God doesn't exist. Now start thinking.

Yesterday on the Italian news there were reports about the Athiest Bus Campaigns, in London and Spain. For the next few weeks buses in London will be displaying the following friendly advice: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying, and enjoy your life."

Controversial, of course, although many of the big religious leaders claim to be pleased because it stimulates a debate about the metaphysical, an "active conversation about life's big questions" (Theos). Perhaps they see it as an antidote to religious apathy in the UK.

You'll notice the little avatar in the sidebar that links to the homepage of the camppaign. Maybe I'd feel offended if it was the other way around, but this is my camp so here's a cause that I can latch onto. I don't believe, and therefore I agree with spreading this idea, because like little Olivier Besancenot, I am fighting for my ideas to become more widespread in the majority.

Except, that it's not as simple as that. Especially when it comes to the uneasy combination of "evangelising" and anti-religious sentiment.

After reading some of the views of supporters of the campaign, on the boards of the campaign's facebook group, for example, it seems the primary motivating factor is a "desire to stand up & be counted", to be "organised" atheists as a counterweight to organised religion. This strikes me as a dissapointingly banal explanation. Is it really community, safety in numbers we want? But aren't these the same people who go around saying such organised religion is a sign of weakness, that convictions about God or his absence are something fundamentally personal? Isn't organised religion public ennemy number one for atheists, rather than just people who believe in God? If you've read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", you'll know he sees them as part and parcel of the same loathsome and unpallatable phenomenon. I'm sure Dawkins has other motivations than adapting the principles of organised religion to the Atheist cause. I'm also sure that raising his own profile is one of them, but maybe that's just being cynical.

To tell you the truth, if I see leaflets being handed out in the street telling me to "Repent" now before it's too late, I go out of my way to pick one up, take it home and keep it.

It doesn't take long to realise that it's not just the poor and uneducated who believe. A book that examines this precise fact in more depth that I could really get my head around, is Orhan Pamuk's Snow. If I had my copy here I would quote it at you profusely but unfortunately I don't. In any case, I cannot but be humbled by the presence of so many believers in the world who are far more mentally capable, and far more aware of the mechanics of the world and of human beings than I can ever hope to be. What I find jarring about Dawkins is the way in which he flatly dismisses them all out of hand.

Also, the slogan troubles me a little. There's no god, so stop worrying? The second part doesn't seem to follow. And enjoy your life? The third part follows even less.

Howard Jacobs' criticism of the campaign is slightly harsher than I'm altogether comfortable with, but overall rather insightful:

"Some of the least worried people I know are unworried precisely because they believe in a benign creator who takes individual care of them. Ivan Karamazov on the other hand, is misery incarnate, unable to enjoy a moment of mental peace because he cannot see how, if God does not exist, anything can be deemed unlawful. SINCE THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD it would say on the bendy bus Ivan hires to drive around St Petersburg, START WORRYING BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED.

Your liberal atheist would have trouble following the moral logic of that because he thinks everything should be permitted. ENJOY YOUR LIFE he says, as though the mere fact of freedom from ethical or religious restraint is a guarantee of enjoyment and enjoyment the only measure of a life well lived."

I'm not a believer myself. But I don't pretend that leaves me better equipped to lead either a good life or a happy one."

Sometimes I wonder, if I could click my fingers and have everybody stop believing right then & there, would I? The world might be simpler, we might have more consensus on some things, but neither of those are certain. It is very doubtful whether most the violence and conflict across the world is really to do with "God" or faith at all. It seems to come from something a lot more material, a lot more substantial, and intrinsically human.

What is certain is the world would be a lot more boring. It's not that I enjoy being told I'm going to burn in hell for eternity by the fire&brimstone Godsquad. I just think I might miss the wondering, the thoughts provoked by the metphysical gridlock encountered whenever dicussing the existence of God with any of my believing friends, one in particular.

I enjoy those conversations. I even like reading the "Quick, Repent!" leaflets, that's why I go looking for them. I collect tacky catholic memorabilia because I am amazed that such objects can mean such a great deal to people, can influence their behaviour, give them strength. For me the priority, is not for all this to vanish.

