Where shall we deport white British Christian paedophiles to?

On 26 February 2016, a group who groomed 15 teenage girls, raped, sexually assaulted and prostituted them out under threats of death, were jailed. Arshid Hussain, 40, was jailed for 35 years and his brothers Basharat, 39, and Bannaras, 36, were jailed for 25 and 19 years respectively. Uncle of the brothers, Qurban Ali, 53, who was found guilty of conspiracy to rape and jailed for 10 years.

Associate Karen MacGregor, 59, was jailed for 13 years and Shelley Davies, 40, given an 18 month suspended term for false imprisonment and conspiracy to procure a woman under 21 to become a common prostitute. MacGregor was also convicted of two counts of conspiracy to rape.

It was an appalling case in which the Hussain brothers, who boasted that they “ruled Rotherham”, the English city where they lived and operated their underage prostitute ring for 16 years with girls as young as 11, had a known reputation for violence and pimping, yet police and social services did nothing, allegedly for fear of being branded Islamophobes and racists. It is has been claimed as many as 1400 girls were targeted by the gang in Rotherham and across the county of South Yorkshire.

One day earlier, in the English city of Oxford, Andrew Picard, an 18-year-old student of Eton College, England's top fee-paying school, was convicted of sharing more than indecent images of children on social media. These images included children as young as 2-years-old being raped and even being forced to perform sexual acts with dogs. Picard's sentence? A 10 month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months with a requirement to undergo mental health treatment, after his defence counsel claimed that Picard had “issues” with his sexuality.

The judge, Peter Ross, handing down sentence to Picard stated “This defendant Andrew Picard was a privileged young man. His family are clearly wealthy enough to send him to school in Eton. Quite how you found your way into this unpleasant world Mr Picard, the world of chatrooms and exchanging this material, is not clear to me.”

Without a doubt, the Rotherham case throws up many questions, not least of why and how the Hussain brothers were allowed to get away with their appalling crimes for so very long. Questions have to be asked and people should be brought to book for failure to act (don't hold your breath though).

What is really insidious however is the hypocrisy which has surrounded the Rotherham case, and how the extreme-right, and even the not-so-extreme-right are attempting to use the case to back up their own anti-Islamic bigotry and racism. The Hussain brothers come from a Pakistani background, and their have been calls to deport them to Pakistan. Meanwhile, the anti-Islamic brigade have jumped on the bandwagon, claiming that the root of the Rotherham scandal lies deep within Islamic culture and it's treatment of women as inferior beings.

Okay, granted I do believe there is truth in this. Generally the treatment of women in Islam is utterly appalling. They are indeed seen as inferior to men, treated as little better than slaves in many Islamic cultures, and female genital mutilation (FGM), removal of the clitoris and / or sewing up the vagina, is so widespread in many Islamic societies that there are now some Muslims – including women – in the UK trying to argue for FGM to be carried out surgically, in much the same way that circumcision is carried out on Jewish and Islamic boys (NB Muslims, this is never happening – decent people want all genital mutilation, including circumcision, gone forever). All of this is all the more insidious as men and women are actually considered equal in Islam.  Just as many Christians need to actually read a Bible, a great many Muslims should try actually picking up the Qur'an now and again.

But hold on, notice something else about the Rotherham gang? They were aided and abetted by two white women, British nationals, who are at the least culturally Christian. And then of course we have the appalling case of Andrew Picard, a wealthy, white British national, attending a school which has a strict Christian ethos. Where then would those decrying the Hussain brothers like these three people deported to? And does this mean there is a problem where white “Christian” culture treats women (and children) in the UK? And let me answer that latter question for you with a resounding YES, it most certainly does.

I was listening to a radio broadcast about the Rotherham case, in which the announcer suggested that this treatment of women was inherent in Muslim society, and more or less claimed that all such gangs are Muslim. Whilst the incidence is indeed alarmingly high and needs to be addressed (and not by the government's knee-jerk reaction of removing passports from dual-nationality criminals under anti-terror legislation), to suggest that it is inherent to ALL Islam, and that is wholly Islamic is not only a gross generalisation, it is not only poppycock, it is bigotry.

People-trafficking in Europe is a huge problem, mostly (but not always) carried out by those from eastern European countries, most of whom are white, many of whom are Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian, and devoutly so. Included in this trafficking there are gangs who rape, sexually abuse, and prostitute women and children. The Roma community from Romania and surrounding countries are particularly vulnerable to the traffickers. I said many years ago that the Roma suffered for centuries in imperial days, they suffered under the Nazis, they suffered under the communists, they suffered in the post-communist era, and that if they suffer in the EU, each and every one of us EU citizens carries the responsibility for that. Well, they are suffering in the EU, and the UK along with many other EU countries, is turning a blind eye to the enormity of the evils, including women and children being abused and prostituted,and we all carry that burden.

But then of course, we need not look to Islamic countries, or even to eastern Europe, for one of the biggest paedophile rings in the UK. One which included men who were not merely culturally Christian but many of whom professed to be actively Christian, men, who were all white, all UK nationals, all from privileged and wealthy backgrounds, and a ring which we now know for a fact was indeed covered up. I am speaking of course about the paedophile ring which we now know operated among elected members and peers of the UK government from at least the late 1960s, which successive Prime Ministers were aware of, and not only did nothing to address but must have actively covered up to protect those involved.

I condemn Edward Heath (possibly implicated himself) for his part in that. I condemn Harold Wilson, and his successor, Jim Callaghan, for their part, as I do Margaret Thatcher. And yes, I will also similarly condemn John Major, Tony Blair, and even the present Prime Minister, David Cameron. I do not forget that it was as recently as 2013 that David Cameron described those claiming abuse by MPs in the 1970s as “fantasists”.

So, where would the anti-Islamic bigots like all those involved in the Westminster paedophile ring who are still alive like them deported to? Which part of their Christian culture would they say makes this an inherent problem?

And when one looks at the Westminster paedophile ring, Judge Peter Ross should not be in the least surprised at Andrew Picard, from an equally wealthy and privileged background, becoming involved in the sharing of obscene images of children. More than that, the inference of his statement is that those of such backgrounds do not get involved in paedophilia. That inference is not just wrong, it is not just ignorant, it is not just arrogant and elitist, it is in fact deeply prejudiced, as to say such is to suggest that paedophiles come only from those less privileged.

