Cartoon Time.

Christian agency abandons 'abstinence' strategy over HIV -23/03/06

From Ekklesia

Christian Aid has said that it is moving to a new approach to tackling HIV which moves away from an emphasis on 'abstinence'. The doctrine of 'ABC' has long been used as shorthand by many HIV non-governmental organisations as the foundation of comprehensive HIV prevention programmes. The ‘ABC’ stands for ‘Abstinence; Be faithful; and use Condoms.’ It has been presented as: abstain; if you can’t abstain, then be faithful; and if you can’t be faithful, then use a condom.

Recently, at a Christian Aid conference involving its HIV partners from around the world, Christian Aid says that it became aware of problems implicit in the ABC approach. The Christian agency suggests that some of the messages given to mitigate the spread of HIV have had the unfortunate consequence of adding to the stigma surrounding it, and that 'ABC' is one such message. "ABC as a theory is not well suited to the complexities of human life. If you or your partner have been tested positive for HIV and still have unprotected sexual intercourse, then this puts the other person at risk of HIV infection" a statement from Christian Aid says.

"While abstinence may be appropriate at some stages of life, faithfulness is for many people the preferred choice, but unfortunately is not a guarantee against infection. According to these definitions, the use of a condom automatically puts a person in the category of one who can not be faithful or does not want to abstain. This fuels stigma and precludes safer sexual practices." Christian Aid partner ANERELA+ (the African Network of Religious Leaders Living with or personally affected by HIV and AIDS) has developed a new model for a comprehensive HIV response, called 'SAVE' which emphasises; 'Safer practices', 'Available medications', 'Voluntary counselling and testing' (VCT) and 'Empowerment through education'. In discussions with its partners from around the world, Christian Aid has decided to adopt SAVE as the basis for a comprehensive approach to HIV.

"HIV is a virus, not a moral issue. The response to HIV should therefore be based on public health measures and human rights principles" the Christian agency said. "HIV prevention can never be effective without a care component. The SAVE model combines prevention and care components, as well as providing messages to counter stigma. Correct, non-judgmental information needs to be disseminated to all, inside and outside churches. This will assist people to live positively – whatever their HIV status – and to break down barriers which HIV has created between people and within communities. Education also includes information on good nutrition, stress management, and the need for physical exercise."

Brown would end PM's hand in choosing bishops -19/02/06

From Ekklesia

In a move that will be welcomed by Christian campaigners against the establishment of the Church of England, Gordon Brown is reportedly planning to return the power to choose bishops to the Church of England for the first time since the reign of Henry VIII. The chancellor has told colleagues that if he becomes prime minister he will reach agreement with the church to give up Downing Street’s role in the selection process, reports the Sunday Times. Brown has won favour with more radical Christians through his support for cancelling debts in the developing world, and was recently liked to the biblical prophet Micah by US Christian Jim Wallis.

It is understood that Brown believes Downing Street’s control over appointments is anachronistic. Returning the role to the Anglican church would also fend off criticism that Brown, a member of the Church of Scotland, should not be in control of English bishops’ appointments. Such a move might also pave the way for the scaling down or removal completely of bishops from the second chamber under House of Lords reforms, if the PM no longer has a say in who they are. Radical Christians have pointed out that having bishops in the House of Lords appears to be at odds with the Christian message of justice and identification with the marginalised.

Currently, when a diocese becomes vacant, the prime minister receives two names from the Crown Nominations Commission — formerly the Crown Appointments Commission. He forwards one to the Queen for approval. He can also refuse both names. Blair reportedly used this veto in 1997 to turn down both candidates proposed for the diocese of Liverpool. Brown’s reforms would retain the commission and the role of the Queen, but would remove the prime minister from the process. Instead, he would simply pass the commission’s choice to the palace for approval.

Colin Buchanan, former Bishop of Woolwich and an outspoken supporter of a full severing of the links between church and state, said: “Anything that enables the church to function without the interference of parliament and government is to be welcomed.” The prime minister’s role in choosing bishops dates back to when Henry VIII took control of the church away from the papacy by a series of statutes in the 1530s. A source close to Brown said changes could be made without legislation: “He is simply altering convention.” It has been suggested that disestablishment of the Church of England would have the support of most of the country’s non-Christian faith groups and Christian denominations. The religious thinktank Ekklesia is amongst those who advocate disestablishment.

