We have been hearing a lot about banning the plastic throwaway bag so often handed out by supermarkets. At least one of the tabloid newspapers seems to think they are 'leading the way' but then don't the tabloids all jump on to whatever is the current bandwagon to try and increase their popularity?
I am not interested here in the tabloids however, more in the underlying problem of the single use plastic bag. It cannot be denied that they contribute a lot to our waste stream and thus increase the burden on landfill. They also get into the environment and cause litter and problems for wildlife.
Part of the problem is how people use the bags, not just the bags themselves.
When they were freely given out I tended to use them for bin liners in small bins, for bagging other rubbish before putting it in the wheelie bin, for separating laundry when returning from holiday, for storage of out of season clothing etc. In short I tried to get as much use as possible out of them and in doing so avoided buying other plastic bags to address those needs.
Now I use bags for life for my shopping, which means I need to buy bin liners, bags for storage etc. See the problem - in my case just a shift of bag type.
You also get the people who do see them as single use bags and just dump them. Many of those that spoil the environment are probably just thrown away casually without even being placed in a bin which is why they end up in hedgerows, on beaches, etc. Will the proposed charge for single use bags affect these people? Probably not.
Where a charge has been imposed it is likely to stop responsible people using so many bags - but those bags are the ones less likely to cause problems.
Charging is also a way of increasing the supermarkets profits - we have seen this already with a leading company who by charging for their bags cover all the costs of bag production, previously borne by themselves, and donate only the profits to charity. Thus they increase their own profits - a fact they are rather quiet about!
Could we ban them altogether and insist shoppers either use reusable bags or boxes. This is a possibility but I doubt it would go down well. In the past I have used the trolley liners which did get heavy but you simply lifted them from the trolley to the car and then to the house. Whoops, you must always take your car shopping! The best solution which a now defunct supermarket had was plastic crates - they combined this with self scanning at the point of loading your trolley. Simple checkout procedure but again you needed a car. Reusing cardboard boxes that the goods arrive at the supermarket in was once used but probably waned as goods became more palletised.
What is the solution - I don't know, perhaps my readers have some ideas.
We must also consider the impact upon industry - if we do succeed in significantly reducing bag usage - will the businesses and their employees who make them be able to redeploy their resources without loss of employment?
One final note - everyone goes on about supermarket bags - what about the vast number of charity collection bags that come through our doors every year? Most of these are likely to end up in land fill without even being taken out of their (plastic) wrapper. The solution here is perhaps to just pop a small leaflet through the door inviting people to use their own bag if they have goods to donate. The leaflet can be recycled as paper and maybe we can even reduce the frequency of these calls on our unwanted goods - frequently I have nothing to donate when a bag comes through (and before you comment - I reuse these as rubbish bags also)
Friday, September 30, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Big Brother and 1984
Yesterday we had a protest on the M1 in the area by motorcyclists against proposed new legislation from the EU. This took the form of a peaceful go slow.
They were taking issue with proposed new legislation for motorbikes from the EU. Some of the new legislation makes sense but much of it is a combination of Nanny State and Big Brother. It may also be a sign of things to come.
One element that I think has a grounding in common sense is a proposed requirement for motorcyclists to wear high visibility clothing - something which a reasonable number already do as it helps protect them from other road users who don't see them (it can do nothing for those who don't look unfortunately)
Then it starts getting more controlling - severe restrictions on what changes may be made to the motorbike from it's factory specification. I know bikers like to customise their bikes and I am sure most do so in a perfectly safe and sensible manner - after all they are more at risk than car drivers if something does go wrong. We also have the MOT test to oversee vehicle safety.
The most worring element as far as I am concerned is the planned requirement for all new bikes to be fitted with a GPS tracker to record the details of all the bikes journeys. I don't recall whether the plans were for this requirement to be retrofitted to existing bikes but if not now, then I am sure it will be.
This would then open the way for the legislators to expand the scope to cover all motor vehicles.
