Reason Must Triumph

Non Stamp Collector

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:59:00 +0000

Found this great YouTube channel (thanks to a vid posted on Hehmant Mehta's Friendly Atheist blog).

If you haven't seen it, there are some funny vids - featuring stick-men animation - such as a creationist interviewing a biologist, a quiz show with biblical contradictions, and (my favourite so far) 'Context!!!'. Well worth a look.

Or you can visit the main channel here:

Non Stamp Collector

What About the Abuse Cases We Don't Know About?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:14:00 +0000

In my last post I discussed the raid by Belgian police of the headquarters of the Church in Belgium, and the 'furious' reaction of the Vatican at the appalling way in which Church figures were treated like ordinary people.

The raid came about because Belgian Church officials and Bishops were meeting to investigate allegations of child abuse by the Belgian clergy. Naturally, one assumes that if they were to properly investigate these claims, they would have evidence such as statements and so forth at the meeting. Not even Bishops conduct investigations by closing their eyes and thinking of God. Well, at least I assume not.

For some bizzare and unfathomable reason, the Belgian authorities took the view that allegations of sex abuse against Belgian children, by Belgian clergy, in Belgium, were a matter for Belgian prosecutors to investigate. I cannot begin to imagine why they would take this view, when allegations of abuse in other countries are usually treated as internal Church matters. As I said, allowing the Church to investigate sex abuse claims made against its priests is on a par with allowing a paedophile ring to examine the photographs of its own members, and decide which are just a little bit too risque.

All over Western Europe and North America, the Church is being forced to apologise to and compensate thousands of people who have suffered unspeakable acts of physical and sexual abuse at the hands (and various other parts) of the faithful. In Ireland, they even had to read out a letter of apology. Wow, such humility.

The thing is, all of the countries where these scandals have come to light are growing increasingly secular (with the possible exception of the USA which, as everybody knows, has been secular since its foundation) wich means there is less and less interference by the Church in national policy making, and less automatic respect for the wishes of the Vatican shown by those responsible for setting policy. It also means that fewer and fewer of the general public in these countries are in such fearful awe of the gold-plated staff-wielding proselytizing anachronism preaching humility and self-loathing from his palace in Rome than they once were.

No wonder his holiness is so worried about secularism; it is not a decline in Christian belief he fears, but a decline in the power of the Church.

So we note that all of the countries where people feel able to speak out about the abuse they have suffered are wealthy, civilized, secular Western nations. Which brings us on to the nub of this post. What about those countries where people still live in genuine fear of the Church and its power?

Are you asking us to believe that there is something intrinsically decadent about Western societies that turns so many pious, celibate and God-fearing servants of Christ into child abusing monsters? Or could it be the case that thousands of innocent children in South America, Africa, South and South East Asia are even now suffering abuse, but they and their parents are unable to speak out for fear of the reactions in their communities?

We already know that some priests serving in Ireland, who were accused of acts of such unspeakable depravity that even the Church had to do something about it, were relocated to 'safe' parishes in central Africa and more remote parts of South America. Safe for the priests of course, presumably less safe for the innocents who came under their care and influence.

So as we reflect upon the thousands of lives damaged here in the West by the Church's pathetic insistence upon the celibacy of the clergy, maybe we should take a little time to wonder how many thousands of children in poorer, less literate and (crucially) more God-fearing societies may even now be suffering the same fate.

So long as the Church wields real power, we may never know.

The Church Just Doesn't Get How Serious This Is

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:00:00 +0000

The child sex abuse scandal enveloping the Catholic church entered a new phase on Thursday when Belgian police raided a meeting of Bishops, who were meeting to investigate allegations of child abuse by clergymen in Belgium.

The police seized a number of documents and a laptop belonging to the former head of the Belgian Church, Cardinal Godfried Danneels. They also 'allegedly' searched the tomb of at least one former Cardinal in their hunt for documents. Apparantly we're supposed to be outraged by this - even the BBC's news website describes this as 'profaned the tomb'. Profaned? Surely you mean 'opened'. What is so special about the tomb of a Cardinal, as opposed to the tomb of anyone else? It seems the BBC's reporter has bought into the noxious idea that these self-serving parasitical scum are somehow worthy of automatic respect, rather than (as is more generally the case) automatic contempt. Yes, even when they're dead.

I'm personally very happy to see that at least one government is prepared to treat this outrageous, decades old cover-up as a criminal matter, and take the appropriate action. Most seem content to allow the Church to investigate its own affairs, which is akin to allowing Iran to produce its own report about whether its nuclear programme is peaceful or not. Or perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be letting a peadophile ring investigate its own members, and decide for itself whether their picture collections were just wholesome family holiday snaps.

Say the BBC:

"Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State - Pope Benedict's number two - was furious when he learned about how the police prevented the bishops from leaving the building where they had been meeting for nine hours, and took away their mobile telephones to prevent them communicating with their staff or with the Vatican."

You mean he was furious that his fellow clergymen were treated as though they were ordinary people, being investigated for covering up some of the worst crimes it is possible to commit? How awful. Poor lambs. Does he not know that it is standard practice to prevent a criminal suspect from communicating with accomplices? Rather than prevent the Bishops from leaving, the police should have hauled them down to the nick and taken their fingerprints and DNA.

So lets remember that the meeting was held to investigate allegations of child abuse in Belgium, by the Belgian clergy. Do you imagine for a second that the Church would even bother to hold such a meeting if they didn't have a huge wodge of complaints to investigate? Come on!

The BBC's report goes on to say:

"Cardinal Bertone angrily told reporters during a conference he was attending at a Catholic University in Rome that not even communist states dared to treat Church authorities and Church property in this way. He summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Vatican and handed him a formal protest note."

Why not just excommunicate him? That's what you normally do isn't it? Or perhaps you should send one of your crack team of exorcists to find out if the Belgian government have been co-opted by Satan and his demonic hordes. You superstitious, anachronistic hypocritical old fool. I hope the Belgian ambassador laughed in your face.

It is easy to see why Church figures feel a little hard done by here, but easier still to explain why they need to get over it, and wake up to the reality that they have brought upon themselves by denying these allegations for so long. For about the last 1700 years or so until very recently, the Church has done exactly what it wanted. And I do mean exactly. Suddenly it finds itself in a position where people aren't quite so fearful of its temporal power anymore, and are prepared to say occasionally 'hang on a minute, your minion has been fucking my little boy for years. Pardon me for being impertinent, but that can't be right can it?'.

For years the Church's response has been bluster, obfuscation and denial, and for the most part we've bought into their claims that it is an internal matter. In Ireland for example, it was common knowledge that Church schools were populated by wicked and sadistic old men and women, who were firmly of the opinion that the devil needed to be thrashed out of little children, and barely anyone raised a protest about this. But when it transpires that many of these old men also believed that the devil needed to be fucked out of little children too, we heard the first wimpers of protest, rising slowly to a crescendo as more and more people spoke out about the appalling abuse that they suffered. And the Church's response? We're sorry, a bit, now stop whinging and get back on your knees where you belong. Don't you know that you're a worthless little sinner and only we can save you?

Of course it's not just Ireland, and that's why the Church has a crisis on it's hands. And if there is any real justice, it will be the crisis that finally brings this disgusting organisation crashing down. Probably a bit too much to hope for though.