Poster Time.

Scarlett Johansson Voted Worlds Sexiest Woman.

From Somewhere on the Web

Scarlett Johansson leads a lovely list of the "100 Sexiest Women in the World," in a poll of readers by FHM magazine.

"One of the best things for a woman to hear is that she is sexy," the 21-year-old actress, star of "Match Point" and "Lost in Translation," said in a statement. "I'd like to thank FHM's readers for the huge compliment." Angelina Jolie is No. 2 on the list, followed by Jessica Alba, Jessica Simpson, Keira Knightley, Halle Berry, Jenny McCarthy, Maria Sharapova, Carmen Electra and Teri Hatcher.

Johansson ranked ninth on last year's list. Jolie was No. 1. "It's remarkable how Scarlett Johansson has caught the attention of our readers," said Scott Gramling, the magazine's U.S. editor in chief, in a statement. "Her sultry voice and striking beauty certainly have a lot to do with that, but so does the confidence she exudes. She seems to be one of those women who would be equally at ease on the red carpet as she would just hanging out with the guys."

[It would seem that I have good taste in women..]

US/UK: The Rancid Relationship

by Richard Norton-Taylor for the Guardian - March 23, 2006

A senior British military commander in the invasion of Iraq said the other day that Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, should be tried for war crimes. He was speaking in private and, I assume, did not mean to be taken literally. But there was no mistaking the anger in his voice. It reflected a deep fury at the decision to disband the Iraqi army after the invasion, a decision that was the formal responsibility of the US proconsul Paul Bremer, but, according to British officials, was actually taken by Rumsfeld - and is now regretted even by the neocon warriors in Washington. It also contradicted orders given by British military chiefs to their commanders in the field.

This resentment - shared by senior officials in all key Whitehall departments - is compounded by warnings from British officials to ministers well before the invasion that the Bush administration had no post-invasion strategy. That these warnings were made is clear from leaked Whitehall and Downing Street documents. They also show that, despite Rumsfeld's claims, the US did need British help. "The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical," a secret record of a Downing Street meeting noted on July 23 2002. Meanwhile, Tony Blair agreed that Britain would take the lead in eradicating the opium harvest in Afghanistan, the origin of 90% of British heroin. In his new book, State of War, James Risen quotes a CIA official as saying: "The British were screaming for us to bomb those targets because most of the heroin in Britain comes from Afghanistan. But they [the US military] refused." He writes: "The Pentagon feared that counter-narcotics operations would force the military to turn on the very warlords who were aiding the United States against the Taliban and that would lead to another round of violent attacks on American troops."

Risen refers to a meeting between Rumsfeld and Afghan commanders where the message was clear: help fight the Taliban and the US will leave the traffickers alone. British troops are now preparing for a "nation-building" mission to counter insurgents and narcotics in southern Afghanistan. It could take 20 years, according to a leaked Ministry of Defence briefing paper. What is Washington doing in return for all Blair's help? Bush has blocked a billion-dollar deal with Rolls-Royce to build engines for the proposed joint strike fighter - which Britain wants for its two new aircraft carriers - despite repeated lobbying from Blair. The US still refuses to share advanced military technology with us. It is refusing to let British agencies question terrorist suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged September 11 mastermind; it won't even say where they are being held.

There are two areas that traditionally are said to prove the value of the "special relationship" - the Trident strategic nuclear-missile system, and intelligence. Yet there are question marks over their value. What is Trident's purpose or worth in a post-cold-war world? GCHQ, meanwhile, spends time and money eavesdropping on targets at America's behest. As an internal GCHQ manual put it: making the relationship sufficiently "worthwhile" to the US "may entail on occasion the applying of UK resources to the meeting of US requirements". Is it in Britain's national interest to be so closely allied to a US that takes Britain for granted, to an administration that sets up Guantánamo Bay - where the treatment of prisoners led a high-court judge to remark that "America's idea of what is torture is not the same as ours and does not appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations"?

