leave them kids alone...

This child should be given a medal, not a detention:

Well done that child — good to see someone is still awake and thinking! 

I once told my English teacher that he had mis-spelled murmur (as "murmer"), and he accepted the correction (he was a bit embarrassed but he checked in the dictionary).

illicit pleasures

What have Lolita, The Origin of Species, and The Satanic Verses got in common?

The answer is, they have all been banned somewhere. Wikipedia has a list of banned books.

Borders is being subversive and offering 40% off banned books at the moment. The list is fascinating.

• Slaughterhouse 5: The Children's Crusade - A Dirty-dance with Death by Kurt Vonnegut
  I've read this book, but didn't enjoy it that much. I suppose it was banned because of its pacifist stance and relentless exposé of the pointlessness of war.
• Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
• Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell
  I've read this - definitely a classic
• The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
  I bought the first edition. Great book.
  
• Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
• The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
  One of my favourite books of all time
  
• I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
• American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis
• Last Exit to Brooklyn by Hubert Selby, Jr.
• Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
  Sorry, but I could never get into this book; it's boring. I love Lawrence's travel writing, can't bear his novels
• The Color Purple by Alice Walker
  I really liked this book, and the sequel The Temple of my familiar was even better
  
• Flowers in the Attic by Virginia Andrews
• Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
  Excellent. It's all about why banning books is wrong. Ironic, really.
  
• Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
  Boring, boring, boring.
  
• To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
• Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller
  
• Naked Lunch by William Burroughs
  Started this, couldn't finish it
  
• Ulysses by James Joyce
  
• The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall
  A great classic of the "invert" theory of lesbian love. Mothers used to give it to their daughters to let them know they knew, apparently.
• The Dark by John McGahem
• Peyton Place by Grace Metalious
  
• Go Tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin
• The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
  I had to read this for my German degree; still didn't manage to finish it, even though I wrote an exam paper comparing it with Freud's Interpretation of Dreams (which I hadn't read either). I confess: I am a very lazy intellectual. I get 90% of what I know from reading novels.
• One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
  I have read this, years ago. It was bleak, but well-written.
• Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China by Jung Chang
• The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov
  Utterly magical on the first reading; couldn't get into it the second time around.
• Germinal by Emile Zola
• The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera
• The Rights of Man, Common Sense and Other Political Writings by Tom Paine
• Animal Farm: A Fairy Story by George Orwell
  Blimey, was this banned? Where? It was a set text at school. Great book.
• The Country Girls by Edna O'Brien
• The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
  

The main reason things seem to be banned is either because they are politically subversive or sexually explicit, except The Origin of Species, which is presumably banned in creationist states of the US, or something.

They missed out the Harry Potter books, but I suppose those aren't actually banned by any legislatures, only by certain schools and libraries. Things used to get banned for being religiously subversive, such as Steganographia by Johannes Trithemius and Picatrix or Ghayat al Hakim, but they seem to have ignored that category - maybe because now you can get them as free e-texts online. Picatrix was allegedly one of the books that Casanova was imprisoned for possessing. The Index of books prohibited by the Catholic Church was abolished in 1966.

What these people don't realise is the psychology of the thing. The minute I hear that a book or film has been banned, or that someone somewhere doesn't want me to read or see it, it makes me want to go out and read it or see it. For instance, I had no plans to go and see The Last Temptation of Christ. Yawn, I thought, yet another film about Jesus. But as soon as I heard that it was controversial and people wanted it banned, it made me want to go and see it. I didn't see it in the end (apathy set in), but it illustrates how stupid it is to try and ban things. Notice how I thought several of the books listed above were actually quite boring - they would probably have sunk without trace if they hadn't been banned, but I expect the fact they were banned made them instant best-sellers (a bit like Spycatcher, which I bought in Germany because there was a court order against it being published in the UK, but that turned out to be rather boring).

olympic spirit

Well done Nick Clegg. The Lib Dem leader has written to Gordon Brown telling him that he should not attend the Olympic Games in Beijing.

Ahead of the arrival of the Olympic torch in London this weekend, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has written to Gordon Brown urging him to pull out of the ceremony in the light of China's human rights record.

He added that he did not believe the Prime Minister could attend the Beijing Games 'in good conscience', unless and until the Chinese Government took steps to 'honour the spirit of the Olympics' in its conduct from Tibet to Darfur.

He further quotes the Charter of the Olympics:

Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles."

This is all to the good, but it's not quite enough. I think Britain should withdraw from the Beijing Olympics altogether. I am sorry for the athletes who have trained for it and everything, but only withdrawal (and trade sanctions) would hit the Chinese government where it hurts the most - in their pockets.

So far the Chinese government's record on human rights has got worse in advance of the Olympics, not better.

