Jeremy Clarkson vs religion

[wautd]

One of the worlds most amiable assholes at it again:

Unhand my patio heater, archbishop

Jeremy Clarkson

The Archbishop of Canterbury told the faithful on Christmas Day that unless human beings abandon our greed, we will be responsible for the death of the planet.

Hmm. I’m not sure that I can take a lecture on greed from a man who heads one of the western world’s richest institutions. As we huddle under a patio heater to stay warm while having a cigarette in the rain, his bishops are living in palatial splendour with banqueting halls, wondering where to invest the next billion.

And are the churches open at night as shelter for the homeless and the weak? No, they are locked lest someone should decide to redress the inequalities of western society by half-inching a candelabra and fencing it to buy Christmas presents for his kiddies.

Then we must ask how much old Rowan really understands about the implications and causes of global warming. He thinks that taking a holiday in Florida and driving a Range Rover caused the flooding in Tewkesbury this summer. But then he also believes it’s possible for a man to walk on water and feed a crowd of 5,000 with nothing more than a couple of sardines.

Hmm. Well here are some facts that Rowan might like to chew on over his fair-trade breakfast cereal. The Alps are enjoying good snowfalls this year, in much the same way that the Alps in New South Wales enjoyed healthy snowfalls last summer.

The hurricane season finished a couple of weeks ago and, contrary to all the scaremongering from Al Gore’s mates, the number of severe storms, for the second year in a row, was slightly below average.

Closer to home, Britain did not, as was predicted by the BBC’s hysterical internet news site, bake this summer under record-breaking temperatures. It was wet and soggy, much like in all the summers of my youth. And the only reason Tewkesbury flooded is because we’ve all paved our drives and built houses on the flood plains so the rainwater had nowhere else to go apart from Mrs Miggins’s front room.

In the light of all this, I would like Rowan Williams to come out from behind his eyebrows and tell us how many people have been killed by greed-induced global warming. Because even the most swivel-eyed lunatic would be hard pressed to claim it’s more than a few dozen.

Meanwhile, I reckon the number of people killed over the years by religious wars is around 809m. I tell you this, beardie. Many, many more people have died in the name of God than were killed in the name of Hitler.

Between 1096 and 1270, the Crusades killed about 1.5m. Way more than have been killed by patio heaters and Range Rovers combined. Then there was the 30 years’ war, which reduced Europe’s population by about 7.5m. And the slaughter is still going on today in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto was killed by a religious nut, not a homeless polar bear.

We have been told by those of a communist disposition that if we return to a life of sackcloth and potato soup (bishops excepted) and if we meet all the targets laid down by the great scientist John Prescott at Kyoto, then Britain will be a shining beacon to the world. Others will see what we have done and immediately lay down their 4x4s.

Rubbish. America and China and India will ignore our lunacy and our economic suicide and continue to embody the human spirit for self-improvement (or greed, as Rowan calls it).

No matter. Old Rowan will doubtless applaud the move. This is a man who was arrested in the antinuclear protests of the 1980s. Who refused to call the 9/11 terrorists evil and said they had serious moral goals. Who thinks that every single thing bought and sold is “an act of aggression” on the developing world. Who campaigns for gay rights but wouldn’t actually appoint a homosexual as a bishop. And who recently said in an interview that America was the bad guy and that Muslims in Britain were like the good Samaritans.

In other words, he’s a full-on, five-star, paid-up member of the loony left, so anything that prevents the middle classes from having a Range Rover and a patio heater is bound to get his vote.

If, however, he really wants to bring peace and stability to the world, if he really believes Britain can be a force for good and a shining beacon in troubled times, then I urge him to close the Church of England.

If we can demonstrate that we can survive without a church - and when you note 750,000 more people went online shopping on Christmas Day than went to church, you could argue we already do - then, who knows, maybe the mullahs and the left-footers will follow suit.

Daft? Not as daft as expecting the government in Beijing to renounce electricity because everyone in Britain has swapped their Range Rover for a mangle.

