Comrade Will’s cruelty knows no bounds. I was just settling down to an evening of nothing much in particular, and up pops an email from the rubbish one pointing me to an article just published over at Comment is Free by Our Maddy of the Sorrows. I do so wish I hadn’t read it.

Bunting writes about religion (!), condemning Richard Dawkins, whom she regards as dangerous, and praising cuddly bunny Anglican bishop Richard Harries.

Now I have difficulties with Dawkins, but these are due largely to his intellectual arrogance and the personal abuse he levels at ordinary folk who choose to display emblems of their faith. Christopher Hitchens is in an altogether different league when it comes to dealing with opponents.

To me Dawkins’ behaviour displays a lack of empathy, but this could be simply the result of a communication skills deficit in a man who has spent the best part of his life in the rarified atmosphere of the academy.

But dangerous? Dawkins?

“He has spent enough time now thinking about religion and listening to thoughtful religious people such as the Harries, yet he persists with a parody, a childlike perception of God and religion. Of course there’s no man with a beard crashing about in the sky.”

Relative liberal on social issues he may be, but “the Harries” is an orthodox Christian who believes that the prime mover of the universe (hirsute or not) came to Earth, took human form, preached the gospel and suffered to save humanity from sin.

Harries is no Don Cupitt, with that post-Christian philosopher’s references to the poetic metaphor of Arnold’s sea of faith. The Lord Bishop of Oxford actually believes in the man in the sky dogmas promulgated by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is Harries, not Dawkins, who has a “childlike perception of God and religion”.

Bunting again:

“There’s a fascinating debate to be had between atheists and people of faith and, often, they can find the gulf between them is not nearly as wide or unbridgeable as is often suggested.”

Really? Well this godless heathen has no interest in debating with people of faith about faith. It simply no longer interests me, and I do not see it as serving any useful purpose. Life is short enough without frittering it away in debate that can have no rational conclusion.

Senior appeal court judge Lord Justice Sedley has called for all British citizens, resident aliens and visiting holidaymakers to have their DNA profiles stored in the national police database. He forgot to include family pets in the list.

Sedley argues that it is unfair for arrestees who are not charged with a criminal offence to have their DNA samples retained in the database. But in an amazing leap of logic he goes on to say that the solution is to have everyone’s genetic details kept on file.

Lowering himself to the level of those who say “If you’ve nothing to hide you’ve nothing to fear.”, Guardian science journalist James Randerson chimed in today to support Sedley:

“Could you really look into the eyes of those victims’ families and say that freedom is worth more?”

Yes, I could.

We live in a relatively open and democratic society, yet one could argue that the best form of government for dealing with crime and social disorder is one that employs total surveillance. But even if a majority of citizens accepted such an invasion of privacy, and the subservience of individuals to the state, governments based on such principles would be illegitimate.

Such moral absolutes aside, the standfirst of Randerson’s article makes a claim that cannot be substantiated:

“The DNA database could make it impossible to get away with serious crime in this country. It’s an opportunity we shouldn’t pass by.”

This is not even wrong. No system is perfect. Store the genetic information of every sentient being that walks on the sacred soil of Albion and there will still be a significant number of false positives, substitution errors, bungled analyses, frame-ups and miscarriages of justice.

That is a given, just as night follows day.

Talking of civil liberties, I could swear I heard Gordon Brown, when speaking to camera this evening about how best to deal with feral childebeest, say that the government is going to change the law on cannabis. I thought the government was still consulting on this. Did I somehow miss the publication of the Advisory Council’s report?

You can’t escape from gravity,
For you, this earth’s a prison.
What I would call “human” in me
For you would be “perversion”.

Thanks: bashtherich

“Rabbi,” the man said, “Explain the Talmud to me.”

“Very well,” he said. “First, I will ask you a question. If two men climb up a chimney and one comes out dirty, and one comes out clean, which one washes himself?”

“The dirty one,” answers the man.

“No. They look at each other and the dirty man thinks he is clean and the clean man thinks he is dirty, therefore, the clean man washes himself.”

“Now, another question:
If two men climb up a chimney and one comes out dirty, and one comes out clean, which one washes himself?”

The man smiles and says, “You just told me, Rabbi. The man who is clean washes himself because he thinks he is dirty.”

“No,” says the Rabbi. “If they each look at themselves, the clean man knows he doesn’t have to wash himself, so the dirty man washes himself.”

“Now, one more question.
If two men climb up a chimney and one comes out dirty, and one comes out clean, which one washes himself?”

“I don’t know, Rabbi. Depending on your point of view, it could be either one.”

Again the Rabbi says, “No. If two men climb up a chimney, how could one man remain clean? They both are dirty, and they both wash themselves.”

The confused man said, “Rabbi, you asked me the same question three times and you gave me three different answers. Is this some kind of a joke?”

“This is not a joke, my son. This is Talmud.”

Brian Whitaker writes about an initiative in the Middle East that aims to translate 100 books into Arabic in its first year, and asks which titles we think should be included.

Any suggestions?

I’ll start of with something old and something new:

On liberty - John Stuart Mill
God is not great - Christopher Hitchens