The Thought Office

Be with the one you love, sleep with the one’s you don’t?

Teenage dinner-table talk is an often tawdry affair. The few kernels of wisdom that do stem from the usual debates of the relative hotness of supermodels and abilities of sports teams are usually to do with methods through which one can measure the relative hotness of supermodels and abilities of sports teams. However, a recent argument with friends brought up the rather interesting and always contentious issue of monogamy, and its place in society.

The trigger factor was Will Smith. The respect he had gained among my peers for his diligent work ethic and general open-minded, can-do attitude, and most importantly for being the Fresh Prince, suffered a critical blow when some particularly thorough YouTube investigating uncovered an interview in which the successful actor admitted that he and his wife, Jada Pinkett-Smith, enjoy an “open marriage”.

The Happy Couple? (Image from www.usmagazine.com)

Of course, for a people ingrained so fundamentally with the concept of monogamy, the natural reaction is one of disdain. What an awful example they set for society, many argue, by openly endorsing promiscuity. What a cheapening of the sacred institution of marriage. How could someone cheat on Will Smith? These are the issues our society cannot wrap our heads around.

But this is unconvincing. There is an indubitable value in commitment. A family which stays faithful to each other is a stable one. But this is not a question of being faithful, or being a cheater. This is not a question of infidelity. While adultery is defined as the sexual act with someone outside of marriage, the other vital component of this, and probably the more important one, is the deceit. The term “cheating” arises from the fact that you are cheating your spouse out of what they signed up for. If you vowed to remain faithful in the most literal, physical sense of the term, then an act of infidelity need only consist of sleeping around to warrant the cheating charge.

But couples such as the Smiths made no such vows. In their own words, they made the promise that “you will never hear that I did something after the fact.” Can one really criticise their arrangement as immoral, when both have agreed to it explicitly, and adhere to it rigidly? We can of course never know whether or not they stick to it, or how mutual the agreement is, but theoretically, if these two conditions were met, what possible moral qualm could one have with two people starting a family on the basis that they will not avoid what is natural to them, but will not “cheat” each other out of what they have promised?

‘Tll Death Do Us Part (Image from www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk)

One of these possible moral qualms, raised in the very argument that prompted this post, was that it weakened the bond shared between man and wife. By sharing their bed with other people, they thus cheapen their own union, spreading their affection over a wider plane, and making it thinner at any given point as a result.

But this is a misguided oversimplification of the issue. The decision to make open one’s relationship is not a cause of a weak relationship, but rather a symptom of it. In fact, even the term “weak” is a crude and ill-fitting one. A married couple, or any number of parties in any sort of relationship, decide that they want to become “open” because there is something missing from what they have at the moment. There is some element, be it excitement, sexual fantasy or just curiosity, that they do not have with their current partner, and do not want to forgo for the sake of dogmatic social doctrine.

At this point, the criticism levied appears a sound one: if one does not get the physical and emotional satisfaction one needs from a relationship with another partner, why don’t they just find the right person? Would it be so hard to wait for someone who meets every criteria before starting a family and living the rest of your lives? Well, yes, actually.

In an ideal world, we could have all we want from one person. We could all be entirely fulfilled, in every conceivable sense of the word, in a single, traditional relationship. This would certainly allow us to bypass the rather tricky mess of co-ordinating “open relationships”. What level of commitment is allowed? Where are the lines drawn? It’s all an endless grey area, as most of life is, and humans seem programmed to avoid thinking too much, which is what allows to accept so easily the conventional wisdom that tells us there is something inherently immoral in infidelity. The problem, however, is that we do not live in this ideal world.

The Long-Haul (Image from www.formerdays.com)

That is not to make the ridiculous argument that such relationships do not exist. There are those, many undoubtedly, who are fulfilled as much as they can conceive is possible by their own relationship with a single partner, and see absolutely no reason for people to play around with the accepted convention of monogamy. It is usually these people who are so quick to criticise relationships such as that of the Smiths, which play so daringly with the boundaries of what is and isn’t ‘the way things are done’.