In the meantime, allegations of abuse keep cropping up. Millions of dollars have already been paid to shut people up in America. Claims are being 'investigated' by the Church in Germany, Spain, Italy, Ireland and several other Western countries. The Pope's last archdiocese in Germany is under investigation, and it may even be the case that the Pope himself has covered up the perversions of priests serving in his own backyard. Some infallability.

The Pope himself has been a little more cautious than Cardinal Bertone in his response to the raid by Belgian police, at least in the sense that he didn't invoke communism. In a letter to the head of the Belgian Church he said

"I want to express, dear brother in the Episcopate, as well as to all the Bishops of Belgium, my closeness and solidarity in this moment of sadness, in which, with certain surprising and deplorable methods, searches were carried out.

"I hope that justice will follow its course while guaranteeing the rights of individuals and institutions, respecting the rights of victims, (and) acknowledging those who undertake to collaborate with it"

'Surprising and deplorable methods'? Ah yes, searching Church property as they would a business or private household. How deplorable that the holy brotherhood should be treated the same as everbody else. Note also that his hopes of 'guaranteeing the rights of individuals [Bishops and Priests] and institutions [the Church]' come before 'respecting the rights of victims [defenseless and innocent children beaten, abused and violated by said individuals]'.

If there is evidence to suggest that a priest raped a child, that priest must be tried according to the temporal laws of the country where the alleged incident took place, and if found guilty, sentenced accordingly. If it transpires that his Bishop knew about the allegations against him but failed to take the appropriate action, that Bishop must be tried for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If his Archbishop knew, then so must he. And if the Pope knew? So far I don't see countries lining up to extradite the Pope, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have taken legal advice about the possibility of having the Pope arrested when he visits the UK later this year. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this idea has been met with derision and even humour. I doubt their attempt will be successful (and you could bet your soul that if they had a chance, the Pope would cancel his visit in a snap - no martyr he) but I hope this attempt will open more people's eyes to the fact that this is not an internal Church matter. It is not for the Church to decide what to do with known sex offenders, it is for the courts to decide and punish those who are found guilty accordingly.

Exploring Islam: Apparently it's Really a Force for Fairness, Equality and Women's Liberation

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:03:00 +0000

I note with a mixture of interest, amusement and horror that a new charity has been set up in London to 'tackle people's negative views of Islam.'

The Exploring Islam Foundation commissioned a YouGov poll to assess public opinion of a few very weighted questions about Islam. Apparently 58% of respondents equated Islam with extremism, 50% with terrorism, only 13% agreed that Islam was a religion of peace, and 19% thought that Islam had a positive impact on British society.

Really? 19%? That's a bit high isn't it?

It's OK though - as one report reveals, more than 57% of these respondents admitted to only getting their information about Islam through media outlets such as newspapers and television, which are obviously hostile to the religion of peace. Doubtless had they learned about Islam from their local Imam, they would have formed a much more positive opinion of it.

The Charity has commissioned what amounts to a PR campaign, to promote a better understanding of the positive side of Islam, and have produced a series of posters including prominent British Muslims pictured with heart-warming slogans.

OK, so I know I'm a total cynic, but a comic could not have asked for a better set of slogans to rip the piss out of. In fact a good comic probably wrote them. The slogans read:

“I believe in social justice. So did Muhammad.”

“I believe in women’s rights. So did Muhammad.”

“I believe in protecting the environment. So did Muhammad.”

Ideas about what constitutes social justice have (thankfully) changed a little in the last 1400 years - at least outside the middle east - and no longer include eye-for-an-eye style punishments. On a more positive note, they may be referring to the charitable provisions enshrined in Islamic law, whereby men must give up a percentage of their income as charity, to be distributed amongst the poor. Why proponents of Islam can't see the difference between wanting to help the poor (voluntarily giving up your earnings) and being forced to do so on pain of eternal damnation is beyond me.

So too have Women's rights - again outside the middle east. It is no longer acceptable to beat the shit out of any of your wives, buy a wife, marry a nine year old girl, sell your daughter off to your cousin for a few goats, or have your daughter's external genitalia cut off with a sharpened stone, in order to preserve her purity and dignity. Of course, I'm being a little unfair - none of these things happen in Britain today, right? Any thug of any religion or none is capable of beating his wife, it just happens that in the Koran and Hadith you have instructions telling you when and how it is acceptable to beat your wife. Little girls get sent abroad to have their labia cut off, we wouldn't dream of allowing that kind of thing here. And goats are no longer in fashion.

What Muhammad knew about the environment could be written down on the back of a postage stamp. Any suggestion that an illiterate merchant who died 1400 years ago had ideas to save our planet in today's world are beyond laughable.

If I had enough funds, a large security force and could be guaranteed immunity from prosecution under the laws pertaining to causing religious offence, I might be tempted to run a counter-campaign thusly:

"I believe in murderous conquest and forced conversion of the infidels. So did Muhammad (peace be upon him)."

"I believe in marrying nine year old girls and raping them whenever I choose. So did Muhammad (peace be upon him)."

"I believe my wives and daughters are my property. So did Muhammad (peace be upon him)."

Offensive? Probably. True? Read your Koran. Read the Hadith, then tell me I'm wrong.

The point of the Exploring Islam Foundation campaign is to prevent hostility toward British Muslims. What they either don't see, or prefer to fudge for political advantage, is that it is not people that are disliked - generally speaking - but the ideas and beliefs they stand for, uphold, and insist are the only acceptable ideas around.

How could anyone not brought up from his/her mothers knee to believe that Islam is true possibly look at Islam and say 'hmm, now there's a system of peace, justice and respect for humanity and the environment I could really buy into'?

Viewed even half-way objectively, Islam is a truly horrifying prospect.

We often hear and read the phrase 'Islamophobic' used pejoratively against the mindless cretins who deface mosques, assualt Muslims or otherwise make total dicks of themselves in the name of ignorance. This word is generally bandied about by people who have some advantage in drawing genuine criticism away from themselves by branding all potential critics - reasonable or otherwise - as basically motivated by the same prejudice. The use of this word and others like it bear a striking similarity to such words as 'anti-semitic' so beloved of that small minority of messianic bulldozer-friendly Jews.

The argument is a simple one, which is probably why it is so popular in religious circles, and goes a bit like this:

"I cannot be doing anything wrong, because you are prejudiced and just hate me. Therefore anything I do must be right, because you are a nasty bigot. Anyone who agrees with you in any particular is therefore also a nasty bigot, so their opinion must be discounted too. Ergo, I'm right, anyone who disagrees is an evil hate-filled bigot."

The original meaning of the suffix -phobe is fear, not hatred. By all means call me an Islamophobe if you mean it in the sense 'scared of Islam' - I am terrified of it. But don't just write off anybody who can't see Islam's divine truth as an Islamophobe, for the word becomes meaningless.

Galileo Exhibition at the Vatican

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:25:00 +0000

A portrait of Galileo, looking like he's just answered the door to find an inquisitor standing there

A collection of Galileo's instruments and papers are to be put on display at the Vatican, to 'celebrate' the 400th anniversary of his confirmation that the Sun does not, in fact, go around the Earth.

What a great way for the Catholic church to show that it is no longer hostile to science. Yeah right.

Is that the plan? 'Look! look everyone! Not only are we a big friendly welcomimg Church, we're so accommodating of science that we can exhibit the work of a heretic we literally brought to his knees before the might of Mother Church, and came within a whisker of burning for allowing his observations of reality to contradict official doctrine. A man whom we finally decided was telling the truth in 1992, by which time his theories and observations had been superseded by extremely advanced theories about the nature of reality. Unfortunately for us though, these theories were developed by people we couldn't cow into submission with the explicit threat of torture and execution. Aren't we all nice and modern?'

