Have We Entered the Realm of Thoughtcrime?

Baden-Powell Statue

The death in the USA of African American George Floyd at the hands of white police officer Derek Chauvin has seen a number of responses under the banner of “Black Lives Matter”.  Not least of these has been a renewed call to remove the statues of those involved in slavery, and/or the oppression of people of colour, and even other minorities.

Protests have spread worldwide, and one such event in Bristol, England, saw the statue of Edward Colston, an 18^th century slave owner, being torn from its plinth by protestors, dragged through the streets, and dumped in Bristol harbour.  The place where Colston’s statue was dispatched to the harbour was Pero’s Bridge; named after an 18^th century slave, Pero Jones, who was a well-known character in Bristol in his time.  Whether the protestors were aware of the significance of the bridge, or whether it was a complete coincidence remains unknown.

Since then protests in other parts of the UK have taken place, as have statues being sprayed with graffiti.  In one protest in London, a statue of Winston Churchill was so attacked.  However, bizarrely was the Cenotaph, which is the central war memorial for the entire UK.  One man also set light to a Union Flag atop the Cenotaph.  It is true that Winston Churchill was an odious character; a racist, misogynist, anti-Semite, and class elitist, who was responsible for a great number of deaths of unarmed and innocent people.  But the attack upon the statue of the man many see as the victor of the Second World War, allied with the attack upon the Cenotaph, and setting the Union Flag alight, certainly set a great many people against the BLM movement and protests.

Some cities, including London, have responded by stating that they will either remove statues, or where they cannot be removed, plaques explaining the unsavoury past of the characters they represent, which is to be applauded.  At the same time, the authorities claim to have a “hit list” or targeted statues, and one among those was the statue of Lord Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, on Brownsea Island, Poole, where the first Boy Scout camp took place.

The reasons for Baden-Powell’s statue apparently being targeted were things he wrote during his lifetime.  He was blatantly homophobic in his lifetime, admired Adolf Hitler, once advised people to read Mein Kampf, and allegedly was seeking to ally the English Boy Scout movement with the Hitlerjugend in Germany.

Of course, the Scouts never were allied with the Hitler Youth, and had Baden-Powell, who died in 1941, known the enormity of the brainwashing and brutality of that organisation, or indeed the enormity of the horrors of the Nazi regime, which few knew until 1945, then he may well have thought very differently.  As to his homophobia, well it is a well-known phenomena that those who speak out loudest against gays are usually closet cases themselves, and that is almost certainly the case with Robert Baden-Powell, whom many online biographies say was a closeted gay man.

I am not a big fan of Scouting myself, but then, I am not a parent, and I am well aware that many children get a great deal from it, none less than my two dear little great-nephews.  Likewise a friend of mine not only has a son who is very active in the Scouts, but she is very active with the organisation herself.  And I think this is an important point here.  The Scouts of today are no longer the regimented, Empire loyalist organisation they were when I was a boy, and kicked out of the cubs for refusing to swear allegiance to God and Queen, but rather they are a modern, all-inclusive club, which helps to hone children’s social skills, encourages them to achieve, and where all are welcome, including LGBT+ children.

Therefore, to attack a statue of Robert Baden-Powell to me seems a bit silly.  The man himself was never personally responsible for the death or oppression of anyone, but merely wrote some highly questionable opinions.  And this makes me wonder if some protestors are going too far, and have we entered the realm of Thoughtcrime?

There are many people in history who wrote and said many questionable things, but that does not for one moment detract from the great many other things they said, wrote, or did.  During one protest in Edinburgh, a cardboard placard was put around the neck of a statue of David Hume, alleging he was a racist.  Hume, the foremost empiricist and sceptical philosophers of all time, probably did hold views which would be considered racist by modern standards, but given he lived mostly in his native Edinburgh from 1711 to 1776, his experience of anyone of any colour different to his own would have been extremely limited.  Even today, with a population of only 5 million, Scotland simply does not have a large number of ethnic minorities, and in Hume’s day, seeing a black face on the streets of Edinburgh would have been something of a sensation.  Can we then condemn Hume for holding views that could be construed as racist by holding a 21^st century candle up to them?  And do these views somehow suddenly invalidate all the great things one of the fathers of modern philosophy did say and write?

When we try to apply our modern mores to characters of the past, we open up a whole can of worms.  And those on the political left may find that some of their heroes are likewise hardly blameless.

Edinburgh was also the birthplace of Marie Stopes, pioneer of family planning, after whom there are now clinics across the UK, and around the world, which offer family planning information and resources, including abortion.  Therefore, many would see Marie Stopes as a champion of women’s rights, and of a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body, which she indeed was.  Yet Stopes was also a strong believer in and campaigner for Eugenics, and in her 1920 book Radiant Motherhood, she wrote, "inborn incapacity which lies in the vast and ever increasing stock of degenerate, feeble-minded and unbalanced who are now in our midst and who devastate social customs. These populate most rapidly and tend proportionately to increase and these are like the parasite upon the healthy tree sapping its vitality"  Marie Stopes’ answer to this was "when Bills are passed to ensure the sterility of the hopelessly rotten and racially diseased, and to provide for the education of the child-bearing woman so that she spaces her children healthily, our race will rapidly quell the stream of the depraved, hopeless and wretched lives which are at present increasing in proportion in our midst"  So in other words, Marie Stopes believed in the enforced sterilisation, “by X-ray”, of women she deemed to be “degenerate, feeble-minded and unbalanced”. and referred to as a “prolific depravity”.

But let’s up the ante here.  Marie Stopes read Mein Kampf, and as a result started a correspondence with Adolf Hitler, sharing views on Eugenics and the “master race”, and even sent him poems.  This admittedly was however before the Nazis actually outlawed family planning, closed down clinics first in Germany and later across Europe, and even executed doctors who offered family planning, contraceptives, or abortions.

Do we then take down the blue plaque on Edinburgh’s High Street that marks the birthplace of Marie Stopes?  Do we rename all of the Marie Stopes International clinics?  Or do we recognise that she had some very mistaken ideas, but ultimately her 1918 work Married Love was a seminal moment, which recognised that women did indeed enjoy sex, that they could enjoy sex without the worry of falling pregnant, and that Marie Stopes International has helped and continues to help educating and empowering countless women about bodily autonomy?

Eugenics was a product of its time, and grew out of mistaken ideas from the findings of Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species.  People such as Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, and the economist Herbert Spencer, first man to coin the phrase, “Survival of the fittest”, misunderstood natural selection to mean that only the strongest survive; a belief that became known as Social Darwinism.  Galton particularly became the father of Eugenics, and it had many followers across the political spectrum.  Another firm adherent of Eugenics was George Bernard Shaw, who in 1910 at a lecture for the Eugenics Education Society stated, "A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."  Likewise, Bertrand Russell in ICARUS, or the Future of Science, wrote "But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased."  H.G. Wells, in the American Journal of Sociology (Vol 10, 1904), wrote, "It is in the sterilization of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."

Do we then take down the statues of George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, and H.G. Wells?   Do we discount all the great things they did write?  Should we indeed topple the Martian Tripod sculpture in Woking, which represents one of the alien spacecraft from War of the Worlds, by H.G. Wells?

These things are never easy, and it may surprise many on the left to discover that many of their heroes are just as guilty of questionable comments as those considered to be heroes of the political right.  Even Karl Marx is not immune.  A rabid anti-Semite who in his 1844 pamphlet On the Jewish Question, wrote, "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist."  Marx also thought little of Mexicans, whom he considered lazy and feckless; “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”

In 1977 the band The Stranglers released one of their most successful songs, No More Heroes.  Songwriter Hugh Cornwell later said of the meaning in the song, “Don’t have heroes.  Be your own hero.”  The message of this is that whatever heroes we have will ultimately let you down.  This is a truth as much as it is for the left as it is for the right.  In recent years Mohandas Gandhi has been exposed as an abusive husband.  John Lennon likewise horribly mistreated firstly Cynthia Powell, and later Yoko Ono.  Both of these may mar forever the memory of these men, but it does not for one moment discredit their nonviolent philosophy.  And just how happy would the left be with someone pulling down a statue of John Lennon or Mohandas Gandhi?