So I might question the aims of "Breezy universal atheism" as Jacobs disparagingly but quite aptly labels it.

I think it's a shame that atheists have hopped on the defensive. Not least because of the backlash it is likely to provoke. But also because I believe that belief or non-belief is a profoundly personal matter.

"Is it not enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it as well?"

These words of Douglas Adams are the kind of rare & subtle wisdom that inspires and underlies some of my most deeply held convictions, they sum up that which gives me confidence and peace of mind in my disbelief. To see them trivialised emblazoned across a double-decker on route 149 is almost too much to bear. I'd sooner have kept them to myself.

But it is not disbelief or lack of faith alone that guides my view of the world and my place in it. That's only a particle of a whole ecosystem of convictions and credences, one with very murky waters, and which is often foggy and nebulous but definitely not inhabited by a supernatural overlord or omnipotent creator.

The campaign will soon come to Italy where buses will bear the slightly less instructional, and less reductive turn of phrase, which manages to be at once braver and less conclusive:

"La cattiva notizia è che Dio non esiste. Quella buona, è che non ne hai bisogno."

That bad news is that God doesn't exist. The good news, is that you don't need him to.

All JEF wants for Christmas is a Superstate

So it's 2009 now, and that can only mean one thing - the year of intercultural dialogue is finally over (or "just words" to quote my esteemed mentor Dr. Finlay) , giving way to the even more inspiring Year of Creativity and Innovation. Yeah. Think I might sit this one out if it's all the same to you. But of course, if innovation isn't really your thing, there's always the European Parliament Elections to look forward to. All politicos of all walks of life are by now gripped by European election fever. None more so than the Young European Federalists (JEF), a pan-European organisation of young euro-enthusiasts, not politically affiliated but sharing the same dream of the establishment of a European Federation.

Last june I campaigned alongside JEF in the campaign for the YES side in the vote on the Lisbon Treaty, in Ireland. At the time I felt their position of taking European integration all the way towards an inevitable federalist conclusion was perfectly in line with my own views. The fact that they were participants in a campaign run by the governing party in Ireland, Fianna Fail, an unpleasant bunch of conservative right-wing nationalists, didn't even trouble me too much at the time, since I felt we were at least all campaigning for the same result, albeit perhaps with different motivations.

Now JEF have launched their campaign "It's time for change, it's time for Europe", not with a view to getting any particular candidates elected, but rather with the aim of encouraging all elected candidates to support a series of proposals, contained in their Manifesto. Reading through their list of demands, a number of things sound alarm bells in my mind, which I'll go through briefly...

The demands on JEF's Christmas list...

"A European Economic Policy for ensuring growth, employment and sustainable
development, in particular to benefit young people;"

One could question the wisdom of establishing a common economic policy given that a one-size-fits-all model for an area with such political and structural disparities as Europe can hardly be appropriate just yet. In my opinion, development needs to come first. This is acheived by way of concrete initiatives that target areas of weakness, for example improving transport networks, or weeding out corruption. The EU has acheived its best results when focusing on acheiving specific objectives at regional level, keeping local concerns and circimstances in mind. Cf. Ireland over the past 10 years. A broadbrush single economic policy would surely be massively ineffectual in comparison.

"A European Energy and Environmental Agency for ensuring global leadership in the battle against climate change and managing a European Energy Reserve to guarantee a strategic independence of the EU;"

Shame about the second half, I'm all for the first bit. The words "strategic independence" disturb me first for their unattainable pretensions and also because they mirror exactly what the US is attempting to do by drilling to the earth's core. The idea of a European Union that is constructed with "strategic" ends in mind makes me distinctly uneasy. By all means let's work together to try to find solutions, but it's not as if we live in a world where we can cordon ourselves off anymore, though this is, unfortunately, so often what the EU has tried to do.

