NZ's left wing activists and, dare I say it, many from Muslim cultures, don't like Israel.
I know, I'm pretty good at stating the obvious.
But regarding recent events, I can honestly only conclude that it's complicated. Of course, this op-ed piece from an Israeli offical is also biased, but worth a read. I doubt all the claims made are quite correct, but it only takes a few to put quite a radically different spin on it.
Next time something happens in Israel, or the United States does something, or there's an excuse to 'hate on' the Exclusive Brethren, be ready to laugh sadly at the predictable responses of those who have made a career out of political activism, or whose self-identity is so inextricably bound up with anti-conservative feeling.
And in case you're wondering, yes I do have a solution to the 'problem' of Israel/Palestine, though I didn't make it myself. It's a person; a Palestinian Jew, who hung out with prostitutes, traitors to the Jewish nation and (quite possibly) a Zionist zealot, who criticised the self-righteous religious leaders who were so far from God and the poor; a man who was killed by an uncaring imperial political power a few centuries back, who continues to change lives across radical divides. Accept him into your house and see the difference.
H/T: Maverick Philosopher
Jun 6, 2010
Jun 5, 2010
I've got nothing (he says, pulling out a few hundred [pre-written] words)
A bunch of half-formed blog posts sit in my computer, crouching in the depths somewhere. One day I shall fine-tune them and release them into the wild of the world wide web. For now, I give you this (as kind-of requested) - one of the essays I've submitted to a uni magazine recently. You may recognize some of the material. It's not pretty, as I wrote it exceptionally quickly (still took at least 90mins I think; idk how quick 'quick' is for others) at the request of the editor, but was, strangely enough, rejected. Below, in mini-green is another apologetic I've written. While it is likely I fail, I aim solely to please. Re-reading them I find various flaws, but if these are really that terrible, perhaps you'll be more impressed by a more subtle apologetic I handed in for my Phil of Science class, rather surprisingly gaining my highest essay mark yet. Maybe not quoting the Bible helped; though I thought Richard Swinburne would be close enough.. I'll post that in a while once I've worked out if it's allowed and if I am in fact that proud of it.
It’s widely held that NZ doesn’t have a state church and is pretty secular, unlike the unfortunate few non-religious Americans who constantly have to fight for their non-God-given right to the separation of Church and state. Further, it’s pretty obvious to many in Godzone that God is dead and the Church is following sharp on His tail. It’s less widely known that most of this is oh-so disputable.
New Zealand has more secular influence in its short history than many countries, perhaps particularly clear given the short nature of our history; but owes much to Christianity as well. Aside from the fact that modern secularism is so often a parody of Christianity and even Richard Dawkins, recent visitor to our shores, has described himself as a “cultural Christian” who “likes singing carols”, it seems NZ owes something to Jesus. More than one thing in fact. The gospel arrived in New Zealand in 1814 with the preaching and vineyard-growing of Samuel Marsden, in the Bay of Islands. Many Māori over the next few decades decided that this message was worth living by and churches have been hubs for communities of many cultures ever since. While for certain there have been horrendous mistakes made, missionaries played an important role in promoting good relations between settlers and Tāngata Whenua and organising the Treaty of Waitangi.
New Zealand’s head of state is the Queen. She happens to also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but apparently these roles are separable such that NZ doesn’t technically have an established Church. Less easy to separate out is the fact that the head of state of England, and hence New Zealand, must by law be a protestant Christian. So, as it stands, there is a technical legal detail or two which gives recognition to Christianity. But more fundamentally, the legal tradition we have inherited has been based pretty squarely upon biblical concepts. The much-bashed puritans in England and Christians before and since generally attempted to make laws that accorded to God’s will as they saw it. Obviously modern lawmakers often feel no need to agree with Christian ethics, but perhaps this is something to mourn rather than celebrate.
An emphasis on protecting life and defending the weak is difficult to justify on non-religious grounds, but sure as hell it’s useful and when expressed in an abstract way such as this the morality of it is hard to deny. When this is actually applied and the rights and dignity of the weak are asserted in the face of injustice, things can get uncomfortable for those who’d rather they weren’t there. Similarly, sexual ethics may be tremendously funny to students for whom casual sex is so appealing, but some of the consequences of the breakdown of societal norms are also difficult to deny. It may be said here that you don’t have to believe in God to be good and anyway, look at all the ratbags who proudly wear the descriptor ‘Christian’! Yet, as true as this is and even if we accept that selfless sacrificial giving is just as likely regardless of what you believe, morality and newly-popular ‘human rights’ are at best difficult to ground sans God. If we are to leave Him behind, it would at least be honest to acknowledge any consequences.