Removing statues and plaques, and renaming streets is by no means a new idea.  Back to Edinburgh, there was once a statue of the 16^th century leader of the Protestant Reformation, John Knox, outside the New College of Divinity.  If you’ve seen the movie Chariots of Fire, you will have seen actor Ian Charleston, playing Eric Liddel, saluting it as he runs past on his way to his studies.  Today it is no longer there, but can still be seen inside St Giles Cathedral on the Royal Mile.  The statue was removed due to the venomous anti-Catholic views and actions, and which still fuel the sectarianism that is the scourge and shame of Scotland to this day.  Yet ironically, Knox himself was once exiled from Scotland, which at one time saw him serve on a ship as a galley slave.

I am all for removing statues, plaques, and street names of those whose actions have directly led to the suffering and death of innocents, and I am not for one moment convinced that retaining them would make us forget history.  The absence of statues of Hitler in Germany does not mean we have forgotten the Nazis of World War II.  But where a statue cannot be removed, then there should be plaques put up to tell the whole truth about the individual involved.  But this must be the truth, thoroughly researched, and absolutely accurate.

But it needs more than this.  There needs to be a more holistic approach, whereby children in schools are taught the whole truth.   For the UK, this means teaching children the absolute truth about British imperialism, including its deficits, as well as its benefits.  Too long children have been taught that Britain built an empire upon which the sun never set, where the white man went out and educated and civilised the “ignorant savages”.  Likewise, it is way past time that schools in the USA started telling the truth about their slave-owning Founding Fathers, or indeed, the genocide and continuing mistreatment of Native American peoples, which no president, not even mixed-race Barack Obama, has ever properly addressed.

But the moment we start discounting the artistic works of people who have not personally hurt others, we go down a dangerous road indeed.  We need to recognise that some people were a product of their times, and shared the uninformed ideas of those times, which we cannot condemn in the 21^st century, and even where some views have been objectionable, that does not detract from their other works.

And as Hugh Cornwell said, perhaps we need to stop having heroes - and start being our own heroes.

Where Is The Intelligence?

Take nothing at face value.

In the past few weeks we have seen some horrendous things happen worldwide.

During prayers on Friday, 15 March, there were concerted mass shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 50, and leaving another 50 injured.

On 18 April, rioting in Derry, Northern Ireland, resulted in 29-year-old writer and journalist Lyra McKee being shot dead by operatives of the New IRA.

On 21 April, Easter Sunday, concerted bombings of three churches in Sri Lanka, three bombings of luxury hotels in the capital, Colombo, and smaller explosions at a housing complex in the housing district of Dematagoda, and at a guest house in Dehiwala, killed 253 people, and injured 500.

On Friday, 26 April, Sri Lankan police attempted to raid a terror cell connected to the bombings, and the Islamist terrorists first returned fire, then set off explosives, killing 15, including six children.

On Saturday, 27 April, on the last day of Passover, a 19-year-old white, anti-Semitic man walked into the Chabab of Poway Synagogue in San Diego, USA, and opened fire with “an AR type weapon”, killing one woman, and wounding three others.

Now, at first glance, anyone can see that all of these incidents have one thing in common; religion.  But while religion must indeed be considered a factor in all of the above, to suggest that they were all because of religion is to attempt to present a false equivalence in my opinion.  There is something much deeper going on here.  A look around social media presents a hell of a lot of ignorance, and that is being perpetuated by a hell of a lot of people spreading hate-filled propaganda.  Sadly, there are far too many people willing to buy into that.

In the wake of the shooting of Lyra McKee, I saw posts of people glorifying Irish republican paramilitaries as some sort of heroes.  I even saw some trying to suggest that it was a false flag, some suggesting that the British armed forces actually shot her, and even some suggesting that the young journalist was actually a British or loyalist agent.  And had any of them actually known anything about Lyra McKee, they would have been aware that this young woman was a lesbian, which alone immediately would have seen her being vilified by the ultra-Protestants of the loyalist community, and she was an agnostic secular humanist who took neither side in the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland.  As a secular humanist myself, I had previously read and heard Lyra McKee, who was listed in Forbes “30 Under 30 in Media in Europe”, and I was left absolutely stunned and numbed by her brutal murder.  I first heard of Lyra in a TED talk she gave, “How uncomfortable conversations save lives”, in which she recounted her experience growing up a gay woman in Northern Ireland, he many fights with the Roman Catholic Church (she was brought up a Catholic – so much for the conspiracy theories), and of the prejudice she faced from all religions, including that in the USA.  She told in that talk how religion can actually be a positive voice against prejudice, but emphasised that it is religion, and those who follow religion, who have to change.  As a diehard, cynical atheist myself, that talk had a profound effect upon me, and I still find it hard to reconcile how the life of this wonderful young woman could be so senselessly snuffed out.

This article similarly aims to challenge perceptions.  It is an uncomfortable conversation, which may cause the reader to face some uncomfortable truths about themselves.  But in doing so, I don’t care whom I may offend.  If you are offended by my writings, then it may just be possible that you need to be offended.

Just as the killing of Lyra McKee brought out those with their own agendas, so did the other killings.  The Christchurch mosque shootings initially brought out some whom, without any evidence, automatically assumed and posted that it was possibly sectarian violence between opposing Islamic sects.  Then when the truth came out that it was Christian white supremacists, there were those (sometimes the same people) who played the No True Scotsman fallacy of saying they were “not true Christians”, and others who played “whataboutery” by pointing to atrocities against Christian churches, and trying to claim persecution and play the martyr.  Even among atheists, there were some still went on about Islam being inherently violent.  Anything but show some compassion and respect for the dead.

So it was when the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka took place, many were quick to jump upon it to vilify all Muslims.  Certainly, they Sri Lanka killings were indeed carried out by Islamist extremists, and I even predicted as much before it was confirmed, or before IS tried to claim responsibility.  But some of the same people claimed that this was an attack upon Christians, solely Christians, while ignoring the facts that a) the hotel bombings indiscriminately killed people without regard for their faith, and b) that at least one of the churches targeted was often frequented by Theravada Buddhists.  Recent years have seen a lot of conflict between Theravada Buddhists and Muslims in Sri Lanka, where actually it has been the Buddhists, believe it or not, who have been responsible for the murder of many Muslims.  But of course, those with an axe to grind were never going to admit to that; they merely saw Muslim extremist attacks upon churches, and were more than quick to paint that as exclusively Muslim persecution and slaughter of Christians.

Likewise, in the wake of the San Diego synagogue shooting, within two hours of the news hitting the Internet, I saw one comment, “Everyone’s sad when one Jew is killed but nobody’s saying anything about Israel’s massacre of Palestinians.”  Really.  Within two hours, someone immediately jumps the shark, and ties every single Jew on the face of the planet to the actions of the Likud regime in Israel.  No compassion for the dead woman, who bravely threw herself in front of the Rabbi to protect him, the wounded, or those psychologically scarred by the incident; only immediate condemnation of all Jews for the actions of Israel.  It disgusts me, but it does not at all surprise me.  It is a typical reaction that many seem incapable of differentiating between Jews around the world, and the state of Israel.  And sadly to say, a lot of this comes from the political left, right up to and including the UK Labour Party.  Their members who see ‘Jew’ and immediately think ‘Israel’, is precisely why Labour are riddled with anti-Semitism.  It’s not only unhelpful and uncaring; it actually drives anti-Semitic hatred, and drives incidents such as the attack in San Diego.  This is one area where the political extreme left are so far up the political horseshoe, that they are meeting the extreme right at the other end.

Looking at all the above incidents, it would be very easy to blame and castigate religion, or at the least, extreme interpretations of religions, for all of them.  But while such fundamentalist interpretations must indeed take some of the blame, and religion can indeed poison minds, that cannot be the full extent of what drives the extremist mindset that is all too prevalent today.

We in the developed and developing world are sadly living in time where extreme right politics are on the rise.  We have a low-intellect, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, anti-abortion, climate change denying, warlike President of the USA.  The UK voted to leave the EU, and there has been a disturbing rise in attacks upon immigrants, refugees, and ethnic minorities.  Brazil has a president who can only be described as a neo-Nazi, and I write this in the wake of the Spanish election, in which the Socialists only scraped home, and will have to seek help to form a minority government, while the extreme right Vox Party have gained 24 seats in the Spanish parliament – the first time that the extreme right have had seats in the Cortes since the death of the fascist dictator, Franco, in 1975.  Without a doubt, religion plays a part in all of these things, but to the lesser extent, and where it does it is usually a kneejerk reaction to Islam, and those who spread scare stories of “Islamification”.  This is where we will learn that propaganda is a powerful tool, and never more powerful when people are frightened.