Paedophilia does not recognise any boundaries; not those of social class, affluence, upbringing, religion (or lack thereof), race, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexuality, bodily or mental ability, or anything else anyone wishes to think up. It cuts across ALL society, with paedophiles coming from all sorts of backgrounds.

And while I am about it, I am equally appalled at Judge Ross in handing down such a paltry sentence, for such a thoroughly disgusting and serious crime, because he was fooled into believing that Picard was “confused” about his sexuality. I don't know where the defence counsel found the psychiatrists and doctors from who made these claims, but I would sincerely suggest they need to go back to school, or like I have done, merely read some research, first on how sexuality forms, then on the sexual abuse of children.

There is a small number of such deluded people who are trying to claim that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, no different from being heterosexual, homosexual, bi, pansexual or asexual. Yet only a scan through even the easiest-reading cases of psychologists dealing with sexual abuse, be it of children or adults, will tell you that it is a learned sexual behaviour. Our sexuality, whatever that may be, is decided in the womb. Science has not yet found the "gay gene", but points strongly towards it. The sexual abuser however is not born with that abuse imbued in their psyche, rather they learn it as they grow.

This is a very important distinction. For when people try to claim that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, it merely enables those who ignorantly (or even not so ignorantly) try to claim that LBGT+ people are all perverts and child abusers. It is actually a fact that the overwhelming majority of child abusers are cisgender heterosexual men, with cishet women coming second, although the incidence is far lower. LGBT+ people are in fact WAY down at the bottom of the list. Even most male paedophiles who prey upon little boys are otherwise heterosexual. But of course, the ignorant, bigoted public see an LGBT+ person and immediately make generalisations – just as they do with Asian Muslims. In fact, and bear this sobering thought in mind, more women and children (and men in fact) are abused in the UK – sexually, physically, verbally, and psychologically – by white, cisgender, heterosexual, male, UK nationals than any other demographic within UK society; many, many more.

Of course, the anti-Islamic mindset does not want to hear or face up to these facts, but facts they are. A similar case was that of the sexual abuse, rape and robbery of hundreds of women in Cologne and other cities in Germany, which was immediately put down to Islamic asylum seekers from Syria. To date, not one Syrian refugee, not one Muslim, anywhere in Germany, has been arrested for one of these attacks, and after the event, there were in fact many German women who said that sexual abuse of women in Germany, culturally very Christian (so much so they still do not have same-sex marriage), was endemic and in the main carried out by white, male, German nationals. Inconvenient truths they may be to the bigots, but they remain truths nonetheless.

I am not for one moment being an apologist for Islam, or for the Islamic mindset which does indeed oppress women – and children. Muslims can make all the apologies they want for Mohammed (piss be upon him), but any man who “marries” a 6-year-old and consummates that marriage when the girl is 9-year-old is, by anyone's definition, a paedophile. And I likewise condemn those individual Muslims who take child brides, and the Islamic countries which permit that perversion to happen. Just as I fully condemn those Islamic countries where women who are disobedient to their husbands, who are outspoken, who dare to seek an education and / or a career, or as much as merely show the tiniest bit of flesh, or even be seen outside alone, can be subjected to jail, lashes, having a limb cut off, stoning to death, hanging, or beheading. Some people claim that such countries exhibit a medieval mindset in their treatment of women. They do not – even in medieval Europe, women were never subjected to such treatment, but actually enjoyed many rights. In fact, in Scotland and England, noblewomen who were widowed were expected to, and did, raise and lead armies when needed. So, the two are actually incomparable and that treatment of women is indeed unique to the fundamentalist Islamic mindset; and note that I say “fundamentalist” there, for that is another important distinction to make. And do I believe that the Asians in the Rotherham gang should be deported after their sentences? I would happily pack their cases myself.

But neither does that absolve the treatment of women and children in white, western, culturally Christian society. It is sobering to reflect that it is only since as recently as 1976 in the UK that the law has deemed it is indeed possible for a husband to rape his wife. Before then it was deemed that a husband was merely taking his conjugal rights, and alarmingly, there are indeed men, and sadder still, women who to this day hold that mindset, believing that their god gave men and women different roles. So yes, I equally condemn such people. But then I also condemn those, right here in Scotland, from the Free Church of Scotland (the Wee Frees) and the Free Presbyterian Church (the Wee Wee Frees) who have at times called for the stoning of adulterers to be legalised “because it is biblical”. Again, those of that mindset are religious fundamentalists, and equally as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalists. They are in effect a Scottish Presbyterian Taliban.

As far as paedophilia is concerned, I condemn all white, culturally Christian, UK society which kept cases of child abuse covered up for so very long, which continues to cover up, make excuses for, underplays and downright dismisses cases of child sexual abuse to this day, and have not only destroyed thousands, millions, of lives, but are continuing to do so. Look at the case of BBC disc jockey, TV presenter, health promoter and charity worker, Jimmy Saville, who was first given an OBE and later a knighthood for his charity work. With people still coming forward, Saville used his BBC position and celebrity status to abuse countless children and teens, including those physically and mentally disabled. The number of victims ranges from 450 to 1000, possibly making him the most prolific paedophile of all time. There are many today from inside the television industry who claim that Saville's abuse of kids and young people was an open secret, and nobody did anything about it, because of his celebrity status. A BBC enquiry claims that they failed to act on 73 cases involving Jimmy Saville. 73 out of a possible 1000, over 30 years? And the band played “Believe it if you Like”. Ah, but Sir Jimmy was a good Roman Catholic.

Which brings me onto the Roman Catholic Church, and neither do I nor shall I shy away from a church which not only has innumerable members of clergy who have abused children, but which has actively protected paedophiles, and even has the gall, right up to and including the present Pope, to call upon the survivors of clerical sexual abuse to 'forgive' their abusers. No way, Frankie. That is not only enabling abusers, it is not only absolving them of their wrongdoings, it puts the ball in the abuser's court and effectively blames the victim – a tactic very common among paedophiles and other abusers. It is they who need to not merely ask but beg forgiveness from their victims.

Does that mean I am being bigoted and suggesting that paedophilia is endemic in the RC Church? Not for one moment. I am well aware that the majority of RC clergy the world over are good, well-meaning people, working hard for their communities. But if I am going to condemn one faith, the largest Christian church in the world need not believe it is ever going to get a free ride from me. If you give criticism, be prepared to take it as well.

