If you change your mind...

I saw The Book of Mormon recently. Bloody good fun it was, and considerably more positive about the Mormons than some of the hysterical conservative press would have you believe. The Mormons are a funny lot - their absolute faith in their president being a living prophet, and their belief in the existence of the golden plates for example, despite nobody ever having set eyes on them, are excellent standards of the blindness of religious certainty. They are, though, to be praised for their response to the musical itself. Not for them mass demonstrations, burning torches and the promise of damnation for the creators. Rather, they've plastered central London with adverts for their faith and generally tried to engage with it. Kudos to them.

On that certainty, though. This piece on the Beeb caught my eye not long after I'd seen the show. I've written on here before about some of the central tenets around which religions are built - the concept of original sin in the Catholic Church, for example. The struggle between such pillars of belief systems and the need of all faiths to modernise if they want to engage with modern people, particularly in the West, cannot be a simple one.

We live, in Britain at the moment, in a society which is riven with examples of the trouble these certainties can cause, whether they're theological certainties or secular ones. Aircraft grounded on the way in from Pakistan, vehicles stopped mid-motorway, attacks on Mosques - knee-jerk reaction to an act of unspeakable and all too human brutality in Woolwich, nothing to do with religious teachings. At such times, it's only natural to lean on one's own convictions, the beliefs that sustain you when things are shit. When those convictions are born of religious faith, though, is that necessarily helpful? The divisions between religious and secular, and between the faiths themselves, seem to be widening at the moment. A little more doubt, a little more questioning, would probably do us all a bit of good.

It is such questioning, such reinterpretation, that has allowed some religious thinking to survive at all in a smaller, less credulous and more integrated world, and find its place in the modern West. It can be done – the same Church that persecuted Galileo for stating that the Earth revolved around the sun, heresy at the time, found itself formally exonerating him in the late 20th century, when it was kind of stupid to argue otherwise. The Vatican now has its own 'in-house' astronomer, no less.

If only all such changes of position could be so completely arranged, so comprehensively and neatly played out. I wonder, over the centuries, how many groups of learned elders have pored over their religious tract of choice, seeking guidance from their Almighty on some startling new revelation, some new science which casts doubt on the previously solid pillars around which their faith were built? At what point did the Vatican realise, for example, that Galileo was right? Did they secretly realise he was on to something even during the man's lifetime, only to hide the truth, knowing how dangerous to their Church it would be? Given the AIDS crisis in Africa, will they ever get round to addressing the use of condoms? And how would the various Churches deal with First Contact, when and if it eventually happens?

I have to go back to The Book of Mormon for what I suspect lies behind the response to some of the more shattering revelations science may afford us from time to time. (And, yes, those revelations may yet of course back up things that the theologians have been saying). One of the better songs in the thing addressed how to deal with thoughts or feelings that conflicted with Mormon teachings.

"Turn it off, like a light switch. Just go click! It's a cool little Mormon trick! We do it all the time. When you're feeling certain feels that just don't feel right, treat those pesky feelings like a reading light, and turn 'em off."

It'd be cool indeed of some of the more outdated, conflicting and downright idiotic religious shibboleths could be similarly excised, but as Galileo's pardon took 360 years, I'm not expecting miracles.

1 down, 8 to go

I'm sure everybody saw this story of the kitten which spent an hour in a washing machine in Scotland, only to emerge shaken but alive? An extremely cute little thing, her story was one of the most watched items on the BBC website in the last few days. When they put a film up on the web, they use the same headline as on the main story to caption the film. That resulted in this coming up on the website:

Most unfortunate. They've since changed it - I guess because somebody must have noticed that it makes it look like they eat kittens up there or something...

As ye sow, so shall ye reap

What's this? A biblical quote in this most secular of blogs? I haven't gone all theological on you, it was just a thought that occurred to me as I watched Novak Djokovic dismantling Andy Murray this morning at the Australian Open tennis.

Two reasons, really. Firstly, if you are not fortunate enough to have access to EuroSport, and instead relied on British terrestrial television, you'd have thought that the tournament began and ended with the Men's Singles Final. It's the only game the Beeb have shown, and it has to be asked if they'd have bothered doing so had Murray not made it. Djokovic has played some of the best tennis I've ever seen from him during this tournament, the best player in the tournament has undoubtedly won it, but nobody without EuroSport has seen any of it here, which is a shame. Basically, if it's not Wimbledon, or it's not a Brit involved, terrestrial TV in this country doesn't want to know. So we have this two week tennis mentality where it's everywhere in June, but as soon as Wimbledon's over, that's it, odd exceptions like this morning apart.