Have we as a nation left God in our dust though, as we progress into a better scientific future, as some are fond to pontificate? Nominal religious belief has proven hard to shake, with around half still “Christian” of one kind or another in the 2006 census. And Christian practice continues day in, day out; churches are planted and revived; some die, but life continues. Education does not eliminate faith and in some cases such as my own, it strengthens it and undergirds it with more evidence and an increased awareness of the nature of the world and the God who made it and even, dare I say it, redeemed it from the mess we’ve so proudly caused. There are many ‘Weltanschauung’ options out there, fighting it out for our allegiance. Some come with better credentials and a brighter future than an irrational rationalism or Enlightenment devoid of luminescence.
The legal separation of Church and state has its uses for the Church and for truth, but the entire separation of religion and faith from reality and the public sphere would be rather unfortunate. A naive conception of faith is also unfortunate, given the long Christian tradition of careful reasoning and educational striving that we can claim a heritage to if we so wished. God continues to exist whatever our attitude and we as a country should be better informed than to make the popular assumption that God is just another created imaginary creature that we could dispose of along with the Pope’s hat.
“It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much a subject of inquiry; but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat it as if, in the present age, this were an agreed point among all people of discernment; and nothing remained, but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals, for its having so long interrupted the pleasures of the world.” Anglican minister Joseph Butler.
Many people nowadays aren’t too sure what Christianity is, but they’re pretty sure that it’s wrong. I’m curious about this. Maybe you’re just a little curious too about what Christianity, the world’s biggest religion, is actually about. How could this gigantic old-fashioned network of institutions be of relevance, interest or use at New Zealand’s most prestigious university? Since tertiary education is meant to involve thinking about things that students won’t necessarily instinctively agree with, the question at least might deserve a place here.
Christianity is about Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth, is, it is claimed, the Messiah, the saviour, spoken about by the Hebrew prophets and awaited by the Jewish people. There are many bells and whistles and finer points of ecclesiastical order and doctrine which differ between Christians, but one thing all can say together is “Jesus Christ is Lord.” But, why would anyone want to say such a thing? Well, maybe Jesus actually is Lord! Likely enough you think that’s just impossible and that I must suffer from intellectual deficiency, but I think whether the Jesus stuff is true has a lot to do with what Jesus said about himself; who and what he claimed to be, as well as what Christians through the ages have experienced of this extraordinary person. In other words, many Christians can say He is Lord because they really believe that this man Jesus is in charge of the universe and have seen this backed up in their own lives. What a claim!
We may disagree on many things, but if we accept that Jesus Christ walked and talked through the land of Palestine early in the first century we’ll have reason to pause when examining his character, his teachings and the miracles attributed to him. It is instructive to consider as well the nature of his followers and the early church; the people who, after all, wrote the accounts that we have today. These were often relative losers in the game of life – or so it seemed. You can read about the different apostles and others on Wikipedia, I’d just like to comment on Paul of Tarsus as one example. He was a conservative Jew, a Pharisee, and higher up the social and educational scale than most of the people Jesus chose to associate with. Ceteris Paribus, eternal life was in the bag, along with a decent life as a respected member of the God-fearing community; perhaps he could even be a Rabbi (he was, after all, a pupil of the famous teacher Gamaliel.) What more could a guy want? After coming across a rebellious blasphemous new sect later to be called Christians, he did what any self-and-God-respecting leader would – he chased them around the country and helped to stone some. The New Atheists may be a slight nuisance to the religious, but Saul knew how to really turn up the heat.
But then, on his way to persecute some more Jesus freaks, he met Jesus. To cut a long story short, he changed his name to Paul, founded a few churches, wrote much of the New Testament and in the end got thanked by the government for his work, Church history indicates, by being beheaded. The apostle Peter was crucified upside down. If nothing else, that indicates commitment. If these people didn’t have the experiences they said they did, their actions could be described as a little unusual. There are stronger terms available too, as *** [publication name replaced by 3 asterisks - I'm not quite sure why, but don't question my motives] readers will be aware. Similar end-of-life situations apply for most of Jesus’ 12 disciples – the ones who continued to claim the Lordship of Jesus in the face of reasonably unpleasant situations. Why put up with this stuff, why sign up in the first place unless they’d seen what they claimed? The Christian message has never been easy to accept. This Lord that we talk about died a shameful death on a cross, with criminals on either side. Yet in dying a shameful death, He took the shame of our failings away and replaced this with a different quality of life. We are vindicated as a result of his death and subsequently He was vindicated, being raised by God from the dead. That sounds implausible perhaps; dead men don’t generally rise again. I guess that’s why the people who saw it decided it was a miracle.
There are many competing views of the world out there. In fact it’s like an illegal fighting league crossed with a playground boasting contest. Each of the competitors makes spectacular claims; they talk after all about the nature of the universe, meaning and existence; but not all are well corroborated by historical evidence or our experience of human nature. Naturalism, for instance, (a number of the cool kids reading this article hold this view) faces some pretty serious philosophical challenges, aside even from the historical arguments hinted at. The origin of the universe is a bit of a blank area and the origin of life is also pretty tricky. Consciousness remains a problem for a strict naturalism and objective morality is a bit of a joke without God, which all bring up some interesting questions I suppose. Key to the whole debate it seems is the realisation that Christians are not atheists with one extra god chucked in – in fact, God makes a world of difference in all kinds of fields and without Him, any naturalistic programme will lack some pretty important solid foundations.