Once this has been done, what would the data be used for. If only to provide an impartial witness in the event of an accident by recording what happened in the run up to the accident then that seems fine. But in reality we know that the information will be used for more than that. What is more with a number of high profile data losses by public bodies, you can never be sure who will get hold of the data. Or in times of financial hardship, who the data will be sold to!
Even for accident analysis I would be concerned. Without expensive additional components (and services that as yet may not be available everywhere) a GPS derived position is not accurate enough to determine whether a biker was on the correct side of the road for example. Use in Germany of GPS for road tolls has resulted in errors whereby drivers have been charged for being on a toll road when in fact they were on an adjacent local road.
Where will this end? Maybe we should all have RFID tracking chips fitted now and the government can be sure where we all are at all times, even when we are not using our vehicles!
They were taking issue with proposed new legislation for motorbikes from the EU. Some of the new legislation makes sense but much of it is a combination of Nanny State and Big Brother. It may also be a sign of things to come.
One element that I think has a grounding in common sense is a proposed requirement for motorcyclists to wear high visibility clothing - something which a reasonable number already do as it helps protect them from other road users who don't see them (it can do nothing for those who don't look unfortunately)
Then it starts getting more controlling - severe restrictions on what changes may be made to the motorbike from it's factory specification. I know bikers like to customise their bikes and I am sure most do so in a perfectly safe and sensible manner - after all they are more at risk than car drivers if something does go wrong. We also have the MOT test to oversee vehicle safety.
The most worring element as far as I am concerned is the planned requirement for all new bikes to be fitted with a GPS tracker to record the details of all the bikes journeys. I don't recall whether the plans were for this requirement to be retrofitted to existing bikes but if not now, then I am sure it will be.
This would then open the way for the legislators to expand the scope to cover all motor vehicles.
Once this has been done, what would the data be used for. If only to provide an impartial witness in the event of an accident by recording what happened in the run up to the accident then that seems fine. But in reality we know that the information will be used for more than that. What is more with a number of high profile data losses by public bodies, you can never be sure who will get hold of the data. Or in times of financial hardship, who the data will be sold to!
Even for accident analysis I would be concerned. Without expensive additional components (and services that as yet may not be available everywhere) a GPS derived position is not accurate enough to determine whether a biker was on the correct side of the road for example. Use in Germany of GPS for road tolls has resulted in errors whereby drivers have been charged for being on a toll road when in fact they were on an adjacent local road.
Where will this end? Maybe we should all have RFID tracking chips fitted now and the government can be sure where we all are at all times, even when we are not using our vehicles!
Industry managed by the Church?
Last week the Archbishop of Canterbury visited Derbyshire. As part of his visit he came to Derby.
During the visit to Derby he once more crossed the line and gave evidence of the Church meddling outside it's remit. He chose to stir up the Bombardier issue yet again.
We have had the initial outcry when Bombardier learned they had lost the Thameslink contract, this was perfectly understandable given the impact it would have on the area and the country.
I don't believe any of us know the full details of why the contract was not awarded locally so cannot speculate further on this.
Since then we have had the unions demanding that the tender process effectively be rerun, local councillors making the same demands (using our money to support the unions as well) and now we have the Archbishop of Canterbury throwing his oar in.
I am an atheist and some of you will think that this is my only reason for being annoyed at this. However I believe that many religious believers will also see that it is wrong for the Church to get involved in matters of industry and politics.
There is no reason to believe that the Archbishop has any more understanding than anyone else of why the contract was awarded to Siemens and I doubt that his god instructed him to campaign on the matter.
Many atheists and religious people alike believe as I do that Church and State should be separate. It will allow each to do what they are best at unhindered by outside interference. I was unable to attend the recent march for a Secular Europe but I fully support the ideal.
Where would this intereference end, would the Chruch become like the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and issue rulings on any business deals they were unhappy with? Maybe they would call for pubs to be closed on Sundays to respect the Sabbath (and Saturday to respect those of other faiths).
It must stop and it must stop NOW.