It occurs to me that these papers and instruments are probably the same ones the Church seized at the time of his trial for heresy, so how thoughtful the Vatican is for allowing these artefacts to go on general display.

Cynical bastards.

Kirpan? No, Ban, Say School's Governors

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:26:00 +0000

A school in Barnet, north London (just up the road from me) has withdrawn a boy of 14 who wanted to wear a 5" dagger, known as a Kirpan, to school as a demonstration of his faith as a Sikh. Apparently this object is to be worn by all Serious Sikhs as one of the 'five articles of faith', the others being uncut hair, a small comb called a Khanga, a steel bracelet called a Kara, and, erm, a pair of long johns (no, seriously, take a look at The Sikh Coalition's website if you don't believe me).

Now far be it for me to criticise a child's right to carry around a lethal weapon as a demonstration of his faith in the teachings of a bunch of 'Gurus', I mean it's a lot better than all those kids who carry blades around simply as a demonstration of the fact that they're thick as pig shit and destined for prison, but what is quite funny about this case is that the school had to ban it on - yes, I know you've guessed already - Health and Safety grounds.

So the Health and Safety act does occasionally have it's uses. As much as I long for the day when this sort of thing will be banned on grounds of religious bullshit, I suppose H&S will do for now.

Amazingly the boy has been carrying this blade to school for the last 2 years, but the school decided, for reasons unspecified, that it was no longer appropriate. The school had tried to compromise by offering to allow the boy to wear a 2" version, welded into a sheath, but this offer was rejected by the boy's family as it would only be a replica, which presumably God would not approve of.

Like God gives a shit anyway. I mean, he was pretty OK with having nothing capable of wearing a dagger for about 13.7 billion years, until some clever-dick in 17th century Punjab decided it was necessary as an 'article of faith', but of course these arguments are irrelevant where belief and adherence to tradition are concerned.

The local 'Sikh spokesman', was not impressed:

Mejindarpal Kaur, director of community group United Sikhs, said: "The Compton School's decision is a blow to religious freedom in Barnet - schools throughout the UK have accommodated Sikh students who wear a kirpan."

The boy's family said he is now being privately educated, having missed five weeks of school.

He missed 5 weeks? over this? Is that not slightly remiss of the parents? Is not general education a wee bit more important than protesting about your boy's 'right' to wear a blade to school?

A statement by the school's governors said: "We have examined potential compromises after looking at how this issue has been dealt with in other schools and elsewhere within the Sikh community and taken legal advice.

"At the moment we are holding a place open for the student should he feel able to wear a kirpan suitable to bring into school."

The Department for Children, Schools and Families are standing by the governors' decision, which is something I strongly suspect Baroness Warsi would have a few words to say about.

I was going to include a picture of a kirpan, but a quick search on Google images reveals so many different varieties of the things that you'd have to be God to know a kirpan from a dirk.

The Gospel According to St Plastic

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:22:00 +0000

Moses Receives the Commandments

I don't know how many of you are already aware of this, I certainly wasn't until now, but there apparently exists an illustrated bible called the Brick Testament, in which scenes from the bible are enacted using - wait for it - lego models.

This book is the brainchild of a man called Brendan Powell Smith, nickmamed 'The Reverend'. Launched online in 2001 (The Brick Testament) the book was published in paper format in 2003. Why this story was published on the The Telegraph's online page on Thursday I am not quite sure, but at least it has now come to my attention.

He says it is intended to educate people about the Bible “in a way that is fun and compelling, while remaining true to the text of the scriptures.

To this end, all stories are retold using direct quotes from The Bible.”

Said the Telegraph's report:- It is huge, detailed, occasionally gory and frequently satirical. The excerpts from 1 Samuel are entitled “Saul rejected for incomplete genocide”, after the leader of the Israelites left some sheep and cattle alive after being ordered to exterminate the Amalekites.

Similarly, Saint Stephen is shown saying: “If you ignore a few phrases here and there and completely ignore their original context, [the Scriptures] totally predict Jesus!”

Mr Smith claims that he is not at all religious, he just has a "long standing interest in religion, the Bible, and the study of ancient Christianity and Judaism, hence the nickname 'The Reverend.'"

Or perhaps just can't grow out of playing with lego.

I have mixed opinions on this - I think it's mostly silly, and the tongue-in-cheek way in which many of the scenes are played out is humorous and engaging, but still I find the idea of using harmless kids toys (especially lego, of which I was particularly fond) to tell religious stories rather worrying.

Just reading the comments to the Telegraph's story confirm the levels of abject cynicism to which the faithfull will stoop in their desire to pollute the minds of innocents; one respondent said:

"What a great way of communicating the message of the Bible to children in a medium that they can relate to.

I have seen children using lego reenacting some of the great stories of David and Goliath and putting these images together to make their own video sequences. Relatively easy and great fun.

The bible can still be relevant to children in 2009 providing them with a light in what is a very spiritually dark world."

I don't know what is worse about this comment; the sinister idea that toys are an engaging way of filling innocent minds with corrosive rubbish, or that the respondent is probably a nice person who thinks the above is a genuinely good thing.

What was immediately obvious was that they hadn't looked at the website. Another respondent replied:

"Clearly {a previous commenter] hasn't seen what the Brick Testament is all about. And neither has anyone who thinks children should be looking at it. It's done completely tongue in cheek. There's, gasp, lego sex, men tossing their lego foreskins in a basket, and people cutting each other in half complete with lego blood and guts..... It's funny. It's not evil-- or a teaching tool for that matter."

So it's worth taking a look at for the comedy value, but sad none the less.

Apologies if you knew about this years ago, but I didn't, so there.

French Police Arrest CERN Scientist on Suspicion of Al Qaeda Link

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:38:00 +0000

Everyone's favourite picture of magnets - CERN

This from The Times

An Algerian nuclear physicist working on the CERN project has been arrested by the French authorities on suspicion of having links to Al Qaeda. He and his brother have been under surveillance for around 18 months, according to the French authorities, after being identified as belonging to a group responsible for sending French radicals to fight in Afghanistan.

A source said French intelligence officers had intercepted messages in which the man had suggested targets in France.

"He had expressed a wish or a desire to commit terrorist actions, but had not materially prepared them," said the source.

The 32 year old man, who has not yet been named, had contacts within the Algerian terrorist organisation Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). Previously known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, AQIM waged a war with the Algerian authorities in a bid to install an Islamic state at the cost of tens of thousands of lives in the 1990s.

The French Interior Minister, Brice Hortefeux, said that these arrests "indicate perhaps that we have avoided the worst possible scenario", however a CERN spokesman said the suspect had "never been in contact with any elements which could be used for terrorist purposes."

He was a physicist who worked on data analysis "in the context of a contract with another institute" and "none of his research had a potential military application."

Well at least we can rest assured, for the time being, that Al Qaeda aren't planning to create a black hole (thats a joke before any irate physicists write in; see my post Settling in for background), but the thought of those deranged bastards trying to sabotage a machine built for the most noble intention of peering further back in time than ever before fills me with both sadness and anger.

I'm also filled with wonderment that anyone so obviously clever as a nuclear physicist, working on a project designed to push our knowledge back further in time, would be interested in supporting an organisation whose sole purpose is to physically take us back in time.