Maybe you’re a practical kind of person. Philosophy is nice for religious people with nothing better to do, but what use is Jesus really? In my own life, the answer is simply “much.” Jesus offers the kind of forgiveness and love that turns people, situations and from there I believe societies, around. It’s intriguing that one of his central messages was “turn around and hear the good news” – for, the good news available can turn your life around; if you’ll let it. One person who found this was William Wilberforce, famous for leading a campaign against slavery and less famous for starting something that would turn into the RSPCA. Believing in Jesus has consequences. Perhaps these aren’t what the ‘New Atheists’ have cracked up over them supposedly being.
Oh and that quote I started with? That was from 1736, well before various intellectual challenges to the church currently in vogue turned up, before archaeological investigation allowed biblical narratives to be checked for accuracy, as well as before the huge evangelical revivals which have, directly and indirectly, had such an impact on so many countries. This impact continues.
It’s widely held that NZ doesn’t have a state church and is pretty secular, unlike the unfortunate few non-religious Americans who constantly have to fight for their non-God-given right to the separation of Church and state. Further, it’s pretty obvious to many in Godzone that God is dead and the Church is following sharp on His tail. It’s less widely known that most of this is oh-so disputable.
New Zealand has more secular influence in its short history than many countries, perhaps particularly clear given the short nature of our history; but owes much to Christianity as well. Aside from the fact that modern secularism is so often a parody of Christianity and even Richard Dawkins, recent visitor to our shores, has described himself as a “cultural Christian” who “likes singing carols”, it seems NZ owes something to Jesus. More than one thing in fact. The gospel arrived in New Zealand in 1814 with the preaching and vineyard-growing of Samuel Marsden, in the Bay of Islands. Many Māori over the next few decades decided that this message was worth living by and churches have been hubs for communities of many cultures ever since. While for certain there have been horrendous mistakes made, missionaries played an important role in promoting good relations between settlers and Tāngata Whenua and organising the Treaty of Waitangi.
New Zealand’s head of state is the Queen. She happens to also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but apparently these roles are separable such that NZ doesn’t technically have an established Church. Less easy to separate out is the fact that the head of state of England, and hence New Zealand, must by law be a protestant Christian. So, as it stands, there is a technical legal detail or two which gives recognition to Christianity. But more fundamentally, the legal tradition we have inherited has been based pretty squarely upon biblical concepts. The much-bashed puritans in England and Christians before and since generally attempted to make laws that accorded to God’s will as they saw it. Obviously modern lawmakers often feel no need to agree with Christian ethics, but perhaps this is something to mourn rather than celebrate.
An emphasis on protecting life and defending the weak is difficult to justify on non-religious grounds, but sure as hell it’s useful and when expressed in an abstract way such as this the morality of it is hard to deny. When this is actually applied and the rights and dignity of the weak are asserted in the face of injustice, things can get uncomfortable for those who’d rather they weren’t there. Similarly, sexual ethics may be tremendously funny to students for whom casual sex is so appealing, but some of the consequences of the breakdown of societal norms are also difficult to deny. It may be said here that you don’t have to believe in God to be good and anyway, look at all the ratbags who proudly wear the descriptor ‘Christian’! Yet, as true as this is and even if we accept that selfless sacrificial giving is just as likely regardless of what you believe, morality and newly-popular ‘human rights’ are at best difficult to ground sans God. If we are to leave Him behind, it would at least be honest to acknowledge any consequences.
Have we as a nation left God in our dust though, as we progress into a better scientific future, as some are fond to pontificate? Nominal religious belief has proven hard to shake, with around half still “Christian” of one kind or another in the 2006 census. And Christian practice continues day in, day out; churches are planted and revived; some die, but life continues. Education does not eliminate faith and in some cases such as my own, it strengthens it and undergirds it with more evidence and an increased awareness of the nature of the world and the God who made it and even, dare I say it, redeemed it from the mess we’ve so proudly caused. There are many ‘Weltanschauung’ options out there, fighting it out for our allegiance. Some come with better credentials and a brighter future than an irrational rationalism or Enlightenment devoid of luminescence.
The legal separation of Church and state has its uses for the Church and for truth, but the entire separation of religion and faith from reality and the public sphere would be rather unfortunate. A naive conception of faith is also unfortunate, given the long Christian tradition of careful reasoning and educational striving that we can claim a heritage to if we so wished. God continues to exist whatever our attitude and we as a country should be better informed than to make the popular assumption that God is just another created imaginary creature that we could dispose of along with the Pope’s hat.