"A Solidarity Clause to ensure Member States protection against terrorism and natural catastrophes;"

Solidarity... but only within Europe. And enforced solidarity, since if it is written into EU law, not respecting such obligations would surely lead to sanctions of some kind. This one really sums up the idea of a united Europe that exists to preserve itself, its position in the world order, and to secure benefits for European citizens.

"European Blue Helmets enabling the EU to contribute to peace-keeping in the world in the framework of a real European security and defence policy;"

As if the UN Blue Helmets weren't responsible for enough chaos and human rights violations, as it is. Do we really want to expand on a formula that has proven to be so fraught with abuses? And I can only imagine and shudder at what a "real European security and defence policy" would mean, but with Russia and USA playing missile chicken with one another already, I doubt the assertion of a European defence policy would be much of a force for constructive progress in the whole equation.

"A Citizens’ Right of Initiative in order to listen to the voice of European citizens;"

A good idea. Just need to iron out some of the more fundamental details, like ensuring citizens would be aware of such a right and how to instrumentalise it, and to avoid the privelege being abused by other actors, such as lobbyists or companies, as happens all the time with the European Court of Justice.

"A European Civilian Service to promote EU citizenship among young people;"

So we can indoctrinate European youth with a strong sense of pride and belonging to the glorious motherland Europa? This one's just scary...

"European symbols to be officially recognised by all European institutions."

Fatuous, really. Besides, worrying about symbols is the first step towards shooting people who spit on flags. And then we really are going backwards.

Oh JEF! And yet so much of what is written in their mission statement I could not agree more with.
Why then have they produced such a list of demands that so plainly betrays the uglier side of their ambitions - the irony of substituting one kind of nationalism for another.

I suppose my views have undergone a significant amount of transformation over the past few years, especially thanks to the debates around Lisbon, where I was exposed to considerable intelligent and pertinent criticisms of the EU.
It didn't take me long to recognise the unsophisticated crudeness of the US "hard power" = BAD, EU "soft power" = Good dichotomy, as laid out in Mark Leonard's book (Why Europe will run the 21st Century). Whereas in The European Dream, Jeremy Rifkin managed to approach the issue with far more subtlety whilst still retaining a positive slant on the EU.

I still have that positive view overall, even though I now feel a cynical twinge whenever I hear of EU initiatives, especially where youth are concerned. That's down to my experience over the past few months, as a failed EVS volunteer, though not for want of trying. Much more then debates and hearing all sides of the argument, it is hard evidence, in the form of personal experience, that shapes one's held views, it seems to me.

I think the main danger of the supranational organisation which the EU institutions engage in, is the machinistic approach where procedures are followed blindly and to the letter, which brings with it a complete disregard for the nature of specific cases, communities or individuals being dealt with.

The things I dislike most about the EU - the incomprehensible Eurojargon, the ruthless and inhumane immigration policies which have earned the continent the title of "Fortress Europe", the famous democratic deficit... are all symptons of the failure of this approach - based on an obsession with procedures. This in itself may be well-intentioned, but it is accompanied by a more sinister undercurrent of inbuilt xenophobia, a desire to keep out that which may threaten the security and prosperity of European citizens.

The EU is guilty of strangling itself with the unending red tape tentacles of an immense bureacratic machine, where responsability is shifted up and down the line until everyone completely loses sight of everything and general confusion prevails.

Having been on the receiving end of such treatment throughout this past autumn, I am well aware of how frustrating it can be. When I and my co-volunteers wrote a letter condemning this treatment and testifying to our experiences here, of being continuously overlooked and never listened to, the response was fitting - a brief note from a Commission robot thanking us for our time and telling us absolutely nothing.

It may seem a sad way to begin the new year - in such a state of disillusionment and loss of faith. But for the same reason I am no longer member of a political party, I don't want to toe the European line either. Instead of being stuck in the compromising position of being obliged to turn a blind eye to the mistakes and flaws of any one group, or being gagged when it comes to criticising one's "own side" - for now I am happy to remain on the outside, to applaud the successes where they occur, as well as to condemn and denounce, where it is warranted, without reserve or hesitation.