Poll Finds U.S. Warming to Gay Marriage

by Wyatt Buchanan for the San Francisco Chronicle - March 23, 2006

Opposition to same-sex marriage dropped sharply across the country during the past two years, though just over half of Americans still oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center released Wednesday. The poll also showed increased support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, and substantial backing for the rights of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. The survey was released one day after a poll of California residents indicated increasing support for gay rights in the state, including for same-sex marriages. The nonpartisan Field Poll found that support for same-sex marriage in the state had risen from 38 percent in 1997 to 43 percent today.

The Pew center's national poll of 1,405 adults, conducted from March 8-12, found that 51 percent opposed same-sex marriage and 39 percent supported it. In February 2004, as same-sex couples were marrying in San Francisco, a Pew poll found 63 percent of Americans opposed the right of gays and lesbians to marry and 30 percent in favor. The margin of error in the latest survey was plus or minus 3 or 4 percentage points, depending on the question. "In 2004, (same-sex marriage) was an emotional issue that struck a very deeply rooted chord in a lot of people," said Michael Dimock, associate director of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. "It is still an issue -- a lot of people who opposed it then still oppose it now. But a lot of people who opposed it then were in an intense environment and either feel less strongly or feel that people can do what they want to do."

Support for same-sex marriage has grown steadily over the past decade, according to the Pew center, which is an independent research organization. In 1996, 65 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and 27 percent supported it. Wednesday's poll found the country nearly evenly split on allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children -- 46 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed. In 1999, 38 percent of Americans supported adoptions by same-sex couples, while 57 percent opposed them. Sixty percent of those polled in the most recent survey supported allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, while 32 percent opposed the idea. "It indicates people are changing," Dimock said. "They're becoming more open and tolerant, and we also have a shift in generations, which has a big impact."

The poll noted a distinct change in the number of respondents who said they "strongly oppose" same-sex marriage. In February 2004, 42 percent were in that category. That dropped to 28 percent this year, with the biggest decreases being among people over 65, Republicans and those who described themselves as religious moderates. Gay rights advocates said Americans have had plenty of opportunity in the past two years to hear the stories of gay couples and same-sex parents, which has increased tolerance for gay and lesbian rights. "I think people have thought more about gay families in the last two years than in the previous 30," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force in New York.

Any shift toward support for same-sex marriage has yet to show up at the polls, however, Since 2004, voters in 13 states have passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. At least seven states will vote on similar measures in November. A representative from the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family declined to comment on the poll. The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobbying group in Washington, D.C., did not return a phone call.

Democracy's Regression

Sandi Burtseva for TomPaine.com - 02.27.06

In these times of the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance, we might justifiably be concerned that our society is becoming post-democratic. So, while the government charging a citizen with the good, old-fashioned crime of sedition might not exactly be commonplace, it is in keeping with recent trends. In September, Laura Berg, a Veteran’s Administration nurse in Albuquerque wrote to a local paper, The Alibi, expressing outrage at the administration’s incompetent and inhumane handling of Katrina and Iraq. “Is this America the beautiful?” she asked. Evidently so, given that Berg’s letter prompted the VA to investigate her for sedition, a charge that would have sounded significantly less anachronistic back when “America the Beautiful” was written in 1893. Peter Simonson, Executive Director of the ACLU in New Mexico, was stunned: “Sedition? That’s like something out of the history books.”

While there does still exist a federal law governing sedition, which can carry up to a $250,000 fine and a 20-year sentence, it refers exclusively to intentionally instigating violent revolt against the government. To read Berg’s call to “act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit” as a direct appeal for insurrection is certainly a colorful interpretation. Nonetheless, Berg’s work computer was seized within days of her letter’s publication. It took the VA's chief of human resources, Mel R. Hooker, almost two months to admit that no evidence of the letter having been written on the VA’s computer could be found. Rather than apologize, Hooker went on to reiterate the possibility that the letter constituted sedition. Moreover, according to Berg’s American Federation of Government Employees Union representative, the VA has turned the offending letter over to the FBI.

Although her cause is being championed by the New Mexico branch of the ACLU and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D- N.M., Berg is understandably distraught and, according to Simonson, “scared for her job,” and has not issued any statements to the press. And so a dissenting voice has been bullied into silence—that’s nothing new. No matter what apologies or assurances Bingaman or the ACLU may be able to secure for Berg, she will not soon be able to forget the risks that are again becoming associated with peaceful dissent. And neither will the rest of America, especially given the fact that Berg is only one target in a recent spate of actions taken to silence federal employees expressing dissent or criticism.