“It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much a subject of inquiry; but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat it as if, in the present age, this were an agreed point among all people of discernment; and nothing remained, but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals, for its having so long interrupted the pleasures of the world.” Anglican minister Joseph Butler.
Many people nowadays aren’t too sure what Christianity is, but they’re pretty sure that it’s wrong. I’m curious about this. Maybe you’re just a little curious too about what Christianity, the world’s biggest religion, is actually about. How could this gigantic old-fashioned network of institutions be of relevance, interest or use at New Zealand’s most prestigious university? Since tertiary education is meant to involve thinking about things that students won’t necessarily instinctively agree with, the question at least might deserve a place here.
Christianity is about Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth, is, it is claimed, the Messiah, the saviour, spoken about by the Hebrew prophets and awaited by the Jewish people. There are many bells and whistles and finer points of ecclesiastical order and doctrine which differ between Christians, but one thing all can say together is “Jesus Christ is Lord.” But, why would anyone want to say such a thing? Well, maybe Jesus actually is Lord! Likely enough you think that’s just impossible and that I must suffer from intellectual deficiency, but I think whether the Jesus stuff is true has a lot to do with what Jesus said about himself; who and what he claimed to be, as well as what Christians through the ages have experienced of this extraordinary person. In other words, many Christians can say He is Lord because they really believe that this man Jesus is in charge of the universe and have seen this backed up in their own lives. What a claim!
We may disagree on many things, but if we accept that Jesus Christ walked and talked through the land of Palestine early in the first century we’ll have reason to pause when examining his character, his teachings and the miracles attributed to him. It is instructive to consider as well the nature of his followers and the early church; the people who, after all, wrote the accounts that we have today. These were often relative losers in the game of life – or so it seemed. You can read about the different apostles and others on Wikipedia, I’d just like to comment on Paul of Tarsus as one example. He was a conservative Jew, a Pharisee, and higher up the social and educational scale than most of the people Jesus chose to associate with. Ceteris Paribus, eternal life was in the bag, along with a decent life as a respected member of the God-fearing community; perhaps he could even be a Rabbi (he was, after all, a pupil of the famous teacher Gamaliel.) What more could a guy want? After coming across a rebellious blasphemous new sect later to be called Christians, he did what any self-and-God-respecting leader would – he chased them around the country and helped to stone some. The New Atheists may be a slight nuisance to the religious, but Saul knew how to really turn up the heat.
But then, on his way to persecute some more Jesus freaks, he met Jesus. To cut a long story short, he changed his name to Paul, founded a few churches, wrote much of the New Testament and in the end got thanked by the government for his work, Church history indicates, by being beheaded. The apostle Peter was crucified upside down. If nothing else, that indicates commitment. If these people didn’t have the experiences they said they did, their actions could be described as a little unusual. There are stronger terms available too, as *** [publication name replaced by 3 asterisks - I'm not quite sure why, but don't question my motives] readers will be aware. Similar end-of-life situations apply for most of Jesus’ 12 disciples – the ones who continued to claim the Lordship of Jesus in the face of reasonably unpleasant situations. Why put up with this stuff, why sign up in the first place unless they’d seen what they claimed? The Christian message has never been easy to accept. This Lord that we talk about died a shameful death on a cross, with criminals on either side. Yet in dying a shameful death, He took the shame of our failings away and replaced this with a different quality of life. We are vindicated as a result of his death and subsequently He was vindicated, being raised by God from the dead. That sounds implausible perhaps; dead men don’t generally rise again. I guess that’s why the people who saw it decided it was a miracle.
There are many competing views of the world out there. In fact it’s like an illegal fighting league crossed with a playground boasting contest. Each of the competitors makes spectacular claims; they talk after all about the nature of the universe, meaning and existence; but not all are well corroborated by historical evidence or our experience of human nature. Naturalism, for instance, (a number of the cool kids reading this article hold this view) faces some pretty serious philosophical challenges, aside even from the historical arguments hinted at. The origin of the universe is a bit of a blank area and the origin of life is also pretty tricky. Consciousness remains a problem for a strict naturalism and objective morality is a bit of a joke without God, which all bring up some interesting questions I suppose. Key to the whole debate it seems is the realisation that Christians are not atheists with one extra god chucked in – in fact, God makes a world of difference in all kinds of fields and without Him, any naturalistic programme will lack some pretty important solid foundations.
Maybe you’re a practical kind of person. Philosophy is nice for religious people with nothing better to do, but what use is Jesus really? In my own life, the answer is simply “much.” Jesus offers the kind of forgiveness and love that turns people, situations and from there I believe societies, around. It’s intriguing that one of his central messages was “turn around and hear the good news” – for, the good news available can turn your life around; if you’ll let it. One person who found this was William Wilberforce, famous for leading a campaign against slavery and less famous for starting something that would turn into the RSPCA. Believing in Jesus has consequences. Perhaps these aren’t what the ‘New Atheists’ have cracked up over them supposedly being.
