The Disappointment of Jeremy Corbyn

"We have a European bureaucracy, totally unaccountable to anybody. Powers have gone from national parliaments, they haven't gone to the European parliament, they've gone to the Commission."

Not a quote from Nigel Farage but from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. I confess that whilst I disagree with large swathes of his politics, I was rooting for Corbyn to win the Labour leadership. Aside from the cynical desire to see socialism quashed in UK politics for at least another generation, here was a man who had routinely defied the party whip throughout his tenure in parliament and stuck to his principles - a trait sorely lacking in Westminster. Moreover, Corbyn had a lifetime of Euroscepticism and criticism of the EU behind him. David Cameron had promised an in-out EU referendum and having narrowly won a majority in the election, we would be getting it. Here was an opportunity to have a lifelong Eurosceptic lead the second largest party in UK politics and make the left-wing case for withdrawal, devoid of the unpleasantness some feel that UKIP taints that idea with.

Alas, after his speech today, Corbyn has stuck to the general theme of his opposition and disappointed, setting out as he did a case for Remain. Corbyn of course stated back in February that he would be backing the Remain camp, thus performing a complete 180 on his previous stances. He voted to leave the then EEC in 1975, he voted against the Maastricht Treat in 1992 and the Lisbon treaty in 2008. His website was full of articles decrying the EU and it's corporatist nature, which have now been taken down, displaying the sort of double-dealing and hypocrisy that his supporters saw him as an answer to.

The main thrust of Corbyn's speech was that yes, the EU is awful, so that's why we need to stay in in order to reform it. This completely disregards the EU's unwillingness and inability to reform, as David Cameron discovered in his ill-fated 'renegotiation.' Indeed, one of the most impressive diatribes Corbyn almost gave was his evisceration of Cameron over his inability to achieve any meaningful reform. I say almost because he rightly lambasted the EU's failure to stop the erosion of jobs in vital sectors like the steel industry. He pointed out that the EU enforces the privatisation of public services (meaning that Corbyn's policies of rail re-nationalisation and the like are incompatible with EU law). He decried their austerity measures, their failure to protect worker's rights, and it's severe lack of democratic accountability. Unfortunately, Corbyn shunned the obvious conclusion of this litany of offences and endorse an exit from the European Union, instead opting to back staying in regardless.

It's entirely possible of course that Corbyn has indeed reassessed his view on our EU membership, though one can't help wondering if this about face is more to do with trying to maintain some sort of party unity. The early days of Corbyn's leadership were dogged with infighting and disagreements over policy, such as Trident for example, and at the time of Corbyn's announcement he would be backing In, a further split could well have spelled disaster for his fledgling leadership. Indeed, when asked why he had changed his mind, Corbyn stated that the Labour Party backed EU membership and that 'that's the party I lead and the position I am putting forward', suggesting that this speech was by Jeremy Corbyn the leader of the Labour Party, rather than Jeremy Corbyn the man.

Regardless, his actual speech was full of the kind of nonsense we have come to expect from the Remain camp. From his stating that EU membership is crucial to worker's rights - something that is formulated at the global level by bodies such as the ILO and then passed down to the EU to implement, not drawn up by the EU itself, to stating that 'not that many people come here' with regards to the EU's free movement principles. Regardless of where you stand on immigration, a tally of over 200,000 can hardly be classed as 'not that many.'

It was also telling that one of the arguments Corbyn made was the threat of the Tory party dumping worker's rights such as maternity pay, annual leave and equal pay. Never mind the fact that the Conservatives have no such policies - it would be electoral suicide if they did - but supposing the British electorate wanted a more deregulated, free market economy and voted for a party to implement such a scheme. Corbyn is in effect endorsing the overrule of British democracy by the European Union, the biggest bone of contention that every advocate of a Leave vote from all over the political spectrum has with the EU project.

So yes Jeremy, I understand the need for party unity, lord knows we could use an effective opposition right now, that your party is currently far from providing, but it's a shame that in the name of that unity, you have abandoned that trait which your supporters revered and your opponents, however much they may disagree, respected; your elevation of principle over politics.

David Cameron and the Tax Haven of Panama.