But better? Well yes. I genuinely believe we are born with a moral compass and we don’t need it reset every Sunday morning by some weird-beard communist in a dress. I am, as you may have gathered, completely unreligious, but it doesn’t stop me trying to be kind to others, and I’m never completely overwhelmed with a need to murder madmen in pulpits. Slightly overwhelmed sometimes, but never completely.

Morally, the world would be no worse if religion were abolished. Practically, it would be much, much better. And so, given the choice of which we should give up, God or the patio heater, the choice is simple.

Some good stuff, some not-so-good stuff but enjoyable overall

[Androsphinx]

Today, in Logic 101, Jeremy Clarkson demonstrates the "tu quoque", combined with a good measure of "non sequitur".

Of course, this is the same person who rubbished fears over the government losing ID and bank details by putting his account number and sort code in his column, and promptly had £500 stolen.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Clarkson can be hit and miss. While he has a lot of good things to rant about with respect to yobs, stupid motorists, amazing inventors and Americans, he is also, first and foremost, a petrol head. He smokes still, after failing to give it up and believes climate change is a con. Though many see him as a male chauvinist (my mum namely).

So it doesn't surprise me that he's all over the place in valid and not-so-valid points here.

[Metatwaddle]

A male chauvinist? I don't follow this guy; does he rant about teh ebil feminazis too?

And yeah, he seems to be half right (about the hypocrisy and violence of many religious people) and half wrong (there's snow falling in the Alps, so obviously global warming isn't happening). Incidentally:

But then he also believes it’s possible for a man to walk on water and feed a crowd of 5,000 with nothing more than a couple of sardines.

Is it possible that Rowan Williams is one of those guys who doesn't actually believe in miracles? I know he hasn't gotten along with people like John Shelby Spong in the past, but still, aren't there very liberal Anglicans who don't believe in the virgin birth and such?

[Androsphinx]

Needless to say, if the more extreme GW predictions are accurate, and people die in their hundreds of millions - or worse - it won't be much of a consolation that Clarkson was wrong.

[Darth Wong]

Even when people do start dying in the hundreds of millions, many people will deny that it's global warming. It will start with famines in certain affected regions, but those regions will happen to be poor regions already. Nobody gets particularly upset when they hear about famines in economically depressed parts of the world; as far as they're concerned, that's simply the natural order of things.

Face it: if you read in the paper that Africa is being swept by huge famines and countless millions are dying of starvation, would you necessarily think "global warming"? Or will you think "Oh well, what do you expect; it's Africa".

[Bounty]

A male chauvinist? I don't follow this guy; does he rant about teh ebil feminazis too?

He has a carefully crafted image of being the archetypical neanderthal male. He likes fast cars, guns, things that explode, big engineering, killing trees, speeding, ranting about PC gone mad and mocking men who commit sins like getting proper haircuts or dressing fashionably. The logical extension of that image would be male chauvinism, except he really is a horribly softy, and he seems to have a healthy respect for women.

[Bounty]

except he really is a horribly softy, and he seems to have a healthy respect for women.

Ghetto edit: those are two unrelated statements, by the way; please don't think I consider respect for women has in any way to do with being soft.

[Androsphinx]

Even when people do start dying in the hundreds of millions, many people will deny that it's global warming. It will start with famines in certain affected regions, but those regions will happen to be poor regions already. Nobody gets particularly upset when they hear about famines in economically depressed parts of the world; as far as they're concerned, that's simply the natural order of things.

Face it: if you read in the paper that Africa is being swept by huge famines and countless millions are dying of starvation, would you necessarily think "global warming"? Or will you think "Oh well, what do you expect; it's Africa".

But I'll know. And besides, outside the States there's a lot less GW-denial going on - because it's not primaily our fault, we're less reticent about admitting it. Plus it's a very scary topic, and fear sells papers.

[Metatwaddle]

except he really is a horribly softy, and he seems to have a healthy respect for women.

Ghetto edit: those are two unrelated statements, by the way; please don't think I consider respect for women has in any way to do with being soft.

It wouldn't even have occurred to me to go there. He doesn't sound like a male chauvinist to me. Maybe a little insecure in his own masculinity, though.

Americans who rant about PC gone mad, unless they're bemoaning the respect we're required to give to religion, are almost invariably right-wing shitheads. Is PC worse in Britain, or is Jeremy Clarkson a right-wing shithead too? (I mean besides this "global warming doesn't exist" crap.)