During the visit to Derby he once more crossed the line and gave evidence of the Church meddling outside it's remit. He chose to stir up the Bombardier issue yet again.
We have had the initial outcry when Bombardier learned they had lost the Thameslink contract, this was perfectly understandable given the impact it would have on the area and the country.
I don't believe any of us know the full details of why the contract was not awarded locally so cannot speculate further on this.
Since then we have had the unions demanding that the tender process effectively be rerun, local councillors making the same demands (using our money to support the unions as well) and now we have the Archbishop of Canterbury throwing his oar in.
I am an atheist and some of you will think that this is my only reason for being annoyed at this. However I believe that many religious believers will also see that it is wrong for the Church to get involved in matters of industry and politics.
There is no reason to believe that the Archbishop has any more understanding than anyone else of why the contract was awarded to Siemens and I doubt that his god instructed him to campaign on the matter.
Many atheists and religious people alike believe as I do that Church and State should be separate. It will allow each to do what they are best at unhindered by outside interference. I was unable to attend the recent march for a Secular Europe but I fully support the ideal.
Where would this intereference end, would the Chruch become like the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and issue rulings on any business deals they were unhappy with? Maybe they would call for pubs to be closed on Sundays to respect the Sabbath (and Saturday to respect those of other faiths).
It must stop and it must stop NOW.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
A Proper British Chip Shop
Recently while on holiday near Weymouth I decided to visit the sights of Weymouth.
This can be quite exhausting if you walk between them - the Park and Ride is far better than taking your car into the town centre with it's limited, expensive parking.
As a result, with lunchtime arriving it was time to search for food and a rest.
Both requirements were satisfied with a stop at the King Edward's Fish and Chips takeaway and restaurant. In need of a sit down I decided to eat in the restaurant and have to say I was very impressed and would recommend it to others.
The restaurant was clean and inviting and the staff welcoming. Service was efficient and the food I had - Haddock and Chips - was freshly prepared and very tasty.
I have no connection with the establishment other than as a happy customer. Judging by the number of customers it is a popular place and I certainly felt that everyone I saw seemed as happy as I was with the experience.
I may be a curmudgeon, but there are times when you have to be positive, and I am pleased to be able to recommend this eatery. It can be found where King Edward's Road meets the Esplanade.
Enjoy
This can be quite exhausting if you walk between them - the Park and Ride is far better than taking your car into the town centre with it's limited, expensive parking.
As a result, with lunchtime arriving it was time to search for food and a rest.
Both requirements were satisfied with a stop at the King Edward's Fish and Chips takeaway and restaurant. In need of a sit down I decided to eat in the restaurant and have to say I was very impressed and would recommend it to others.
The restaurant was clean and inviting and the staff welcoming. Service was efficient and the food I had - Haddock and Chips - was freshly prepared and very tasty.
I have no connection with the establishment other than as a happy customer. Judging by the number of customers it is a popular place and I certainly felt that everyone I saw seemed as happy as I was with the experience.
I may be a curmudgeon, but there are times when you have to be positive, and I am pleased to be able to recommend this eatery. It can be found where King Edward's Road meets the Esplanade.
Enjoy
The Nanny State
It appears that once again our government are meddling where they aren't needed and won't have any beneficial effect.
This time it is an attempt to reduce the salt in our diets.
Some time ago we read of a council which tried to reduce salt consumption by insisting that takeaway food shops, primarily fish and chips, only had salt cellars with a reduced number of holes as opposed to those with many holes commonly used.
I doubt that had any effect, people would just shake longer to get the amount of salt they wanted, and very much doubt anyone from the council measured whether there was any benefit.
This time it is being tackled at government level with instructions to manufacturers to reduce salt levels in food stuffs, bacon being a prime example. Not only is salt a flavouring it is also a preservative. We therefore risk having products that neither taste as good or last as long!
This has already been demonstrated with HP Sauce. This already had a lower salt version available for those who choose to reduce their salt intake, but the government insisted the salt level in the standard version was reduced - to the disgust of lovers of the sauce. It is not as if the changed level will have a significant effect anyway - a reduction of a fraction of a gram in one hundred grams of product translates into a minuscule amount when you consider how little sauce is consumed in any one meal.