Well done to the French authorities if this man is guilty, and, for all you conspiracy theorists out there... supposing it's actually a plot by Fermilab so they can try and take back the lead? Remember, it started here... Shhh!

Quiet Day, so Here's a Cartoon

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:39:00 +0000

Yes, it's a fairly quiet news day for religion today, or I'm not looking hard enough for a story. Maybe something I want to write about will turn up later, but for now, here's another cartoon from Religious Cartoons.net - simply called Science v Religion on a Logarithmic scale.

Enjoy.

Blair: - The Key to World Harmony is for Christianity and Islam to 'Get On'

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:19:00 +0000

Tony Blair and his fine grin, here pictured in Bethlehem. I do like to use the most flattering pictures I can find on my blog, naturally.

Not content with galavanting around the holy land as Middle East Peace Envoy, or looking forward to his forthcoming likely role as 'President of Europe', Elder Statesman the one and only Tony Blair addressed a Common World conference of Muslim and Christian scholars at the Georgetown University, Washington DC, on Tuesday.

He apparently said, with great insight, that the key to World harmony in the 21st century is for these two faiths to 'get on' with each other.

Well there's a shocker - you mean if they fight one another, and can't agree about who's book is best, we won't have World peace? Damn.

Unfortunately this was about the high-point of his lucidity and hold upon the realities facing our World, as he then went on to say that many of the challenges facing the world today were similar to those that confronted Jesus and Mohammed. Yeah, like not knowing how rainfall works, thinking the desert is full of djinns, thinking that the World beyond the horizon is populated by Giants and mythical creatures, that sort of thing. Oh and of course mistaking 'voices' for the creator of the Universe - all problems we are dealing with today.

“Each was made to feel an outsider. Each stood out against the conventional teaching of the time. Each believed in the universal appeal of God to humanity. Each was a change-maker.” He said.

Where to start?

Jesus, if he even existed, was made to feel an outsider because he went around claiming to be the Messiah. Not the first, and by no means (still) the last person to do so of course, but if there's one thing gauranteed to piss off a Jew, it's claiming to be the Messiah. Seriously, go to Golders Green and find an Orthodox gentleman, minding his own business, and tell him your the Messiah. If he doesn't get really pissed off, I'll eat my hat.

And of course, not content with annoying Jews he had to go around bothering the Romans too, which is never a plan.

Mohammed, on the other hand, was just a merchant, and by all accounts not a very good one. He was treated as an outsider for disappearing into a cave and coming back with a load of stories - sorry I mean the final and immutable word of God - that bore an uncanny resemblance to local and nearby legends, plus a few bits about how he could treat his wives, of course. Were it not for his large family, and their penchant for murderous conquest, the World could have been spared this particular 'change maker'.

Such is history.

Mr Blair's talk pretty much went downhill from there. He then went on to say that faith was 'abused to do wrong'. Once again, an incredible insight (I'm beginning to understand why he became a Catholic) that ignores the fairly obvious point that faith is not only abused, but lends itself very freely to any idiot going who cares to interpet it in any way they choose. Faith is a whore - she'll do anything you want, just depends how you say whats written. Reminds me of the iphone advert - "You want peace and justice for all? - There's an ap for that." You want World domination and stoning for the infidels? There's an ap for that." And so on.

“We face an aggressive secular attack from without. We face the threat of extremism from within.”

Arguing that there was “no hope” from atheists who scorn God, he said the best way to confront the 'secularist agenda' was for all faiths to unite against it.

At least he recognizes that those who 'scorn' God are unlikely to willingly submit (or resubmit) their brains to the intellectual torpor required to believe in the big man in the sky. And if the best way for faiths to defeat the 'secularist agenda' is for them to unite, then I don't think we nasty 'secularist agenda-ists' (if you'll forgive that appalling grammatical construct) are in any particular danger, at least for the forsee-able future. Less chance, I feel, of the Pope standing shoulder to shoulder with an Ayatollah than of the bikini becoming all the rage in Riyadh.

He said: “Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.”

Sadly, there's plenty of hope for faith in the 21st century. Between them, followers of Islam and Christianity comprise about half of the World's population. I don't have a decent estimate of the numbers of atheists, agnostics and other non-believers, but I don't suppose its much more than one or two percent of the Earth's population. So I suppose we should feel at least slightly happy that such a minority is seen as a threat to religion. Only a threat, of course, because the evil 'secularist agenda' of the last couple of hundred years has made it very difficult to burn us.

I can't wait for born-again Blair to become unelected 'president' of an unelected European Government, I really can't. It's a prospect that fills my soul with boundless joy. Sarcasm? As if I would...

Link to this story: Times Online

Paltry 'Justice' for Couple Who Prayed While Their Daughter Lay Dying

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:47:00 +0000

Mr & Mrs Neumann in court: Wausau, Wisconsin.

Story from BBC World News

A couple who believed that the power of healing comes from God were sentenced today for failing to seek medical assistance while their eleven year old daughter lay dying of a treatable, though undiagnosed, form of diabetes in 2008. Dale and Leilani Neumann, of Wisconsin, prayed instead of calling a doctor, and did not call the emergency services until their daughter Madeline (for some reason know as Kara) had stopped breathing.

The couple could each have been sentenced to up to 25 years in prison for neglect. Instead, Judge Vincent Howard gave each of them six months, to be served at one month per year for six years, with one parent serving a month in March and one a month in September.

Justice is served eh?

When passing sentence, Judge Howard said that this would give them each time to "think about Kara and about what God wants you to learn from this."

He added that they were "very good people, raising their family, who made a bad decision, a reckless decision".

He also said "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors." Presumably without even a hint of irony.

The couple were also given a ten-year probation ordering them to allow a nurse to see their two surviving children (yes, thats right, they weren't taken away) every three months, and had to agree to call a doctor in the event of a serious injury.

How tragic is this? A couple allow their daughter to die because of what tbey believe, and the Judge pats them on the back and says well done, just believe a little more carefully next time. This really makes me so sick I can hardly bear to think about it.

In their 'defence' the parents apparently said that they believed the power to heal came from God, and did not expect their daughter to die as they prayed for her. No shit. well that's a good defence. An' when it's rainin', I don' expect to get all wet 'cus I'm prayin' to be all snug an' dry an' all, but dang it if I don' go an get all wet anyways.

Jay Kronenwetter, Mr Neumann's lawyer, was asked in a BBC interview if he thought his client had got off lightly.

"My client sees spiritual treatment as the proper medicine and I suspect the people who want harsher punishment see Western medicine as the proper medicine, I guess therein lies the difference." He told the BBC World Service.

You betcha, shit for brains, therein lies the difference alright, the difference between having even a vague clue about what's real and what's not. Sadly in this case what's not real turns out out to be no less lethal for it.

"My clients just happen to have a belief that is very outside of our social norm." He said. Well, that's OK then, they believe, and that's what matters, right?

The negligent murderers say they continue to trust in God, and are appealing against their convictions.

Shadow Minister Speaks Out Against Multiculturalism

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:45:00 +0000

Sounds like a good-news headline, doesn't it? Unfortunately my subheading for this is

Baroness Warsi Accuses Government of Launching a 'State-sponsored Attack Against Religion'

Baroness Warsi - Shadow Minister

Speaking at the Tory Party Conference in Manchester yesterday, the shadow 'community cohesion minister' (yes, apparently there is such a creature, I wasn't previously aware of this either) roundly attacked the Labour government for marginalising religion and becoming "increasingly sceptical of an individual’s religious belief."