Nothing like a bit of sacrilege at Christmas

Maybe it's a sign of progress that I haven't felt sufficiently sure of my opinions over the past few months to feel comfortable setting them out in written article format and broadcasting them to anyone who'll read.

Indeed, the last half of 2008 was a period of rethinking some of my established views, such as my staunchly europhile position, but that will be for another entry, but also re-evaluating myself, to a certain extent. New context - new light. These things take up time, energy and mind-space, it turns out.

But the blogging I did before was useful, as a means of processing the immense amount of information around me, the various discourses shovelled around by the media and politicians, trying to keep a critical eye on matters and explore some of the current questions which drew my attention and provoked me to ponder. This is why I'd like to make the effort to re-activate and sustain this blog, in order to keep a record of some of the themes we've been dealing here at the Circolo Culturale Africa, in Ancona, where I'm currently working.

But first - to begin with something more light-hearted, than talk of detention centres and racially-aggravated murders.

This christmas was dominated by a great controversy the likes of which has not been seen this side of the 20th century. No, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the great Hallelujah debacle of '08.

For those who may not be aware (that is, anyone living outside of the UK or Ireland), for the past 5 or so years now the christmas number 1 in the UK pop charts has been hijacked by the annual winner of a music "talent" programme called the X-factor.

The final show is timed in just such a way that immediately after the winner is chosen, the new record is released and crateloads of copies are shipped into every highstreet music/book/media shop, strategically placed near all the check-outs, with row upon row stacked in the shop windows, so that enough people will buy it in order to get the lucky winner to number one, for christmas. Cynical, I know. This sort of shameless commodification of dreams can be tolerated for one year, but by now the routine is beginning to get tiresome.

Subsequently, the winner is never heard of again, with one exception - Leona Lewis, who appears to be rather good at milking her 15 minutes of fame for all they're worth and thus hasn't quite sunken into obscurity just yet. Unfortunately.

Anyway, this year the song released by the incumbent winner, Alexandra Burke, is the controversial choice of Hallelujah, first written and recorded by Leonard Cohen somewhere back in the 80s, and has been covered and re-covered umpteen times since in a myriad of different styles.

Cue outrage and indignation from music aficionados everwhere, especially Jeff Buckley fans who launched a reactionary campaign to try to get his version to number 1. Unfortunately, it came runner-up to the X-factor version, at number 2. While Cohen's original lagged behind, way down in the 30s somewhere. Probably because the only thing that version has going for it is the fact that it is the original.

Others who've recorded the song include Rufus wainwright, Allison Kraus, K.D. Lang, John Cale, Imogen Heap, etc.

It's almost too banal to call Buckley's my favourite, because that seems to be the general consensus. At least listening to it again brought me to discover Buckley's album, Grace. Which contains some stuff that borders on being too complex and heartfelt to be listened to at all. "Lover you should've come over" is a gem, mainly for its entrancing and raw nerve lyrics. All very understated. I would recommend.

I have to say I'm also a big fan of the Imogen Heap version, because its so melancholic, and not too polished or sing-songy. Although I felt it was used very inappropriately in that final episode of the O.C. as Mischa Barton lay dying in a pool of blood on the tarmac (Clearly THAT was the moment to use "Forever Young"). As is my beloved who insisted on listening to it on loop for a week after selecting it as his favourite from a choice of 3 - hers, Buckley's, or k.d. Lang's, which is nice but, well, just nice.

But you're not meant to listen to it too often because it's a "classic", apparently. In any case, Buckley's can be listened to forever, whereas Alexandra's I couldn't stick even till the end of the first play. I think it had something to do with the fact that she herself alledgedly confessed to not being too keen on the song. I wouldn't like to think of myself as a pretentious music appreciator but there are some things even I cannot accept.

Money-spinning exploitation of young & innocent/stupid talent aside though, nothing was quite so annoying as hearing Fearne Cotton repeatedly pronouncing the word without its first letter - 'Allelujah, while the chart was announced. Now there is a massacre.