Paedophilia at it's root, believe it or not, is not even sexually-driven. Like all and any abuse, the sexual abuse of children is carried out by inadequate individuals, usually but not always cishet men, who seek power over others and thereby single out those least able to defend themselves. The driving force behind paedophilia is the need to control, which they do by humiliating their victims. The paedophile, like any other abuser, is in fact a bully, and in the nature of the bully, a coward at heart. When we come to understand that, we see that there is no other driving force, from any other influences within the paedophile's life or background. As I said before, paedophilia recognises no boundaries and it is a learned sexual behaviour. Comparing the cases of the Rotherham gang and Andrew Picard (and Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith, Greville Janner, Rolf Harris, etc, etc) makes that plainly obvious.

Those who shout loudest about the Rotherham case, and other such cases of Asians who may be (but are not always) Muslims abusing children claim to be speaking out for the victims. They are not. Far from it, they use these cases to promote their own bigoted agenda against Muslims in particular, and Asians in general. That they do so, they not only use the survivors of abuse, they not only dishonour them, they are in fact by using these victims for their own means, actually abusing them even further.

Those who truly care about the survivors of Rotheram, or any other child abuse, would never sink to any such level.

Many thanks to NeonZero for making the attached image "Toddler in Fright" available free to use on Wikimedia Commons.

NOT Designed for Life

Part 1:  In the Beginning...

There are a number of theists who maintain that rules which apparently govern the universe are clear indicators for the existence of God. This is known as the teleological argument, which is defined thus;

“The name “the teleological argument” is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning “end” or “purpose”. When such arguments speak of the universe being ordered, they mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose. The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance.” (Source: Philosophy of Religion)

Basically the teleological argument states that the universe must have been designed and created for an end purpose, that the creator must have been God (usually of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic variety), and that the end purpose must have been life and ultimately humankind as God's greatest creation.

The teleological argument was first made popular by Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who included it in his Quinque viæ - five 'proofs' - of the existence of God. The five proofs can be summed up thus;

1: The Unmoved Mover; that things in motion must have had a cause to start that motion, and that cause must be God.

2: The First Cause; that all things (including the universe) must have had a first cause, and that cause must be God.

3: Contingency; that It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false. Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings, and that being must be God.

4: Degree; that varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe. These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection. Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle and that pinnacle must be God.

5: Design (teleological argument); that all natural bodies follow laws of conduct but are unintelligent. Laws of conduct are characteristic of intelligence, there must be an intelligent being that created the laws for all natural bodies, and that being must be God.

There is just one wee problem with the Quinque viæ – it's utter bollocks.

The arguments of Thomas Aquinas are in fact deeply problematic, they throw up more questions and ultimately are based upon assumptions, without offering any proof.

All things in motion must have been set in motion? Agreed. Now what set that “unmoved” mover in motion? There was no time when nothing existed, for the simple fact that if time existed, then it cannot be nothing. And of course, Aquinas makes the huge assumption that his mover was unmoved.

All things must have a first cause? Then what started the first cause?

“Nothing” is in fact a very difficult concept for anyone to grasp; we are not talking a black void, an empty space, or anything of the like here, for these are all something. Nothing means just that – nothing whatsoever. Go ahead, try to imagine that concept, and you will discover just how difficult it is. I would imagine that Thomas Aquinas would have had the same problem.

Firstly, the perfection that we see in the universe is merely of our own perception, and as I have already illustrated with the concept of nothing, human perception is limited. Therefore if there were an “ultimate perfection”, we would not be able to conceive it. And if we cannot perceive an ultimate perfection, then we cannot comprehend degrees thereof – one man's meat is indeed another man's poison. The theist may argue that is why God is beyond our comprehension. I would argue that if we cannot perceive perfection, then we would not have dreamed up god(s) in the first place. Asides from that, who says there has to be an “ultimate” perfection? Given that all things, no matter how beautiful are ultimately flawed (every silver lining has a cloud), I would argue that an ultimate perfection is an impossibility. I'm really sorry if that pisses on anyone's parade, but it happens to be a fact.

I would strongly argue that the assumption “Laws of conduct are characteristic of intelligence” is deeply flawed. Is it intelligence, or is it our perception thereof? I have a geranium on my windowsill which I recently cut back and one of the new stalks is growing sideways, seeking out the sun. Some may argue that the plant is showing intelligence. I would counter that it is merely a genetic predisposition. Right away I can hear the ID proponents screaming that such a predisposition must be intelligent. Really? Okay, let me talk about another genetic predisposition which I know more than a little about – psoriasis. I suffer from plaque psoriasis, which is an inherited genetic predisposition in which skin renewal, which usually takes 21-28 days, is vastly speeded up in patches on the body, renewing in days or in severe cases, even hours. Plaque psoriasis therefore not merely defies the 'laws' of nature, it shoves two fingers firmly up to them. Yet by it's same token, psoriasis (all forms) follows it's own 'laws' in forming. Does it therefore follow an intelligence? To the human body, it is following a reaction to stress and other factors, but that reaction can hardly be called intelligent. Of course, the theist may argue that somehow I am being punished for my sins, then I would ask not only why me, but given that we are all supposedly sinful due to the fall of man, how come only 3% of the world population suffers from psoriasis? And if God did it concerning my geranium seeking out the sun, he can bloody well water it as well.

Where am I going with this, apart from sounding like a hound trying to get a squirrel down from a tree? Well, what appears to be order from our perception may not be 'order' in the truest sense. If you are dealt a hand of playing cards, there is a vast number of permutations of what those cards could be. If we happen to get a Royal Flush of Hearts, then we may think that is fantastic luck which shows order. But that is precisely what it is; luck, or more accurately random chance which has thrown up that order, and you win. Likewise, we perceive the order in the universe which came out of chaos to be 'perfect' for the rise of life – as we know it (very important point, actually). ID proponents had any of these laws been different, then life may not have arisen. Absolutely correct. And? That proves what? The universe would still be there, and while they may argue that this proves their God created it all for us, then we have to ask why their God made it so vast, and with some frankly fantastic things in it, which have no affect upon us. Others may argue that if the laws were different, then the universe would not have formed at all. Again, 100% accurate. And if there were no universe, where then is their God, and would the existence of god(s) then even matter?