Now of course we have to take to into account the fact that she was addressing the Tory party rank and file, which I should expect would contain the highest proportion of Christians in any social grouping you care to throw together short of a general synod, but I do none the less find it moderately disturbing that the woman who will almost certainly become responsible for fostering good community relations in a few months time is of the opinion that the best way to do this is with more religion, not less.

To analyse some of her speech:

“We’ve all seen the stories, how appalling that in Labour’s Britain a community nurse can be suspended for offering to pray for a patient’s good health."

How appalling that a dedicated, state employed carer should a) offer faith healing services and b) give the patient the creeping suspicion that medicine won't work; might as well just say "you're rogered without God's help."

“How awful that a school receptionist could face disciplinary action for sending an email to her friends simply asking them to pray for her daughter."

A good use of her time and school resources? Is it not religiously intolerant to expect colleagues to share your delusion? Ask friends in your own time, or go to the Church and ask a professional to pray for you.

“At the heart of these cases lies a growing intolerance and illiberal attitude towards those who believe in God.”

Intolerance of those who believe in God? Which newspaper does she read? She wants to try looking at the world from our side of the fence for a while. Granted atheists have a comparatively very easy time of it in this country, but we're hardly rushing around brutally repressing those who choose to believe in fairy-tales. Perhaps she has a little difficulty in distinguishing between well-deserved ridicule and intolerance. And as for 'illiberal' - well, I surely need hardly explain that the least liberal members of our society are far and away the most religious.

She added: “It’s an agenda driven by the political elite, who have hijacked the pursuit of equality by demanding a dumbing down of faith.

“It’s no wonder that this leads to accusations in the media that our country’s Christian culture is being downgraded."

Again, which newspapers? The Torygraph and the (spits) Express. Oh and the Mail of course. So the faceless 'political elite' have 'hijacked the pursuit of equality' have they? Is this the same political elite that have presided over a boom in the number of faith schools? What on Earth can she mean by 'hijacking the pursuit of equality', any way? I hope I'm not just being really dense, and missing some great subtlety of argument here, but it seems to me that promoting religious faith is a one-way ticket to greater inequality, less tolerance, and a more fragmented and multicultural society than could be achieved by reducing the influence of religion in people's lives. Am I just naive?

“For many their faith brings them closer to their neighbour, it’s the driver for their voluntary work, the basis of their social action."

If their neighbour shares the same faith as them, it will bring them closer together, yes, as they almost certainly will because so many of our communities are divided along religious lines. And we're back to that time-honoured argument that faith-heads use: faith is good because it gets people doing good things, like volunteering and caring for others. Bullshit. Good people do good things, without having to be told and without the expectation of reward. If you're doing good things to curry favour with the almighty, that doesn't make you good, it makes you a creep.

“And for many, faith is the basis for some of the best schools in our country.”

Which is an absolute bloody tragedy, if you ask me (which no one did, but hey). Why must so much time and effort be wasted learning ancient stories? In our national curriculum as it stands today, a fourth-year (14-15 yr old) pupil will spend 2 hours learning about evolution. TWO HOURS to learn the bedrock of modern biology in the whole of the school year. It doesn't matter how many hours are spent in biology classes learning about anatomy, photosynthesis, ecology etc if students are given two hours in a year to learn about the development of life, and spend the same time each week learning what God said to Moses, or Mohammed, or Krishna.

"State multiculturalism is forcing Britain’s diverse communities to still define themselves as different, patronisingly special and tempting them to compete against each other for public funds."

I'm sorry, I just have to reject this as total drivel. Yes multiculturalism is bad, in my view, because it allows people from all backgrounds to remain in little cliques of their own culture, and it would be far, far better for them and everyone else if they could get along and integrate. The idea behind this creed - that people should basically be treated equally, whatever they believe - is noble enough but open to abuse by hardliners, as we have seen (we are expected to 'respect' men who beat their wives because it says in the Quran that you're allowed to do so, for example), but it simply isn't working. This is not, as Lady Warsi would have you believe, because the Government is attempting to suppress religious freedom; far from it. Multiculturalism abounds and is perpetuated precisely because our political leaders lack the balls to enforce the temporal laws of our country, when those who say their divinely inspired 'laws' should take precedence, claim to be oppressed and discriminated against. The very last thing we need to tackle multiculturalism is the promotion of yet more religion. Only through the enforcement of our secular laws and values can we reduce levels of community fragmentation, and learn to treat each other as equals.

“It’s the madness of political correctness which fails to teach our children British history in case it offends, and is the madness of translating documents into a multitude of languages instead of actually teaching people English.”

Whence cometh this madness? Is it not the same madness that inspires idiots to remove Three Little Pigs from school libraries for fear of causing offence? That suggests removing an advertising campaign using a dog's picture for fear of causing offence? This is the political correctness which she decries - a correctness born of treading on tip-toes to avoid 'offending' some religious cretin or other's precious nonsense. Again - more religion, more respect for this crap, will inspire more of this political correctness, not less. Religion should be just as open to discussion, to criticism, to critical evaluation as are politics, literature, art, science and any other endeavour of thought. To reiterate, increasing levels of religiosity in this country will further fragment our society along lines of distrust, disdain and outright hostility born of nothing more substantial than believing your ancient crap is better than X's. This is not a road I want to see my country going down.

To finish on a note of agreement though - to show I'm not just being gratuitously contrary - I do agree that people who want to come and live here should be made to learn English.

Bishop of London Excited as Britain Heads Toward 'Post Secular Age'

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:03:00 +0000

The Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Dr Richard Chartres, is apparently rubbing his little Christian hands together with glee at the potential prospect of Britain entering what he called a 'post secular age.' A sort of enlightenment in reverse, if you like.

His little show of excitement, expressed at a meeting of the Christian Fellowship in east London last Wednesday, was inspired at least in part by a recent speech by President of the British Science Association, Lord May.
Images: The Bishop of London the Right Reverend Dr Richard Chatres; Lord May, President of the British Science Association.

Speaking about the threat of climate change, and our difficulty in organising any kind of coherent global response to it, Lord May suggested that in the past, religious authority - by invoking an all-knowing, all-powerful deity - was a very effective method of ensuring the cohesion of society or, to simplify, the threat of divine punishment - if believed - is a very good way of getting people to do what they're told.

He also said that the rise of fundamentalism could hamper and threaten a unified response.

I've not been able to find a full transcript of his comments, which is unfortunate, because his speech has been lept upon by those with a religious agenda as evidence that Lord May, who is an atheist, is supportive of the power that religious authority could wield in our efforts to combat climate change, whilst those leaning toward my side of the fence have stressed that he was speaking out against religion's rejection of evidence. I should very much like to read his comments for myself, so if any of you know of a website that has a full transcript, please send me the URL.

As an example of how his comments have been interpreted by both sides, please take a look at the following links, one from the left-leaning Independent and one from the (moderately!) more right wing Daily Telegraph:

The Independent

The Torygraph

As you can see, these reporters could almost have been listening to a different speech.

To return to Dicky Chartres and his evident happiness about this, here is what he said:

“He suggested that only God was capable of evoking an appropriate response to the ecological challenges currently facing humanity. While this country may not be described as religious, we may be entering a period that is post-secular. For those of us who are believers, this is a huge opportunity. It is a very exciting time to be a servant of Jesus Christ.