And as for Murray, I genuinely believe that he fell for all the 'best chance to win a Grand Slam' stuff and underestimated his opponent, a stupid mistake given that they're mates and practice partners. He should know how good Djokovic can be and not assume he's beatable just because his surname isn't Nadal or Federer. But never mind, Murray's quite capable of beating himself - his demeanour on court betrays whatever he's feeling, another mistake which will help any decent player on the other side of the net. I think most tennis fans think it's simply a matter of time until Murray wins a Slam, but it doesn't work like that as Tim Henman, who had a much better temperament when things weren't going his way than Murray has, ably demonstrated with his close-but-no-cigar career.

(Literally as I type this the Aussie presenting the trophy has just said, "Andy, it's just a matter of time before you fulfil your destiny." See? Your destiny, not that there is such a bloody thing, can't beat your opponent for you. You have to win.)

(He's just said it again!)

Anyway, enough brackets. I find myself oddly indifferent to his results. He's gracious in defeat, granted, but on the court he's still some way off having the head to win a Slam, and that makes it difficult to warm to him.

My diamond shoes don't fit and my fifties won't fit in my wallet...

I didn't hear it, of course, because I don't listen to music radio, but the furore over Chris Moyles' rant has meant it's not difficult to know what's gone on and what he said live on air yesterday. Apparently Mr Moyles hasn't been paid for a couple of months due to some kind of administrative error. Now if this happened to most of us, we'd: 1) Fret about the mortgage and 2) Take it up with HR.

My Moyles, however, has the advantage of being able to air his grievances, quite literally, to millions of people. It's his show, he can say what he likes within the law and his contractual obligations, of course. But did he really think this was particularly politic? Especially as he then blasted a listener who had the temerity to point out that on what he earned he'd probably cope with a few weeks without pay. "You know nothing about my life," he said in response to said texter. Well, Chris, actually as you're BBC 'talent', we know something about your life. We know you earn £500,000 per year. Which comes from the licence payers.

The ONS website has the mean gross annual income for a man in the UK in 2009 as a little over £26,000. To put that another way, Mr Average Joe Public would have to work for a little over 19 years to earn what Mr Moyles does in 12 months. Now I'm not suggesting that he should just put up with not being paid, the contract he signed obligates the Beeb to pay him just as any other employer, but I do think he should think a bit more carefully before he uses the medium which enables him to earn so handsomely to bitch about it so loudly, especially when he's doing so at the very people who pay for it.

It gets worse

Literally moments after posting that last entry, I see the Beeb trailing a new dramatised version of the events leading up to... the commissioning of Coronation Street. Another televisual turn inside itself, this time with the Beeb spending licence payers' money telling us about how a programme that's been on the other side for decades nearly didn't get made. Sounds gripping.

Coming soon, doubtless: An inside look at the how the programme about Coronation Street nearly not getting made, nearly didn't get made. Complete with exclusive behind-the-scenes footage of casting. While I suspect the TV executives who must live off this stuff can't wait, I think I'll be giving it a miss.

Not even the Beeb can get their facts right

The verbosity inherent in many of my postings here is probably borne out of my desire, years ago, to be a sport journalist. That not having happened, this is therefore my outlet for writing about it. I still come across examples, though, in the professional broadcast or print media, of either gross inaccuracy, poor writing or research, or such badly formed pieces of writing that I'm convinced that there are plenty of people out there who could do at least as good a job as many of the pros. Two examples within about 30 seconds on the BBC, no less, this morning. Apparently (using the Beeb's own numbers) England's overnight position of 101-2 in the second Test represents a 40 run first innings lead over Pakistan, who scored a paltry 72. Now I realise that journalists need to be better with words than numbers, but that's pretty rudimentary maths even for me. An easy mistake, though. We'll let that one go. Much worse followed.

Trailing the first Football Focus of the new season, the presenter described Leeds v Derby today as 'one of the key games of the opening weekend'... What the fuck? I'd like to know what gives him even the slightest indication that this is a 'key game' over any other? What possible criteria can he have used to decide this? We have absolutely no idea where these two sides will finish NINE MONTHS from now. They could be 13th and 14th, and this game could have had absolutely no significance in the grand scheme of things whatsoever come May. It's just bloody lazy. They've looked at the two clubs, decided they've got decent levels of support, and on that basis alone have called this a 'key game'.

I realise that his is a very small matter to get worked up about, especially on a day when I'm having to work during the opening Saturday of the football season for the first time in my life, but I'm a relentless pedant, and we have a rich and varied language which throws up any number of words which could have been used in place of 'key' here, many of which are subjective and therefore couldn't be argued with.

Anyway, have a nice weekend, all. I don't know about you but I'm getting really excited about the big Forfar v Dumbarton clash in Scottish div 2. I reckon that could be a key game...