But the greatest assumption of Thomas Aquinas of course, which he repeats in all five points, is that everything comes down to an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient deity which created all things. I have already poured cold water on his reasoning, but all those apart and looking just at his assumption that “God did it”, he offers absolutely no proof or evidence for that assumption. And even if we were to accept it, we then have to ask who or what created that god, and in turn, who/what created that god, etc, etc, and we are into the realms of infinite regression. Many theists may argue that their god had no beginning, to which I offer the simple two-word question; Prove it. And no, the Bible is not the proof; that is the claim, and a claim which we already know to be flawed.

Moving on from Aquinas, English theologian William Paley (1743-1805) put forward the “Watchmaker Argument” for a finely-tuned universe in his 1802 book, “Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature.” (someone may have been going for the world's longest book title) Paley wrote;

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."

Paley's argument is equally as bollocks as that of Aquinas, for it again assumes that there is design in nature. How about if Paley was walking along a path on the heath one day, and found a sapling tree right in the middle of the path? Would he assume that his god had a look at that path, took a seed and decided “I'm just gonna leave this right HERE.”? Or is it far more likely that the seed fell from another tree, was carried on the wind, or dropped by a bird? And of course, just like Aquinas, we come right back to the question, who designed and created his god?  And again, we are then back to infinite regression.

But there more problems with the watchmaker analogy. Mechanical clockwork watches are beautiful precision instruments in which every single part is there for a purpose and finely-tuned to create the end result of telling the time. One does not tend most of the watch made up much bigger than it's purpose, and filled with things which are completely superfluous to the movement, much larger than the movement and which have absolutely no influence upon the end result. Likewise watchmakers tend not to include loose parts flying about all over the place, which are an ever-present danger of smashing into and damaging or even wholly destroying the movement, or anything else which may prove detrimental to their instruments.

Intelligent Design proponents would have us believe that the Earth and the entire universe were designed by a deity all for mankind. Sorry? Do they have any idea of the vastness of the universe?  The entire universe's size is at least 3x10²³ times larger than the size of the observable universe. We can only see a tiny, tiny part of the whole thing. Yet in that tiny sphere, we have found some amazing things. VY Canis Majoris is a red hypergiant star, 1200 times larger than our own sun, which would be imperceptible alongside it. That it is located some 5000 light years from Earth, output from it has absolutely no impact upon our planet or the creatures upon it. Given that we have found one such star, there is every chance that other such red hypergiants exist. And there is no proof that this is the largest star in the universe, it is merely the largest we have found so far, and there is absolutely no reason why larger bodies should not exist. Therefore, if the universe were designed wholly for the tiny ape-like creatures crawling across the surface of an insignificant blue-green planet in a small solar system, at the outward arm of a quite unremarkable galaxy, just what purpose does the vast universe, and objects like VY Canis Majoris fulfil?

Space is not finely-tuned, it is a hostile and unforgiving place, fraught with dangers. Comets, asteroids, and even planets dislodged from their orbits fly about here, there and everywhere, often crashing into other bodies. Our own moon, and even our little Earth, are testimony to that, as I'll address in a future article. Even in the outer orbit of our own Earth, where the International Space Station operates, temperatures can sink to -100 degrees Celsius, and can soar to 260 degrees Celsius. Radiation is everywhere in varying degrees. And then of course, there are those things which have only recently been confirmed, which space apparently is full of, and which are an ever-present danger to all other bodies in the universe; black holes.

In February 2016, physicists at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) confirmed for the first time gravitational waves from two merging black holes. This confirmed a prediction in Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, 98 years previously, of such waves existing. It was an astounding discovery which confirms Relativity and the standard model of the universe once more. But that asides, it confirmed without a doubt the existence of black holes, which before the discovery, whilst largely accepted, were in fact purely hypothetical. The waves were picked up from two colliding black holes consuming each other 1.6 million years ago (before you ask, they would form one massive black hole). As space is so vast, it is impossible to calculate then number of black holes within it. However, they are quite common in space. Indeed, our own galaxy revolves around a supermassive black hole at it's centre, which is slowly (relatively) all the matter around it – most galaxies do. But it's not these black holes we need to worry about. Nope, its the 100 million smaller black holes floating about our galaxy, all but impossible to find, which could sneak up on us and engulf us at any minu...

If any watchmaker created an instrument which was too big for it's purpose and had deliberately included things which would cause it to stop working altogether, I for one would be asking for my money back.

Other analogies like the Watchmaker one are often heard, in which the ID proponent argues that if you set off a bomb in a scrapyard, or an aircraft factory, you wouldn't get a car or a jet airliner. No, you would get a mess – which is precisely what the universe is. Yes, the universe is governed by laws of physics. But these have come about within the confines of this universe, and only give us laws which we perceive to be perfect for life as we know it.  A little one way or another, and life may have evolved very differently, or perhaps not even at all.  Even if the bomb in the scrapyard had resulted in a number of parts lying in a semi-circle pattern due to the effects of the blast, would that illustrate an intelligence behind that blast?  Of course not, and neither has the universe any such intelligence.  And while I'm about it, the "Big Bang", contrary to what the ID believers claim, was not an explosion, but rather a rapid expansion from a singularity containing all matter in the universe.

It is an absurdity of the ID proponent to even claim that all the universe was made finely-tuned, just for life as we know it. And to illustrate this, let us look at the way we came to be here.

The entire universe was created 13.82 billion years ago, but the Solar System only came into existence 4.6 billion years ago, which begs the question that if a God created it, just what were they doing for the intervening 9.22 billion years? In this fledging Solar System, the third planet out was a large, molten ball of fire and thus completely lifeless. It would be another 30-50 million years until our moon would form, which is equally vital for life on Earth. More than likely the moon formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago from an object approximately the size of Mars smashing into the protoplanet Earth, taking a huge chunk out of it, then the debris from both slowly coalescing into one solid object (or more, rather – we now know that Earth has quite a number of natural satellites). But of course, it gets better, for life only began on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, the first hominids rose 55 million years ago, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens - a mere whippersnapper on the Earth - only put in an appearance a mere 200,000 years ago. If the universe, the Earth and all life on it were thus formed by a supreme being, with the end result being that it was made all for us, they took their bloody time over it and appear to have had really long tea breaks.