The mistake comes in adding some intrinsic value to commitment and monogamy. It is happiness that is of intrinsic value, something which philosophers have tried in vain to dispute, because it is just so patently the case. If happiness is what we strive for, then the value of such concepts as rigid commitment is purely instrumental: it is valuable insofar as it leads people towards happiness, or gives them a better shot at it. And for some people, this is the case. It serves no good for two people with particularly jealous dispositions to engage in a relationship that involves them being with other people; they’ll be much happier remaining faithful to their partners, and should be given every right to do so. But for those who are adept at separating sex and love, the physical and the emotional, and are dissatisfied by the concept of forgoing new experiences, there is no logical reason for these people to be denied experimentation, or indeed for them to deny it from themselves.

Obviously, it’s complicated. Many couples who think they can handle the idea of an open relationship will be sorely mistaken. But how are they to find out if it suits them without trying it first? The scientific method of hypothesising, observing and amending seems here to be quite apposite. And conversely, many couples, who pretend to be satisfied with what they have, repress these desires because of their taboo nature, which is unhealthy for the self and the relationship. Such couples end up committing emotional infidelity in lieu of the forbidden physical one, which has a far more destabilising effect on the family.

The social stigmas we attach to these experimental methods of figuring out the veritable chaos of love and human interaction are illogical, unhelpful and are ultimately in contradiction with the development of a more civilised, sincere society.

  The ‘Great Recession’ of 2008 (though in recent years it appears to be looking more and more like a depression) was labelled the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Five years on from its breaking in 2007, the majority of the Western World’s economies remain sluggish and still exhibit the post-crash behaviour which, by this point in time, should have been left behind. Amongst the worst hit of all non-Eurozone nations was the UK, who, despite seeing huge budget deficits exceeding 10% of GDP, still failed to avert a massive contraction of 4%. After half a decade, a change in government, and a change in policy from deficit spending to austerity, growth remains meek and the tunnel of economic malaise seems like it has no end for these islands.

Why the crash?

  The Global Financial Crisis was fundamentally the consequence of a build up of extremely excessive levels of private debt. To put it very simply, the debt, which during the 2000s was largely in the form of mortgages, reached the point whereby repayment was impossible, and the mass defaults which followed led to a complete collapse in confidence, bank failures, and even a bank run on Northern Rock in 2007. 

Following from this explanation, it is conclusive that the nations with the highest level of private debt as a proportion of GDP would be the ones suffering the most severe recessions, and the graph above comparing the UK, the US and Australia reveals somewhat unpleasant facts about the UK economy. The sheer size of the debt overhang in Britain uncovers the underlying structural problem with the economy which, if left uncorrected, will reduce the chances of a recovery to nil.

Why the debt?

Numerous alleged “experts” making frequent appearances on News programmes have delivered the same answer one after the other on this matter: “The British government and households borrowed far too much during the Labour years and they will have to tighten their belts if we are to see a recovery.” Well fortunately for the households of the UK, the evidence says something rather different.

It’s not the households, but the financial sector who have been addicted to their own credit cards since the mid-1990s in order to fund speculative purchases, and their debt has fuelled the skyrocketing house prices over the past two decades. Both financial sector debt and house prices saw their respective takeoffs in 1995 - this is no coincidence. This debt explosion in finance came as a result of excessive deregulation (which has lifted any restrictions of leverage), government/monetary policy (which has been geared toward stimulating financial markets through the use of cheap credit) and, more recently, fraudulent activity regarding financial products and market manipulation.

Our road to recovery

Bringing an economic recovery follows a very similar procedure to curing a sick patient; getting rid of the disease and using pain killers to soften the blow of the treatment. We have already identified the disease hurting the UK economy as excessive levels of private debt and speculative finance - the deleveraging of the former is currently depressing economic activity and the latter has been diverting resources away from productive activity and towards speculation. In order to bring the recovery, it would be extremely useful for the government to introduce debt relief programmes for households suffering excessive mortgage debt. Secondly a reinstatement of secure regulation of the financial sector will ensure that financial institutions use their capital to stimulate the economy by investment rather than drain it through excessive speculation. Thirdly, the government and Bank of England have to allow financial markets (especially the housing market) to correct themselves rather than consistently intervening to prop them up. Since the 1980s, every attempt from these institutions to save financial markets have led only to the creation of bubbles, most predominantly the stock market bubble of the late 1980s and the housing bubble of the 1990s/2000s. The seeds of the recovery can only be sown if the financial markets are left to adjust to the levels where they ought to be. After measures such as these have been taken, the debt levels and the size of the financial sector will both shrink sizeable essentially ridding these islands of their economic disease.