Oh and that quote I started with? That was from 1736, well before various intellectual challenges to the church currently in vogue turned up, before archaeological investigation allowed biblical narratives to be checked for accuracy, as well as before the huge evangelical revivals which have, directly and indirectly, had such an impact on so many countries. This impact continues.
Jun 1, 2010
So, .. you believe in "possibilities"? Well, we believe in possi-BIBLE TEES!
Bible Tees, get your Bible Tees!
Once I invent some slogans for my tees, I might share them with you, my respected readers.
At the moment, I'm thinking keep it simple; random Bible verses, tastefully printed, could cause quite a fashion stir. Taking them out of their context and adding a question mark to the end of the quote could please the Ones Who Know about such things. Watch out World! (no one will have got it, but that was meant to be a reference to World of Warcraft. Yes, I know that's strange).
But, for now:
**for everyone:
1) Goliath says: "Don't get stoned (by) kids"
**for the girls:
2) Jael, Heber's wife says: "Wanna go camping?"
(Judges 4:21) I just love the last sentence of that vs in the KJV at least. "So he died." You don't say?
**for the guys:
3) [TBA]
Once I invent some slogans for my tees, I might share them with you, my respected readers.
At the moment, I'm thinking keep it simple; random Bible verses, tastefully printed, could cause quite a fashion stir. Taking them out of their context and adding a question mark to the end of the quote could please the Ones Who Know about such things. Watch out World! (no one will have got it, but that was meant to be a reference to World of Warcraft. Yes, I know that's strange).
But, for now:
**for everyone:
1) Goliath says: "Don't get stoned (by) kids"
**for the girls:
2) Jael, Heber's wife says: "Wanna go camping?"
(Judges 4:21) I just love the last sentence of that vs in the KJV at least. "So he died." You don't say?
**for the guys:
3) [TBA]
May 30, 2010
Two kids die. Who cares?
No doubt you're aware of the 16 year old from (arguably) Auckland's most prestigious school (I'm an Anglican and that other, state, one is just a bit too weird imho, so maybe I'm biased) who became deceased a little while back after drinking a whole bottle of vodka. A ridiculous tragedy if ever there was one. And national news to boot and probably fair enough; people care about this kind of thing. There have been powerful calls to arms: after-balls must be banned! After all, such cases weren't about social outcasts/failures; it could be your beautiful successful kid (or the kid of the guy who owns the media company) next!
But did you hear about the 12 year old kid sleeping under a bridge in Henderson who also died a few weeks ago, of third degree burns inflicted by someone else i.e. who died in excruciating pain, crawling into a creek after being set on fire?
I'm stating the obvious here, but people are more concerned when attractive university students, sports starts, private school successes and the like die (whether through the actions of others or themselves) than when others do.
If you don't find this disturbing, I don't know what to do for you. If you don't know what to do about the pathetic state of New Zealand society, particularly evident if you step away slightly from the comfy centre and spend some time on the fringes, here's a hint; here's a name to consider: Jesus Christ. He knows about losers, he hung out with them; he loves the little people, he loves them today, even the one writing this blog.
But did you hear about the 12 year old kid sleeping under a bridge in Henderson who also died a few weeks ago, of third degree burns inflicted by someone else i.e. who died in excruciating pain, crawling into a creek after being set on fire?
I'm stating the obvious here, but people are more concerned when attractive university students, sports starts, private school successes and the like die (whether through the actions of others or themselves) than when others do.
If you don't find this disturbing, I don't know what to do for you. If you don't know what to do about the pathetic state of New Zealand society, particularly evident if you step away slightly from the comfy centre and spend some time on the fringes, here's a hint; here's a name to consider: Jesus Christ. He knows about losers, he hung out with them; he loves the little people, he loves them today, even the one writing this blog.
May 29, 2010
The days
Are shooting past.
As long as they keep missing,
I’ll be ok, just:
left behind;
wondering where they’ve gone.
So yeah, if you’re liking the blog, read my old posts and pray for new ones.
Pray for better ones; please pray for true ones.
Hey, you can even go and pray for blue ones.
As long as they keep missing,
I’ll be ok, just:
left behind;
wondering where they’ve gone.
So yeah, if you’re liking the blog, read my old posts and pray for new ones.
Pray for better ones; please pray for true ones.
Hey, you can even go and pray for blue ones.
May 24, 2010
Fair Trade
Does buying Fair Trade help coffee producers in the developing world? It would seem to help some of them at least. Perhaps only a minority though?
Maxim Institute sent a link to this in their email a while back. http://www.adamsmith.org/images/pdf/unfair_trade.pdf Skimming it and Maxim Institute's summary of the issue, it is a little concerning. I was going to draw a fancy diagram showing an over-supply of coffee in the world market (as they claim is the case currently), but then I couldn't decide on what the market for Fair Trade coffee would look like, or if I could lump it all into one and just show a bigger over-supply (with the new high price which Fair Trade brands charge).