A 2016 study by Columbia University and the French National Institute found that 59% of social media users would share a story without actually clicking on and reading the content.  This does not at all surprise me.  In fact, the only thing that does surprise me is that the figure is not much higher.  Playing into this, the satirical website, Science Post, posted an article on Facebook with the headline, “Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the headline of science stories before commenting.”  The article started with one paragraph repeating the headline, and the rest of the text was three paragraphs all in Latin, beginning “Lorem ipsum”; literally “dummy text”.  The article to date has had 120,000 shares on Facebook.  Okay, some may have shared it for the humour value, and it was indeed funny, but it makes the point that people read what they want to read, and they believe what they want to believe.  Very few will actually open and read an article.  Fewer still will actually go to the extent of digging deeper to confirm stories, or seek alternative opinions.  There are even those nowadays who dismiss Snopes and Hoax-Slayer, because they have made one or two mistakes, while at the same time ignoring the overwhelmingly majority of times that these excellent fact-checking sites are accurate and correct.

Media outlets are more than well aware of this phenomenon, and they deliberately word their headlines to influence public opinion.  Here’s a recent example:

”Fife-born SNP MP Natalie McGarry admits embezzling £25,600”

So on 24 April 2019 ranted the Dundee-based newspaper, The Courier, which is published by D.C. Thomson, who also publish the very conservative Sunday Post.  Shocking, eh?  Yes, Natalie McGarry was indeed elected as Scottish National Party Member of Parliament for Glasgow East in 2015.  Yes, she did indeed plead guilty in court to embezzling £21,000 from the group Women for Independence, and £4661 from the Glasgow and Regional SNP Association.  But what the SNP headline failed to mention that when the accusations against her broke in November 2015, she resigned the SNP party whip, was thereby automatically suspended from the party, and for the remainder of her time in office until the 2017 General Election, she fulfilled that role as an independent MP.  The Courier did subsequently change their headline to read “former SNP MP”, but not until several people, myself included, pointed this out.  And given that Natalie McGarry was for most of her time in office an independent, I would suggest that while not wholly inaccurate, the headline is still skewed.

Words are powerful, and you have to be careful what you do with them.  Anyone already biased against the SNP would immediately read the original headline, latch upon that, and share it, no doubt damning the SNP in doing so.  Others would read such posts, and would immediately jump to conclusions that the SNP are not to be trusted.

But the Natalie McGarry case is merely the thin end of the wedge, and a rather vanilla example.  Some can be much, much more disturbing and damaging.  In March 2019, the story broke of British-born Shemima Begum, who had left the UK to help Islamic State terrorists in Syria, wishing to come back to the UK to have her third child, her other two died, to give the baby a chance of survival, and a decent upbringing.  Needless to say, there was already a lot of hostility towards Shemima Begum, fed in no little part by the media posting front page headlines of the “Jihadi Bride”, and stories which stirred up some of the worst racism I have ever read.  But on 11 March 2019, after Shemima had actually given birth to a baby son, who sadly died, The Metro sank to a new low by running the front-page headline, “Too Risky to Rescue Jihadi Baby”.  And what’s wrong with that headline?  It castigates a baby, a dead baby, as being an Islamic extremist terrorist.  The lack of sympathy in that headline was staggering, and the gloating comments it elicited from racists, cheering that a baby had died, was downright disgusting.

When the media and / or those online use the Internet to push a bigoted agenda, it can be hugely damaging to certain sections of society, and this is never more true when it comes to sexual and gender identity.  Gender self-ID is soon to be legal in Scotland, and England (dragging their heels as usual) is currently debating such, has got a lot of people with their knickers in a knot, and using a minority of wrongdoings by transgender people – and some purporting to be transgender, it must be said – to smear every transgender person.  Sorry, I should say transgender women, as they rarely make any mention of transgender men (yet another example of prejudice and misinformation).  Sadly, one of the main proponents of this is a pro-Indy blogger, who on a daily basis fills his Twitter account with transphobic smear stories, and examples of where transgender people have been abusive, in an attempt to discredit an entire section of the community as all the same.

“Transgender Prisoner who Sexually Assaulted Inmates Jailed for Life”, thundered The Guardian, allegedly a left-wing, ‘liberal’ newspaper on 10 October 2018, covering the story of Karen White, a transgender prisoner at New Hall Prison, England, who sexually abused other inmates.  True, she did.  But the facts are that Karen White was already a known paedophile and rapist, whom the prison authorities put in with mainstream prisoners in a women’s prison.  The fault there lies with New Hall Prison, and certainly not the vast majority of law-abiding transgender women.  As Scotland is soon to introduce gender Self-ID, some opposed to the new legislation are very quick to point to the Karen White case, while they are either unaware, or are aware but choose not to mention, the fact that the Scottish Prison Service has been placing transgender inmates in prison spaces based upon self-ID, almost 10 years, with no reports of such sexually assaulting other inmates.

It is in the Scottish independence camp that we of all people should know better.  How often have fellow Nats seen loaded headlines and stories about “separatists”, “anti-English racists” (I wasn’t aware that English was a race, but the media seem to think so) and “cybernats”, accompanying stories surrounding the wrong doings of a tiny minority, to condemn the entire independence movement?  So it is I suggest that the said blogger, and others who use smear tactics against transgender women, are doing absolutely no different from the way the media treats Scots Nats.  Shame on you.

The Internet has given us all the power to fulfil that which Andy Warhol once predicted; we can all have our 15 minutes of fame – and then some.  Those with any particular agenda they wish to push, and they can be among some of the nastiest people in the world.  Many play upon the fears and emotions of others, in the full knowledge that most will not go further than the headline, and even if they do, will not question the validity of a story, and fewer still will bother to research it.

I recently removed a story from a group I run on Facebook, with the headline “Settlers Poison Well in Eastern Yatta”.  I was immediately dubious of this story, and in looking for a source, I could only find it on pro-Palestinian news sites, website that support them, and some blogs.  Not a word of it on the BBC, nothing on Reuters, and nothing on Associated Press.  There were two reasons I doubted this story.  Firstly, why would Israeli settlers in a desert region poison the only source of fresh water, which could only hurt them as well?  Secondly, and more importantly, I am aware of the historical context of such claims.  Such claims of Jews poisoning wells go right back to Medieval times, and are part of the anti-Semitic ‘blood libel’; that every Jewish man had to kill ‘non-believers’.  When the Black Death hit Europe, there were accusations of Jews spreading the disease by poisoning drinking wells, which saw a great many of them persecuted and killed.  The story has continued down the centuries in many forms, leading to further persecution, and even Joseph Stalin used it in 1953, when he alleged the “Doctor’s Plot” of Jewish physicians poisoning prominent Communist leaders (whom Stalin himself had in fact had killed), leading to many of the surgeons thrown in gulags, and some of them executed.

I could in fact give many other examples of photos, memes, and stories purporting to show Israeli brutality against Palestinians.  Look, we all know that the current regime in Israel is disgusting, and they do indeed carry out a great many atrocities.  Just be aware that not all of these stories and pictures are true, some are indeed anti-Israeli, and even anti-Semitic, propaganda.  Do your research and check the facts before sharing them.  Goodness knows, the Israeli regime is brutal enough without having to make up or share downright and utter lies about them.  Trust me, they do more than enough to condemn themselves, but when anyone shares a fake story, it has the potential to create a “boy who cried wolf” scenario, whereby people may not believe the genuine stories of Israeli atrocities.  And should anyone think I am an apologist for Israel, let me assure you that I have been boycotting Israeli goods since the early 1980s, which is longer than many reading this will have been politically aware, and before some were even an itch in their fathers underpants.

It was on 30 April 1993 that CERN made the World Wide Web available to the public.  This has created the single most powerful information tool which mankind has ever known, literally at our fingertips.  As a result, mankind should be becoming increasingly intelligent.  Instead, many of the public appear to have become more poorly informed than our species has ever been, which prompts me not only to ask “Where is the love?” but indeed, “Where is the intelligence?”  I can only put it down to mankind’s predilection towards tribalism, religious dogma, societal and cultural prejudices, but most of all, laziness.  People do not like change, and when someone already has ingrained perceptions of that which is familiar, they feel threatened and frightened by anything that challenges these perceptions.  Elvis Costello said as much, long before the Internet became public, in his song Pills and Soap; “Give us now our daily bread in individual slices.  And something in the daily rag to cancel every crisis.”