What is happening here is that the public are not being given the choice of taking the existing low salt version if they wish, but being forced to have a low salt version.
What next? Perhaps we will be told that plain crisps should be just that, no salt at all. Then we can extend it across the rest of the crisp range - for example it will perhaps just be vinegar crisps!
Salt sales in shops will also have to be banned - or maybe put on ration coupons to prevent individuals getting too much.
The reality is that if people want salt with their food they will have salt with their food, whether this be as a constituent or an addition they make at home.
Some of my examples above are extreme and ridiculous - or are they?
This time it is an attempt to reduce the salt in our diets.
Some time ago we read of a council which tried to reduce salt consumption by insisting that takeaway food shops, primarily fish and chips, only had salt cellars with a reduced number of holes as opposed to those with many holes commonly used.
I doubt that had any effect, people would just shake longer to get the amount of salt they wanted, and very much doubt anyone from the council measured whether there was any benefit.
This time it is being tackled at government level with instructions to manufacturers to reduce salt levels in food stuffs, bacon being a prime example. Not only is salt a flavouring it is also a preservative. We therefore risk having products that neither taste as good or last as long!
This has already been demonstrated with HP Sauce. This already had a lower salt version available for those who choose to reduce their salt intake, but the government insisted the salt level in the standard version was reduced - to the disgust of lovers of the sauce. It is not as if the changed level will have a significant effect anyway - a reduction of a fraction of a gram in one hundred grams of product translates into a minuscule amount when you consider how little sauce is consumed in any one meal.
What is happening here is that the public are not being given the choice of taking the existing low salt version if they wish, but being forced to have a low salt version.
What next? Perhaps we will be told that plain crisps should be just that, no salt at all. Then we can extend it across the rest of the crisp range - for example it will perhaps just be vinegar crisps!
Salt sales in shops will also have to be banned - or maybe put on ration coupons to prevent individuals getting too much.
The reality is that if people want salt with their food they will have salt with their food, whether this be as a constituent or an addition they make at home.
Some of my examples above are extreme and ridiculous - or are they?
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Always Read the Small Print
A cautionary tale - in this case involving the solar energy industry but applicable to all contracts. It happened to a colleague of my wife recently.
It all started off innocently enough with a sales call from a firm offering to install solar PV on their house for free. Sounds a reasonable deal so they invited the company to send someone round to discuss the proposal and carry out the necessary survey.
There are two ways of installing solar PV to generate electricity:
Pay for an installation and it's ongoing maintenance yourself. This way you should benefit from reduced electricity bills (depending upon how much power you use when the sun is shining) and you get the government feed in tariff for the power you generate.
Alternatively, and this is the option here, a company installs the solar panels at their expense and also maintains them. This way you don't own the panels and basically you gain from reducing your electricity bill. To pay for the installation the company that installed the system gets the revenue from the government feed in tariff.
After the survey, the company announced that the roof was suitable and came back with a figure of how much the cost savings would be. They also reported that the roof might need strengthening to handle the weight of the panels and they would send a specialist around to investigate. My understanding is that this is quite common as roofs were only ever designed to be that - and not to bolt a considerable weight of solar panels on as well (remember this is above the tiles and not instead of).
This investigation showed that the roof would need strengthening at a cost of £4,000. The householder gave the go ahead and the work was carried out.
This is where the problems started. The company who had carried out the work on the roof presented the housholder with the bill. They had assumed that this was part of the 'free' installation so suggested the roofing firm sent the bill to the solar panel company, who to their surprise rejected it.
My wife's colleague has now drafted in legal help to go through the signed contract with the solar company to see if there is any clause stating they would pay ALL costs, not just the installation costs. They felt they were given to understand that 'free installation' covered all costs associated. In reality I think that 'free installation' just covers a standard PV installation without any associated work. They may even charge more if the existing electricity supply is difficult to connect into.