“Lord May opens yet another opportunity for us because the view of the world that has held sway until comparatively recently is one summed up in a conversation between Napoleon and one of his leading scientists. Napoleon said, ‘Well, what about God’? And the scientist says, ‘Well, your majesty, I have seen no need for that hypothesis’. ”

He also said that:

“The ‘collapse’ gurus who are operating on so many websites are largely not people of faith. Many intelligent people are looking at what they believe is a god-forsaken world.

“So Lord May’s comments point to an extremely significant moment in which our perspective on the world is being refashioned in response to contemporary economic and environmental challenges. And in which a search for a more holistic understanding of reality is rendering the rather flatland, mechanistic, reductionist descriptions of the recent past increasingly unsatisfying.

“Because if the reference to God is edited out, then the world simply becomes a theatre for the human will. We come to regard ourselves as little gods and our will as sovereign.”

This seems to me nothing more than a classical, cynical attempt to capitalise on people's fears. Religion feeds on your fear and ignorance, and could not survive without it. Only God is capable of saving you from the man-made disaster we're walking in to. It is indeed "a very exciting time to be a servant of Jesus Christ." Or Allah. Or any god you like, so long as people are scared and ignorant, organised religion will be there to ease their pain.

The Bishop highlights his own considerable ignorance (or at least panders to that of his audience) by referring to the mathemetician Laplace's report to Napoleon. Indeed he had no need to invoke a divine controller, as had Newton, when he calculated the movements of the planets and their orbits, but to say that somehow since then belief in God has been irrelevant is to neglect history in the extreme.

And what does Dicky boy mean by saying that this view has "held sway until comparitively recently"? At what point in our recent history has the scientific establishment thrown up it's arms and said something like 'you know, we just can't figure out how any of this universe business and life here on Earth could possibly have come about without being designed. Laplace was wrong, we do have need of that hypothesis. We therefore declare that God is responsible, and, furthermore, that we should worship his son the Lord Jesus Christ as our only true saviour'?

To turn to his comments about 'collapse gurus', IE those who think we've already gone too far and a catastrophic (to humans) re-adjustment of the Earth's climate is inevitable; of what consequence to anything is their belief or lack of it in a god? We are (or should be!) only concerned by their evaluation of evidence, and interpretations of models. Whether they believe in the tooth fairy, or are looking forward to an eternity spent feasting in Valhalla is entirely their own concern, PROVIDING WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THE HERE-AFTER DOES NOT INFLUENCE THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE.

If "Many intelligent people are looking at what they believe is a god-forsaken world" then I sincerely hope that many more intelligent people are looking at a world where the existence or non-existence of a god has absolutely no bearing WHATSOEVER on whether we've got our maths right.

If we really do need organised religion to make people behave, then we're absolutely fucked aren't we?

Materialism is the New Colonialism, Says Pope

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:17:00 +0000

"I hate materialism; I'm keeping all this gold so that it doesn't corrupt you."

I'm getting a bit fed up of writing about the Pope and his worldwide fan club of delusional psychopaths. I'm beginning to wish he'd shut up for a while and give another religious leader an opportunity to show the World how ignorant and hypocritical they are, but it seems that Mr Ratzinger is just so brim-full of poison that he simply can't contain himself.

Opening a three week synod of African bishops in Rome - organised to discuss how the Church can help to ease problems of social injustice and conflict - his holiness apparently said that political colonialism is over, but the developed world continues to export materialism - which he called "toxic spiritual rubbish" - to the continent.

Toxic spiritual rubbish. I had to read that a couple of times, then stop laughing, and then calm down a bit. Just roll that phrase around your tongue for a bit, and imagine the Pope saying it in his gentle German accent, and no doubt really believing himself.

Toxic. Spiritual. Rubbish.

What could he mean by this phrase?

Does he mean teaching people that they are all descended from one man and one woman, created by a God who then punished them for being curious, and who continues to punish us today?

Perhaps he means the necessity of despising yourself and surpressing almost every natural urge you may have as 'ungodly', and then whenever you succumb to such an urge, having to tell a (sin-free!) priest who can 'forgive' you on God's behalf?

Or could he mean throwing yourself at the feet of one of the most disgustingly jealous and capricious gods ever invented, begging for mercy as the unforgivable sinner you are?

It could be that he means loving the man/god who saved you from the sins he gave you (except he didn't really, because any one with even a fraction of sanity knows that Adam and Eve didn't really exist) by having himself brutally tortured and executed, with all of your heart?

Perhaps he means telling people that if they waver in this ultimate goal, they will burn for ever and ever, without possible hope of reprieve, in unimaginable torment?

Does he perhaps refer to your God-given duty to prove your love for him by drinking his blood and eating his flesh?

Or could he possibly mean submitting completely to the whims of a hyper-rich, worldwide organisation, bound by no earthly laws, that has spent close on 1800 years burning, torturing, imprisoning or otherwise ruining the lives of, quite literally, countless numbers of people? An organisation that today ensures the continued misery of millions of it's followers, whether by beating and violating children, teaching the same children that they are worthless sinners, or actively promoting - for no other phrase can describe the Church's effect on this issue - the spread of HIV.

No, of course he doesn't, for all of the above are, of course, ways to achieve spirtual enlightenment, peace, harmony, and to be loved and recieved by the wonderful, loving, gentle God who created you.

So what exactly would count as toxic spiritual rubbish? Anything even vaguely smacking of humanism for a start. Educating people about the real world, and where we come from, for another thing. Teaching people that, actually, they are not so bad and don't need to grovel at the feet of a god that 'exists' purely to perpetuate the comfort of a group of ignorant men. And - how could I almost forget? - allowing people to use a contraceptive device so that they aren't playing Russian roulette every time they have sex.

All of these things are indeed appalling and abhorrent - if you happen to be one of those men who live in extreme comfort and only do so because of the ignorance and servitude of your 'children'.

Let's turn briefly to colonialism, of the good old-fashioned sort, first. Perhaps you can find an example in history of the Church speaking out against such evils? Or perhaps even an example of them not being entirely supportive of any Catholic nation setting out on the noble task of Christianising the heathens, by depriving them of their land, treasures, freedom and often their lives?

Good luck with that.

Now to turn briefly to the many wars that blight Africa and so hold back her progress; how many of these are religious wars? Fought by and between religions?

How many priests, accused of child abuse, have been moved to 'safe' parishes in Africa?

A convocation of African Bishops, brought together to discuss how they can alleviate Africa's problems, is, to my mind, on a par with a convocation of Irish priests discussing how best to reduce levels of child abuse.

If you'll forgive my rather hard-line stance on this issue, I think about the best thing the Catholic clergy in Africa could do to ease that continent's troubles would be to quietly line up against the nearest wall.

Good News From the Czech Republic? Pope's Attempt to Rekindle Interest

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:49:00 +0000

"Ooh, what a pretty cup!"

His Craziness Pope Benedict XVI has just concluded a three day visit to the Czech Republic, in an attempt to capitalize on - sorry, I mean join in the commemoration of - the forthcoming 20th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution, the bloodless coup that brought the end of communist rule in the former state of Czechoslovakia in November 1989.

The Vatican is (are?) worried by the growing secularity of the Czech nation and people. Census data show that the number of people who claimed to belong to a church dropped by 1.2 million between 1991 and 2001, to approximately 3.3 million, or about a third of the country's population, and a recent survey suggested that approximately half of all Czechs do not believe in God. Cause for concern indeed.

The Pope's plan was to use his visit to remind people of the repression the religious suffered under communist rule, and to ask people to 'reconsider' a faith that most of them appear to be doing perfectly well enough without.