The media and others know this, and they feed it.  Firstly with loaded headlines, then with stories full of disinformation, half-truths, right-wing populism, downright lies, and increasingly – and this is something I really object to – articles on their websites which have the story in the form of an attached video attached to the top of the text.  That is encouraging people’s laziness not to read, which in turn will make them all the less likely to question or research a story.  Believe me, I have often seen comments on blogs others or I have written, or Internet posts, which read “TL:DR”  (“Too Long: Didn’t Read”).  So if you’ve made it this far in this article, well done you, because you are one of a dying breed.

Perhaps it’s the punk in me, perhaps it’s the atheist, perhaps it’s the sceptic, perhaps it’s merely my enquiring mind; perhaps it is all of the above.   But my watchword has always been “Question everything.  Because it’s only by asking questions that you get answers.”  Unless something can be proven or disproved, I take absolutely nothing at face value, and I keep asking questions until I get an honest answer, even if that answer is an uncomfortable truth that I do not like.

Your brain is the greatest friend you shall ever have, so please treat it well, and do not feed it garbage.  Whenever you come over a headline that may make your hackles raise, step back a minute, take a deep breath, and then read the article.  If it seems in the least spurious, search online for supporting stories, and facts that support it.  If you cannot find any such, or you find a reliable source refuting such, then disregard it, and above all, do not be afraid to speak out and show up fallacies for being just that, and those who spread malicious lies for the sort of people they are.

Not only will you be more intelligent and better informed for doing so, you will be a much better person, and you shall be having a positive impact that may improve the lives of others.

The only person Ross Greer needs to remove from the Scottish Independence campaign is himself

Green MSP Ross Greer

On 6 August 2017, The Herald (or The Herod, as I like to call it) ran an article by Ross Greer titled "Time to show the door to the lunatic fringe killing the independence movement with its bile".  In this article Greer, a Scottish Green Party MSP who was also Communities Co-ordinator of Yes Scotland, claimed that there is a fringe movement within the independence movement that is likely to drive people away.

Greer started his article by rounding on those who engaged in vitriolic attacks on prominent Scots trade unionist and founder of Radical Independence, Cat Boyd, for admitting that she voted Labour in the June 2017 General Election.  Point taken.  The hate that Cat Boyd was subjected to really was not on, and those responsible really should be ashamed of themselves.  It's called democracy, guys.  But in all fairness, while I like what Cat Boyd has to say considering independence, there are times she really does not do herself any favours.  I am not for one moment defending those who castigated her, but when a prominent person within the independence movement admits that she voted for a unionist party and abstained in the EU Referendum, then one really has to ask exactly where her interests lie.

My main point of contention with Ross Greer's article however are over unsubstantiated claims he made about some within the independence movement being bigoted, without offering a shred of evidence to back that up.  "The attacks on Cat Boyd," claims Greer, "have sat alongside full-blown denunciations of ‘feminists,’ the ‘LGBT movement’ and ‘social justice warriors’ and calls for ‘their’ exclusion from the movement."

If there are "full-blown denunciations of feminists" within the independence movement, I for one would like to see exactly where Greer is seeing that.  Indeed, I don't know if it has escaped Ross Greer but women have always been very prominent within the independence movement, if not right at the forefront of it.  This has been true ever since Winnie Ewing - "Madame Ecosse" as she became known in the EU - won the Hamilton by-election in 1967, and Margo MacDonald followed that up by taking the Govan by-election in 1973 (could you imagine any man attempting sexism towards Margo?  They wouldn't dare).  But as well as these great ladies the SNP - and the wider independence movement - has had very strong voices in the shape of Wendy Wood, Naomi Mitchison, Margaret Ewing, Rosie Cunningham, Annabelle Ewing, Liz Lochhead, and many, many more too numerous to mention, while in Mhairi Black we have the next up-and-coming stalwart voice of women in independence.

Equally I don't know if Ross has noticed that it was the SNP who have given Scotland her first woman First Minister in the guise of Nicola Sturgeon; a woman so popular that not only are there voters in England saying they wish they could vote for her, but I have online friends in the USA saying they wish they had someone like her in American politics.  I recall listening to Nicola at a Bannockburn Rally in 2006, and I knew one day she would be First Minister - and the best we ever had.  I am more than pleased to say, with the raft of policies that Nicola Sturgeon has introduced and is continuing to introduce, I have been proven correct. And do no forget that Nicola, having taken over the reins from Alex Salmond, stood for re-election in 2016, and was swept back into Holyrood.

So I invite Ross Greer to show me exactly where all this supposed misogyny is coming from, particularly when not only was Nicola re-elected in 2016, but while the SNP vote was substantially down at the recent General Election, their vote and seats gained in Scotland still outnumbered all the unionist parties put together.

Likewise I have not seen homophobia, transphobia, or any other bigotry towards those within the LGBT community to any great extent within the independence movement.  I can only imagine therefore that Ross Greer is attempting to take a sideswipe at Rev Stuart Campbell of Wings Over Scotland fame, concerning his Tweet aimed at Scottish Conservative MP, Oliver Mundell, after his father, Tory MP David "Fluffy" Mundell, came out as gay.

For those who have been living under a rock, Stu posted a Tweet. stating "Oliver Mundell is the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner." Whether that was homophobic or not is hotly debated.  Some of my LGBT friends say yes, others say no.  It was however ill judged, as the unionists were very quick to jump upon it, to accuse Stuart Campbell of homophobia, and thereby attempt to smear the entire independence movement as being the same.  Not least of these of has been Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale, who has been so vociferous about this Tweet and other things Stu has said, that he is taking out a defamation lawsuit against her.

I personally do not think Stuart Campbell should take out this lawsuit, and I think if he loses it, that could be hugely damaging towards the independence movement.  However, if Ross Greer chooses to side with the unionists over the alleged homophobia matter, then I invite him to tell me just how much he has done for independence compared to Stu?  The production of The Wee Blue Book by 'Wings' was an invaluable resource during the 2014 referendum campaign, just as The Wee Black Book, listing all the claims of the unionists, and how all the promises they made in 2014 have been subsequently broken, is an equally invaluable resource today.  And besides those, Stu has been working tirelessly before and after 2014 to highlight and expose unionist chicanery and false claims.  Stu is a stalwart of independence, and a true patriot.

When the SNP administration in the Scottish Parliament first mooted making same-sex marriage legal, there were few against it.  Indeed, the most prominent person was Stagecoach bus owner Brian Souter, who bankrolled the odious "Keep the Clause" campaign to retain the homophobic 'Clause 28', and who was an SNP donor but withdrew that funding when Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister.  When the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Act went to public consultation, 76% of the public, most of whom were SNP voters, agreed with it, thereby giving green light to same-sex marriage in Scotland.  And while Westminster may have been Holyrood to the winning post over same-sex marriage, the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Act is actually far more comprehensive and inclusive than England's Same Sex Marriage Act.

Likewise the Scottish Parliament is now working on legislation that will enable transgender and non-binary Scots to self-diagnose their own gender, and streamline the system for changing their birth certificates and other official documentation.  Listen to all that opposition to this from the Indy camp; absolute silence.  Scotland is leading the field in LGBT rights, and the vast majority of the Independence campaign are cock-a-hoop about that.

I would also ask Ross Greer to consider what happened when openly lesbian Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson was subjected to a barrage of homophobic Tweets from one knuckle-dragger in 2014.  It was the independence camp who immediately turned on the said individual, condemned his words, named and shamed him, and led him to apologise to the Tory leader.  Ruth Davidson herself later Tweeted that she felt she had been treated with gallantry.

Also in 2014 I recall Better Together putting up a pro-LGBT banner on their Facebook page.  They had to take it down less than 24 hours later, because of vile homophobic comments, not from Scots Nats, but rather from within their own ranks.  Nothing similar happened with the LGBT movement within Yes.

Even when it was recently revealed that Kezia Dugdale was in a relationship with Jenny Gilruth, SNP MSP for Mid Fife and Glenrothes, there was certainly raised voices and concerns over their relationship from within the Indy movement over information being compromised, but nothing that could be construed as homophobic.  I have no doubt that had Kezia been straight and taken up with an SNP man, the same concerns would have been raised.  The only homophobia I saw came not from the Indy camp, but rather some sleazy comments in the media reports, as well as some unsavoury homophobic comments below these reports, from Labour supporters.