I wasn't going to write about this. Frankly, the PM has followed the law to the letter (which is part of the problem, more on that later) and the sustained bluster that has followed has been complete garbage. I frankly didn't want to add to the noise surrounding what, despite what some people who are clearly unfamiliar with the story think, is a non-issue. But as it seems to have no intention of dying down any time soon - thanks in part to Cameron's own woeful handling of the situation - I figured I'd throw in my own two cents on the issue.

After sustained pressure from the aftermath of the Panama papers leak, David Cameron has disclosed that he owned shares in the tax haven fund Blairmore Holdings, which were sold in 2010 for a profit of £19,000. It is important to distinguish here that Cameron was not running any money through this company in order to avoid paying tax, he merely held shares in the company. Now, one can rightly remonstrate with him about fighting to close tax loopholes and reduce tax avoidance whilst having previously owned shares in a company that allowed people to do just that. Frankly, anyone who is involved in any of these schemes, in any capacity, whilst working to ensure that the rest of us have no such luxury is both hypocritical and a scoundrel. But when Cameron sold those shares in 2010, making a somewhat decent profit, all taxes due were paid. So far from actually doing anything illegal - such as tax evasion - he hasn't even partaken in tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal and should be encouraged. Anyone who has ever taken out an ISA, held premium bonds, or stocked up at the duty free on the way back from a holiday has avoided tax. Minimising your tax bill within the confines of the law is a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to do. I'm reminded of this 1929 quote from Judge Lord Clyde: "No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores."

The irony of this whole charade of course, is the fact that this isn't even new information. The Guardian first reported on Cameron's links to Blairmore Holdings back in 2012. Four years ago. This is probably why the Guardian's main focus of it's Panama papers leak wasn't Cameron, but in fact Vladimir Putin and other world leaders actually involved in dodgy financial practices.

There has since been further revelations about Cameron's inheritance but the idea that people are decrying a mother giving money to her son, rather than applauding it, is ludicrous. I have even seen one Times columnist calling for Inheritance Tax to be 100%. The idea that you can work hard all your life and build a nest-egg for your children so they don't have to worry quite so much about money is a noble one. Having the state confiscate part or all of that should seem abhorrent to anyone.

Cameron is really only guilty of catastrophically mismanaging the situation. He should have been far quicker to volunteer that he had previously had an investment in his father's fund, though I'm inclined to agree that a person's private investments should remain so. Cameron has now taken the unprecedented step of releasing his tax return from the last 6 years. This of course tells us absolutely nothing new as the Prime Minister's salary is a matter of public record, as are any extras received by MPs. But having uncorked this particular genie's bottle, there are now cries for all MPs to disclose their tax returns, and even that of private individuals in business and the media. Why people are seemingly so obsessed with the financial affairs of others is beyond me. Full credit to the first politician who confronts these calls with 'no chance, that's a private matter.'

Now, there is a further point to be made here. The fact that tax avoidance schemes are so prevalent indicates two things. Firstly, that taxes are too high. The accountants and other personnel required to set up these schemes don't come cheap but they're self-evidently worth the money if you're minimising your tax bill by a greater amount. Were taxes lower it would cease to be worth the effort and the expenditure, plus there's a lot to be said for letting people keep a greater sum of their own money.
More pressingly though, it demonstrates that the tax code is clearly too complicated. People exploiting the rules and loopholes to their benefit is not an argument against those people but rather an argument against the Chancellors who concocted the rules in the first place. There would be a much greater sense of fair play and much less resentment against those wealthy enough to employ someone to decipher the pan's labyrinth that is the UK tax code, were taxes simpler and flatter.

REVIEW: Tax The Heat - Fed To The Lions

Fed To The Lions is the debut album from Bristol quartet Tax The Heat and as debut albums go it's an absolute barnstormer. This isn't a band still in search of their sound as many initial efforts can be, but rather a highly polished effort showcasing a real identity. A bed of hard rock riffs and 60's R&B swagger gives the foursome a hearty base from which to launch their songs.

And what songs they are. The singles Highway Home and Animals kick things off with aplomb, giving a strong indication of what to expect – ballsy guitars and big choruses – without giving too much away about what's in store further down the line. Whilst ostensibly 'blues rock' the glossy production and Alex Veale's thoroughly modern delivery of the vocals ensure that Tax The Heat are miles away from your bog-standard classic rock band. Though there's still some blistering lead runs by Veale that will keep that audience more than happy, there are moments when indie flavours seep through to compliment the overall hard rock vibe.

