In defence of hymn-singing atheists

At my daughter's Christmas concert on Monday night, none of the Tamil parents knew the words to the carols, so the Jews had to sing twice as loud. The next morning I read Libby Purves's elegant reproach to the great atheist Richard Dawkins on his admission that he too enjoys belting out Away in a Manger. “How honest is it to sing?” she demanded of Professor Dawkins. “How insulting to those who mean every word of it?”

This made me uneasy about the carolling Jews. True, they absolutely don't rubbish God, but Jews explicitly deny the possibility of Jesus being the Messiah, and therefore presumably ought to worry about causing offence to true believers when singing this, as they did: “Late in time behold Him come/ Offspring of a Virgin's womb/ Veiled in flesh the Godhead see/Hail the incarnate Deity.” You'll recognise there Charles Wesley's own interesting preoccupation with carnality, as well as one of the most famous not quite rhyming couplets in schoolboy history.

Fortunately both Jews and Hindu Tamils were — for reasons of time, I imagine — spared the verse from Once in Royal David's City, where the young Jesus's imagined relationship with his Virgin mother is extolled, continuing: “Christian children all must be/Mild, obedient, good as he.”

The author of the carol was a Victorian Ulsterwoman, C.F. Alexander, the wife of the Bishop of Derry and Raphoe, and Mrs Alexander was not averse to supplementing the scriptures when she felt the Spirit demanded it. In the version of Once in Royal David's City that we did sing on Monday, the final verse ended thus: “When like stars His children crowned/All in white shall wait around.” Now, it's been years since I took biblical instruction, but I am not aware of any authority for the exact colour of the clothes to be worn in Heaven by those eternally “waiting around”. Like any songwriter Mrs Alexander had just made it up.

It seems a bit harsh, therefore, to make belief any kind of test for joining in the song. Worse, I would say that anyone who “means every word of it”, given the provenance of many words, has problems much bigger than whether a Professor R. Dawkins denies God.

And it also raises a question over Libby's suggestion that Prof D might be more honest if he stuck to “a verse or two of Frosty the Snowman”. This an interesting parallel, since this, too, is a tale of resurrection, in which Frosty finally, “Had to hurry on his way/But he waved goodbye saying/‘Don't you cry, I'll be back again some day'.” And songwriters Jack Nelson and Steve Rollins had no less supernatural backing for their words than did Mrs Alexander, so one perhaps ought to add that Professor Dawkins may only sing their song if confident that he isn't in the company of those who believe that Frosty the Snowman is real.

Comments

[Rhisiart Gwilym]

David Aaronovitch - A Different Kind Of Compassion

Medialens Media Alert, 10 January 2008

Siwmae (Hiya) David,

This is another note from one of that band of tiresome fools who strive to follow the example of Quixote and Panza over at Medialens de la Mancha. Their latest Media Alert is out, and you're the star.

I have to confess, David, that I find it very difficult to write to you at all. I'm always conscious of the ML Davids' constant exhortations to all their readers to use an unfailingly courteous, unaggressive and unabusive approach in all correspondence with journalists of the corporate media. Indeed, I know they believe that this same compassionate approach should be used with simply everyone, regardless. It springs, I suspect, from the buddhistic personal convictions which seem to underpin their campaigning journalism.

I've also been on the receiving end of one of David E's kindly but utterly unbending homilies about the uselessness of self-indulgent, righteous anger, and the absolute need to work tirelessly against it in one's self. And despite the great difficulty of following the admonition, I have to agree that he's right.

So here I am trying to grope my way towards a friendly, courteous and +sincerely-meant+ tone (truly!) as I speak to you. Forgive me if I wobble a bit. It is, indeed, very difficult.

You see, in simple honesty, David, I have to say that I consider you and Johann Hari (the other pro-Iraq-invasion journalist mentioned by name in this latest ML Alert), and many other currently-flourishing British journalists of the corporate media, to be war-criminals, and accessories to very great and terrible crimes against humanity, still continuing for the most part. This through your collective, carefully-blinkered connivance with the political, corporate and military principle criminals, and through your absolutely crucial enabling propaganda support for the principles' deliberate confusion and misleading of the ordinary British citizens, particularly that put out by the serial principle war-criminal Tony Blair. En masse, we might very well have prevented Britain's involvement in these terrible crimes -- had we been given honest truth about what was really happening by you professional journalists.