As yet they have not gone ahead with the solar PV installation whilst this dispute is under way. To rub salt in the wound the solar PV company have now come back and suggested their original savings figure may have been somewhat optimistic and actual benefits may be somewhat less!
The matter may well end up in legal proceedings so I will not name the company - I believe however that with many companies joining the 'gold rush' for solar PV installations this may well not be an isolated incident with just them anyway.
A final thought on this type of solar PV installation. You are signing up for twenty five years - if you wish to sell your house the new buyer must agree to the same terms, namely giving up their right to the feed in tariff income. This has probably not yet been tested in the housing market but it may be a disincentive to prospective buyers.
Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware. Always read the small print and take legal advice if you don't understand it. It may cost in the short term but the savings could be massive.
It all started off innocently enough with a sales call from a firm offering to install solar PV on their house for free. Sounds a reasonable deal so they invited the company to send someone round to discuss the proposal and carry out the necessary survey.
There are two ways of installing solar PV to generate electricity:
Pay for an installation and it's ongoing maintenance yourself. This way you should benefit from reduced electricity bills (depending upon how much power you use when the sun is shining) and you get the government feed in tariff for the power you generate.
Alternatively, and this is the option here, a company installs the solar panels at their expense and also maintains them. This way you don't own the panels and basically you gain from reducing your electricity bill. To pay for the installation the company that installed the system gets the revenue from the government feed in tariff.
After the survey, the company announced that the roof was suitable and came back with a figure of how much the cost savings would be. They also reported that the roof might need strengthening to handle the weight of the panels and they would send a specialist around to investigate. My understanding is that this is quite common as roofs were only ever designed to be that - and not to bolt a considerable weight of solar panels on as well (remember this is above the tiles and not instead of).
This investigation showed that the roof would need strengthening at a cost of £4,000. The householder gave the go ahead and the work was carried out.
This is where the problems started. The company who had carried out the work on the roof presented the housholder with the bill. They had assumed that this was part of the 'free' installation so suggested the roofing firm sent the bill to the solar panel company, who to their surprise rejected it.
My wife's colleague has now drafted in legal help to go through the signed contract with the solar company to see if there is any clause stating they would pay ALL costs, not just the installation costs. They felt they were given to understand that 'free installation' covered all costs associated. In reality I think that 'free installation' just covers a standard PV installation without any associated work. They may even charge more if the existing electricity supply is difficult to connect into.
As yet they have not gone ahead with the solar PV installation whilst this dispute is under way. To rub salt in the wound the solar PV company have now come back and suggested their original savings figure may have been somewhat optimistic and actual benefits may be somewhat less!
The matter may well end up in legal proceedings so I will not name the company - I believe however that with many companies joining the 'gold rush' for solar PV installations this may well not be an isolated incident with just them anyway.
A final thought on this type of solar PV installation. You are signing up for twenty five years - if you wish to sell your house the new buyer must agree to the same terms, namely giving up their right to the feed in tariff income. This has probably not yet been tested in the housing market but it may be a disincentive to prospective buyers.
Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware. Always read the small print and take legal advice if you don't understand it. It may cost in the short term but the savings could be massive.
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Highwaymen Strike Again
Yesterday a stretch of road I regularly use was closed all day for repairs. Nothing new there and indeed the surface was badly cracked and contained many potholes of varying depth. Repairs were long overdue. As a cyclist I found the road very bad to ride along.
Having closed the whole road, in both directions you would expect the highways team to arrive, strip back the road surface, make any necessary deeper repairs and then resurface the road.
But no, it seems that some of the potholes were clearly not important enough to fix, similarly some of the cracks in the surface. What was actually done was selected areas of the road, probably between eighty and ninety percent of the surface, were stripped back and resurfaced. This left a patchwork quilt of unrepaired areas. Had these been pristine road surface then I could have understood the logic, save money perhaps, but no.