Now, some ID apologists claim that their God created the universe within the confines of it's own rules. Others may state that God created the universe, then left it to it's own devices to form itself. The former argument is self-defeating, for if their god were confined by the rules of the universe, then it therefore logically follows that the said deity cannot possibly be omnipotent – all powerful, and without omnipotence, they cannot be God. The second argument is equally self-defeating in that if the universe were left to it's own devices, then that completely refutes any argument of design and / or fine tuning.

We therefore see that the teleological argument of a finely-tuned universe is deeply flawed, is easily refuted, and is purely a matter of our own perception as a species. Indeed, when one considers how insignificant humankind is within the universe, it is the ultimate arrogance for us to assume to be so very important within it, that we think it was made all for us, when in reality we are tiny dots on a not spectacularly important blue-green planet, at the edge of a not particularly significant galaxy, in an unforgiving and uncaring universe which is fraught with dangers.

In the Part 2, I shall be looking at life on earth, why we are nothing really special, and why our planet is ill-tuned for our survival, and why we contribute nothing to it.

"10 Questions Atheists Cannot Truly and Honestly REALLY Answer", Truly and honestly answered.

I have been meaning to do a blog in a long time surrounding some of those "questions atheists cannot answer" posts.  It took me a while to find a decent one, as some have such asinine questions that I frankly refuse to waste my time upon them.  No, I'm not ducking difficult questions, but when people ask things like "If God doesn't exist then why do we go to church on Sunday?" then they are frankly not worth debating.

Finally, I found one in Christian Today which while it still contains some foolish questions, makes the assertion that no atheist can "truly and honestly REALLY answer"  Challenge duly accepted.  So without further ado, here are my answers to those 'unanswerable' questions.

 *

1. How did you become an atheist?

I thought these questions were meant to be unanswerable, yet the the writer kicks off with the easiest of all.

I was born atheist, just as all babies are; atheism is the default belief system of human beings.  However, like most humans I was indoctrinated to believe in a god.  What followed was a lifetime "spiritual quest" to find enlightenment.  Whichever faith I followed, it failed to satisfy me and answer my questions, and I have been through the gamut of them, from Christianity through spiritualism to Wicca.  In the words of John Lennon, "I've seen religion, from Jesus to Baal."  In all these religions I explored I never, not once, found any evidence of the existence of any god(s).  In fact, many of them actually destroy their own arguments for god(s) through contradictions and claims which lack evidence.  So it was at the age of 47 I realised that what had always been missing was God, and in effect, I have always been an atheist.

2. What happens when we die?
I don't know for sure, and neither does the questioner.  The theist assumes that there is an afterlife they are going on to, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that assumption.  I have never seen any proof offered that "messages from beyond" are genuine, but I have personally witnessed cold reading done by charlatans.  And even when those giving readings are genuine, well-meaning and wholeheartedly believe in what they are doing, even if they don't charge for their services, I'm sorry but they are going to have to go a long way to convince me.

Likewise, the questioner, being of the Christian persuasion, assumes and promises an afterlife, with no evidence to back that up.  If they have proof, bring it on.  And no, I don't mean the Bible.  That is not the evidence - that is the claim.

3.  What if you're wrong?

Ugh!  Pascal's Wager!  How I HATE Pascal's Wager.  The question is so-named because it was proposed by 17th-century mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal, and is defined in philosophy thus;

"the argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise."

Even when I were a Baptist Christian, I deeply disliked Pascal's Wager and strongly disapproved of other Christians using it, for it relies upon individuals making a pretence of belief, rather than having a living faith.  Note that it states it is in the individuals best interest to behave as if God exists.  That is more or less assuming that the omnipotent, omniscient God which Christians believe in would be fooled by such a pretence.

For the atheist, Pascal's Wager is equally absurd.  Some have answered to theists "What if you're wrong?" to which the theists smugly reply they have lost nothing.  But it could be reworded to the theist "What if you have the wrong faith?  What if the Muslims are right?  Or the Hindus?  Or the Scientologists?"  Basically Pascal's Wager falls down on it's own argument.

And what if I am wrong?  You want an honest answer?  I will be wrong, and I will pay for that.  But if you are asking me to make a pretence of faith through fear, when I do not truly believe, then I would argue that not only is that an extremely poor argument for faith, but any such pretence would never fool an omnipotent and omniscient deity.

4. Without God, where do you get your morality from?

The question immediately assumes objective morality, that our moral compass comes from God.  I could (and intend to) write an entirely separate blog on why this is not only mistaken, but that morality is a manmade cultural concept, which changes through time and between cultures, and which in reality does not exist.

What we call morality has evolved through time and comes through cultural and societal influences, which have absolutely no need for God.  One would imagine that the questioner is asserting not only that morality comes from a god, but from the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.  If that were the case, then consider that when white, European, Christians started exploring the globe, they encountered other cultures which followed and exhibited the same mores as those of Judeo-Christian culture; that murder, theft, cheating, and lying were wrong, they revered and respected their elders, they protected and nurtured their children, many of them covered their genitalia, and most of these cultures did not practice incest or sex with minors (which is much more than can be said for the culture of the Old Testament).  So if the Judeo-Christian God alone gives morality, just where then did they get their morality from?  I recall putting this very question to a Christian online, who replied that they were of the lost tribes of Israel, and as such had an in-built and inherent moral code given to them by the God of Moses and Abraham. Having obviously rethought this, he removed his reply before I could answer it.

It is self-evident we do not have an inherent moral code, and if we did, then that would put millions of security guards, police, lawyers, prison officers, and armed forces personnel around the world out of work.  Consider if a young child hitting or biting another child or an adult.  They have to be taught that is wrong.  As the child grows, they are equally taught that lying, cheating, and stealing are all wrong, and being kind and loving is good.  They are taught right from wrong, and it does not require any god(s) to teach them that.  In fact, it is (and should be) the parents who instill right from wrong, and few make any mention nowadays of god in that equation.  Rather modern parenting relies upon teaching children that they would not like their wrongdoing to be visited upon them.  My own girlfriend's three kids were brought up pretty much without god(s).  They are far from perfect - being human they are as flawed as the rest of us - and they have at times done things I could have personally slapped the stupid out of them for, but they are good kids who are (too) fast growing into respectful, kind and thoughtful adults - much more so than the arrogant little brats of some theists I could mention.