Three tracks from the band's 2013 EP are reproduced here including the song for which this album is named. Any other track following the Wolfmother meets QOTSA Under Watchful Eye would sound tame by comparison but the massive guitar sound, furious drumming and stop start vocals make it one of this writer's favourites on the album.

The true stand out track though arrives at the mid-point in the shape of Some Sympathy. Appearances at Download, Calling Festival and others, as well as arena shows alongside the likes of Thunder cry out for some sort of anthem and Tax The Heat could have a stone cold classic on their hands right out of the gate. With a huge sing-a-long chorus and simple, one-two punch riff, it's no wonder they were able to win over those sorts of crowds.

The album rattles along at a good pace, the quartet eschewing ballades and opting to keep the riffs coming right up until the climactic Lost Our Way, a real showcase of the musicianship these lads possess. A guitar god opening, giving way to a melodious chorus demonstrating a command of light and shade, it's a massive closing track that is just begging to be given an extended workout live.

All in all, few freshmen efforts can claim to be as polished and self-assured as Fed To The Lions. If their career trajectory is any indication, off the back of this record, Tax The Heat are poised for big things.

Find it on iTunes

Tracklisting:

Highway Home

Animals

Under Watchful Eye

Fed To The Lions

Hit Me Hard

Stood On The Platform To Leave

Some Sympathy

Devil's Daughter

Learn To Drown (You're Wrong)

Caroline

Your Fool

Lost Our Way

The Government's Remain Propaganda

News broke this evening that the Government will be carpet bombing homes in Britain with a leaflet explaining how 'remaining in the European Union is best for the UK'. This comes at a cost of £9.3m to the taxpayer and represents a bid on the part of the Government to significantly skew the referendum in their favour.

Each of the camps, Remain and Leave, receive funding from the state. One can argue as to whether or not that should be the case in the first place but, regardless, any funds provided by taxpayers should be distributed equally to both sides in order to ensure as fair and as balanced a referendum as possible. Each campaign is allowed to spend up to £7m of public money during the campaign. This leaflet campaign, funded as it is in addition to that £7m, in effect more than doubles the amount of public money being spent on the In campaign than Out. By funding this outside of the purdah period (which, lest we forget, Cameron wanted to scrap) the Government circumvent these limits. They have justified this propaganda campaign by saying that polling indicates 85% of people want more information before making a decision. Unfortunately, the leaflet itself doesn't present cold facts but rather Remain spin and deceit. The misrepresentation starts on the first page:

Given that the Government contains several ministers who in fact believe the exact opposite, it is already a misrepresentation of the facts. Inside it goes further, even perpetuating the long since debunked '3 million jobs rely on our EU membership' myth.

What's more is that the issuing of this leaflet reneges on promises made by the Government itself. Minister for Europe David Lidington is on record as saying in September of last year that the government has: "...no intention of legislating to allow the Government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting."

I don't blame people for wanting more information before making up their minds on this issue. The level of debate on both sides has been absolutely woeful. This intervention from the Government however is merely an extension of the Remain campaign and whilst it may not technically break the law, it is certainly highly questionable ethically and an affront to democracy. The information people need is readily available, it just needs a little bit of work and half an hour or so on Google to find. It is an important issue, and people should seek to gather as much information as they possibly can before deciding. This leaflet though is pure propaganda, disgustingly paid for by the taxpayer.

Paris

"...whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and, whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." - Qur'an 5:32

"Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them..." - Qur'an 47:3

The Qur'an, like the Bible before it and many other religious texts, is full of contradictions. It calls for peace. It calls for war and jihad and murder. It is self evident that those terrorists who committed the unspeakable horror in Paris last night do not represent all Muslims. But they do represent Islam. Not as a whole, but as a - perfectly legitimate, if despicable - reading of it. 

I do not know how best to fight ISIS. I do not know if bombing should continue or escalate. I do not know if we should have troops on the ground. But I do know that we cannot continue respecting faith. 

These fanatics had an unwavering faith in their religion and a belief that what they were doing was not just moral but mandated from a deity for which there is no evidence of existence. We must challenge faith. Call it out like you would call out racism or homophobia. It is not ok to believe in things for no reason because at it's worst it leads to the murder of innocent people. Too many UK and European citizens have joined ISIS because of their faith. If we value freedom, secularism, democracy, free speech, individual liberty and, above all, reason, we must challenge the root cause of the evils which seek to usurp those values, namely faith, and challenge them here at home lest any more of our citizens take up arms against us in the name of backwards, bronze-age mythology. 