However, this process would cause significant short-term damage to the British economy purely because debt financed consumption and speculative bubbles have been the source of (unsustainable) UK growth for the last three decades. Removing both of these ingredients will therefore remove growth and cause unemployment, and the economy will not be able to re-expand until sufficient resources have been reallocated away from the financial sector and into the real economy - a process which could take a number of years. The government has the responsibility to soften the blow by issuing the economy a pain killer, and that pain killer is controlled deficit spending, that is, running deficits large enough to bring a small amount of growth, but not too excessive to cause UK government debt levels to skyrocket.

UK Economy Predictions

Given the current policy response to the crisis of expansionary monetary policy mixed with fiscal austerity, three key scenarios emerge on the possible futures of the UK economy. All three relate strongly to the level of private debt to GDP - the index which is perhaps most key to determining our economic future. The graph below illustrates the trends in debt which come with each prediction.

Scenario One - Inflating Another Debt Bubble - As mentioned previously, the UK economy’s source of growth since the 1980s has been debt financed asset-price bubbles. The late 1980s boom was caused by the stock market bubble, the late-1990s boom was caused by the dot-com bubble, and the early-2000s boom was caused by the housing bubble. The Bank of England’s low interest rate policy (which could last a matter of another 3-5 years and maybe longer) has done much to finance speculative borrowing by investment banks and hedge funds alike - an activity which should have ended with the financial crisis. It is possible that the sustaining of a low base rate could lead to the creation of a new bubble in the late 2010s. Should this occur, the level of private debt to GDP will increase over the next decade and we will enter another unsustainable debt-financed boom just like the one we have just come out of. This will cause an economic recovery in the short run, but ultimately sow the seeds of another crash, even greater than the 2008-financial crisis and the long run consequences make this a very undesirable outcome.

Scenario Two - Japanese Style ‘Lost Decades’ - This is perhaps the most likely outcome. The enormous level of private debt in the UK will have be deleveraged until it reaches about 100-200% of GDP before the economy starts a sustainable recovery. That figure currently stands as 450% (graph below) and is expected to be removed at a rate of approximately 20% a year, meaning it will take about 15 years to reduce the debt level down to 150% of GDP. This scenario essentially means private debt reduces at a slow, constant rate and as long as there is significant deleveraging, there will be a sluggish economy meaning growth will remain low (-1% to 1%) for a matter of one to two decades. This scenario ultimately sees the UK economy following similar trends to what was seen in Japan during the 1990s.

Scenario Three - Financial Collapse - Given the sheer size of debt which is held by the British Banks at the moments, the financial system in this country is still incredibly unstable as much of this debt is un-repayable. Should a large number of defaults happen in a short period of time- something which is not impossible - Cypriot-style bank runs could easily follow and this will need colossal intervention from the Bank of England to stop. The situation is certainly not helped by the very weak regulation in London’s financial services industry which has led to much debt re-hypothecation (where a creditor uses his debtor’s assets as collateral for a loan). In this scenario, the significant level of defaults and bank failures will cause private debt to GDP levels to reduce at a fast rate in a short time space.

Even if the debt levels in this country are as high as they are, it is definitely not impossible to overcome them without having to undergo decades of pain. Take Iceland, for example, which had private debt to GDP levels which reached near 900% of GDP - easily outstripping the UK. Iceland had a financial crisis far worse than the UK’s, however the policy responses over there were to let financial markets crash and save the real economy instead, whilst relieving much of the un-repayable debt which Icelanders possessed. After undergoing a year of 6-7% contraction, the Icelandic economy was free of the parasitic speculative financial sector which brought it to its knees and the economy started growing after only two years. We chose to bail out the financial sector and take resources from the real economy - our recession is still adamant and heading towards turning into lost decades. Iceland has show us that a private debt crisis can be dealt with in a short space of time by enacting the right policies and the UK can follow the same path to a quick recovery should it do so.

A critical look at Francis’ stances

And the winner is… (Image from Wikipedia)

Out with the old, and in with the slightly less but still pretty old. The conclave of cardinals, in all its divine, geriatric wisdom, has elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina to the Papacy, possibly after the human resources department at the Holy See gave a talk on ethnic diversity.