[Admiral Valdemar]

Even when people do start dying in the hundreds of millions, many people will deny that it's global warming. It will start with famines in certain affected regions, but those regions will happen to be poor regions already. Nobody gets particularly upset when they hear about famines in economically depressed parts of the world; as far as they're concerned, that's simply the natural order of things.

Face it: if you read in the paper that Africa is being swept by huge famines and countless millions are dying of starvation, would you necessarily think "global warming"? Or will you think "Oh well, what do you expect; it's Africa".

The problem is evident in how far otherwise intelligent people can delude themselves when you see the goalposts have been moved from "No climate change is happening!" to "It's nothing to do with man. It's natural climate change, stupid!". How long before we see "Oh, those European nations have always been on the edge of chaos, I'm not surprised they started collapsing because or lack of food/water/shelter from fuck off huge storms"?.

The visceral dislike of the idea of something that isn't only unfightable in the traditional military way, but was even brought on by our beloved model of civilisation is probably stronger than any rational thought. It is pretty much the religion of capitalism, after all.

In Clarkson's case, it's easier to understand. He has always loved cars and industry. Therefore, the concept of cutting back on either is alien and scary and I can sympathise with that, but I'm not going to ignore evidence because it rubs me the wrong way. When things go downhill in the First World, it'll be harder to deny these things. People will deny them still, however.

[Lusankya]

The problem is evident in how far otherwise intelligent people can delude themselves when you see the goalposts have been moved from "No climate change is happening!" to "It's nothing to do with man. It's natural climate change, stupid!".

The "It's nothing to do with man" one always gets me. Even if it isn't anything to do with us, that doesn't mean that it's not in our best interests to stop it.

A: "Oh, no! Malaria's spreading north! We must stop this!"
B: "Nah. We don't have to worry. It's a natural spread of malaria. Nothing to do with man."

... later on.

B: "Help me doctor! I've got malaria."

[Darth Wong]

A male chauvinist? I don't follow this guy; does he rant about teh ebil feminazis too?

He has a carefully crafted image of being the archetypical neanderthal male. He likes fast cars, guns, things that explode, big engineering, killing trees, speeding, ranting about PC gone mad and mocking men who commit sins like getting proper haircuts or dressing fashionably. The logical extension of that image would be male chauvinism, except he really is a horribly softy, and he seems to have a healthy respect for women.

Sounds almost as if he's gay, so he overcompensates by self-consciously trying to fit the "macho" model of behaviour.

To be honest, anyone who smokes tobacco has lost any right to voice an opinion on global warming, because he has already demonstrated an ability to deny the reality of science and long-term consequences of actions.

[Bounty]

Sounds almost as if he's gay, so he overcompensates by self-consciously trying to fit the "macho" model of behaviour.

I don't think he actually is, because he's happily married with kids, but that's the overall impression you get.

Is PC worse in Britain, or is Jeremy Clarkson a right-wing shithead too? (I mean besides this "global warming doesn't exist" crap.)

I don't think he's right-wing; he just has a ridiculously one-track mind where anything that hinders cars= evil and anyone who tells him he can't do something=eviler. I suppose you can call him a libertarian; he's definitely not neocon territory, as he takes every opportunity to attack the Bush administration.

[Hillary]

Sounds almost as if he's gay, so he overcompensates by self-consciously trying to fit the "macho" model of behaviour.

I don't think he actually is, because he's happily married with kids, but that's the overall impression you get.

He wouldn't be the first "happily married with kids" guy who was actually gay, not that I think for one moment he is.

Is PC worse in Britain, or is Jeremy Clarkson a right-wing shithead too? (I mean besides this "global warming doesn't exist" crap.)

I don't think he's right-wing; he just has a ridiculously one-track mind where anything that hinders cars= evil and anyone who tells him he can't do something=eviler. I suppose you can call him a libertarian; he's definitely not neocon territory, as he takes every opportunity to attack the Bush administration.

He's certainly right wing when it comes to crime, economics, equality and social welfare. He writes in the Sun for fuck's sake.