Evidence free ideologies, be it Islam, Christianity, Nazism, Stalinism or seemingly benign idiocies such as astrology or mediumship are a surrender of the mind and the only thing that separates us from other mammals. We cannot respect them because they give licence to the fundamentalists to commit horrendous violence in the name of faith. Moderate religious people may of course express distaste for such violence, pretending that the clear calls for grotesque and violent behaviour in their sacred book aren't there and cherry-picking the 'nice bits', but they are still guilty of not opening up the subject of belief to rational discourse, and in doing so are part of the machinery that leads to all the ugliness caused by fundamentalism.

So of course those that took the lives of over 100 completely innocent people in Paris last night don't represent all Muslims. Anyone who suggests so is as stupid as they are ignorant. But please let's refrain from the empty and untrue appeasement of saying it had 'nothing to do with Islam.' It quite clearly has everything to do with Islam, everything to do with religion, everything to do with blind faith. It must be challenged.

Russell's Revolution

This blog is, not so much a riposte as my thoughts on Russell Brand's editorial for this month's New Statesman magazine and subsequent interview with Jeremy Paxman which was doing the rounds on t'interweb this morning. I recommend reading the article at least before continuing otherwise you might find your eyes glazing over with incomprehension at what the hell I'm dribbling on about.


Let me begin by saying I'm a big fan of Russell Brand. I love his style, as is evidenced by the frequency with which big men with gold chains and Le Coq Sportif tracksuit bottoms on shout 'fuck me it's Russell Brand' at me in the street, I love his stand-up and other comic misadventures but most of all I admire his intellect and his eloquence. In the latter regard he reminds me of a rather more flamboyant, pop-star dating, ex-junkie Christopher Hitchens. As much as I'm a fan of his comedy it's when he takes a more serious approach on matters, whether it's society's approach to drug addiction, politics or spirituality that I find him the most engaging. That being said, we don't always share similar views and whilst I found his editorial for New Statesman, which he is guest editing this month, a very thought provoking read, there were a couple of points with which I found myself pulling a face in disagreement and others, though they were less numerous, where I expressed our disparity of views in a more vocal and expletive-ridden manner.

The first countenance contorting revelation in the article is that Russell doesn't vote. Someone in my twitter feed cynically opined whether this was because he's now holed up in Hollywood but the Paxman interview reveals that he never has and never will. This irks me somewhat. I'm very much of the opinion that if you don't vote, if you don't engage, then you can't really complain about what you get. Brand though, sees voting as an act of compliance to a broken system, in which there is nothing to vote for and no real alternatives, and to a certain extent I find myself agreeing with him. However, whilst it might seem a groaningly obvious choice of source for a quote, Churchill is said to have remarked that "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" and he's right. Democracy sucks, but it sucks marginally less than the alternative systems. Though it's not entirely clear what alternative Brand is offering. He's certainly unhappy with the choices we've got (and generally speaking, who isn't) but he gives no real insight as to what he'd prefer. He rightly protests on Newsnight that it's kind of difficult to devise a whole new political system on the back of a beer mat in the pub, though I daresay the public houses of Britain are rife with such things of a Saturday evening, but can anyone genuinely come-up with a fairer system than the democratic principle of one man, one vote? Sure it's not perfect and occasionally has the air of being gaffer taped together with the speedo wound back and sawdust in the transmission but generally speaking it does work in so far as that the people of any given constituency get the candidate they voted for. I'd say to Russell if you don't like the choices at the ballot box and care so passionately about people and politics, stand for election yourself, tell people your values and principles and let them decide if they agree enough to have you represent them. 

Brand's right in that apathy is the biggest obstacle to societal and political change but nothing will work better to change that apathy into the rage he desires than people increasingly feeling like their voices aren't being heard or they aren't being properly represented. Uniquely in the UK I think, the British people will put up with a hell of a lot but eventually we will say enough is enough and go about changing things fairly, effectively and for the better. It wouldn't surprise me to see more and more independent candidates standing in elections to come and is in fact something I'd love to see. The biggest problem with the current system for my money is MP's voting in the interests of their party rather than in the interests of the constituents. So bring on the independents and do away with the whips, those whom we democratically elect to represent us should ultimately answer to us and not their party leaders.