Another target: James E. Hansen, top climatologist at NASA, who was threatened with “dire consequences” following a lecture on the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions. NASA public affairs official George C. Deutschhas resigned in the wake of the scandal. A group of Justice Department lawyers who challenged the Bush administration on NSA wire-tapping and torture found themselves harassed, blocked from promotions, and, one by one, forced to resign their posts and leave the public service sector.

And so, the suggestion that this administration does not tolerate dissent—whether in the form a federal employee expressing a personal opinion in the public sphere or challenging policy internally—can no longer be dismissed. All coming to light within the past month, these stories provide chilling, mounting and incontrovertible evidence of our deteriorating democracy.

Cartoon Time.

Call for non-religious chaplains in education and beyond -18/01/06

From Ekklesia

The UK government Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, Bill Rammell MP, is being urged to ensure fair provision of pastoral facilities for non-religious as well as religious people, after recent comments he made calling for ‘a chaplain in every college’. The call comes from the British Humanist Association (BHA) in a letter to Mr Rammell from its education officer, Andrew Copson.

“According to Department for Education and Skills figures, 65 per cent of 12-19 year olds have no religion,” says Mr Copson. “These young people’s pastoral and moral needs must be catered for.” Continues Mr Copson “If colleges are going to be inclusive of those of non-Christian faith, they must also be inclusive of those with non-religious beliefs. We do not believe this can be done through a single denominational chaplaincy,” he says. “But nor can it be achieved through a ‘multi-faith’ approach, which is often lazily believed to include everyone, but in fact excludes the non-religious – a large proportion of young people.”

Mr Copson also expressed the British Humanist Association’s concern at the non-religious not being made a part of the consultation. He explained: “The government has emphasised in the past that any consultation that includes representatives of religious groups should usually include humanist representatives too. It is a great disappointment that this ideal is not lived up to in practice.” The BHA believes that there should be equal chaplaincy and pastoral provision for the both the religious and the non-religious in the armed forces, hospitals, and prisons.

The lack of such provision was a key feature of the organisation’s submission to the current Equalities Review, chaired by Trevor Phillips. Chaplaincies in public institutions have traditionally been Christian in character, reflecting the historic role and prevalence of the Church of England in such matters. In recent years the number of chaplains of other denominations and faith communities has increased, and training has emphasised sensitivity towards people of different backgrounds and outlooks. The UK religious think tank Ekklesia is among those who have called for equal provision for people of different life stances in public life, arguing that the ‘Christendom’ era of privilege for the church is wrong both in terms of fairness and in its harnessing of the Christian message to an establishment role.

Poster time.

Monks produce pray-as-you-go podcasts -13/03/06

From Ekklesia

A new initiative by the British Jesuits - a religious order of the Catholic church - to offer commuters daily prayer sessions in MP3 format, as free downloads from the internet, has proved an instant success around the world. Jesuit Media Initiatives planned to trial the new project – called ‘Pray-As-You-Go’ - for the season of Lent. They invited people from their parishes and schools in Britain to give it a go by using the audio files on their iPods, mobile phones or other MP3 players to guide them through prayer on their daily journey to work, school or college.

But by the time dawn broke on the first day - Ash Wednesday (1 March) - word had spread, and some 3,300 prayer sessions had been downloaded from the web in countries as far apart as Australia, Mexico and the United States. Since then, a further 18,400 sessions have been downloaded, prompting a flurry of e-mails to JMI’s Director, Fr Peter Scally SJ. Brooks Thoman from Nipomo, California, called it “awesome, wonderful, inspiring”, while Patrick Allen in San Jose, California, declared, “This is the most beautifully produced prayer that I have ever heard. It touches me in ways that I never thought possible.”

