The Chant of the Barbie Dolls

Our Science Correspondent Chip Van Brawling reports:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2e-gOeN3DM

Indepdent TD Wannadem Healy-Rae today rounded on the people of Kerry, claiming that "as God above" controls the weather, He is clearly punishing the people of Kerry by repeatedly lambasting and smiting their coastal towns and villages, and wrecking the blossoming tourist industry, not to mention making it difficult to get out and drink and drive properly.

When questioned further, the deputy claimed that "Sure, 'tis only logical and reasonable, in all scientific truth". The fact that God has chosen to repeatedly inflict the most significant storm damage over the past 5 years on the South West, he claimed, must mean that God himself is angry with the good people of Kerry.

"It isn't clear just now", claimed the deputy, "whether 'tis their lifestyles, or the heathen ways of the permissive society that has unfortunately taken hold, even in Kerry; or indeed if He's just upset that maybe we're infringing on his copyright of the phrase 'for dine is de kingdom'. But whatever it is, he is using the weather as a tool to express his displeasure with them - this is an outrageous example of Divine eco-terrorism, at it's worst. I'll be communing with God forthwith so He may reveal unto me his reasons; but I'll be giving him a good piece of my mind, on behalf of the people of Kerry (that I represent)".

I asked the deputy if he thought that perhaps the people of Kerry might think of adopting a different God, one that didn't smite so much with the weather and stuff, but the deputy proceeded to rant so much about false gods, blasphemy and so on, it wasn't possible to tell what he was saying.

I wonder if God is actually just really browned off with the people of Kerry for who they are choosing to elect as public representatives?

1. Let’s say that a person professes and genuinely does actually believe in supernatural entities. If that person is absolutely CERTAIN of that, that’s really idiotic -  100% certainty doesn’t exist. Anyone who says so is saying something idiotic. And is therefore unfit for office.
2. Again, let’s say a person really does believe in a god, and they are certain of its existence – then that person’s religion will, by definition, control what they do as public representatives – if a religion says that a person can go to hell because they “support same sex marriages”, then it would be unsound for that person to support any such provision. In other words, a convinced believer in god cannot represent their constituents, without, in some part, risking eternal damnation, if, as they say, they are convinced of god’s (and hell’s) existence. And they are therefore unfit for public office because by definition they cannot be expected to behave rationally for the benefit of their constituents. You could argue that at least their behavior and attitudes would be predictable, so you would know exactly what you get when you vote for them - that's something I suppose.
3. A person who says they have absolute religious conviction or belief in god might just be lying because they think it will get them votes – who knows what actual beliefs they hold, if any at all. That makes them completely unfit for public office.
4. Let’s say there is a person standing for public office who “believes” but is at least smart enough to admit that there is always uncertainty and they might be right or wrong but they certainly “feel like” there is “something” more than just the material world and they ascribe that to a “god”. Now you can’t be at all certain what this person stands for or means when they say anything – their religious convictions may, or may not influence their decisions when acting or legislating – because they have nothing but a hazy sense of “something maybe out there up on the clouds with a beard”, you will never know at what point they will want to take whatever that religion is seriously. Will it be when legislation about abortion or contraception kicks in? Or maybe only around divorce, or on the wearing of hijabs? Who knows? Such a person who cannot present a consistent view of the world will behave completely unpredictably when it comes to legislating on any number of issues – and is therefore unfit to hold office.
5. Let’s say a person takes an agnostic stance i.e. no one can know for certain if a god exists, or if a god doesn’t exist – so it’s best to just say we can never know. That is intellectually indefensible – if you are making claims about evidence, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any type of god or gods exist. That person is unfit for office because their wishy washy nonsense position belies a complete ignorance of scientific or even basic logical reasoning. That makes them unfit for public office, where they are required to weigh up evidence based policy decisions – an agnostic position on something as basic as religion means they preclude themselves from ever making any evidence based decision! Again, there is always the chance that the agnostic is striking this position specifically because they think it will garner votes from “believers” and “non-believers” alike – such a person is unfit to hold office too.