Intriguing.
From the M.I. email:
The philosophy of fair trade stems from the argument that free market prices are often not high enough to cover production costs, forcing farmers and their families off their land and into poverty. We should therefore pay a higher price for our coffee so that these farmers can maintain their lifestyles with dignity. Using the common example of coffee, fair trade certified coffee farmers are paid a minimum price of US$1.26 per pound whereas the free market price for coffee is around US$0.70 per pound. The intention is great, but the sustainability of this approach is questionable. The price of coffee is low because there is an oversupply in the market. If we then artificially raise the price of coffee to $1.26 per pound, fair trade farmers will continue to oversupply the market with coffee because they know they will receive a good price regardless of demand. Those farmers who do not have fair trade certification will see the price of their coffee dropping even further on the back of an even bigger increase in global supply. This oversupply means human, land, energy and environmental resources are effectively being wasted on producing a product the world doesn't need any more of.There are many farmers who produce their coffee ethically, but they cannot gain fair trade certification for any number of reasonsóthey may be too big, or be situated in an area or country not covered by fair trade. Their produce, lacking a fair trade sticker, may end up being overlooked by many customers. The marketing of fair trade thus becomes misleading and problematic.
Maxim Institute sent a link to this in their email a while back. http://www.adamsmith.org/images/pdf/unfair_trade.pdf Skimming it and Maxim Institute's summary of the issue, it is a little concerning. I was going to draw a fancy diagram showing an over-supply of coffee in the world market (as they claim is the case currently), but then I couldn't decide on what the market for Fair Trade coffee would look like, or if I could lump it all into one and just show a bigger over-supply (with the new high price which Fair Trade brands charge).
Intriguing.
From the M.I. email:
The philosophy of fair trade stems from the argument that free market prices are often not high enough to cover production costs, forcing farmers and their families off their land and into poverty. We should therefore pay a higher price for our coffee so that these farmers can maintain their lifestyles with dignity. Using the common example of coffee, fair trade certified coffee farmers are paid a minimum price of US$1.26 per pound whereas the free market price for coffee is around US$0.70 per pound. The intention is great, but the sustainability of this approach is questionable. The price of coffee is low because there is an oversupply in the market. If we then artificially raise the price of coffee to $1.26 per pound, fair trade farmers will continue to oversupply the market with coffee because they know they will receive a good price regardless of demand. Those farmers who do not have fair trade certification will see the price of their coffee dropping even further on the back of an even bigger increase in global supply. This oversupply means human, land, energy and environmental resources are effectively being wasted on producing a product the world doesn't need any more of.There are many farmers who produce their coffee ethically, but they cannot gain fair trade certification for any number of reasonsóthey may be too big, or be situated in an area or country not covered by fair trade. Their produce, lacking a fair trade sticker, may end up being overlooked by many customers. The marketing of fair trade thus becomes misleading and problematic.
Genesis 1
I intended to write about this sometime, but this might suffice for now in getting the thinking juices doing whatever they do:
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/05/myth-truth-and-genesis-1-11.html
Written by Dr Matt Flannagan.
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/05/myth-truth-and-genesis-1-11.html
Written by Dr Matt Flannagan.
May 23, 2010
I have decided ..
♫ to follow Jesus ♫
etc.
Pure class, no?
But seriously, if I ever was to teach there, or maybe even visit, I would make my 8year old self very proud. I don't think he knew what a university was, but he learnt quickly.
On another side note (hey, it's my blog; you don't like it, you don't read it - oh, oops; too late for you I guess), it's been implied that I'm a bit of a moralist (talking about abortion and .. gasp .. foetuses in almost-public) and not only that, but into apologetics; neither of which are apparently good things. These pastimes tend to drive people away from Jesus and/or distort the gospel, it has also been implied (I paraphrase, in order to, at least potentially, stir things up). Comments on this, or the price of sugar, are most welcome.
etc.
I have also decided on a(nother) major life goal/task/thing!
I MUST get a photo of myself, with a book, in front of the University of Reading.Pure class, no?
But seriously, if I ever was to teach there, or maybe even visit, I would make my 8year old self very proud. I don't think he knew what a university was, but he learnt quickly.On another side note (hey, it's my blog; you don't like it, you don't read it - oh, oops; too late for you I guess), it's been implied that I'm a bit of a moralist (talking about abortion and .. gasp .. foetuses in almost-public) and not only that, but into apologetics; neither of which are apparently good things. These pastimes tend to drive people away from Jesus and/or distort the gospel, it has also been implied (I paraphrase, in order to, at least potentially, stir things up). Comments on this, or the price of sugar, are most welcome.
May 22, 2010
Rabbit
The first person he met was Rabbit. ‘Hallo, Rabbit,’ he said, ‘is that you?’-A. A. Milne, Winnie the Pooh, chapter 8 ... in which Christopher Robin leads an ‘expotition’ to the North Pole
‘Let’s pretend it isn’t,’ said Rabbit, ‘and see what happens.’