Robin Farran, the wife of the Anglican Bishop of Newcastle, New South Wales, emailed to say: “It fills a real gap and is professionally and sensitively put together”; her husband is already promoting it in Australia. Nearer to home, a Metropolitan Line commuter from Harrow in North London, Audrey Newbury, said, “There is no better way to spend the tube journey home, after all the stresses of the day.” A new prayer session is offered every day, combining music, a short reading from the Bible and a few questions for personal reflection in a session of guided prayer that lasts around 10 or 12 minutes. The site also offers the option of using ‘Pray-As-You-Go’ as a daily podcast (with iTunes or other podcasting software) which automates the downloading process and keeps you up to date with the site’s latest offering.

Peter Scally says the response has been amazing. “So many people have been enthused by pray-as-you-go that we are left in no doubt that it is addressing a very real need in people’s spiritual lives,” he says. Peter cut his teeth in the internet world as the designer of Sacred Space – a prayer web site launched in Ireland in 1999: this provides users with 10-minute prayer sessions on their computer screens. It has since been reproduced in 19 languages and has logged over 17 million visits worldwide since its inception.

The news comes after a group of Vatican Radio employees gave Pope Benedict XVI his first iPod.

V for Vendetta.

Both a dark vision of a possible future and a disturbing comment on the present, V for Vendetta pulls few punches and makes few missteps in its portrayal of a country crushed under the heel of a totalitarian government ruling its population through the manipulation of fear.

We are presented with a frighteningly updated version of 1984, complete with giant wallscreens and the screaming invective of ‘Big Brother’ rather ironically played by John Hurt who reverses his role of Winston Smith in the last cinematic version of Orwell’s defining work. After a series of largely manufactured disasters and terrorist atrocities Britain ‘prevails’ through the fear engendered by the ‘fingermen’ who prowl the streets after curfew arresting, beating and ‘disappearing’ anyone who opposes the New Order. During one such ‘arrest’ we meet both Evey (played superbly by Natalie Portman back on form – and how – after the risible Starwars pre-trilogy) and the enigmatic V (played by the outstanding Hugo Weaving acting behind a mask throughout the entire performance) who rescues her from almost certain rape.

V introduces himself and his plan to change everything. For that night is November 5th – the anniversary of the long forgotten Gunpowder Plot when Guy Fawkes failed to blow up the Houses of Parliament in the hope of freeing his fellow Catholics from religious oppression. V, dressed as his hero Guy, hopes to succeed where Fawkes failed destroying Parliament and freeing England from its present tyranny. To demonstrate both his resolve and his abilities he destroys the Old Bailey which was once a place of justice and is now an arm of the Secret Police. But this is not simply an act of terrorism. This is a symbolic act, complete with music and fireworks. It is also a warning and a promise. V states that on the next 5th November he will return to destroy the ruling Government itself.

So begins a cat and mouse game between V and the police as they attempt to uncover his masked identity. Cleverly this also introduces the audience into the murky history of the ‘Reconstruction’ when order is ruthlessly restored after a terrorist attack on London. Caught up in the chaos are Evey’s parents who are arrested after a protest and ‘disappeared’ leaving Evey to grow up in a government facility. The audience also learn, piece by piece that V had been resident in a Government facility of a much darker type where biological experiments where performed to produce the perfect weapon. During the investigation Inspector Finch (understatedly played by Stephen Rea) discovers to his growing horror that the suspected Islamic terrorists may not have been responsible for the outrage after all. Starting out as a reluctant arm of State security, Rea moves ever closer to understanding and sympathising with V’s need for vengeance against the people and the system that took his future from him.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that this is a very political film. Nor should it be surprising that it says much regarding how both the US and the UK have responded to the attack on 9/11. Both of those Governments have used fear and the manipulation of fear in an attempt to paralyse their populations into unquestioning obedience. But if one thing is certain – and made blindingly clear by this movie - it is that (with apologies to Ben Franklin) if we give up our freedoms for the illusory promise of security then we will have neither freedom nor security. This film is first and foremost a warning that if we let it happen we can sleepwalk into tyranny despite the best intentions of all concerned. Our governments should not rely on their ability to spin tales of fear to gain our compliance. (As V rightly observed “The people should not be afraid of their Governments. Governments should be afraid of their people”). Nor should we abrogate our responsibilities in the name of safety and security. Though it is true that we live in a dangerous world it is also true that it has always been thus. Nothing much has changed despite what some would have you believe.

If you haven’t seen this film yet – Go see it. Now.