Brand's right in that apathy is the biggest obstacle to societal and political change but nothing will work better to change that apathy into the rage he desires than people increasingly feeling like their voices aren't being heard or they aren't being properly represented. Uniquely in the UK I think, the British people will put up with a hell of a lot but eventually we will say enough is enough and go about changing things fairly, effectively and for the better. It wouldn't surprise me to see more and more independent candidates standing in elections to come and is in fact something I'd love to see. The biggest problem with the current system for my money is MP's voting in the interests of their party rather than in the interests of the constituents. So bring on the independents and do away with the whips, those whom we democratically elect to represent us should ultimately answer to us and not their party leaders.

There is an air of anarchy in Brand's arguments, which I applaud and would urge him to run with, but sadly this is forestalled by his leftist ideologies. His passion for socialism and desire for the redistribution of wealth particularly is by it's very nature authoritarian. He decries Cameron and Osborne for taking the EU to court in defence of bankers bonuses and whilst our initial instinct is to rally against this, do we really want to give the government, whether it be Westminster or Brussels, the power to decide what and how private businesses pay their employees? Big business may be bad (though I don't fully subscribe to this view) but if you value freedom and liberty then big government is certainly worse. Indeed, many of the problems people have with big business stem from them being able to manipulate big government in their favour. The answer is not to make government bigger but to reduce it so it's an ineffective tool for businesses to utilise.
I share Brand's view that we need to look after the poverty stricken, not just in this country but the world over, and the planet that we find ourselves clinging to, but I reject the notion that we need the government to tell us how to, or indeed make us, do this. If you'll indulge me in a little intellectual posturing by paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, those who sacrifice liberty for security will ultimately have neither. The argument can be made that the selfishness and individualism that Russell decries is perpetuated more by left wing socialism than right wing libertarianism. All too often we hear of the suffering of our fellow human beings and immediately cry 'what is the government doing about it?' Well balls to the government, what are YOU doing about it? If the plight of your fellow man worries you, why look to those in suits in the house of commons to alleviate? Go help! Donate to a charity, volunteer, take the responsibility you're trying to shirk onto the shoulders of your elected representatives for yourself. (A, frankly perfect, example of this idea can be seen in this video, in which Piers Morgan challenges Penn Jillette on his libertarianism. Morgan expresses his outrage that so many people are living in poverty in America to which Penn fantastically responds "and I assume you're helping them." He goes on to correctly say that if 1 out of 7 Americans are living on food stamps then that's 6 out of 7 Americans that can help them. Now, can you remember what I was saying before I opened those parenthesis? Oh yes, socialism). Socialism isn't the compassionate option, it's the lazy option. If the idea of a city fat cat earning millions whilst some families rely on food banks rightly offends you, don't look to government to intervene, particularly if you believe them to be completely self-serving, appeal to the millionaire's humanity and ask him to contribute to private social programmes that will help those less fortunate. Believe it or not, just because someone happens to be rich, that doesn't make them a cold-hearted bastard. Globally, the bastards are an incredibly small number. If you take the 6 billion people on the planet, rounding off the numbers, and take away the bastards, I fully believe that you'll be left with 6 billion that are good. I don't find myself leaning towards libertarianism out of selfishness but because I believe people will help each other without the need for the government to tell them to do so. I'm not cynical enough to be a socialist, nor do I want my compassion outsourced to a government welfare programme. If we do need a social paradigm shift, it's not towards left wing, big government socialism, but towards right wing, libertarian, humanist principles.

Which brings me to the other main point I found myself profusely disagreeing with Brand on. He renounces atheism as a stumbling block to social co-operation. The paragraph in full says:

"The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity. Not out of some woolly, bullshit tree-hugging piffle but because we live on it, currently without alternatives. This is why I believe we need a unifying and inclusive spiritual ideology: atheism and materialism atomise us and anchor us to one frequency of consciousness and inhibit necessary co-operation. The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity. Not out of some woolly, bullshit tree-hugging piffle but because we live on it, currently without alternatives. This is why I believe we need a unifying and inclusive spiritual ideology: atheism and materialism atomise us and anchor us to one frequency of consciousness and inhibit necessary co-operation."