It may even not have saved any money, because I think the job would have taken less time and manpower if the whole stretch had been resurfaced rather than doing a patchwork job which then involved selectively cutting out areas.
What we are left with therefore is a road that is good in parts, but where the unrepaired areas will have to be done as a separate job. I am no expert but I also suspect that the joins may well be a weak area which could soon allow water in and start the cracking process all over again.
And just to add insult to (potential) injury, in some areas the strip either side of the centre line has been repaired but the areas where cyclists and motorbike riders will ride has been left unrepaired.
I will report back when the next round of repairs on this road is undertaken.
And our councils wonder why they are struggling financially!
Having closed the whole road, in both directions you would expect the highways team to arrive, strip back the road surface, make any necessary deeper repairs and then resurface the road.
But no, it seems that some of the potholes were clearly not important enough to fix, similarly some of the cracks in the surface. What was actually done was selected areas of the road, probably between eighty and ninety percent of the surface, were stripped back and resurfaced. This left a patchwork quilt of unrepaired areas. Had these been pristine road surface then I could have understood the logic, save money perhaps, but no.
It may even not have saved any money, because I think the job would have taken less time and manpower if the whole stretch had been resurfaced rather than doing a patchwork job which then involved selectively cutting out areas.
What we are left with therefore is a road that is good in parts, but where the unrepaired areas will have to be done as a separate job. I am no expert but I also suspect that the joins may well be a weak area which could soon allow water in and start the cracking process all over again.
And just to add insult to (potential) injury, in some areas the strip either side of the centre line has been repaired but the areas where cyclists and motorbike riders will ride has been left unrepaired.
I will report back when the next round of repairs on this road is undertaken.
And our councils wonder why they are struggling financially!
Con the Customer
A certain well known supermarket, as part of it's health and environment plan, pledges to reduce salt in their foods.
This is widely advertised in their stores and on their website, as well as in the downloaded documents they provide. They claim to be reducing salt in their foods, ahead of government guidelines.
So you may think that if you buy their own brand foods you will get a low salt product. Yes?
No actually, in fact in a recent survey of bread they came out in the worst five prepackaged breads for salt content. A couple of sandwiches (without spread or filling, some sandwich) could use as much as one third of the guideline maximum salt intake for an adult.
I happened to find that we had a pack of this in our larder, and guess what - the report is correct.
Back to reading the label and not believing the advertising!
Caveat Emptor
This is widely advertised in their stores and on their website, as well as in the downloaded documents they provide. They claim to be reducing salt in their foods, ahead of government guidelines.
So you may think that if you buy their own brand foods you will get a low salt product. Yes?
No actually, in fact in a recent survey of bread they came out in the worst five prepackaged breads for salt content. A couple of sandwiches (without spread or filling, some sandwich) could use as much as one third of the guideline maximum salt intake for an adult.
I happened to find that we had a pack of this in our larder, and guess what - the report is correct.
Back to reading the label and not believing the advertising!
Caveat Emptor
Thursday, September 1, 2011
My Freedom from Religion
Like many people, I started out life labelled by my parents' religion. Through time I have come to question this and am now free from religion. Let me run through the key stages:
When I was born I was christened by my parents and of course as a baby had no say in this. This meant I was now officially a Christian by paperwork. As Richard Dawkins would correctly say, I should have been identified as the child of Christian parents rather than a Christian child.
Time went by and I attended church most Sundays with my family.
When I got to about fourteen I was sent by my parents to 'confirmation classes'. These were run by the local vicar and seemed in hindsight to be basically a form of indoctrination. I wasn't keen but it was made clear that this was the done thing and at the end of the process I would be Confirmed in the church. I suppose it was out of respect for my parents that I went through with this but I wouldn't class myself as a true believer event then.
Over the next few years I didn't think much about religion, and only attended church for the usual events of births, marriages and deaths - certainly not a regular Sunday service goer by any means.
The time came when I wanted to get married. Obviously it was expected by both sets of parents that we would marry in church. I was by then fairly well agnostic but felt it was important to celebrate our wedding in front of family and friends in a very positive ceremony which I felt a registry office wedding would not give.