A Grand Day Out.

I took a day off work yesterday to use up some holiday before our new Leave Year started. After pottering about a bit in the morning I hopped on a train to a near-by city for a bit of shopping and exploring. I haven't been there for 5 months or so and it was good to see the place again. I picked up a few Buddha statues (I'm particularly fond of those) and then popped into the city art gallery to see what they had on show - which brings me to the picture above. It's called 'Queen Eleanor' and its by Anthony Frederick Sandys. Rather nice isn't it?

After that bit of culture I treated myself to my favourite pasta dish at the local Italian and then toddled home with a well earned smile on my face.

It was a grand day out.

Former Top Judge Says US Risks Edging Near to Dictatorship

By Julian Borger for the Guardian - March 13, 2006

Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the Supreme Court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary. In a strongly worded speech at Georgetown University, reported by National Public Radio and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Ms O'Connor took aim at Republican leaders whose repeated denunciations of the courts for alleged liberal bias could, she said, be contributing to a climate of violence against judges.

Ms O'Connor, nominated by Ronald Reagan as the first woman Supreme Court justice, declared: "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary." She pointed to autocracies in the developing world and former Communist countries as lessons on where interference with the judiciary might lead. "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings." In her address to an audience of corporate lawyers on Thursday, Ms O'Connor singled out a warning to the judiciary issued last year by Tom DeLay, the former Republican leader in the House of Representatives, over a court ruling in a controversial "right to die" case.

After the decision last March that ordered a brain-dead woman in Florida, Terri Schiavo, removed from life support, Mr DeLay said: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behaviour." Mr DeLay later called for the impeachment of judges involved in the Schiavo case, and called for more scrutiny of "an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president". Such threats, Ms O'Connor said, "pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedom", and she told the lawyers in her audience: "I want you to tune your ears to these attacks ... You have an obligation to speak up. Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence - people do," the retired Supreme Court justice said.

She noted death threats against judges were on the rise and added that the situation was not helped by a senior senator's suggestion that there might be a connection between the violence against judges and the decisions they make. The senator she was referring to was John Cornyn, a Bush loyalist from Texas, who made his remarks last April, soon after a judge was shot dead in an Atlanta courtroom and the family of a federal judge was murdered in Illinois. Senator Cornyn said: "I don't know if there is a cause and effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country ... And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence."

Although appointed by a Republican, Ms O'Connor voted with the Supreme Court's liberals on some divisive issues, including abortion, making her a frequent target for criticism from the right. After announcing that she intended to retire last year at the age of 75, she was replaced in February this year by Samuel Alito, who is generally regarded as being more consistently conservative. In her speech, Ms O'Connor said that if the courts did not occasionally make politicians mad they would not be doing their jobs, and their effectiveness "is premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts".

Poster Time.

Archbishop: stop teaching creationism

Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent - The Guardian

Tuesday March 21, 2006

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has stepped into the controversy between religious fundamentalists and scientists by saying that he does not believe that creationism - the Bible-based account of the origins of the world - should be taught in schools. Giving his first, wide-ranging, interview at Lambeth Palace, the archbishop was emphatic in his criticism of creationism being taught in the classroom, as is happening in two city academies founded by the evangelical Christian businessman Sir Peter Vardy and several other schools.

"I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it," he said. The debate over creationism or its slightly more sophisticated offshoot, so-called "intelligent design" (ID) which argues that creation is so complex that an intelligent - religious - force must have directed it, has provoked divisions in Britain but nothing like the vehemence or politicisation of the debate in the US. There, under pressure from the religious right, some states are considering giving ID equal prominence to Darwinism, the generally scientifically accepted account of the evolution of species. Most scientists believe that ID is little more than an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into science teaching. States from Ohio to California are considering placing ID it on the curriculum, with President George Bush telling reporters last August that "both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about." The archbishop's remarks place him firmly on the side of science.

Hayes quits South Park over faith

From the BBC - Tuesday, 14 March 2006

Singer Isaac Hayes is to stop providing the voice for a character in cartoon South Park because he objects to its "inappropriate ridicule" of religion. Hayes, 63, who is the voice of the lustful Chef, has been a regular on the show since its US TV debut in 1997. But co-creator Matt Stone said Hayes had "never had a problem" until the Scientology Church, to which Hayes belongs, was parodied. The show was insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs", said Hayes.