This is the part that got me worked up and had me gripping my cup of tea with a little too much gusto. It's no surprise however, given Brand's desire to invoke a higher governing power in a bid to solve the world's problems, that he would see atheism as a problem, rather than the ideal mindset with which to tackle said issues. By acknowledging that in the absence of a divine babysitter we have a personal responsibility to the planet and each other, we can properly motivate ourselves to tackle the ecological and societal problems that humanity faces. It's far easier to see the suffering of our fellow primates and be OK with not doing anything about it if you believe that a mystical sky fairy will take care of them. Atheism, and more specifically, humanism, is the more effective and more compassionate option. Russell's right when he says we need a new, unifying ideology, but he's 100% dead wrong when he invites us to search for a new common mythology with which to motivate us. Why do we need a mythology to unite us at all? Isn't the fact we share a planet and a gene pool enough? The most effective way to solve any problem is to take a purely rational, materialist, logical approach. We must tackle the issues we face ourselves and not palm off the responsibility to a governing power, celestial or otherwise.

The problem with religious moderates.

This morning I watched a program on 4OD entitled Scientologists at war, which detailed the experience of Marty Rathbun, an ex-member of the church of Scientology who has since been harassed for leaving the church and practising the religion independently. Before watching I was unaware of so called independent Scientologists but I suppose, like all religions, there are those people who will be called moderate and don't follow their faith completely, preferring just to stick to the bits they approve of. This to me, rather than helping the issue, actually puts a reasonable face on idiocy and makes the idea of faith and believing whatever you choose to, despite evidence to the contrary, more acceptable.

Marty Rathbun is obviously well-intentioned. In the program he condemns the intimidation and frankly torture, that he himself once advocated and ordered as the number two guy in the church of Scientology, and rightly so. However, the program doesn't say whether or not Marty still believes that an alien overlord named Xenu deposited frozen 'thetans' ie souls, on earth near volcanoes which were then destroyed by a series of nuclear explosions, forcing the thetans to inhabit human bodies which must then be purified by Scientology's practice of 'auditing'.

No I didn't make that up, that's actually the mythology underpinning Scientology. Apparently L Ron Hubbard wasn't just a science fiction writer, he was a really bad one.

This is the crux of my point. Do we really think it's acceptable to believe such nonsense? People should be allowed to of course, but it should be ridiculed whenever it's brought up. As should the belief that a Palestinian Jew was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Or that an Arab named Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Religion, all religions, without exception, have ridiculous stories at the heart of them and yet there is still a sense in society that it's wrong to criticise someone's religion. Why? We can criticise someone's politics or their economics, but when it comes to religion, that's out of bounds.

It's funny too, how a Christian for example, will clearly laugh at the Scientology myth, but when you point out that their religion is based on the idea of virgin births, resurrections and people living to be 900 years old, they will defend it wholeheartedly. Scientology is no more crazy than Christianity, or Islam or Judaism or Hinduism, or any of the ancient religions you wish to choose; Greek, Roman, Egyptian etc etc, it's just plain and simply more modern, and that's it. Since the beginning of recorded history - defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6000 years ago - historians have managed to catalogue somewhere in the region of 3700 supernatural beings and 2870 of these can be considered gods. The only difference between me and a Christian therefore, is I don't believe in 2870 gods and he doesn't believe in 2869. A Christian feels exactly the same way about Zeus as I do about Yahweh.

So yes, moderate religious people should be praised for condemning and ignoring the evil parts of their specific doctrine but that doesn't mean that the bits in their particular holy book that don't call for death or slavery or the worship of our alien overlords aren't open to rational criticism either. By shaking off the evil bits they've only done half a job. Toss aside the pseudo-science, the metaphysics and the mythology too and think critically about the world! Embrace and wonder at the unknown. I'm going to finish this blog post with what is probably my favourite Christopher Hitchens quote:

"The offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can't give way, is the offer of something not worth having. I want to live my life taking the risk, all the time that I don't know anything like enough yet. That I haven't understood enough, that I can't know enough, always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom, I wouldn't have it any other way and I'd urge you to look at those who tell you that you're dead 'til you believe as they do, (what a terrible thing to be telling to children) and that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority, don't think of that as a gift. Think of it as a poison chalice, push it aside, no matter how tempting it is, take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way."