After marrying, neither my wife or I were regular church goers - again the usual round of BMD to attend but otherwise nothing.
During these years I started to think more about religion, and the more I thought about it the more I decided that I had no belief at all in it.
There were too many questions that were unanswered by religion, with the usual reply 'it just is' or 'the bible tells us this' Added to that I was finding more contradictions in religious teachings and writings. Finally there were the massive discrepancies between what religion teaches and known scientific evidence.
Faced with all of this I decided it was time to finally decide I was an atheist. I watched a Richard Dawkins series on Channel Four and this highlighted even more issues that convinced me. I also read his book 'The God Delusion' which reinforced my decision. Subsequently I have read other books by the so called 'Four Horsemen': Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris. Unlike the bible they don't ell me what to think, but give me a starting point and ASK me to think.
At this time I was in correspondence with a friend who would label herself as a devout Christian. We did a book reading exchange whereby I asked her to read 'The God Delusion' and she selected parts of the bible for me to read, including the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John amongst other sections.
After doing so, she reported that reading Dawkins had merely confirmed her views, but without explanation why. I asked her some questions and raised some issues about the sections I had read but got the 'it just is' response and better still, 'we mustn't try and understand that in today's world' - surely a cop out.
So here I am now, an Atheist (or should that be atheist?) I respect other people's rights to believe in their god or gods and hope they respect my right to believe there are no gods.
To quote Ricky Gervais 'If God exists, why did he make me an atheist?'
Need I say more?
When I was born I was christened by my parents and of course as a baby had no say in this. This meant I was now officially a Christian by paperwork. As Richard Dawkins would correctly say, I should have been identified as the child of Christian parents rather than a Christian child.
Time went by and I attended church most Sundays with my family.
When I got to about fourteen I was sent by my parents to 'confirmation classes'. These were run by the local vicar and seemed in hindsight to be basically a form of indoctrination. I wasn't keen but it was made clear that this was the done thing and at the end of the process I would be Confirmed in the church. I suppose it was out of respect for my parents that I went through with this but I wouldn't class myself as a true believer event then.
Over the next few years I didn't think much about religion, and only attended church for the usual events of births, marriages and deaths - certainly not a regular Sunday service goer by any means.
The time came when I wanted to get married. Obviously it was expected by both sets of parents that we would marry in church. I was by then fairly well agnostic but felt it was important to celebrate our wedding in front of family and friends in a very positive ceremony which I felt a registry office wedding would not give.
After marrying, neither my wife or I were regular church goers - again the usual round of BMD to attend but otherwise nothing.
During these years I started to think more about religion, and the more I thought about it the more I decided that I had no belief at all in it.
There were too many questions that were unanswered by religion, with the usual reply 'it just is' or 'the bible tells us this' Added to that I was finding more contradictions in religious teachings and writings. Finally there were the massive discrepancies between what religion teaches and known scientific evidence.
Faced with all of this I decided it was time to finally decide I was an atheist. I watched a Richard Dawkins series on Channel Four and this highlighted even more issues that convinced me. I also read his book 'The God Delusion' which reinforced my decision. Subsequently I have read other books by the so called 'Four Horsemen': Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris. Unlike the bible they don't ell me what to think, but give me a starting point and ASK me to think.
At this time I was in correspondence with a friend who would label herself as a devout Christian. We did a book reading exchange whereby I asked her to read 'The God Delusion' and she selected parts of the bible for me to read, including the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John amongst other sections.
After doing so, she reported that reading Dawkins had merely confirmed her views, but without explanation why. I asked her some questions and raised some issues about the sections I had read but got the 'it just is' response and better still, 'we mustn't try and understand that in today's world' - surely a cop out.
So here I am now, an Atheist (or should that be atheist?) I respect other people's rights to believe in their god or gods and hope they respect my right to believe there are no gods.
To quote Ricky Gervais 'If God exists, why did he make me an atheist?'
Need I say more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)