he said "this is Dalek mentality", he pronounced it to rhyme with "phallic". I wondered if the Dalls were some minority sect, or whether he was referring to Salvador Dali. Then he said "exterminate" and I understood.

Yay! Daleks!

SoRB

Also, what I did not say at all after this was there is a difference between the threat from mice and the threat from terrorists.

The difference is that one is a physical health threat and one is an ideological threat.

Putting rice down might stop fabric being attacked but does the speaker realise that mice are permanently incontinent and pee all the time and on everything and therefore spread various diseases around the place that one cannot see. Therefore, simply giving them some food but keeping the rest of the area clean does not remove the threat if mice are still there. The only way to get rid of that threat is to get rid of the mice. And killing them really is the best way because a live mouse can still get back in and also procreate.



There is no lesson to take from the mouse story. The lesson one should take…or comparison is to look at the recent cow with TB in Wales where Hindus were willing to break the law etc to stop a diseased cow from being killed to avoid the spread of the disease when everyone else in the country would have to have the animal put down but due to the Hindus ideological believe that cows are sacred that cow could not be put down.



Unfortunately, there isn’t much compromise when it comes to TB. There was no compromise from the Hindus…or did they just want everyone else to compromise to fit in with their minority believes…hmmmm….very telling.

Is there really any difference in believing a cow is sacred and believing that blowing oneself up will be doing god’s bidding etc? No, they are both basically irrational believes and yet you can guarantee the Hindu would not change his mind and say that cows are not sacred so why should terrorists change their mind.

When we have worked out how to convince Hindus that cows are not sacred then we might have a chance at convincing terrorists that blowing stuff up is not a good thing to do.

If you feed the mice, you get more mice. If you kill the mice, you get fewer mice.
I know which I'd prefer.

Make the following substitutions in the passage above, then read it again...

"Putting rice down" = passing dumbass laws in favour of minority superstitions.
"fabric" = the Tube.
"mice" = "Muslim terrorists".
"pee" = "pray".
"food" = "laws"

Sounds reasonable to me.

SoRB