"There is a place in this world for satire but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs begins," he said. Co-creator Stone said Hayes would be released from his contract and had the best wishes of the South Park team. Stone said: "In 10 years and over 150 episodes of South Park, Isaac never had a problem with the show making fun of Christians, Muslim, Mormons or Jews. "He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was his religion featured on the show." The series tells the story of four boys in a dysfunctional Colorado town and regularly deals with sensitive subjects and sends up famous figures.

In a recent episode, one of the gang, Stan, did so well in a Scientology test that church followers thought he was the next L Ron Hubbard, the late science-fiction writer who founded Scientology. Hayes did not take part in that episode but has talked widely about his work for Scientology, which he calls "an applied religious philosophy". A spokesman for the show's makers Comedy Central said producers had not decided if Chef would be dropped from the show. The show sparked another religious row recently when an episode entitled Bloody Mary depicted a bleeding statue of the Virgin Mary. Catholics in the US criticised the show while church leaders in New Zealand called for a boycott of a broadcaster which planned to screen the episode. Osama Bin Laden was killed in another episode of the programme, which has seen guest cameos by the likes of George Clooney, who voiced a pet dog.

Cartoon Time.

How can One thing become Two?

One of the ‘arguments’ against evolution is some peoples reluctance to accept that one species can give rise to two separate species. How can, they say, one thing become two things? They’re usually happy with the idea that creatures can change over time, become a different colour and so on but how can something change into something else?

To answer that question we need to start with an understanding of what a species actually is:

A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed in nature to produce a fertile offspring. Stated in another way, species are reproductively isolated groups of populations. Organisms classified in the same species have very similar gene pools.

So, for example, mice & rats are separate species because they can’t interbreed. Horses and donkeys can produce offspring but the resultant mule is sterile and so the breeding isn’t viable. Oak trees can’t interbreed with Elm trees, dogs can’t interbreed with cats and so on.

The best way to show that one species can become two is by example.

Imagine a group of 100 River Fish happily living in a fresh water river. They are a single species and can easily interbreed with each other. They are adapted for their particular environment and are prospering. But during a particularly heavy rainy season a flood sweeps down the river washing 50 of the fish into the much saltier estury. Almost immediately half of the fish die from the shock of suddenly being exposed to salt water. The remainder have the ability provided by their genes to cope with higher salt levels than their dead relatives but all do not cope equally well. Of the 25 only 5 can cope adequately with their new environment. They are far from perfectly adapted but can still manage to function. The other 20 though are suffering. They are sluggish and prone to disease, both of which make them easy prey. Few successfully breed. Of the 5 fish better suited to their new environment most successfully breed but many of the resulting eggs die quickly due to the levels of salt in the water. Of the eggs that hatch many produce sluggish ill fish that are quickly taken by predators but a significant percentage are like their parents and are able to survive and grow to breeding age. A smaller percentage are actually better adapted to the new conditions than their parents and prosper by both laying more viable eggs and producing more viable offspring.. and so it goes on.

Each new generation of Estury Fish takes a year to grow to maturity. After 100 generations most of the eggs are hatching and most of the hatchings are fairly well adapted to the salty water. After 500 generations – or 500 years – few if any non-salt adapted offspring are being produced and there is a growing number of fish now fully adapted to the salt water. Some are becoming adapted in other ways too by changing fin shape and colour and by growing in size.

Even at this early stage it would be difficult for descendents of the original River Fish to meet and sucessfully breed with the descendents of the original Estury Fish though probably not impossible, at least not yet. However, if we move forward another 500 generations you can see that the two types of fish are moving further and further apart. Due to adaptation to their environment and genetic drift, whereby differences accumulate over time, the Estury Fish are now quite different from the River Fish though both share a common ancestor. When another flood surge washes a group of River Fish into the Estury the survivors meet a type of fish they have had no experience of, know nothing of their mating rituals, and would fail to fertilise their eggs even if they tried.

Over 1000 generations – only 1000 years – and original species of River Fish has given rise to a new species of Estury Fish as well as descendents still living in the river. In this way one species becomes two.