I am not saying that bigotry towards women and LGBT people does not exist within the independence movement, all too sadly, it is everywhere and does need to be strongly put down wheresoever it is encountered.  But by trying to make out it is a huge problem, Ross Greer is over-egging the pudding here.  Particularly when, again, he offers absolutely no evidence or examples to back up his claims.  I however could point him to many LGBT people, the vast majority of whom are pro-independence.

I now move on to Ross Greer's claims that there is prejudice within the Indy movement towards "social justice warriors", hereafter referred to in this article as SJWs.

There are many have accused me of being an SJW, because I do indeed stand for social justice for all.  I recognise that some enjoy privilege others do not, which means that they do not always see prejudice and injustice towards others where and when it does happen.  I count myself as a feminist, anti-racist, anti-sectarian, an internationalist, and a staunch supporter of human rights for all.  I am an atheist and a secularist, who nonetheless recognises the right of freedom of thought, religion and conscience of all. I am well-educated in matters of sexuality and gender, and am of the school of thought that we are all born with both already decided, and far from being fixed, all humanity is on sexual spectrum, and a gender one.

So let me tell you what I think of SJWs - they are a pain in the bum who often do more to infringe human rights than they do to champion them.  Many SJWs get so much of a bee in their bonnets about 'inclusion' to the point that they actually trample on the rights of others. They are also the people most likely to attempt to shout down or otherwise attempt to silence others, and/or to attempt to shut down debate by embarking on ad hominem insults and smears against their opponent.  Keep that in mind, because it becomes important later in this article.

It was SJWs responsible for Richard Dawkins recently being ‘disinvited’ from speaking at Berkeley University, California, for once saying (quite correctly in my opinion) that Islam is one of the biggest threats facing mankind today.  It is the SJWs of the Southern Poverty Law Center who placed Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist extremist who now campaigns against Islamist indoctrination but who is still a practising Muslim, on their list of anti-Islamic extremists.  It was an SJW diversity officer at Goldings University event who in 2015 banned white people and heterosexual, cisgender men from a ‘diversity’ event, and followed that up with calling all white people “white trash” and posting the hashtag #killallwhitemen.  It was SJWs last year of the University and College Union who stated that an 'equality' conference would only be open to members who identified as gay, disabled, female, or of an ethnic minority.

These stories are but the tip of the iceberg.  Is it any wonder then that those of us on the left, and I strongly count myself in that bracket, at the least see SJWs as a bad joke and an embarrassment, and at the worst a dangerous hindrance to the furtherance of democracy, human rights, and the radical agenda?  If anyone doubts that, go and have a look at some of the videos put up by atheists on You Tube, many of whom are on the left or at least 'liberal', and see what they have to say about SJWs.

And going back to LGBT rights, Ross Greer would be well to take note that there is an increasing number of SJWs who are siding with Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists - TERFs - who deny the very existence of transgender women, maintaining that they are only men seeking to attack women in public toilets and changing rooms.

But again, Ross Greer makes this claim, and again offers not one shred of evidence to back up his assertion. And this one is actually highly amusing, as if there is one thing we know about Scottish politics, it is that it tends to be far further to the left than the rest of the UK.  Scots have always pretty much believed in fair play, playing the ba' and no' the man, and largely accepting of others. Social justice has always been to the forefront of Scottish politics, and if Ross Greer is tying to pretend it is any different, that is not just disingenuous, it is a lie.

So, whom does Ross Greer blame for all this? Well, this was the point where reading his article, I spluttered over a mouthful of tea and had to read it again to make sure I had read it right.  "I’m sure," Greer states, "these comments come overwhelmingly from older white men."

Do you see what Ross Greer did there?   He just made a sweeping generalisation about one section of Scots society, again without providing one shred of evidence to support his assertion; not one iota of proof to back up his claim.  Instead, Greer is "sure" this is the case, and so we have to take him at his word on that, and based upon that, ban these people from the independence movement.

As an atheist I am often confronted by people who claim that their god exists and they have a personal relationship with him / her / they / it.  That does not convince me and neither should it convince anyone else.  I mention it here, because likewise if Ross Greer is going to make such an assertion, he needs to supply evidence to back up his claims.  Just like theist making their claims carries the burden of proof, likewise does Ross Greer about bigotry towards feminists, the LGBT community, and SJWs coming from "older white males".

And what is more, in making such a sweeping generalisation and castigating an entire section of people within the independence movement, Ross Greer has contradicted his own article.  He has shown his own prejudice, based on absolutely no evidence, towards pro-Indy older white men.  But he is "sure", so we just have to take his word for that. Not only does that make his entire article self-contradictory, it makes Ross Greer an outright and utter hypocrite.

What is more, his assertion does not even hold up to scrutiny.  If there is one thing that the independence referendum, and the 2017 General Election have taught us, it is that older white males are not voting for independence.  In the referendum, the higher the age bracket, the more people voted No. Exactly the same happened in the recent General Election, where it was those more advancing in years who voted Tory (turkeys voting for Christmas) or other unionist parties.

As I write this on the brink of my 54th birthday, I take umbrage at Ross Greer's words, very much so.  And I am sure that there are a number of my "older white male" friends in the Indy movement who feel likewise. And just for the record, neither I nor any one of these friends has ever attacked anyone for being a feminist, LGBT, of a campaigner for social justice for that matter.  If Ross Greer fails to understand where I am coming from on that, I will remind him that all too soon he too will be an older white male.

In his article, Greer wants to remove those he imagines are damaging the independence movement from it. This is exactly the bullying attitude of the social justice warrior; this binary thinking, "If you're not with us, you must be against us" mentality, where they will seek to silence you if you say or write (or even think) the least little thing against their agenda.

I would not only like to see Ross Greer attempt to kick me and other "older white males" out of the independence movement, I'd like him to explain just how he intends to do that.  Certainly, the SNP and Yes could kick them out (look out, there goes Alex Salmond and George Kerevan - older white males), but is he then going to have his "Greer SJW Police" stop people at every meeting, every rally, every march?  Are they going to stand outside polling stations and tell those they are opposed to "You'd better not vote SNP."?

Banning people from the independence movement is impossibility; it simply cannot be done, because it belongs to ALL of us - older white males included.  You can maybe silence voices, at a stretch you could maybe stop them writing - but you would have your work cut out, but you cannot stop people THINKING independence, and VOTING independence.

Neither Ross Greer nor anyone else can 'ban' others from being part of the independence movement, simply because it does not belong solely to them and they do not have the authority to do so; the aim of an independent Scotland belongs to ALL who believe in it.

The only person who can remove someone from the independence movement is the individual himself or herself.  And Ross Greer may want to think long and hard on that, if he truly believes his words in the Herald article, compared to some other things he has recently said.

"it’s time to show the door" stated Greer in the Herald "to those who think misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and vicious attacks are a price worth paying if they come from ‘one of ours’"

Compare that to two Tweets Greer posted the following day, directed at a pro-independence Scottish blogger, who happens to be based in Dublin.  The first said "Check out Michael Collins with a keyboard." and this was followed up by a comment, which said, "The struggle is real and you're no Butterfly unless you join a flying column".

These Tweets were in response the blogger, Jason Michael, had posted in Butterfly Rebellion, which had been derided by Daily Record writer James McEnaney.  The references to Michael Collins and flying columns refer to IRA commander General Michael Collins, who commanded "flying columns" of guerrilla fighters to attack British soldiers.

Jason Michael has called these Tweets from Greer "anti-Irish racism".  This is debatable as Irish is an ethnicity, not a race.  They are however an ad hominem slur - remember what I said about SJWs? - upon a peace-loving pro-Indy writer and they are certainly anti-Irish.  What is worse, given that Scotland is a land where the ugly spectre of sectarianism is sadly still the scourge and shame of our country, Greer's Tweets are deeply sectarian.  Is it not enough that we already have some sectarian unionists claiming that the Indy movement is infested and ran by pro-IRA Irish Roman Catholics, without Ross Greer apparently backing them up?  And if it is coming from "one of ours", should we put up with it?

Going back to his Herald article, Ross Greer made reference to "obnoxious keyboard warriors", and in light of his farcical article, followed by two disgusting, anti-Irish and sectarian Tweets against a peace-loving man, I would like him to tell me just exactly what that makes him?

But then, Greer also said in the Herald "Bigots and bullies aren’t my people and they shouldn’t be yours if you believe in a better Scotland."