Addressing a crowd of some 120,000 followers in the city of Brno (the Vatican had suggested as many 200,000 would attend) the holy one said that: “History has demonstrated the absurdities to which man descends when he excludes God from the horizon of his choices and actions.”

Doubtless you can imagine my thoughts on this little pearl of rampant hypocrisy.

Standing near a 12m (37') high steel cross, which fortunately did not have a semi-naked dying man of similar proportions hanging from it, he went on to say that technical progress was not enough to “guarantee the moral welfare of society”.

"Would you like to stroke my stick?"

No, it isn't, well spotted you old fool. However it doesn't follow from this that obeying the instructions of such a patently noxious organisation as the Catholic church will "guarantee the moral welfare of society", either. It would guarantee the material comfort of a clique of deluded men, of course, as well as guarantee the continued suffering of millions uopn millions of people around the world, and guarantee that said millions continue to beget yet more millions of unwanted children, amongst other things.

It also seems that the Church is smarting from it's continuing inability to reclaim property seized by the Government during the communist era, or to receive any compensation for these losses. Cardinal Vlk, the head of the Catholic church in the Czech republic, went on TV during the Pope's visit to complain that he had achieved 'practically nothing' in the twenty years since the velvet revolution. My heart bleeds, it really does.

So, atheists unite in wishing the people of the Czech republic the very best.

"What the hell are we doing here?"

Links:
BBC News
Times Online

A Creationist's Guide to the Scientific Method

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:53:00 +0000

A Lazy one from me today - just found this cartoon and shamelessly lifted it from Religious Cartoons.net .

The site's well worth taking a look at if you haven't seen it before, there're are lots of cartoons about religion, and about the relationship between religion and science. This cartoon shows how a creationist might use the scientific method to conclude what they know to be true.

Enjoy.

Blasphemy Day

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:08:00 +0000

I've just found out (suppose I should have checked before) that today is International Blasphemy Day. The title of this post links to the site Blasphemy Day , which was set up to "open up all religious beliefs to the same level of free inquiry, discussion and criticism to which all other areas of academic interest are subjected." which is not only a noble cause but also gives us an extra excuse, as if one were needed, to ridicule beliefs held and proselytised without foundation in reality. Excellent.

The site makes no attempt to debate the existence or non-existence of Gods of any flavour, and makes it quite clear that such topics are well outside it's remit.

The reason that September 30th has been chosen for this day of blasphemy, is that it was on this day in 2005 that those infamous cartoons of Mohammed were published in the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten. As a result of this, we found out just how fragile our values of 'free speech' and 'free expression' are here in Britain, as every single one of our newspapers declined to print any of the images, ostensibly for fear of causing offence, in reality for fear of having their windows broken by ramapaging mobs of hate-filled bigots, sorry, I mean peaceful and devout Muslims whose feelings were hurt by nasty cartoonists. I don't know about you, but if somebody hurts my feelings or criticizes something I hold dear, I don't feel the need to charge through the streets shouting, throwing stones and waving placards that say 'behead those who insult x' and 'butcher those who mock x'. Maybe I just don't have a highly enough developed sense of outrage.

So as mobs of 'offended' young men threatening obscene acts of violence paraded through the streets of Europe, waving their disgusting banners, shouting insults, throwing stones, spitting bile and showing us just how much Islam truly is 'the religion of peace', our political and religious leaders lined up in condemnation - of the cartoonists and the newspapers that dared to print them. I know it's a couple of years ago now but this case is so indicative of how our culture and our freedoms are being steadily eroded as we are forced to bend over backwards by our spineless political leaders, to accommodate a tiny minority of - lets not beat around the bush - infantile, ignorant, disgusting, hate-obsessed, violent, bigoted, misogynistic pricks, whose only way of coping with 'hurt feelings' are to get truly mouth-foamingly angry and take to the streets shouting insults and waving banners of such eye-watering evil and cruelty that we simply have no choice but to wring our hands and apologise profusely for upsetting them so much. Well, I would say, grow up you sad bastards and take a peak at the real World. Are you offended by this? Good. You don't just deserve to have your feelings hurt, you poor deluded little lambs, you deserve to have that disgusting, anti-human, uncivilized excrement you call the immutable word of God shoved so far down your throat that is makes you at least as half as sick as it makes me.

Now you may feel I've stepped way over the line, I've insulted you, your holy book, the very tenets by which you claim to live your life, and of course that it is me who is being bigoted and hate-filled. I strongly suspect that the word 'Islamaphobe' has flashed across your consciousness several times, closely followed perhaps, if not preceded by, 'infidel', 'fatwa' and 'death threat'. You may even now be chalking up your banner and sharpening your scimitar in preperation for a march to show just how offended you are. Well, I'll be honest with you, I do hate you. I hate what you beleieve, and I hate what you stand for, but crucially, I don't want to kill you for it, and however much I dislike it, I have to accept that you have a right to believe it - can you say the same about me? I hope you'll change your mind, you'll grow up and see the real world, you'll see that beliefs founded in reality do not need violence to succeed, unless they are threatened by it, but I suspect it is too late for you, that you are so corrupted by hate and medieval bullshit that any chance of you using the mind that (you say) God gave you to actually think about this is lost. For this reason, I feel deeply sorry for you.
But of course Blasphemy day isn't just about the Muslims, it's about everyone who thinks their 'beliefs' should be above criticism (its' just that the Muslims are the only ones insecure enough to feel the need to threaten doubters with death) so without being gratuitously offensive, well not too much, here is my attempt at a little light-hearted blasphemy for each of the major faiths.

Judaism: Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look headbutting that silly wall? Do you really think God would make you his 'chosen people'? Why on Earth does God want you to have such ridiculously curly hair? Just what is God planning to do with that mountain of foreskins? Seems a bit daft that he would make you so perfectly in his image, then order you to cut off a bit of your knob.

Catholicism: Ah, a monotheism. With three Gods. Who are also one God. Mmm, you drink the blood of your God - if it really was blood and not just cheap plonk, do you have any idea how disgusting that would make you? Yes, a monotheism whose followers worship a pantheon of saints. Bit odd, eh? So hows that mile-high true cross coming along, have you collected all the splinters yet?

Greek and Russian Orthodox: - as above, just can't agree on the dates. Oh, and much nicer priestly outfits, those hats are great.

Protestantism - mainstream denominations: Catholics are wrong, of course, you got it right. So right that ther're literally thousands of different churches, all interpreting the 'word of God' differently. You'd think God would be a bit more careful when writing his truths, not to make them so ambiguous eh? Well who am I to judge, you're the experts...

Protestantism - evangelical denominations: Yes, thats right, the Bible is true, all true, ALL OF IT! Especially those bits that contradict each other, they're especially true. So, are you rapture ready? Its coming, you know, any day now. Any day. Any day now... Well, OK we're still waiting, but seriously, it is coming... any day...

Islam: I hardly need say anything, you're just a complete joke. A lethal joke, but funny none the less. Take a look at the images I've included to see just how incredibly funny you really are. So fucking funny that you make me puke.

