Animal Rights or Human Rights?

In a previous post I deplored the suggestion that a bank, via PayPal, was seeking to censor e-books. I am pleased to be able to report that that threat appears tohave been averted thanks to the campaign that was mounted by concerned organisations and individuals who would have been directly affected by the proposal.

This is an example of a successful campaign by a minority to prevent a change in custom and practice with the potential to affect us all. There are other recent examples that are less welcome. The most recent concerns the use of mice in medical research. Having several years ago harassed breeders in the UK to the point where they gave up, animal rights activists, it is now reported, have succeeded in preventing the importation of the animals into Britain.

This is a disturbing development not just because of the potential impact on the research but because it demonstrates that a small minority working quietly and virtually unnoticed have the power to prevent not one but several large organisations from carrying on a legitimate business. That is very worrying indeed if you believe in democracy. The people concerned claim that they have mounted their campaign out of concern for the animals. On the other side of the argument are the people whose lives might be saved or whose suffering might be relieved by the drugs that need to be tested on the animals.

I am tempted to ask: do these people ever swat a fly? Do they take steps to prevent the birds that enter their garden from eating slugs, snails and worms? Where do they draw the line between creatures that are to be protected and those that can be left to fend for themselves in face of predators? The mice they are protecting would not exist were they not bred for the intended purpose. Their cousins in the wild lead a far more hazardous life. The purported concern that has led this handful of individuals to take the law into their own hands in defiance of the majority population is totally misguided. It is time for the rest of us to stand up to these ignorant fools and insist that the airlines and ferry companies ignore them and their threats.

There is a second recent example of a minority group seeking to interfere with the democratic process. Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church have become quite vociferous in their condemnation of government proposals to introduce a form of marriage for gay people. When I see these men in frocks pontificating from the pulpit I am apt to start shouting at the TV screen, telling them to mind their own business!

I have no problem with the Church making rules for its members. But it has no right to seek to impose those rules on the rest of us.

Who should pay for your child's communion dress?

I heard an extraordinary thing on Will Faulkner's radio show this morning. Apparently there is in Ireland a social welfare payment especially to cover the cost of children dressing up for their first communion. Will drew attention to a report that the government wants, not to end the payment, but to cut it back. According to the report, published in the Irish Examiner today 2nd February 2012, €3.4 million were distributed in such payments in 2011.

I have blogged previously about the extraordinary excesses of the Irish social welfare system but the discovery that such a payment is available left me spluttering into my porridge. I suppose I should not be surprised. The importance attached to such religious ceremonies within Irish culture is well known. News reports at the height of the "tiger" years claimed that some parents were hiring helicopters to bring their little treasures to Church for confirmation or first communion.

Solemn occasion sullied by materialism

It is at this time of year that such events take place and the shops are presently full of communion dresses. Hotels and restaurants advertise their availability for confirmation celebrations. I have made no secret of my atheism so I hope people will not be too shocked at my reaction. But, growing up in England I never came across any such pomp in the protestant churches I attended. Indeed, such extravagance is generally frowned upon because it is seen as being a long way from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that are supposed to form the basis of belief for all Christians.

In my mind confirmation and communion should be serious and solemn occasions at which the true Christian affirms his faith in the healing power of his/her Saviour, seeks the forgiveness of his/her sins and promises to lead a better life in the future. It should not be sullied by the materialistic symbolism of dressing up and partying. The idea that tax-payers should be asked to fund such behaviour at all, let alone at a time when the country is being bailed out by its European neighbours is surely beyond reason.

Irish parents are already in receipt of remarkably generous child benefits and those who qualify for this special occasion allowance will already have received a payment toward the cost of school clothing.

The Arrogance of Believers

I see that the UK government has indicated that it will withhold funding from any "free school" that teaches creationism (Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory, Observer, 15 Jan 2012). This is the doctrine that the universe was created more or less as we see it now just a few thousand years ago. This is taught by some organisations as if it were a scientifically sound theory on an equal footing with evolution.

It does seem to me that it is perfectly possible to accept evolution as scientific fact, based as it is on incontrovertible evidence, and at the same time to believe in a creator. Not, of course, a creator who constructed the universe exactly as it currently appears to us, but one who set off the "Big Bang" that science tells us got it all started.

The truth is that we cannot know if there is a creator behind it all. It is difficult for the human mind to conceive of anything that has not been created by an intelligent being, let alone something as vast and complex as the known universe. And then there is that ancient conundrum: if God created the universe, who (or what) created God?

The "Chosen People" Myth

What I do think is the height of arrogance is the belief that the creator, if there is one, did it all for the benefit of the human race. And that is topped only by the belief that it was done solely for the benefit of a small portion of the human race that will at some point see the elimination of all non-believers. I also think that the existence of a creator does not in any way imply the existence of an after-life.

Nor do I believe that praying or offering sacrifices or other forms of obeisance to the creator is at all likely to make that creator change his/its/her plans so as to satisfy our personal preferences. That is not to say that I don't believe in the power of prayer so long as the word "prayer" is a way of describing a period of quiet consideration of ones difficulties, a form of meditation, in which one is enabled to come to some level of understanding of the cause of those difficulties and, thereby, see a way to overcome them.

If you have read this far you will have gathered that, when I am asked about my religion, I tend to describe myself as an atheist or humanist. It is not that I belong to a formal organisation of those who describe themselves thus, just that my beliefs seem to be more closely aligned with atheism and humanism than with any of the multiplicity of belief systems based around the notion of a supreme being.