Though often cynical of religious folk, particular those dressed in funny hats (so all of them), the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI invoked in me a tentative yet stubborn hope. There is a strong argument to be made for the fact that the Pope is the most powerful man in the world: he wields an influence that defies jurisdiction. With ethical issues such as gay marriage, euthanasia and religious freedom very much at the fore of public debate, a new pontiff, with a fresh outlook on these controversial topics and their relationship with the Catholic Church, would have been a mighty triumph on the side of progress and liberalisation.

The Unlucky Runners-Up (Image from European Daily) 

And perhaps my hopes have not gone entirely disappointed. Pope Francis’ PR team deserve credit for painting him as a ‘people’s Pope’. Not only was there a certain self-deprecation in his inaugural address, but we are told he forsook the bishop’s palace in favour of a flat, and rode the bus everyday to work during his tenure as a cardinal in Argentina. Indeed, the Catholic Church has come under much fire of late for excessive splendour (the Vatican is estimated to be sitting on a fortune of over $2billion in art, artefacts and architecture), and a pontiff who eschews majesty for modesty is a welcome change.

However, this gives more hope to those afraid of the Church’s dwindling popularity than it does to those of us frustrated with the lack of progress made in the many ethical debates that society faces. Many seem to have been distracted by Pope Francis’ admittedly admirable ‘Church for the poor’ proclamations, and have ignored the fact that his stance in regards to these issues are, in essence, conservative.

Granted, he has not echoed Benedict’s worryingly laughable proposition that prophylactics increase the occurrence of AIDS in Africa. But looking at his previous work, it would be unsurprising if he thought it himself.

Preaching from the Pulpit (Image from Aibdescalzo)

In 2007, Bergoglio issued a joint declaration of the bishops of Latin Africa known as the Aparecida Document, wherein the stance of Latin African Catholicism on abortion, euthanasia, contraceptives and gay marriage were made disturbingly clear. According to the document, abortion and euthanasia are ploys by the devil and his Satanic instruments to establish a “culture of death” among us. This dogmatic placing of life, irrespective of the unbearable suffering it may entail, on a holy pedestal, is an obstacle which rational argument finds it ever-difficult to overcome.

More concerning still, in a time when equal-marriage bills are finally being thrown around Parliament in both England and France, Pope Francis terms same-sex marriage “the devil’s work”, even going as far as to call the bill that the Argentine government tried to pass on the matter an “anthropological throwback”. Exciting success is being made in the name of equality, but a Pope placing close to brimstone-and-fire than love and compassion on the spiritual spectrum will hardly be conducive to progress.

Unfortunately, solutions to this problem are relatively scarce. Pope Francis holds a rejuvenation of the Catholic Church as the primary goal of his papacy, but this only needs to be in one area of the Church for him to appease his global flock, and his ‘Pope of the people’ antics have already cemented his position on what best to improve about the Church’s image. It follows that he is unlikely to alter his demonstrably conservative stance on same-sex marriage, euthanasia or any other ethical debate: he simply doesn’t need to.

The Original Francis (Image from Anaflora)

Saint Francis of Assisi, after whom the Pope has titled himself, wrote a prayer, in which he put, at once simple and entirely comprehensive, the following: “Where there is hatred, let me sow love…where there is discord, harmony…where there is despair, hope”.

I’m a non-believer myself, but it’s hard to fault the values Assisi preached, and it is regrettable that Pope Francis, who, though not an accomplished theologian of the likes of his predecessor, is an undoubtedly learned man, did not do enough research on his namesake before his cardinalship in Argentina to have adopted Assisi’s compassion into his own religious teaching.

The Pope cannot be elected out of office, nor is a papal coup particularly likely (though, note to self, it would be a fantastic premise for a movie). One can only hope, then, that being arguably the most powerful and influential man in the world will bring out in him a more considered religious outlook, or at the very least bring these outdated dogmas into such fierce scrutiny as to force a re-evaluation of them. It is optimistic, certainly.

But “where there is despair, hope”.

Can Shinzo Abe wrest Japan from its economic malaise?

Image: fineartamerica

A decade ago, Japanese firms such as Sharp, Sony and Panasonic dominated the consumer electronics market producing everything from cutting-edge televisions to high-tech phones. These days, corporate Japan is far from rude health. Sony recorded a mammoth loss of $5.8 billion for the 2011 financial year. Panasonic and Nintendo have also performed miserably. And Sharp forecasts a loss of $4.7 billion in the financial year ending 31^st March 2013. To plug the gaping black hole in its finances, Sharp has gone cap in hand to Samsung (a bitter rival) and Hon Hai (the Taiwanese manufacturer of iPhones and iPads).