(quoted in "Who made God?" - Edgar Andrews, chapter 6)
That is quality humour, friends. Quality. And it can even make you think!
Justice – a conversation
I heard this word
“Justice”
So, yeah; I’ve been thinking.
“What is this?”
Justice.
Is it all about what I am owed
Or what the “I am” knows?
Either / both / neither / please try harder?
Is it social convention, untestable, or like the mist?
Personal creation, yet another western myth;
Or is it just something that somehow just is?
Justice.
Slavery, plane crashes and genetic diseases
How relate these things to my friend Jesus?
Has He something to say about ‘fair trade’
Bioethics, statistics, where cotton is made;
About the way it pleases me to use my days?
In Justice?
And what about the epitomy of kitsch religious ugliness,
that plain wooden Roman cross on a Palestinian hill?
Is that how justice appeared; appeareth it still?
Isn’t it really, in rational, self-determined reality
All pretty much all about me; am I not entirely free?
What is this 'rock', this 'way', this 'light', this 'wine';
Just more metaphors to add to things which are ‘mine’?
How can I give up what I am owed by right; I’ve worked for it!
Actually, no.
Justice
Is, at the core, about the ones you have left out
And; as is most obvious, do not care at all about.
I speak of the lonely, the ugly, the poor, the homeless,
The unborn, the unfriendly, the traitors, the prostitutes.
The stuff you care about is beyond unimportant
And those far from your hearts are close to God’s
Justice.
We’ve messed up, but are unduly confident
In the small things given us. And at such a cost.
Will you live freely? Will I? Will we?
Can you accept His blank cheque and spend it
To befriend those given less who nevertheless love more?
Live well, live to the full;
Walk humbly with God
Love faithfulness
Do justice.
Check out Micah 6 for more.
“Justice”
So, yeah; I’ve been thinking.
“What is this?”
Justice.
Is it all about what I am owed
Or what the “I am” knows?
Either / both / neither / please try harder?
Is it social convention, untestable, or like the mist?
Personal creation, yet another western myth;
Or is it just something that somehow just is?
Justice.
Slavery, plane crashes and genetic diseases
How relate these things to my friend Jesus?
Has He something to say about ‘fair trade’
Bioethics, statistics, where cotton is made;
About the way it pleases me to use my days?
In Justice?
And what about the epitomy of kitsch religious ugliness,
that plain wooden Roman cross on a Palestinian hill?
Is that how justice appeared; appeareth it still?
Isn’t it really, in rational, self-determined reality
All pretty much all about me; am I not entirely free?
What is this 'rock', this 'way', this 'light', this 'wine';
Just more metaphors to add to things which are ‘mine’?
How can I give up what I am owed by right; I’ve worked for it!
Actually, no.
Justice
Is, at the core, about the ones you have left out
And; as is most obvious, do not care at all about.
I speak of the lonely, the ugly, the poor, the homeless,
The unborn, the unfriendly, the traitors, the prostitutes.
The stuff you care about is beyond unimportant
And those far from your hearts are close to God’s
Justice.
We’ve messed up, but are unduly confident
In the small things given us. And at such a cost.
Will you live freely? Will I? Will we?
Can you accept His blank cheque and spend it
To befriend those given less who nevertheless love more?
Live well, live to the full;
Walk humbly with God
Love faithfulness
Do justice.
Check out Micah 6 for more.
May 21, 2010
‘synthetic cell’, 'sell-out of science' or just another story to sell?
The controversial commercialising geneticist Craig Venter [I’d back Francis Collins any day, in a music contest or a genome-sequencing one] has, over the last ~10 years, funded (partly) a multi-million project researching the insertion of synthetically created DNA into bacterial cells from the proceeds of his genome sequencing company. It’s been revealed, to global media frenzy, that after a long process, they’ve achieved what they intended – making a massive strand of DNA and sticking it in a bacterium. It’s slightly more impressive than it sounds. And less impressive than many have made out. A living cell is a complex beast including various interacting 3D structures (including, but not limited to proteins) that we haven't fully characterised yet. The '2D' DNA sequence that codes for this is a little bit easier to create.
Journalists who understand science? Nah, jokes, just a pipe-dream.