I couldn't agree more, Ross. And in light of your comments and Tweets, perhaps you should rethink if the Scottish independence campaign is really the place for you.

Preachers in glass houses should not throw stones

Posted by a man who accuses atheists of bigotry

In an article in Christian Today, the Reverend David A Robertson, Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland (aka the “Free Kirk” or “Wee Frees”), ostensibly asks “Is Christianity Regressive?”, which purports to be an examination of Christianity, but in reality turns into a tirade against atheists, whom he infers are bigoted and even racist.

I have crossed swords with Rev Robertson many times before; I have tried to reason with him, I have even tried to be friendly towards him. In the end there is no reasoning with this man, due to his own arrogance, his own bigotry, but most of all, the way he attempts to twist and misrepresent the words of others. With quote-mining, statements and data taken completely out of context aplenty, his article in CT is a prime example of this.

Almost from the go, Rev Robertson's attack upon atheists – along with misrepresentation – starts in the second paragraph, when he states that philosopher John Grey was mocking his fellow atheists when he said “the grand march of secular reason would continue, with more and more societies joining the modern west in marginalising religion. Someday, religious belief would be no more important than personal hobbies or ethnic cuisines.” David does not give a source for that quote – another favourite ploy of the quote miner – but no matter, for I have found it, and shall link it below. The statement comes from an article in The Guardian, dated 3 March 2015, titled “What scares the new atheists” and the statement which David quoted was not mocking atheists but actually was speaking of the reaction of many to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So right away, we see that Rev Robertson has quote-mined a statement and twisted it for his own ends. There's plenty more to come.

Why Rev Robertson should quote John Grey is pretty obvious. Grey does indeed describe himself as an atheist, but he is well-known for attacking other atheists and for a dislike of organised atheism, which he sees every bit as odious and dangerous as organised religion. Whilst I don't agree with much of what John Grey says, on that matter I not only wholly agree with him, I would suggest that there is no 'atheist movement', for the simple fact that because every atheist is a free-thinker who came to the conclusion there is no evidence for the existence of god(s) through their own experience and observations, it never can be a concerted movement. A few years ago there was the advent of 'atheist churches', which I said was a silly idea at the time for the above reasons, and sure enough there has been extremely poor take-up of the concept. Atheism is not and cannot ever be an organised movement because while many atheists may agree on many things, there's always going to be sticking points where we differ. Ironically, John Grey's very antipathy towards his fellow atheists is actually a prime example of this.

But of course, quoting John Grey's words suits Rev Robertson's agenda of asserting that atheism is a religion, faith, or creed, which he repeats in the CT article, in which he calls atheism an “unrealistic faith”. Religions, religious faiths, and religious creeds have deities they worship and clergy they look up to for guidance. Entering a religion needs some rite, whether that be through prayer, baptism, circumcision, or other ceremony. Within religions there are rules and codes of conduct expected of the faithful, and if they contravene these, then individuals can be cast out and cut off from their religious community. Atheism has no deities to worship, no clergy to give guidance, there are no rites or ceremonies to become an atheist, there are no rules or codes of conduct to atheism and all atheist opinions are valid on their own merits, and because every atheist is a free-thinker, there will inevitably be disagreements, falling-outs even, but as there is no official atheist community, no-one can be cast out and cut off.

I need not ask David if atheism is a religion, just who is our god, and who are our clergy, because I asked him that once before – and I still await an answer.

Hoping he's scored a point, in the CT article David quotes a Pew Research poll, stating “A Pew research study shows that by 2050 it is expected that only 13 per cent of the world's population will not be religious, compared to 16 per cent today. Although the growth of the non-religious is expected to continue in the West.” Again, no citation for this little gem, again, I found it myself, and in what is supposed to be an article about Christianity, what Rev Robertson fails to mention is that Christianity is indeed on the decline (a 2013 poll in Scotland showed that 39% count themselves as "No Religion" - a rise of 10% in the past decade), while it is Islam which is the fastest growing religion worldwide. Even then, given the brutality of some Islamic regimes, one has to ask how many have converted to Islam through free choice, how many have converted because it was demanded of them under threat of violence, and how many Islamic countries are massaging the figures to make it appear that more or all of their citizens are Muslim. So if David wants to gloat over the Pew Research poll, I'm afraid it is a Pyrrhic victory, as his own faith is most certainly on the decline. Meanwhile, even a cursory look around the internet throws up an increasing number of very brave atheist commentators and bloggers in oppressive religious regimes who are demanding to be heard.

But maybe Rev Robertson has picked up on the fact that Christianity is on the decline, for it is western society which he blames for this decline, and it is in that attack that he alludes to atheism and atheists being racist. Without a citation again, David quotes Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin's Bulldog” (not “Bull” as David mistakenly states) once saying “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior of, of the white man.” Again there is no citation when he quotes the claim oft voiced by theists that H.G. Wells, discussing how 'inferior' races would be treated in New Republic replied “Well, the world is a world, and not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go. Yes, Huxley and Wells may well have said these things. In their time one would have been hard-pushed to find a white person who did not consider non-whites to be inferior. And meanwhile, Karl Marx kept a slave girl, whom Engels referred to by the N word, and George Bernard Shaw and Marie Stopes, among others intellectuals, were firm advocates of the twisted psuedoscience of Eugenics. And all of the above people have three things in common; a, they were all wrong, b, they were all speaking and writing in the late 19^th – early 20^th century, and c, they're all long bloody dead. I completely fail to see how the writings and comments of people from 100 to 150 years ago is in any way responsible for the rise in atheism and the subsequent fall in Christianity in modern-day western society.

It may hearten David a little however to find that not all intellectuals of the Victorian era had such twisted views. There was one very learned naturalist, who was a member of the Methodist Church, who was a firm advocate and campaigner for the abolition of slavery. When this young man went to study at the University of Edinburgh, he befriended the university's taxidermist, a freed slave named John Edmonstone, with whom he would talk at length about animals, and from whom he learned his own not-inconsiderable taxidermy skills. So who was this fine young Victorian gentleman who treated all races as equal and befriended a freed slave? Charles Darwin, that's who.

Why should Rev Robertson bother about that? Well in his CT article, while attacking western society, he also spits his vitriol at the Theory of Evolution, and makes a complete ass of himself in doing so; “My main problem with this Western narrative is that it is so inherently smug, superior, self-destructive and indeed racist. It presupposes that Western Liberal values are at the top of the evolutionary tree.” Anyone who has studied Darwin's model of the Theory of Evolution, which is the standard model (because it works, and has been proven without doubt) knows that evolution is not an upward spiral, and there is no “top of the evolutionary tree”. I suspect that David is attempting to claim that evolution is based upon “survival of the fittest”, which he is taking out of context to mean that only the strongest survive – I've seen him do just that in public forums. In fact, the Theory of Evolution says no such thing, and the phrase “Survival of the fittest” was not even coined by Charles Darwin (or even Patrick Matthew of Gowrie, who beat him to defining natural selection by over 30 years), but rather by biologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer, who was an exponent of Lamarckism, which mistakenly does see evolution as an upward spiral.  Also, when Spencer came out with the phrase, he was adapting his mistaken ideas about evolution to the dog-eat-dog world of economics and suggesting a 'weakest to the wall' philosophy.

Should Rev Robertson be in any doubt about evolution being about how certain organisms are best suited to their own particular environment, whereas they would perish in others, he's more than welcome to jump from one of the Tay Bridges, see how he does flying on the way down, and then how well he can breathe at the bottom of the River Tay.  On a side note, whilst he has never openly admitted it, if Rev Robertson doubts evolution, then it seems he has just outed himself as a young earth creationist, who believes the Bible account of creation, that the universe, the earth, and all living things were created in six days, 6000 years ago. Ohhh, that's gonna burn David.

Not sounding in any way “smug” or “superior” (Heaven forfend), Rev Robertson makes an apparent concession to 'western society', “Of course every good Western liberal now deplores racism based on biology, (it's good that they have finally caught up with the Christian teaching that all human beings are created equal!), but there is a cultural type of racism which is still seen in this kind of superior attitude.” I think that he'll find however, that most of us terrible western 'liberals' do not treat other races as equal 'based on biology', but rather simply because they are equal. And interestingly enough, this particular 'liberal' (diehard socialist actually, slightly to the left of Leon Trotsky) was reading an intriguing article recently which suggests that the 'out of Africa' hypothesis may be wrong, that mankind may have come Asia, or that there may have been two rises of Hominids in the two continents. While I don't accept that, as it's not yet proven, it does not denigrate Africans (or Asians) one iota, and I look forward to reading further findings. So much for the biology argument.