The misfortunes of Japan’s corporate behemoths illustrate the wider decline in the Japanese economy. Over the last two decades, the economy has been dogged by deflation. Falling prices have discouraged consumer spending as households hold off for even lower prices. This has sparked a vicious cycle of falling profits and further price cuts. As a result, the economy has bumped along the bottom for much of the last twenty years. In 2012, the country entered its fifth recession in the last fifteen years. More recently, Japan was devastated by a tsunami and a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in March 2011.

Times a-Changin’

Image: Guardian

Japan, however, may be about to turn the corner. The new Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, aims to reignite the economy with “Three Arrows”: fiscal stimulus, aggressive monetary policy and structural reforms. It seems investors have already brought out the bubbly; the Nikkei has soared by 30% over the last three months.

But can Mr. Abe deliver? Previous governments have tried to reignite the economy to no avail. Often, leaders have failed to keep their party together in the face of tough political and economic decisions. As a consequence, the country has seen seven different prime ministers in the last eight years.

Image: Guardian

However, Mr. Abe’s first three months in power have seen him gain considerable momentum. The prime minister enjoys high approval ratings and the excitement in financial markets suggests investors and businesses are also upbeat. Better still, his coalition holds a two-thirds majority in the lower house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament). This provides the firepower to push through promised reforms. So, can the new government capitalise on this momentum and breathe life back into the Japanese economy?

Three Arrows

Mr. Abe’s has already fired his first arrow: fiscal stimulus. The government has proposed a massive $100 billion spending program on infrastructure which could add roughly 2% to GDP and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Following weak growth in 2012, there is a strong case for stimulus to wrest the country from its economic malaise.

Image: Bloomberg

The prime minister has also progressed on the second pillar of his vision. His pressure on the Bank of Japan has driven the central bank to double its inflation target to 2%. Moreover, the new governor of the Bank of Japan, Haruhiko Kuroda, has made clear his desire for bolder monetary policy to achieve the new inflation target within two years. This should end the deflationary cycle that has gnawed away at the Japanese economy.

Most importantly, Mr. Abe has drawn his third arrow, structural reform. The government aims to join discussions for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a free trade agreement amongst 11 countries including the USA, Chile and Singapore. In the face of weak domestic demand and declines in existing export markets, the TPP will provide a real shot in the arm for the Japanese economy. Firms would gain easier access to 500 million more customers, providing fantastic opportunities for expansion. Significantly, the TPP will allow Japanese businesses to find a foothold in fast-growing emerging markets such as Malaysia, Vietnam and Mexico. Entry to the partnership will also require a raft of structural reforms in key sectors such as energy.

The Problems

Critics would shout from the rooftops that Japan has tried deficit spending before with little to show for. Between 1992 and 2000, the country saw ten stimulus packages worth a grand total of 100 trillion yen, but growth has been underwhelming at best. To make matters worse, borrowing more would add to the government’s already staggering debt burden, equivalent to 237% of GDP. This would lead to larger interest payments in the future, taking money away from other areas such as healthcare and pensions.

Image: WSJ

Mr. Abe also faces an uphill struggle against Japan’s powerful farming lobby if the country is to enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Japan’s agricultural industry has been protected from foreign competition by eye-watering import duties: foreign beef faces a tariff of 38.5% and the import tariff on wheat comes to 252%.

This time it’s different

Image: Kantei

The critics do have a strong case. Unlike previous efforts, though, government spending will be mirrored by equally loose monetary policy. This should ensure the latest stimulus package achieves more bang for its buck. Moreover, despite protests from farmers, a free trade agreement remains popular amongst the rest of Japan. Surveys by Asahi, Yomiuri and Mainichi newspapers found roughly two-thirds of voters backed the proposals for the TPP. Mr. Abe may be able to sweeten the deal for farmers by keeping some level of protection in the short-term.

Whilst Japan’s problems cannot be fixed overnight, the new government has made valuable steps in the right direction. Combining deficit spending and bolder monetary policy will pull the economy out of the doldrums and boost confidence. Structural reforms will also provide a competitiveness shock.

The biggest impact of a Japanese revival may actually be seen beyond its shores. Eurozone leaders will look on keenly to see if Mr. Abe’s “Three Arrows” hit the target. So far, the single currency has preferred austerity to spending. But deep spending cuts and tax rises have damaged hopes of a European recovery. A resurgent Japan may show Europe’s leaders a way out of the mess.