So, basically morality evolved.  Whether we like it or not, all 'morality' is self-seeking; we do not do wrongs to others because we wouldn't want those things done to us, and we do kindness to others in the hope that kindness shall be returned, even if we do so subconsciously.  It does not take a genius to work out that killing, stealing, lying and cheating not only others but ultimately hurts ourselves, and that's why most of us largely behave "morally".

Compare that with theist morality, which is done with no thought for others, but purely to score Brownie points with the Invisible Sky Pixie, for fear of retribution, and we see that it is actually theist morality which is no morality at all.

5.  If there is no God, can we do what we want?  Are we free to murder and rape, while good deeds are unrewarded?

Not only is this the same question as question 4, it is worded in a rather disturbing fashion.

No, of course we cannot do what we want.  We are bound by the laws of our countries, by societal mores and culture, and by familial upbringing and obligations.

I find it strange that a Christian, who presumably believes their God gave mankind free will, should ever ask such a question, for surely their own faith would say that we are.  Do they not all too often hide behind the "God gave us free will" argument?  In reality, whilst there is free will to a degree, it is bound by personal responsibility.

For anyone to murder and / or rape, the compulsion to do so would have to be there in the first place.  But even if that compulsion exists, then no god(s) stops people from doing so.  In fact, where those particular crimes are concerned, not even the laws of the land are any deterrent from doing so in the majority of cases.  The person intent on murder will kill, the rapist will rape, regardless of what their faith, the law, society, culture, or even their family may have to say against such horrible crimes.

Belief in God has certainly been no obstacle to a great many clergy who have sexually molested children.  In fact, many of those who do so think themselves so 'elect of God' that they can do no wrong - one only needs to read case studies to see how prevalent this view is.  And the same can be said of killing.  The sixth commandment plainly says "You shall not kill.".  That's all it says, no more, no less.  Yet it is today interpreted as being purely a commandment against murder, when it does not say that.  Similarly there are those who claim that because Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers, and said he had come with a sword, that he then allows for war, and completely ignore Jesus allegedly saying "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.", or that the overwhelming narrative of Jesus is one of peace and forgiveness.

I would suggest that the questioner read The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg.  It is a disturbing novel based around not an atheist who thinks they are free to do what they will, but rather of a fundamentalist Christian who believes they are so elect of God, that they can do whatever they want without any consequences, as their sins were paid for.  Hogg published that work anonymously in the early 19th century, but it is unsettling just how many Christians (and other theists) seem to be of exactly that mindset.

Therefore, as an atheist I fully realise the consequences of my actions, I know I am bound by the law, society, culture, and family, and I certainly have absolutely no wish to murder and / or rape.

As for good deeds going unrewarded, if you seek reward, then your actions are empty.  Truly good deeds are done by those who seek no reward.  However, it has happened since time began, and shall happen as long as mankind thrives.  And all too often, those doing good deeds have their work undone, or are otherwise suppressed by politicians who proclaim to have a living faith in their god(s).

6.  If there is no God, how does your life have any meaning?

Simply answered, it has none.

The only meaning anyone's life can ever have is that which they create for themselves.  No baby is born with meaning.  No child really has any true 'meaning'.  It is only upon becoming adults that we set out on a path of life which defines us as individuals and we find that meaning which is true to each of us; the meaning of one's life is never the same meaning of that of another.

For the theist, meaning involves following their god(s) and faith and staying true to that.  Best of luck to them.  If they are happy in that, then it's none of my business.  For me, my meaning is to seek truth, to constantly learn and inform myself.  My meaning to my life is to think deeply, to write poetry, and ultimately, to make others happy (I rarely succeed, but that does not stop me trying).

Seeking the meaning of life is of course also the ultimate philosophical question of all time, which much greater minds than mine (or that of the questioner) have pondered long and deep ever since our species learned to communicate.  I have often encountered theists who, unable to explain things, simply say "God did it.", without offering any evidence.  That they should try to apply that argument to the meaning of life seems not only ignorant, but displaying an argument which is beyond belief.

7.  Where did the universe come from?

Truly speaking, this question is irrelevant to atheism.  Atheism merely means lacking a belief in god(s), and comes with no additional baggage. Some atheists are interested in cosmology and physics, some know nothing about them, some couldn't give a toss.

However, the simplest, most honest, most accurate answer that anyone can give to this question is "I don't know."  I do not know where the universe came from - and neither does the questioner, nor any other theist for that matter.

If the questioner is suggesting that as the universe apparently came out of nothing, then there must have been an intelligence behind it, and that intelligence was not only a god, but their own particular God, then I for one would like to see the evidence for such an arrogant claim.

I prefer to apply the logic of Charles Hoy Fort (1874-1932), a writer on anomalous phenomena, who once said "One measures a circle beginning anywhere."  In other words, unless something can be conclusively proven, or one particular explanation is the greatest likelihood, then all hypotheses have validity (although not necessarily equal validity).  Therefore, where the beginning of the universe is concerned, it may be part of a multiverse, it may always have been here, it may continually expand and contract over and over, the entire universe may be lying in some being's petri dish in a laboratory, it may have been aliens, it may have been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, and it may have been a deity.  We simply do not know. But because we do not know by no means invalidates the science which is looking into it, nor does at all validate the baseless claim that the the universe was poofed into existence by the Judeo-Christian God.

And theists, if you think I am being obtuse by bringing in the petri dish, aliens, or the Great Green Arkleseizure, just bear in mind that you are the ones claiming that your God brought the universe into existence, without offering one shred of evidence to back up that assumption, without one iota of proof to back up your claim.  It seems to me then that the above claims, all of which can be found in books, have absolutely equal validity to your claims, which are found in your 'holy' books.

Anyone who looks at the question of where the universe came from, and unable to explain it automatically assumes "God did it." is frankly exhibiting the same amount of logic as our early ancestors who saw an avalanche and said "The Mountain Gods are angry."

8. What about miracles?  What about all the people who claim to have a connection with Jesus?  What about those who claim to have seen saints or angels?

I love how the questioner says 10 questions, then throws three questions into one.  As ever, the theists always try to skew the argument in their favour.

What about miracles?  Got any proof of them ever being genuine?  Nope, you have not.  If there were proof of miracles, then there would be no atheists, for we would know for sure that a god exists.  Theists may claim that miracles have taken place, but once people start questioning the validity of such, they immediately become extremely circumspect, often abusive, or just resort to telling lies.

So if you have proof of miracles, bring it on.  I'd love to see it.