[Darth Wong]

There are those who have fairly sophisticated philosophical reasons for rejecting religion, and then there are those self-centred types who reject religion basically because they want to be left alone. This guy strikes me as a member of the latter category.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'd have to say yes to that last comment. Clarkson isn't a touchy feely type by a long shot, and for all his entertainment as a petrol-head and author of certain articles and books that make me laugh with the cynicism, he's not a model human. So long as he doesn't think he's actually going to win any arguments like that, I'm quite content to ignore such rants that backfire if the entertainment elsewhere remains.

I hate driving and the general state of motoring, but I love watching Top Gear, and so does a raving pro-feminism, pacifist friend, which surprised me.

[Jon]

I thought this was amusing, another of Clarkson's rants backfired on him;

TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson has lost money after publishing his bank details in his newspaper column.

The Top Gear host revealed his account numbers after rubbishing the furore over the loss of 25 million people's personal details on two computer discs.

He wanted to prove the story was a fuss about nothing.

But Clarkson admitted he was "wrong" after he discovered a reader had used the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity Diabetes UK.

Clarkson published details of his Barclays account in the Sun newspaper, including his account number and sort code. He even told people how to find out his address.

"All you'll be able to do with them is put money into my account. Not take it out. Honestly, I've never known such a palaver about nothing," he told readers.

But he was proved wrong, as the 47-year-old wrote in his Sunday Times column.

"I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account," he said.

"The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.

"I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake."

Police were called in to search for the two discs, which contained the entire database of child benefit claimants and apparently got lost in the post in October 2007.

[PeZook]

So...it's a gigantic hole in bank security, who apparently don't bother much to verify the indentity of the person placing the direct debit order.

It's good to know that, actually.

[Hillary]

So...it's a gigantic hole in bank security, who apparently don't bother much to verify the indentity of the person placing the direct debit order.

It's good to know that, actually.

To be honest, it's not exactly a problem anyway - under the direct debit scheme, the bank is obliged to return to you any money debited if you request them to do so - even if the money was taken legitimately.

It's the bank's problem.

[PeZook]

To be honest, it's not exactly a problem anyway - under the direct debit scheme, the bank is obliged to return to you any money debited if you request them to do so - even if the money was taken legitimately.

It's the bank's problem.

Ah. That explains why they don't bother much with ID.

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, it's not exactly a problem anyway - under the direct debit scheme, the bank is obliged to return to you any money debited if you request them to do so - even if the money was taken legitimately.

It's the bank's problem.

Ah. That explains why they don't bother much with ID.

No, it's still a major problem. It's exactly like credit-card fraud; what if the amount is small enough that you don't notice it right away? Not everyone watches their bank statements like a hawk, or will run to the bank over every small withdrawal whose identity they're unsure of. If the average person sees something big like five hundred bucks coming out, he'll run to the bank. But if it's something piddly like $5, he's a lot more likely to think "is that something I just forgot?"

Once you put the onus on the customer to detect the fraud and report it, you open up the possibility for fraudsters to steal huge amounts of money by simply spreading their fraud around among large numbers of victims.

[His Divine Shadow]

Good thing I do watch my bank and credit accounts like a hawk, atleast once a week. Paranoid? I suppose.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Sounds a lot like slicing the salami with electronic transactions for national banking corporations. You simply spread the risk and still make a fortune, unless the people who get itemised statements actually read them. And I always do. If I see a withdrawal I don't recall, I'll call them. I only ever withdraw in certain amounts, so I'd know if it was a different number immediately.

[Crown]

A male chauvinist? I don't follow this guy; does he rant about teh ebil feminazis too?

He has a carefully crafted image of being the archetypical neanderthal male. He likes fast cars, guns, things that explode, big engineering, killing trees, speeding, ranting about PC gone mad and mocking men who commit sins like getting proper haircuts or dressing fashionably. The logical extension of that image would be male chauvinism, except he really is a horribly softy, and he seems to have a healthy respect for women.

Sounds almost as if he's gay, so he overcompensates by self-consciously trying to fit the "macho" model of behaviour.

Well ... his mother did invent Paddington Bear so ...