This website is now archived. While it is fully functioning, I no longer maintain it and comments are turned off on most posts. Please visit the updated LloydMorgan.co.uk.

Category Archives: Everything Else

Everything Else

Something for the Weekend

Comments Off
Posted on May 18, 2007 – 11:27

A few links to keep you online this weekend:

  • http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

    We all (should) know that the majority of the world’s media holdings are owned by a handful of media conglomerates, but this is a novel way to display the information.

    Albeit slightly outdated (1991), Mark Crispin Miller’s article and the corresponding visual shows vividly how in the early 1990s America’s media was majority owned by just ten corporations. However, in the 16 years since its publication not much has changed – but now 90% of America’s media is owned by not ten, but just six of these corporations that have grown tremendously: Disney, Viacom, AOL Time Warner, News Corp., Bertelsmann AG and General Electric.

    Wonder why this matters? Read about the Monsanto bovine growth hormone controversy to get an idea.

Enjoy!

Advertising Complaints of 2006 (Violence, Religion and Sexuality Not As Bad As Fried Chicken)

Comments Off
Posted on May 10, 2007 – 11:07

It appears that 2006 was the year for complaining about adverts, as the BBC and Advertising Standards Agency announce that a record number of adverts were complained about in 2006. But which were the most (un)popular?

D&G AdvertIt seems same-sex issues and knives account for half of the top ten most complained about adverts of 2006, but were they really that bad? In short, no – only two of these five actually had their complaints upheld, and these are both – in my opinion – still dubious decisions. Seriously, does this advert by D&G really look like it is glamorising violent knife crime? Is it not obvious, even to the uninitiated, that it is a modern interpretation of a Napoleonic-era painting?

The most complained about advert in 2006 was not related to violent crime however. Instead it was one created by the Gay Police Association in the midst of bitter in-fighting with the Christian Police Association, and you can see it here.

In the Name of the Father - GPA CommercialIn this advert, the GPA blamed religion as the sole or primary motivation behind most homophobic incidents and – unsurprisingly – this brought a torrent of abuse and complaints from many religious groups both within and outside of the police force. There’s an interesting story behind this advert and it’s worth reading, but I would like to mention a different point…

This commercial – the most complained about trailer in the UK in 2006 – only received one third (1/3) of the complaints that the most complained about advert did in 2005. That commercial (that I’m sure many of the UK residents reading this will remember) was by KFC and featured people in a call centre singing with their mouths full of fried chicken. This KFC trailer was also the most complained about television commercial of all time! Yummy, pass me the greasefamily-bucket!

Extreme Christian Philosophy: Kicking Ass, Jesus Style!

2
Posted on April 23, 2007 – 20:57

No, no, it’s not Mel Gibson’s new movie, it’s just that once again a swift reply from Carl astounds me in its coherence and insight, and after a busy weekend I can reply… and this is it. I decided to make this a new post though as Carl’s original comment and this reply have some good ideas in it that I think would be interesting.

Apologies again for a post on religion. If the previous post bored you, just skip this one – however, there are some good philosophical points you may find interesting.
If you are going to continue, it’ll be worthwhile reading Carl’s comment first.

The Don Imus account and the question on how one should react to it brings to mind a quote I heard a long time ago. It was by Morgan Freeman on ’60 Minutes’, and he said that “the only way to stop racism is to stop talking about”. Obviously not to be taken literally, to me this is more of a MLK stance towards racism, but instead of taking the route of non-violence you apply it verbally in a non-reactionary way. To not react verbally can imply complacency, whereas lashing out and countering claims can make people -as you say – unknowingly complicit. It can too, just simply weaken their stance of being a ‘freedom fighter’ as it suggests hypocrisy. However, being accused of acceptance through inaction is surely better than hindering your ’cause’, whether it gives you further grief or not?

It’s like the old adage usually applied to children: if a child misbehaves or says something ‘wrong’ and is scolded for it, this reaction can bring an onlooker to say “Don’t encourage him” or “Ignore her and she’ll stop”. But then, if the child was to later repeat this behaviour in front of another person (who didn’t hear this previous exchange), they could likely say “So, you think that’s acceptable behaviour do you?” – damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

The problem is though, if one goes through life blindly accepting a certain traditional viewpoint (everything from social and class attitudes, moral standpoints and religious views) rather than questioning them, surely that is being truly closed-minded? Closed-minded by not accepting that your interpretation of the ‘truth’ may be wrong. Take Carl’s example of a provocateur saying “humans are animals” and then being accused of being closed-minded and of spewing hate speech from the conservative, religious masses. Surely this reaction itself could then be construed as hate speech and naivety from a Buddhist’s standpoint, where humans can be reborn as animals?

To answer the second question raised first, as to how I will draw a line between hate speech and inquiry, it’s simple: I don’t plan to. To do so would be closed-minded in itself, in my opinion. If confronted I can explain my views on a certain topic from a religious or moral viewpoint, otherwise I shall happily get on with my life. (Carl, is this what you meant? Am I making sense, or did I misinterpret this?)
In reply to the first question however; no, I do not think I need a religion to dictate my values for me, and have actually now started to make a conscious effort not to do so. Instead I’m adapting my religion to integrate my own beliefs into it rather than denouncing it entirely just because my views are not ‘classically accepted’.