• They have cracked down on protests in Tibet [sign Tibet petition];
  
• imprisoned Hu Jia, human rights activist [sign Hu Jia petition];
• had a general crackdown on human rights activists (Amnesty report);
  
• rounded up all the cats in Beijing (not just strays but domestic cats) and left them to die slowly in tiny cages [sign cat petition];
• sentenced a businessman to death for allegedly spying for Taiwan;
• arrested a Christian bookshop owner (December 2007); part of an ongoing campaign. (I am as irritated by Christian evangelism as the next person, but there's no need to torture and kill them.)
  

disestablishment and pluralism

Rethinking religion in an open society
Though the role of religion in society has come back onto the agenda with a vengeance in recent years, the political, spiritual and intellectual resources at our disposal for handling the issues involved seem perilously thin on all sides in public life. This paper aims to reconstruct some key terms in the debate and to offer a positive case for a 'disestablished' form for religion within a plural social and political order. In particular it suggests that the alternative to hegemonic religion or attempts to exclude religion from public life lies in the rediscovery of an alternative form of politics rooted in practical 'goods' and 'virtues' derived from different communities and traditions, accompanied by the development of a 'civil state' framework.

I would recommend reading this, regardless of whether you are an atheist or a person with a religion or a spiritual path.

In this article, Simon Barrow takes a long hard look at the current debate on who gets to keep control over public life, and tries to move beyond the over-simplified "atheists versus religionists" picture peddled by the media.

I think he is right that we are now in 'post-Christendom' and I think this is a good thing. I think Christianity lost its claim to credibility when it got into bed with the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, and ceased to be a radical critique of the status quo at that point.

Likewise, ancient paganism lost its credibility (in modern eyes, anyway) when it became a state religion where you had to sacrifice to the numen of the Emperor. All the excitement was located in the mystery religions.

Theocracy is a bad idea anywhere - established religion is always a conservative force, because it is run by the rich and powerful, who have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. It's the small radical groups like Quakers, Unitarians, the Metropolitan Community Church, Soulforce, Wiccans, eco-Pagans, Sufis, Hasidim that challenge inequality and promote justice (for LGBT people, peace, the environment, etc.)

Recently some Pagans have started to liaise with the government over various issues, which is great, but the problem is that the government wants Pagans to "speak with one voice" and I don't see how we can do this, when there are many different Pagans with many different agendas and ideas. I guess we can try to reach a consensus among ourselves and then relay that to the government, but owing to the distributed nature of Pagan networks and communities, it is difficult to canvass everyone's opinion.

What Simon Barrow suggests instead of the established church is a polity based on values and virtues instead of beliefs - an eminently sensible idea, and something that is compatible with many religions, including Paganism, Unitarianism, and Buddhism, to name a few - all of which are based on values and not on beliefs. There is disagreement about beliefs both within and between traditions, but most people can agree on a set of values and civic virtues - inclusivity, tolerance, social welfare, justice, equity, charity (all good Heathen and Roman virtues), and so on.

He does not mention Paganism (though he does mention small new religions and non-aligned spirituality), and so I wonder what his proposed model might be like for Pagans - I think it would be a good thing, because it would be based on values which we can all subscribe to, and there might be less of the governmental mindset that insists on consulting one specific religious organisation and assuming that it represents the views of everyone in that group. It could also mean that Christianity might no longer be seen as a model that other religions must be like, or conform to, in order to be regarded as religions.

Persecution of witches

I have just read and signed the petition: "Stop the Mpumalanga Witchcraft Suppression Bill 2007"

The above 2007 Bill and 1957 Act undermines, denies and violates S.A. Constitutional Rights to religious freedom, expression, equality, liberty, dignity and security of a religious minority in South Africa.

Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and join me in signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference. They are trying to reach 6,000 signatures.

Why is this important? Because people have been murdered and maimed on suspicion of being witches, and giving a legal basis to the persecution of witches will make the problem of attacks on innocent people even worse. And it will also adversely affect Wiccans and Pagans in South Africa.

taking liberties

The shocking truth about the erosion of our fundamental civil liberties by Tony Blair’s government will be exposed this summer in TAKING LIBERTIES, released in UK cinemas by Revolver Entertainment June 8th 2007.

Right to Protest, Right to Freedom of Speech. Right to Privacy. Right not to be detained without charge, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Prohibition from Torture. TAKING LIBERTIES will reveal how these six central pillars of liberty have been systematically destroyed by New Labour, and the freedoms of the British people stolen from under their noses amidst a climate of fear created by the media and government itself.

TAKING LIBERTIES uncovers the stories the government don’t want you to hear – so ridiculous you will laugh, so ultimately terrifying you will want to take action. Teenage sisters detained for 36 hours for a peaceful protest; an RAF war veteran arrested for wearing an anti-Bush and Blair T-shirt; an innocent man shot in a police raid; and a man held under house arrest for two years, after being found innocent in court. Ordinary law-abiding citizens being punished for exercising their ‘rights’ – rights that have been fought for over centuries, and which seem to have been extinguished in a decade.

Irreverent but revelatory, outrageous but true, TAKING LIBERTIES combines these real stories of liberty loss with never-seen-before footage, cheeky stunts and comment from Mark Thomas, leading politicians, celebrities, human rights organisations, academics and lawyers. Narration from Ashley Jensen (EXTRAS, UGLY BETTY); a pumping soundtrack with tracks by Oasis, Radiohead, Stranglers and Franz Ferdinand; and the presence of Kurt Engfehr, producer of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE add up to make TAKING LIBERTIES the most explosive and controversial film to hit screens this summer.

This film sounds well worth seeing. The erosion of civil liberties over the last decade has been frighteningly silent and swift, with little protest about it, possibly because few people understand the issues. Hopefully this film will rectify the lack of awareness.