As for Christianity treating all as equal, that is highly questionable. I am willing to concede that the Bible in fact makes absolutely no mention of race, or denigrates any race (unless you count Canaanites as a race, whom the Old Testament actually calls for the destruction of, and even Jesus would only help the Canaanite woman after she shamed him into doing so), the treatment of others by the Christian churches has a long history of bigotry. Crusaders going to the Holy Land were told that Mohammedans were devils, not human, and killing them was the road to Heaven. White Europeans went all around the globe, Bible in one hand, sword or gun in the other, slaughtering millions of natives, whom they saw as subhuman, apostate and heathen. Some Christians boast of the fact they were instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the UK. So they bloody well should have been, considering that it was Christians who introduced it in the first place, and often used the Bible to back up slave ownership. Most slave owners were 'good Christians' who honestly believed they were doing Africans a good turn, by giving them jobs to do, a roof over their heads, and food to eat. But were those same slaves allowed to attend the same churches as their white masters? With some notable exceptions, such as the Methodist Church, like hell they were. Well into the late 20^th century, Black Africans under the apartheid regime in South Africa were forbade from entering the state churches and had their own churches they had to attend. In the USA and even in England (particularly in London) even today, there are churches with predominantly black memberships, purely because they have been made to feel unwelcome in churches with predominantly white parishioners.

But according to Rev Robertson, it is we atheists whom he is alluding are the racists. Well, I don't take being miscalled lightly, and as David has chosen to take his gloves off, I see absolutely no reason to keep mine on, so let's just have a look at where he stands in the bigotry stakes.

Rev Robertson was – and remains – deeply opposed to the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scotland. Maintaining that marriage is a Christian institution, meant for procreation between one woman and one man, David stated “This is the position that Western Society has held and on which our culture has been based on for almost 2000 years. I object to being called homophobic just because I continue to hold to that view.” (Herald Scotland, 15 October 2014). Of course, marriage is not purely Christian, and if it were, then Rev Robertson would have to concede that not only atheists, but those of other faiths are not married. Furthermore, if it were only for procreation and bringing up children, then David must as a clergyman refuse to marry couples who are incapable of having children. Yet, I can go further. I have actually seen Rev Robertson in a Facebook forum claim that same-sex marriage would lead to, among other things, polygamy – which is of course the most common form of marriage found in the Bible.

LGBT+ campaigners Dan Littauer of Kaleidoscot, and Peter Tatchell have been among many voicing their concerns over Rev Robertson's views concerning LGBT+ people.

On 14 June 2015, in his podcast Quantum of Solas (No.32), Rev Robertson and another Wee Free preacher launched into a frankly shameful tirade against transgender people. Concentrating upon Caitlyn Jenner in a podcast from which I lifted the photo accompanying this article, they derided, insulted and belittled the transgender former Olympic athlete, referring to her by her 'deadname' “Bruce”, and male pronouns, calling her and other transgender people 'delusional', 'wrong-headed thinking', and 'disgusting'.

And if David has a problem with me copying his SOLAS photograph, perhaps he could inform me just how many musicians he approached and asked permission to play their music on his podcasts?

Writing for the SOLAS Centre for Public Christianity, Rev Robertson in a comment article in The Scotsman of 11 April 2016, wrote; “Apparently it has now become the accepted norm amongst our political elites that we get to choose our own gender, in the same way that we get to choose our name. We have one assigned to us at birth, and if we don’t like it later on we can just change it. All of sudden by government dictate humanity, made male and female in the image of God, has been shattered into a thousand different genders.”

Then there was the little incident of the Polish atheist woman who moved into the village of Rosemarkie, north-east Scotland. The said woman approached the Scottish Secular Society for help, writing on their Facebook group forum page, Secular Scotland, that her children attending a non-denominational state school had been forced to say prayers before school dinners, effectively saying grace, against her wishes. Rev Robertson, who was a regular contributor to the group at the time, immediately rounded upon her, calling her a “white settler” and ranting about “incomers” attempting to “impose their will” upon highland culture.

For those not in the know, “white settler” is an odious hate speech term used by a tiny minority of Scots bigots, opposed to anyone from outside their community, mainly English people, moving into their neighbourhood. It was commonly used in the late 1970s-early 1980s by an anti-English would-be paramilitary group, “Settler Watch”. When I pointed out to David that it was a hate speech term, for which the former Grampian Police had indeed investigated people, he not only refused to back down, whenever I mentioned it in the future, he steadfastly stood by his words, as he does to this day. And as long as he does, and refuses to apologise for them, I shall continue to bring this episode to the attention of the public.

Just three other points on Rev Robertson's tirade against this woman;

1: She was not attempting to impose her will upon anyone's culture. She merely did not want the culture of others enforced upon her children.

2: Rosemarkie is not even within the Highland Boundary, and it is a good distance from David's native home on the Wee Free dominated Isle of Lewis.

3: Rev Robertson, who has openly stated that he wants all Scottish schools under Christian control, wrote his tirade against this 'assault' on highland culture from his present home in Dundee, in the north-east of the Scottish Central Belt, well outwith the highlands, and almost the opposite side of the country from Wee Free dominance.

I therefore leave it to others to form their own opinions on Rev Robertson's stance on bigotry. But I for one will openly call him a homophobe, a transphobe, intolerant, and deeply parochial.

Trying to move the goalposts, Rev Robertson changes asking if Christianity is regressive, to western society, and states “But what if we are wrong? What if Western society is actually regressing? I heard Professor John Haldane of the University of St Andrew's give a brilliant lecture on this in which he argued that 'progression' has only happened in terms of science, but that it cannot be assumed in terms of morality, art, literature, philosophy, politics and many other spheres of human activity. Anyone with half a brain, a whole eye and a listening ear, watching today's British TV will soon suspect that perhaps music and morality have not progressed much in the past 50 years!”

Well, morality is of course a completely man-made concept, which changes with time and between different cultures. I am old enough to recall being given the tawse (a leather strap divided into two or three prongs) across my hands at school for wrongdoing. It was only as recently as 1976 that the courts deemed that it was possible for a husband to rape his wife, when previously he was merely taking his 'conjugal rights'. Less than 50 years ago, men could still be jailed purely for being gay or transgender. Less than 100 years ago, a man could still beat his wife with a rod “no broader than his thumb” (hence, 'rule of thumb'), and left-handed schoolchildren were still having their left arms tied behind their backs and forced to write with their right hands. We look back upon such things with abject horror and revulsion, and yet each and every one of the things I have mentioned above were all solidly based upon Biblical, Christian, teachings. Seems to me that morality has in fact moved on a great deal for the better, and without any need for god(s).

Art, literature, philosophy and politics do indeed change and move on as society changes and evolves. As to music, it too evolves. Pop rock bands like The Beatles gave way to the psychedelic hippy era, which in turn brought in both glam rock and heavy metal, which gave way to punk, which had a short life and was replaced by new wave and indie. But then, music is thing of very personal taste, and I take no lessons in what I want to listen to from any member of the dour Wee Free's, most of whom seem to think the epitome of music is singing the metrical psalms, without any musical accompaniment (because apparently instruments are the “tools of the devil” - seems some of them forget that the Biblical David was a harpist).

Returning to his assault upon atheists, Rev Robertson states; “But that doesn't stop our atheist friends who are very reluctant to let go of their faith, whatever the evidence, and so the rejoinder comes. "Isn't there an inevitable progression from polytheism to monotheism to atheism?”

“It is part of their creed and one of their stock-in-trade one-liners that 'Christians are atheists to all other gods except Jesus, atheists just go one god more'. The problem with this statement, is that it presupposes that Jesus is just one of the other man made gods. He is not man-made and therefore He cannot be man destroyed! However that does not stop people trying.”

“In the same line of argument is the schoolboy question, "Who made God then?"

Schoolboy arguments are they? Well, let's try this factual statement for size: “In pagan Rome, “atheist” (from the Greek atheos) meant anyone who refused to worship the established pantheon of deities. The term was applied to Christians, who not only refused to worship the gods of the pantheon but demanded exclusive worship of their own god.”