I don’t think this is unusual – religion has always had an ‘adapt to survive’ mentality. Look at how, with advances in physics and astronomy, the ancient view of a physical God controlling the world from the clouds changed to become the current accepted view where there is a God ‘out there’ somewhere in a more non-physical manner; consider Galileo who was imprisoned by the church for his heliocentric views (that the earth rotates around the sun), and even more recently; look at how Catholicism has renounced limbo just this very week – after 800 years of believing it.

As a liberal Christian with a philosophy leaning towards a mix of non-theism, agnosticism and existentialism, I’ve taken a lot from John Spong (what an awesome name), John Robinson and Paul Tillich. Evangelicals and other conservative Christians believe that these theologians and philosophers were heretics preaching extreme, controversial theological views. I believe them to be some of the most intelligent and important religious philosophers in history, of whose ideas I take great influence from.  Again, it’s say what you believe and be damned, or say nothing and deny who you are.

Being a Child Again: An Ode to Swingball

Comments Off
Posted on April 20, 2007 – 11:27

On a lighter note, I’ve enjoyed being a child again these last few days.

Monday saw a group purchase of a swingball set, or as you Americans might call it, tetherball or tether-tennis. It consists of a pole with a helical screw at the top attached to a tennis ball by a piece of string. It’s simple: you hit the ball in one direction with a small plastic racquet ’til it reaches the top (or bottom) of the screw where upon you win the game. All this time, your opponent is trying to get it to the opposite end of the screw by hitting it in the opposite direction.

Simple; but fun, and my first go saw me laughing harder than I had in years. Soon however, this laughter turned to tears as the poorly designed racquets (or maybe they’re designed for 8 year olds!) started blistering and bruising my over-sized hands.

Maybe the breaking of the ‘string of destiny’ (the string connecting the ball and the pole) was a blessing in disguise as now there will be no more blisters, bruising, or close encounters with flying racquets! I just hope my hand heals before the new string and ball we’re ordering from eBay arrives!

In the meantime, I recommend you all head out and find a childhood game you loved to play. Laugh, play and be merry: being a child again is more fun than you think.

Ode to Swingball – A Haiku

You give us much fun:
Tangled wires and flying bats.
Oh, my blistered thumb!

A Crisis of Faith – The Internet and Religion

1
Posted on April 20, 2007 – 11:20

Science vs. Religion – I’m not venturing there; I don’t think they’ll ever kiss and makeup. The Internet and religion however: now I think they can be good friends.

I’m going to be deviating from my usual rule of not discussing religion.
Don’t be afraid, I’m not going to make a habit of it!

Last month Carl wrote a great, perceptive piece called The Rise of Atheism about how the Internet is facilitating a renaissance in popular atheism: religion – or lack thereof – is cool again. Of course it goes the other way with people “finding out about fundamentalism and how much fun it can be”, but does it go laterally? Is the widespread dissemination of information about different religions converting people, or are the religious majority stuck in a rut of belief about their ‘one true religion’?

Then, two weeks ago, Scott Young wrote an interesting article about Creating Your Own Religion . This resonated with me, as since Carl’s post I was also set on a thought path (or ‘internal conflict’) about my own religion that had been going on inside my mind for a couple of years: I was having a Crisis of Faith.

I wondered whether it was really possible to be relaxed with your religion and use it more as a philosophy on how to run your life rather than a mantra that dictates it? Can we convert not to or from religion, but into a new religion – or philosophical mindset – of our own devices? As Scott advocates, can I really experiment with my belief system, straying from the idealised, trodden path laid out by others, even if it is in direct contradiction with some definitive doctrine of it?

I believe so. We can modify our beliefs, straying from the accepted definition(s) or assumptions of religion without having internal conflict… of our religious, philosophical or scientific minds.

Many aren’t interested in categorising themselves as being in a certain faith’s organization however, and as such it’s the ‘core values’ that really matter to people, giving a ‘life meaning’ and some moral direction in which to live it. For others, having the definitive ‘direction’ that comes with categorisation is important and lends a helping hand. But then, of course, the bigger questions are important too (such as the afterlife: heaven/hell vs. reincarnation vs. endless nothingness) as they can dictate an actual real-life religious affiliation for those that want that guidance.

I’m sure all but the most ‘devout’ atheists have considered why they are here and what the ‘meaning of life’ is, even if for a fleeting second. This isn’t exactly important for the daily running of our lives, but finding answers to these questions in any given faith/philosophy allows us to find guidance on how to best live our lives and what the payoff of doing it in a certain way is (heaven in a religious sense, money and power for capitalist existentialist atheists (joke… sort of), or the moral high-ground from an Aristotelian viewpoint). Values and principles will guide our lives, whether we get them from interpreting a religious text, a philosophy book or from within ourselves. But finding them, interpreting them and living by them is an essential, important aspect of our lives. Without them, why would you live your life like you do?

To me, evolution is fact, and the Big Bang is practically undeniable; before this point, there was neither space nor time. Richard Dawkins is an intelligent man and Stephen Hawking is arguably more so. Yet while one refutes religion whole-heartedly, another allows space for belief in his scientific mentality and vehemently denies accusations that he is atheist (A Brief History of Time discusses God many times, at one point stating that it is wholly possible that a God initiated creation). Terry Eagleton said that “while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it”. I am a scientist in confusion, just attempting to collate my beliefs: as simple as that.

One question remains though. Does this make me religious, or am I now just an Agnostic with a moral philosophy?

Apologies if this post is written very eclectically and indiscriminately - my own confusion is compounding this when writing in a free-flow way; just typing the ideas that come to mind.
If you want me to define something, or if I’ve written something confusing, please comment and I’ll try and write a cohesive reply!