I believe that you guilty journalists belong in the dock of the International Criminal Court alongside the principle perpetrators of these great crimes, whom you have enabled decisively, and whom you continue to shield and enable, with your deeply dishonest journalism.

I think that when the Nuremberg Tribunals laid down definitions, still very much current, of war-crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the perpetration of acts of aggressive war (asserted to be the supreme international crime), and when the Tribunal judges actually tried, condemned and sentenced journalists amongst others for vitally aiding and abetting these great and terrible crimes, they were pointing the finger of accusation forward also into our own time, at people such as yourself, David.

Bit tricky, isn't it, to maintain even a courteous tone, much less a friendly one, when this is what one has to say? Oh dear…..

But the fact is that this is what I believe, along with many others. No point in beating about the bush: We do think that you and Hari and a number of other British journalists are prima facie criminals; material accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity, by your unprincipled corruptions of proper journalistic trustworthiness in the matter of supporting wars of aggression in recent years; and you should go on trial.

For myself, I must say that should you be brought to trial I would campaign resolutely against the death penalty for any of you, though this is what came to some of the journalists found guilty at Nuremberg of aiding the Nazi's crimes. I believe in uncompromising detestation of the crimes, but also in equally uncompromising compassion for the criminals, who after all are just 'poor, forked animals' like all the rest of us. I have absolutely no time for barbarous punishments, on any pretext, for anyone.

Sorry David. I'm sure that this doesn't sound like a very friendly email. But it does state exactly what I and many others think. And for my part it's delivered without animus. But these things need to be said, publically, constantly, out loud, for the good of all our souls, for the good of the whole terrifyingly-beleaguered planet: The guilty journalists should go on trial, along with the principles.

We stand at an unprecedented crisis in the lifespan of our species. The challenge facing us is to change fundamentally, or die. At the worst, the planet may die with us, as we bring the roof down on everything. Chicken Little was a little premature. But now at last the sky really is falling, whether still-briefly-comfortable delusionaries amongst the Pampered Twenty Percent of humankind choose to see it or not. In these Interesting Times, like none we've ever encountered before, the old, weak, morally-dishonest habits of our kind no longer work. Uncompromising truth, uncompromising compassion, universal reconciliation, and a fundamental change in the way we do things are - probably - our only hope.

And if it sounds as if I'm coming on holier and cleverer than thou, David, please be assured that that's very far from the truth: a spotted and deboshed fool, me, always. And now old and getting gaga with it, too. Not a whit better than the poor fellow creatures whom I denounce here, without anger or hatred. But one of very, very many obscure commoners everywhere who can no longer stand by in silence as we witness the bestial schweinereis of public life, fiddling hopelessly whilst the planet burns, and helpless fellow humans, and many other kindred creatures of the lifeweb die cruel and unjust deaths. You were right to speak of compassion, David, on all those occasions when you were counseling war; it's what we need now, in Spades. But the genuine article, not dishonest, well-paid, corporate journalists' empty posturings.

Incidentally, whenever I write to a corporate journalist along these lines, I always publish my remarks as widely as I can, and I always invite you-all to sue me for libel, if you think that I've accused you unjustly. But so far not one - not one! - of you guardians of truth has had the balls to throw my accusations back in my face in court. What does that say about your own faith in your truth? Will you be the first, David? I'd find it an interesting experience to mount a solitary defence of myself and my assertions against a famous journalist and his team of expensive silks. What theatre, eh! Why not give it a go, if you really believe what you write? I do, and I'll lay out my evidence with pleasure. How long have you got?

Cofion gorau (Best remembrances), Rhisiart Gwilym

[Susan Harwood]

Hello

My name is Susan Harwood.

I have a new blog called

SHOUTING AT THE RADIO

It is concerned with the environment, building, architecture, politics and education and I am contacting people who might find it of interest - even contribute!

It can be found at

http://shoutingattheradio.blogspot.com/

It is in its very early stages just yet - so comments will be especially welcome!

Yours sincerely

Susan Harwood

[Susan]

This has been a bad year for atheists. Richard Dawkins writes an editorial that atheists should form a lobby like the "powerful American Jewish lobby," Thus proving that athieists can be as antisemitic as Christians.

James Watson, a scientific hero, turns out to be a racist.

In light of these facts, I don't much care whether Dawkins likes to sing Christmas carrolls or not.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seem to share a few characteristics that I have noticed in some atheists. There are male and they lack what Daniel Goleman calls "social intelligence" and "emotional intelligence." They pretend that they are completely rational and moved only by reason.