The debate about the existence of God and lack thereof recently came back to the forefront of academic debate with the ironically titled “Four Horsemen of New Athiesm”, consisting of scientists Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, philosopher Daniel Dennett and all-round two-cent-giver, the late Christopher Hitchens.

What’s so “new” about this atheism, I hear imaginary readers ask. Well rather than just criticising belief in religion, these horsemen admonished its influence and role in society; Hitchens, perhaps the most charismatic and easily the least prudent of the four (in fact, probably the best evidence to support the view that, in the public sphere, prudence and charisma are inversely proportional) was particularly “antithiestic”.

So I thought, after Hitchens’ untimely, but, given the fact that he was almost never seen without a cigarette or a glass of Scotch, hardly surprising death at the hands of oesophageal cancer, the remaining three could do with a new frontman and, though I possess neither the charisma nor the hepatic fortitude of my predecessor, I’ll give it the good old college try anyway.

A recent debate that pitted Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry against Ann Widdecombe and John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, discussed this very topic under the title “The Catholic Church is a force for moral good in the world”.

While the title does lend itself rather neatly to a discussion of the moral and immoral actions of the Vatican and its minions (meant entirely pejoratively), what was a little lacking in the debate was a far more pertinent and fundamental argument. The influence that belief in God and, more importantly in organised religion, has on the thinking of people. Fry and Hitchens pointed to bishops discouraging the use of condoms in AIDS ridden parts of Africa (or, as other people refer to them, Africa) and the Crusades, while Widdecome and Onaiyekan countered with Christian charities such as the Salvation Army, and to be honest, there was little to suggest the scale was significantly tipping either way. Religious people do bad things, but they also do good things. The question isn’t really whether they do more of one than the other, but how likely it is that religion will send them in either direction.

It is certainly true that religion has led to some rather abominable assertions - the condom issue is a particularly heinous one, but the criticism of homosexuality, the suppression of free speech, and the oppression of women are not to be omitted from the blasphemous melting point.

Religion however, political theorists such as Rousseau and Burke were keen to stress, has a tempering influence on immorality - man is better persuaded not to murder when the punishment is not merely a pesky stained conscious, but eternal damnation. But perhaps this in itself illustrates the problem - the effect of religion is that man is all too easily persuaded about pretty much anything.

Bill Maher once described it as the “suspension of critical thought”, and this deftly summarises the negative impact religion has on society, and the basis for all antitheist arguments. Whether homosexuality is immoral or not is perhaps a matter of subjectivity (it isn’t really though, some people are gay, get over it), but the point is that the debate has to be had rationally, otherwise it’s hardly a debate at all. If one does not critically analyse one’s own views on any particular issue, and rejects any rational critique of these views by anyone else as offensive, then one becomes susceptible to the trap of believing in the ludicrous. And one of the fundamental principles religion teaches is to not question its doctrines, its dogmas. And sometimes, these dogmas are ludicrous.

What is perhaps the best testament to this fact is that, for the most part, religious people agree. The majority of Muslims, at least in Western societies, do not adhere to the Quran’s rules of death for apostasy (Bukhari 52:260, from the Hadith), and few Christians disqualify the castrated or testicularly-challenged from Church (Deutoronomy 23:1). In these situations, they recognise that their religion is simply incorrect about these issues, so the same should go for the more contentious aspects of religious doctrine; those concerning homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion and all other manner of ethical issues. However, in these cases, when ethicists come in their droves to criticise dogmatic religious stances on such issues, the believers can rebuke all criticism with the simple assertion that their God has bid it, and His will be done. The problem with theism is clear: oftentimes, His will needs to tempered by some good old-fashioned logic and common sense. Unfortunately, religion (and a distinction between religion and religious people here is absolutely essential) does not allow for this.

Perhaps it is now the case that religion prompts in the masses a great sense of charitably that is of course infinitely beneficial, but the point is that it could tomorrow persuade populations that blind people shouldn’t be allowed in restaurants. If one does not have logic to rely on as an anchor that stops religion’s moral boat from swaying too far away in the directions of ludicrousness, one simply cannot be sure.

It is for this reason that this irrelevant opinionist is siding with the secularists and antithiests on this one.