Tell you what, you maintain that miracles are real, then why doesn't your god heal amputees?

Have you ever noticed those who claim to have a personal connection with Jesus, or and by extension, God, seem to have a connection with a deity whose views are are shared with their own?  The connection is not one with Jesus or God, but with their own ego.  The theist may hate gays, and strangely enough, their Jesus / God also hates gays.  The theist may be against abortion, and their Jesus / God will equally be against abortion.  They may even simply don't like rock music, and surprise, surprise, their Jesus / God will also hate rock music.  And of course, if the theist with such a delusion approaches someone who rejects them, they will immediately accuse the individual of rejecting their god, when in fact no such rejection has taken place.  The excellent YouTube atheist cartoonist, DarkMatter 2525, once covered this in a video, The Real God: An Epiphany far more profoundly and eloquently than I ever could.

I would also turn the question right back on the questioner and ask them what of Muslims who claim to have a personal relationship with Mohammad / Allah?  What of Hindus who claim to have a personal relationship with their multitude of gods?

So what about people who claim to have seen saints or angels?  Proof?  None.  In another guise, I am a paranormal investigator, which has often brought me into contact with some deeply disturbed people.  These include people who claim to have seen ghosts, demons, UFOs, aliens, etc.  I even know people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, and who say they have had radios and even cameras implanted in their bodies.  Where they are not outright lying, those who claim such have severe psychological problems - I happen to know one very brave chap who openly admits to being diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.

Even where the cases are not so deep, they may still point to underlying mental problems.  In 1979 Robert Taylor, a forestry worker in West Lothian, Scotland, stumbled into a police station, his clothes in shreds, claiming that some strange robotic machines had tried to abduct him into a larger craft.  Bob went on to describe the 'craft' and other ball-like machines in detail.  When police investigated the site where he was attacked, they found pitting and track marks on the ground.  Bob Taylor never courted publicity - I personally tried to interview him three times and was turned down every time.  He was quoted as saying he wished it would all "just go away".  He certainly never made any money out of his story.  Today, the attack has been logically explained, yet Bob Taylor went to his grave, still adamant that aliens tried to abduct him in 1979.  In other words, for Bob, the events of that evening were true, as he remembered them, and nothing would shift him on that.  Yet in the cold light of evidence, the events were nothing more than an invention of his own imagination.  I am not by any means deriding Bob Taylor for that, merely stating the facts.

Likewise, when people claim to have had visions of 'saints' or 'angels' - or ghosts, aliens, demons, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, etc, etc, we only have their word for that, and even discounting the frauds, for those who remain, even when their visions can be logically explained away, for them those visions will always be the truth.

9.  What is your view of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris?

I thought these questions were supposed to be unanswerable?

I find Dawkins highly intelligent.  Do I follow him sheeplike?  No, I do not.  Just out of interest, I have never read The God Delusion right through, only excerpts. 

I truly admire the intelligence of Richard Dawkins, but I strongly dislike his public persona, which I find to be arrogant, elitist and condescending.  There's one man who really needs a PR makeover, because I often feel like punching that self-satisfied face more than theists do.  I REALLY dislike Sam Harris, because he leans so far right politically and has come out with comments which can be construed as religiously bigoted, racist, sexist, and even ableist.  Of the three, the late Christopher Hitchens was probably the most reasonable, but even he could have his moments with outbursts against theists.  That's not my way - if you're happy with your faith, stay happy in it, keep it out of my face, don't try and indoctrinate kids with it, and you and I shall get along just fine.

Let's get this straight; if I will not bow to your god(s), then I am not about to bow to the altar of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or anyone else.

Just because I no longer have and god(s) in my life does not mean I have a hole which needs to be filled.  There is no such hole and I, like every other atheist, came to the conclusion there is no god through my own observations and experience, and certainly not by being indoctrinated by the views of another.

10.  If there is no God, then why does every society have a religion?

Because of course, weight of numbers makes it true.  Except it does not.  Strangely enough, every culture on the face of the earth has folklore tales of "Wee people". Because of such weight in numbers, does that make leprechauns, brownies, fairies, elves and imps equally true?  The Yeti, Bigfoot / Sasquatch, Skunk Ape, The Big Grey Man of Ben MacDhui - many cultures have their own version (I recently saw a claim of a Spanish one).  Does that make such creatures real?  Can we say the same for sea / lake / loch monsters?

Nonetheless, it is an interesting question, and a good one to end on, because yes, I do have an honest, true, logical answer, which can be summed up in one word: culture.

This question, coming from a Christian, actually destroys the questioner's own argument.  For if their God is the one and only true God, then why are so many different religions in the world?  Even within Christianity, why should their denomination, among the 400,000 - yes, there are that many - differing denominations of Christianity?

They only think their faith is the true one because that is the one they are used to, the one they have been taught, the one they have been indocrinitated in, the one they were more than likely brought up in.

Most children all over the world are told the stories of their family's faiths from an earliest age.  From when children are old enough to understand here in the culturally Christian west, they are taught about the Baby Jesus, and to believe in a big, kind, happy God.  Even although we skirt round the nasty bits in the Old Testament, most kids are taught about Noah's Ark, and may even have a toy ark with animals to put in it.  Many kids will be sent to Sunday School, and even those who don't will often be indoctrinated with Christianity at school and in youth organisations.  And of course, when December trundles around, kids are told the pretty story about Mary and Joseph, and even take part in Nativity plays.

So it is that Christianity is self-perpetuating, with upcoming generations being taught to believe by their parents and society, who in turn were taught to believe by their parents and society, etc, with few, even if they are not overtly religious, even stop to think or question what they are being taught.  But this happens all around the world, in different cultures, with different faiths.  People largely stick to the faith of their ancestors, not really through any devout belief, but rather because it is what they are comfortable with, what they are familiar with, what they feel safe within, as they do with so many other aspects of their culture.  If this were not the case, then one would expect to see people from other faiths turn to the "one true faith" - say Muslims turning to Christianity (or vice-versa) - en masse. 

That they do not tells its own story; strongly suggesting that faith, whatever that faith may be, is a purely cultural concept. And which of course, far from offering proof for the existence of god(s), completely quashes any and all such claims.