Should anyone be wondering where I got that from, it was stated by philosopher John Grey, in his article in The Guardian, What scares the new atheists; the selfsame article by the selfsame person which Rev Robertson was so eager to quote earlier. Just a word of advice about picking and choosing, David; when you quote-mine someone, you'd best make sure there's nothing in their article which may just come back to bite you firmly on the ass.

Rev Robertson then goes on a rant to try to deflect the question of who or what made God, by claiming that nobody made God as God is beyond space and time. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that for thousands of years the church taught that God was in the sky. But as the receding God continued to be elusive in the light of scientific research, suddenly they were “beyond space and time”. If that's the case, how come the church did not teach that for 2000 years, but only claimed it once science postulated there may be a 'beyond' space and time? And if you are going to argue the first mover, then “who made God?” is a perfectly valid question.

Rev Robertson also claims “God creates ex nihilo (out of nothing).”, and there is a supreme problem with this four-word claim; it assumes that nothing exists beyond the universe, when the fact is science simply does not know if that is the case. There may be another universe, where the laws which govern this universe may or may not pertain to that one. Yes, it may also be a deity, but that is an assumption based on faith, not proof. Sometimes “I don't know.” is not just the only answer one can give, it is the only honest, truthful, accurate and honourable answer. To make an assumption and claim that as fact is not honest or truthful, it cannot be proven to be accurate, and it dishonours not only the listener but also the one making the claim.

Yet Rev Robertson goes right down this very road, and in doing so, quotes William Lane Craig;

“The Kalam cosmological argument, popularised by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, puts it this way.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause,

The universe began to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause”

Well, we can't be for sure if he universe did have a start, or if it's always been there, and eternal. But going by the standard model of the Initial Singularity (commonly known as the Big Bang), then if it had a start, granted it had to have a cause. Where Rev Robertson and William Lane Craig make the huge mistake is by making the sudden jump in assuming that the cause behind the universe had to be their God, when that is simply not known.

I'm also somewhat surprised at Rev Robertson quoting a modern-day evangelist upon the First Cause argument, when it goes back much further and was most famously attributed to Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Five Proofs of God (which all made the same error of assuming that God had to be behind all things, without proof). But then, given that he is the Moderator of a church which steadfastly sticks to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which openly states that the Pope is the Antichrist, perhaps Rev Robertson felt a bit uneasy about quoting one of the poster boys of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I am not for one moment suggesting that David, who wrote warmly in welcome to Pope Benedict XVI visiting Scotland is in any way sectarian. A good proportion of Wee Frees are indeed sectarian, however, and in his one year tenure as Moderator, he has done nothing to change the Kirk's constitution and move it away from a deeply anti-Roman Catholic basis.

Instead, Rev Robertson chooses to quote William Lane Craig. This of course would be the same William Lane Craig whom, in answering why his god should order the slaughter of innocent Canaanite children replied “God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.” Yep, he really did try to make out that the slaughter of babies and little children was merciful. Not content with coming out with that glib, apologetic piece of crap, in December 2012, Craig went further and came out with a comment which must have appalled other Christians, even conservative ones like him. Speaking on the Sandy Hook school massacre, in which 20 children between 6-7 years old, and seven adult staff were shot dead by crazed gunman Adam Lanza, Craig spoke of it reminding him of the 'original' Christmas, when Herod ordered the killing of the male babies, and went on to say that Sandy Hook was “a reminder really of what Christmas is for, or what it's all about.” and then continued to claim that the massacre was a “message of hope”. Methinks you should choose your friends with a greater deal of care, David.

The next paragraph by Rev Robertson is laughable, in which he claims, “The trouble is that our atheist friends have really bought into an unproveable narrative which they hold on to with all the tenacity of the most frightened fundamentalist and with which they try to 'evangelise' all and sundry. And so the myths/doctrines of inevitable progression and human beings having evolved from polytheism into the light of atheism have become part of the cultural zeitgeist which most of us inhabit.”

Really? We atheists have an “unproveable narrative”, says the man who worships a being whose existence he and every other have the burden of proof for? And notice the language of comparing atheists to fundamentalists trying to 'evangelise' all. This is not surprising, as Rev Robertson has long ranted about “fundamentalist extremist atheists”. He has even attacked the Scottish Secular Society of being a 'fundamentalist', 'extremist', atheist and even anti-theist group, when he knows perfectly well that this is not the case. The Scottish Secular Society is open to all, and while most members are atheists, there are also theist members. As David is well aware of this fact, to then accuse the society of such is more than an out and out lie, it is bearing false witness.

As to human beings moving from polytheism to atheism, far from a myth, that is fact which is reflected in history. Not far from his Dundee home, I suggest Rev Robertson goes and has a look at the carved stones of the Picts, who worshipped many local gods, and then on the reverse of some, he will find beautiful, intricately-carved crosses, from the time when the one god came to chase out the many. But that was just one more aspect of the 'receding God', who was not found in nature, so he must have been in the sky or space, and when not found there, he must be 'beyond space and time'. That there is a rise in atheism is not part of a cultural zeitgeist, but merely because more and more people are becoming better educated, mostly by using the internet, that the likelihood of god(s) existing is very slim, that all the “holy” books are mostly inaccurate mythology, and that one day, soon, the receding God will have nowhere left to run to. And it is not we atheists who are to blame for that, but rather the theists who have singularly failed to put up convincing counter-arguments, but instead go on the attack of atheists, just as Rev Robertson has done in his CT article. It's called playing the man instead of the ball, David, and it neither fools nor impresses anyone.

In the penultimate paragraph Rev Robertson suggests further reading and tries to punt his own book Engaging with Atheists. I am sorely tempted to actually buy a copy and read it, because this is one atheist who knows that attempting to engage in a debate with David is an exercise in futility. I have proven above how he twists, misrepresents, miscalls, insults and denigrates anyone he claims to be debating. I have even seen his fellow theists refuse to debate him due to arrogance, his untruthfulness, and his insulting behaviour. From the examples and his own words I have outlaid above, is there any reader of this article, atheist or theist, who would wish to enter a debate with the Moderator? I sincerely doubt it.  In fact, I don't know how one would 'debate' with Rev Robertson.  Having twice been on the Secular Scotland forum, on both occasions he spat the dummy and stormed off, claiming "insulting behaviour", purely because people questioned him and pulled him up about his own conduct.  Just a tip, David, a debate is when both sides are heard, not just yours.

But then, from a long rant about what was supposed to be about Christianity being in regression, which descended into a hate-filled rant against atheists, we see that all Rev Robertson wishes to do is promote his own book, which if it is anything like his book, My Wonderful Obsession, then it will be of the same assumptions, insults, misconceptions, twisting of words, misrepresentation, and a bearing false witness which would have given Niccolo Machiavelli a run for his money, and which myself and many others who have come to expect from a man whom I have proven to be nothing more than a bigot, a liar, and a hypocrite.

Finally, I would just like to say to other Christians and other theists that this article is by no means any attempt to belittle your faith (although I have no doubt Rev Robertson will attempt to twist my words), which if you have one and are happy in that, I fully respect your right to do so, and would be first to defend.  Rather it is merely to expose one "Holy Wullie" whose tenet seems to be 'Don't do as I do, do as I say.' 

LINKS

Is Christianity Regressive?  David Robertson, Christan Today, 22 April 2016:
 

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.christianity.regressive/84478.htm 

 What scares the new atheists.  John Grey, The Guardian, 2 March 2015:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists

Pew Research Centre article on religious forecasts, 15 April 2015:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/15/europe-projected-to-retain-its-christian-majority-but-religious-minorities-will-grow/

Scots are abandoning their religion.  National Secular Society, 16 April 2013:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/04/scots-are-losing-their-religion

Free Kirk leader hits back at his critics in article for gay website:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13184673.Free_kirk_leader_hits_back_at_his_critics_in_article_for_gay_website/

Quantum of Solas No.32.  The discussion about Caitlyn Jenner starts at 5:35:

http://www.solas-cpc.org/wp/quantum-of-solas/quantum-of-solas-32/

Comment: LGBTI discussion more like a rally than a debate. David Robertson, Scotsman, 11 April 2016:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/comment-lgbti-discussion-more-like-a-rally-than-a-debate-1-4097243

William Lane Craig on the "infinite good" of the Biblical mass slaughter of children and his god's "morally suffcient reasons":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc

 William Lane Craig speaks on the Sandy Hook massascre and the "true meaning" of Christmas:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzg2u3_william-lane-craig-on-the-sandy-hook-massacre_news