Sam, if I misinterpreted you, it wasn’t deliberate on my part – you did open with “Stop being so damn fat” which is a pretty aggressive tone. My “vitriol” was not targeted at you because of what you look like but because you seemed to be making a statement that offended me. The overweight are the constant target of abuse and you don’t have to be obese to see that that defies the notion of common human dignity.

Unfortunately I don’t think we can make much difference faffing about with plastic bags (that’s not to say we shouldn’t do it though). If we’re to achieve the targetted emissions cuts, we’re going to have to start with the *big* things. And unfortunately, that’s not going to be easy.

This is quite a good read if you’ve got the time:

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Just to avoid some more of the vitriol that I presume is especially targeted at me “because I’m so skinny”, I’ll let you in on a little secret: if I hadn’t started losing weight through exercise as a concerted effort for the last month or so, I would be a couple of kilos away from being classed as OVERWEIGHT according to my BMI. Looks can be deceiving.

I know how easy it is to put on weight and how unfairly difficult it is to shift. And, as Z rightly points out, there are many people in my life who I am concerned about because of their weight. That’s not hate.

While on that subject, if those who are fat and those who eat more than necessary are not the same group, how did they get that way?

And yes, I will put bodybuilders in that group as well. You’ve seen them — impressive masses of muscular flesh on display — but I ask you, is this really necessary, and furthermore, is it really healthy? And who the hell needs to consume 3500 calories per day to support that overwrought metabolism?

Good list Sam.

Cambridge Union Debate hosted by The East of England Faiths Council and the Cambridge Union Society. The debate attracted some high profile speakers and lively exchanges on the motion: ‘This House believes that faith has an essential role in democratic debate.’ An audience of about 200 people, comprising student members of the Society and guests of the East of England Faiths Council, took part in the discussion, which concluded with a vote.

The proposition was put by Shayk Ibrahim Mogra, Assistant Secretary General of The Muslim Council of Britain, who spoke eloquently of the value he placed on being able to practice his faith freely; a faith that requires him to do the best for society as a whole, treating all justly as equals. While not claiming that faith is superior to ‘non-faith’, or wishing to monopolise public space he believed its contribution was unique, and that it was an essential component of democratic deliberation.

Dr Peter Cave, Chair of the British Humanist Association’s Humanist Philosophers’ Group, suggested that Shayk Mogra painted a very rosy picture of faith. In fact, it attempted to tell society how to behave, ‘like a kangaroo’ it leaps away from humanity and jumps to conclusions, based on very little evidence, and then associates such false assumptions, authoritarian texts and oppressive views. For these reasons, far from adding to democratic debate, faith stifles it: ‘Democratic debate requires openness to reason, evidence and fellow-feeling. Those of faith often have eyes closed to such openness.’ He concluded by drawing the analogy of the desirable democratic state as a ringmaster, not an orchestral conductor: imposing an element of order, but not dictating how individual parts fit together nor controlling the overall performance.

Vivian Wineman, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, responded with a review of the value that faith ‘in its highest form’ brings to society. Modern science may appear to have undermined some of the propositions on which the Abrahamic faiths were originally based, but ‘The presence of faiths still plays a critical role; they give a sense of belonging that secular society does not.’ The values of the Enlightenment may have been opposed by religious leaders of their time, but in fact the Bible is very subversive. The statement that ‘all people are made in the image of God’ has been the inspiration for the great social justice movements that have transformed society – bringing to an end both slavery and Apartheid.

Speaking second for the opposition, Samantha Stein, founder and director of secular summer camp CampQuest UK, argued that faith is not grounded in fact, and therefore its inclusion hinders democratic debate, as adherents to a religion cannot by definition be open to the possibility of rational argument and change that is the only prerequisite of debate. If Governments listen to faiths as a group, and to their component members as individuals through the ballot box, then in effect faith is making a ‘double input’, and receiving unjustified preferential treatment.

A lively discussion followed the first four presentations, questioning whether politics should be based on compassion or logic, whether faith and reason can co-exist, whether religion is ‘male-centric’, and the nature and terminology of the proposition.

This was picked up by the final proposer Dr Jonathan Chaplin, Director of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics at the University of Cambridge who brought the proposition back to the question of proper discourse in democracy, accusing the opposition of demonstrating a real scarcity of knowledge in its arguments. They would privatise faith and secularise society on the basis of three main myths. He then proceeded to rebut these myths, being: that law would impose faith-based views; that faith-based arguments are inaccessible; and that religious faith is irrational. Firstly, laws by their nature impose and as the content of most laws is not morally neutral, individuals will find themselves imposed upon from time to time. It is intolerant and inconsistent with the liberal position to banish faith from the debate. Secondly, the majority of people believe in a transcendent God, and the language and culture of this belief is more part of our society than is secular language. Neither faith-based language nor arguments are inaccessible to most people. Thirdly, the argument that religious faith is irrational is very weak: ‘Secular humanism rests on a faith commitment just like traditional religions. But it is in denial about its dependence on assumptions that cannot be rationally demonstrated.’

Sir David Blatherwick, a diplomat and former British ambassador to Egypt, concluded the opposition. He explored the nature of religions as hierarchies with their interests in power and control, and examined the meaning of ‘essential’ in the context of the proposition, concluding that its intention was to secure a guaranteed or privileged position for faith in democratic debate. He argued that while religion can contribute to moral values, moral values do not stem from religion, which has nothing unique to contribute.

The vote then took place, with the proposal winning the day by a majority of 22 votes.