*

And so, there it is; 10 questions which the Christian questioner suggested that no atheist could truly and honestly really answer, truly, honestly and roundly answered by this atheist.  And given that I am by no means any great academic or professor of philosophy- just an ordinary guy - the questions and claims have been completely destroyed, even if I do say so myself.

Equilibrium - or a Lost Sense of Balance?

Any similarities to The Matrix are purely coincidental

Among my ridiculously large and ever-growing DVD collection, one of the movies I have is Equilibrium, starring Christian Bale, which I am wondering whether to keep hold of, or ditch, on the basis that the entire premise of the storyline is deeply flawed.

The story is set in a future one-world society where war has been eradicated and the world united, at the cost of all emotions being suppressed.  Showing emotion and even the ownership of that which can evoke any feeling, art, music, literature, pets, is punishable by death.  To keep emotions suppressed, the robot-like population take daily doses of a drug, prozium, whilst being led blindly by an authoritarian leader known only as father.  Against this storyline, Preston, the state's top "Grammaton Cleric" whose job it is to enforce these laws, stops taking prozium, starts showing finer feelings, and soon meets up with and joins the growing resistance, whilst being careful not to expose himself to the authorities, particularly his ambitious and devious partner, Brandt (Taye Diggs).

Sounds like an interesting story, right?  Except such a society could never work nor exist, and there are flaws throughout the movie which prove my point on this.  The 'Halls of Justice' (not their real name - it's a Judge Dredd reference, but it'll do) is a highly-stylised building.  To create such a building, the architect would have to be driven to create a building which is aesthetically pleasing, and that would require emotion.  The cross insignia likewise would require a designer, who would have to be driven by emotion.  The clerics go about seeking out and destroying works of art.  Yet within the Halls of Justice, there is an illuminated globe being held up by a statue of Atlas (itself one of mankind's biggest misconceptions - in Greek mythology Atlas holds up the Heavens, not the Earth).  To seek out and destroy that which evokes emotion and to kill the owners of such and the mass killing of the resistance would require either contempt, courage, or both - which again would be showing emotion.  There is even an execution scene where the condemned woman is wearing a red robe during the ceremony - again, both of these things would be deeply based in emotion.

Such a society would also soon die out, for without emotion, then it is unlikely the species would procreate.  Okay, it could be argued that procreation could be by test tube and artificial insemination.  But that would still require donors and surrogates.  Without emotion, who is going to volunteer for those tasks?  Where indeed, would such a society find those with the academic excellence to carry out the procedures and enhance the science?  Science requires ambition and a thirst for knowledge, and in a robot-like population, neither of such would exist - not even to the point of youths wishing to go into those fields.  Therefore, a society without emotion, even if attempted, would perhaps last a generation, and after that - nothing.  It's very premise would be it's fatal flaw and downfall.

And that applies not only to academia, but stretches to the authorities in the movies.  The population are subjected to constant rousing speeches from "Father", broadcast publicly.  To make those speeches would require a great deal of emotion. Think of past dictators since the advent of mass media; Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Papa Doc Duvalier and his son Baby Doc, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Un and Kim Jong Il, Thatcher, Dubya, to name but a few.  All used mass media to indoctrinate and spread their messages, and doing so took a great deal of emotion, just as Father displays in the movie.  At the end of one scene, a crowd watching one such speech rise up and applaud Father.  Yet if the premise were to be believed, all doing so should immediately be executed.

The clerics themselves show a great degree of emotion.  As I said, Brandt is both devious and ambitious - he actually tells Preston he would "make his career" through him.  Likewise, Brandt speaks of "hope", says he is "intuitive" and in one scene even tells Preston "I'm a wary person, cautious by nature.  Always expecting the worse."  All of these are of course very emotional responses, an in such as society as Equilibrium portrays, not the sort of thing one government operative would ever voice to another - particularly not that society's top law enforcement agent.  Even Preston himself, making a pretence of loyalty (itself an emotion) in order to gain access to the resistance, tells his superior, Dupont (Angus Macfadyen), of his 'faith' in the system.

We, Homo Sapiens, are an emotional species.  Each and every one of us is guided by our emotions every second of every minute of every day of our lives.  In any 24 hour period we will go through a huge gamut of emotions - happiness, joy, anger, frustration, anxiety, love, lust -  and a great many more, even if we are unaware of them.  And yes, I do mean a 24 hour period, because we even experience emotions in our sleep.  As you read this, right now, you are experiencing an emotion.  And as for children?  Well they are such bundles of emotions that any attempt to suppress them must ultimately fail.  Find me a child without a wish or the ability to make believe, to play, to laugh, to cry, to dream, and that is a child I should never wish to encounter - in a society I would never wish to live in.  And that's another reason why such a society must fail - because it would be a pointless and sad existence, which could only lead to mass suicides.  Our emotions are what make us - for good or bad - and something to be embraced, never rejected.

Apparently equilibrium was supposed to be loosely based on 1984.  If that is the case, then I suggest it is very loosely based, and perhaps the director and screenwriter Kurt Wimmer should actually try reading the damned book, because while George Orwell was warning of a totalitarian future which could happen, Wimmer has given us a society which could only contain the seeds of it's own downfall.

As to the movie itself, the Sunday Mirror described it as "The Matrix meets 1984", which I couldn't agree more upon, not least because there is so much which has been blatantly ripped off DIRECTLY from The Matrix.  And I'm not just talking Preston wearing black clothes and a long black coat here (or the fact that Christian Bale has been made to have more than a passing resemblance to Keanu Reeves in the movie).  There are also the impossible gun battle scenes, where Preston produces hidden guns, with which he takes out everyone else, and these scenes are even shown in slow motion in parts.  Then of course, there is the martial arts training scene between Preston and Brandt, who just happens to be black, which could not be a more blatant rip-off of Neo fighting Morpheus.  These scenes were so obviously stolen from The Matrix, I'm only surprised that Warner Bros did not sue Momentum Pictures.  But then, I've no doubt that Warner's eyebrows were more than a little raised at the sword fight towards the end, which is just a little bit of Kill Bill thrown in for good measure.

Add to all this one of the biggest gaffes of all, which has all too often been shown in movies; the Mona Lisa is portrayed as a large canvas painting.  In fact, the Mona Lisa is very small - and was painted on a wooden panel.

For me, parting with movies is like parting with books - it's like losing a limb.  But having now watched it twice, I think urgent surgery is required.

Link to IMDB synopsis (including preview) of Equilibrium below:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/