Who knows what people will say /are saying this nice little experiment into the limits of human intelligent-design has proved. I can guess that materialists will be happy and take heart in their little wars against God, (though if they’re really sceptical and daring, perhaps they’d take off their rose-tinted glasses once in a while to take a good look at the real world – it’s better than anything they’ve offered. Perhaps I'm attacking a straw man, but is every single thing 'Science' does really a success for atheism?) I’ll be interested to see where the future research into the minimal genetic requirements for a living cell takes Venter’s team. The potential for the production of chemical compounds (including vaccines/drugs) is also interesting. There will be large financial incentives for research in this area I expect, so I hope that doesn’t distort the aims of the project too much, though I also don’t see how it’s much different from similar existent projects in genetic engineering of bacteria. As with GE, caution must be taken with these “new” organisms (the genome of this creature was in fact largely copied; as has been suggested here, it’s arguably a major case of plagiarism (God might be filing suit soon)) and potential differences between synthetic and ‘natural’ DNA (such as (lack of) post-translational modification [e.g. methylation of bases] and any differences/damage in the associated translating machinery) will have to be kept in mind. The processes of deoxyribonucleic acid synthesis used are not perfect, as the fairly high failure rate in this project will demonstrate; so while it’s all pretty cool in a way, let’s not all be overconfident about this step forward in molecular/cell biology.
Interviewed on Campbell Live on the potential ethical consequences of this decision was Prof. Gareth Jones, a structural biologist and ethicist at Otago (incidentally, he’s a self-confessed Christian, so probably ridiculously biased and generally anti-science). It’s worth a listen perhaps.
Journalists who understand science? Nah, jokes, just a pipe-dream.
Who knows what people will say /are saying this nice little experiment into the limits of human intelligent-design has proved. I can guess that materialists will be happy and take heart in their little wars against God, (though if they’re really sceptical and daring, perhaps they’d take off their rose-tinted glasses once in a while to take a good look at the real world – it’s better than anything they’ve offered. Perhaps I'm attacking a straw man, but is every single thing 'Science' does really a success for atheism?) I’ll be interested to see where the future research into the minimal genetic requirements for a living cell takes Venter’s team. The potential for the production of chemical compounds (including vaccines/drugs) is also interesting. There will be large financial incentives for research in this area I expect, so I hope that doesn’t distort the aims of the project too much, though I also don’t see how it’s much different from similar existent projects in genetic engineering of bacteria. As with GE, caution must be taken with these “new” organisms (the genome of this creature was in fact largely copied; as has been suggested here, it’s arguably a major case of plagiarism (God might be filing suit soon)) and potential differences between synthetic and ‘natural’ DNA (such as (lack of) post-translational modification [e.g. methylation of bases] and any differences/damage in the associated translating machinery) will have to be kept in mind. The processes of deoxyribonucleic acid synthesis used are not perfect, as the fairly high failure rate in this project will demonstrate; so while it’s all pretty cool in a way, let’s not all be overconfident about this step forward in molecular/cell biology.
Interviewed on Campbell Live on the potential ethical consequences of this decision was Prof. Gareth Jones, a structural biologist and ethicist at Otago (incidentally, he’s a self-confessed Christian, so probably ridiculously biased and generally anti-science). It’s worth a listen perhaps.
Ultimate Explanations
Recently, some reading has been done on my part, concerning naturalistic explanations of religious belief. Once I've digested the articles I've been sent on the topic and if I can convince myself to postpone other studies, I'll write up my thoughts. I'd like to have something published somewhere with a bit more exposure; maybe Craccum (quite notable for its level of exposure!) or maybe somewhere else.
But, as it was recommended that I start with Dawkins, I did. I was a little surprised at what I found. This is from Chapter 7 of "The God Delusion" (you're welcome to check the ref. if you doubt it; p.168 in my copy of the chapt.) He goes on to recommend Darwinian explanations as 'ultimate' (who would have guessed it?), but note the bolded terms [my emphasis].
Just in case you're a bit slow on the uptake, or not as rabidly in to such things as myself, let's play that old game of "replacing words":
But, as it was recommended that I start with Dawkins, I did. I was a little surprised at what I found. This is from Chapter 7 of "The God Delusion" (you're welcome to check the ref. if you doubt it; p.168 in my copy of the chapt.) He goes on to recommend Darwinian explanations as 'ultimate' (who would have guessed it?), but note the bolded terms [my emphasis].
"… Psychological explanations to the effect that people find some belief agreeable or disagreeable are proximate, not ultimate, explanations.Are you thinking what I’m thinking, B1?
Darwinians make much of this distinction between proximate and ultimate. The proximate explanation for the explosion in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine invokes the sparking plug. The ultimate explanation concerns the purpose for which the explosion was designed: to impel a piston from the cylinder, thereby turning a crankshaft. …”
Just in case you're a bit slow on the uptake, or not as rabidly in to such things as myself, let's play that old game of "replacing words":
The idea that an immaterial purpose counts as an 'ultimate explanation' is something well worth considering. Thanks, mate! [Picture: St. Tom A, courtesy of: you guessed it; Wikipedia]Christians [particularly, it seems, Catholics (Thomists?)] make much of this distinction between proximate and ultimate. The proximate explanation for the explosion which resulted in our universe invokes quantum vacuum fluctuations [or such]. The ultimate explanation concerns the purpose for which the explosion was designed: to produce a life-friendly universe, thereby allowing beings which could have a relationship with God to exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