Mormonism: Oh no thats offensive isn't it? I mean Church of Jesus Christ of The Latter Day Saints: Well, the mind boggles, just reading the history of your 'religion' had me rolling in the aisles. A holy book dictated to an illiterate con-man (keep up people, I've done Islam already) telling the story of the lost tribe of Israel who somehow made it to the Americas. Gold-tabletted commandments that could only be seen by a convicted fraudster and magically disappeared into heaven afterwards... truly beyond satire. Thanks for helping me out with my genealogy research, by the way, but you need to go back through it again as you put one of my Carsberg relatives in the wrong family. I'd hate it if, come judgement day, God got all confused when reading your records and left my great great great grandfather in limbo.

Hinduism: Well take your pick, we've got a God for all occasions, and one of our holiest Gods is the one we drink from, bathe in, wash our clothes in, drain our sewerage in and of course scatter our dead in. Yummy.

Buddhism: Ah the ultimate path to enlightenment, the only way by which our essences may leave this mundane plane and escape the endless cycle of reincarnation. All you need to do is sit very still and think about it until you stop thinking about anything. And shave your head, of course, one cannot achieve spiritual enlightment with the weight of hair pressing down on you.

Sikhism: - The only path to God is to never cut your hair. What??

I think thats enough for now, as tempting as it is to rain down insults on the faithful, I'd hate to sink to their level of peurility, so I will close now by simply quoting from the Blasphemy Day website:

"Blasphemy Day, because your god is a joke."

A Note on Why Any Catholic Should Know Better Than Ever to Mention Nazism

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:37:00 +0000

In my previous post, Polish Catholic Magazine Ordered to Pay Damages to Abortion Woman I mentioned that the editor of the magazine, Father Marek Gancarczyk, was accused of comparing abortion to the Nazi and other fascist exterminations of Jews carried out in Europe in the 1930's and 40's. When discussing many societies' growing acceptance of abortion, at least on medical grounds, he wrote that "They had become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp. And what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible." A clear statement to the effect that all those who tolerate abortion are no different to the citizens of the Third Reich and other fascist regimes who made no attempt to stop the exterminations of Jews, Romany, Homosexuals, the mentally ill and other minorities during the darkest years of our continent's recent history. By stating "what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible." he clearly means to say that the abortion of foetuses for any reason is comparable to rounding up, imprisoning, torturing, starving, raping, beating and eventually shooting or gassing millions of people.

After my initial anger at reading this had subsided, I tried to think about why and how he could make this comparison, and really mean it. I tried to understand it from his point of view, but I just can't. Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of abortion, one cannot possibly reasonably compare the killing, even 'murder' if you insist, of an embryo with little or no feeling or sensation of pain, and absolutely no comprehension of it, that exists only as a potential life, to the brutal torture and incarceration of a fully grown human being with thoughts, feelings, a full understanding of what pain means, living in hell in the full knowledge that at any time they are likely to be shot or gassed.

So even when I attempt to be reasonable I cannot forgive Father Gancarczyk for making such a disgusting comparison.

But I'm not going to be reasonable, because of course Father Gancarczyk is a Catholic. And that means that whatever he and his fellow Catholics feel about the Holocaust now, and however much they may like to say that murdering lots of Jews is really bad (at least as bad as abortion, anyway) the Church as an organisation was, shall we say, somewhat less bothered by the murder of around 6 million people at the time.

Before Hitler rose to power in 1933, the Church frowned on membership of the Nazi party, and threatened excommunication to clergy who joined it. Dismayed by the erosion of Church authority (specifically in the areas of education and culture) under the Weimar republic however, the Vatican was pleased to negotiate the Reichskonkordat with Hitler's new government in 1933, and although the Church retained certain 'reservations' about the Nazi party, the threat of excommunication for those who wanted to join it was lifted.

Fact: - The first international treaty signed by Hitler's government was with the Vatican.

Fact: - Parishes were ordered by the Church to hand over their records to the Nazi authorities, greatly assisting them in their quest to identify Jews.

Relations between the Vatican and Germany were strained at best during the 30's, and the Vatican made frequent protestations to Hitler's government about the treatment of Jews and other minorities. What really annoyed the Church though, enough to request every priest to deliver a sermon on the subject, was the Nazi party's use of pagan symbolism.

Pope Pius XI died in 1939, and with him died any possibility of the Church taking any kind of strong, meaningful stand against Hitler's regime. The Cardinal, who as Vatican foreign secretary had negotiated and signed the Concordat with Hitler in 1933, was elected Pope Pius XII. The Vatican took a resolutely neutral position throughout the war.

Whilst the Church's official position was ambiguous at best, of course many Catholics risked their lives to speak out against Nazism, or to take direct action by saving Jews from certain death, and this is of course commendable, but set against the fact that so many of Hitler's high command were devout Catholics, and that approximately 30% of Germany's population were Catholic (from which you can pretty easily infer that around 30% of concentration camp guards were probably also Catholic) the actions of a few decent people hardly weighs against the complicity of a few millions.

So Catholics had not only "become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp" but were in fact responsible for many of those murders in the first place, from the whole conception of the Holocaust (Himmler) to the people responsible for implementing it (notably Rudolf Hoss and others) right down to the ordinary foot-guards in the firing squads and gas chambers.

Fact: - No Catholic, from the leaders of the Nazi party or the SS, right down to ordinary foot soldiers and civilians, no matter how many deaths and how much misery they were responsible for, was excommunicated for their part in the Holocaust.

Fact: - Any Catholic who wished to join the Italian communist party after the war, was threatened with excommunication.

Fact: - The Vatican helped several war criminals escape to south America by issuing passports to them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for this particular instance of the murder of millions of innocents, just that it was at least as complicit, if not more so, as anybody else. I would like it therefore if flat-footed ignorant cretins like Father Marek Gancarczyk would pause for a moment and bear this in mind before they ever, ever attempt to invoke the greatest crime of all time in support of their pathetic, half-baked, knee-jerk, ill-conceived and anti-intellectual positions.

The picture I include at the top of this article is deliberately provocative, but I hope it will serve to remind Catholics of why they should keep their ignorant mouths shut, and rest their bilious writing hands without setting pen to paper, next time the thought of invoking the Holocaust in favour of their 'argument' occurs to them.

Polish Catholic Magazine Ordered to Pay Damages to Abortion Woman

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:45:00 +0000

A Roman Catholic magazine by the name of Gosc Niedzielny, published by the Polish archdiocese of Katowice, was ordered on Wednesday to pay damages of 30,000 Zloties (approx. $11,000 US or 7,400 Euros) and issue a written apology to a woman who sought an abortion on medical grounds, after likening her to a child murderer and comparing abortion to Nazi war crimes.

Alicje Tysiac, now 38, was not allowed to abort her third child back in 2000 despite being told by doctors that giving birth could cost her her sight. Abortion is illegal in Poland except in extreme circumstances, such as if the life of the mother is threatened, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and even then only up to the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

As a result of the birth, Ms Tysiac suffered a retinal haemorraghe and her eyesight is now irreversibly damaged.

Ms Tysiac took her case to the European Court of Human Rights and in 2007 the Polish Government were ordered to pay her 25,000 Euros in compensation.

Following this ruling the magazine's editor, Father Marek Gancarczyk, wrote: "We live in a world where a mother receives an award for very much wanting to kill her child, but not being allowed to do so."

In a clear comparison between the acceptance of abortion and the Nazi extermination of Jews his article also stated that: "They had become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp. And what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible."

Judge Ewa Solecka ruled that the article (whose text I am unfortunately unable to find; I'm sure its a delightful read) had shown "contempt, hostility and malice" toward Ms Tysiac and ordered the magazine to compensate her and issue an apology. The judge also said that Catholics have the right to express their disapproval of abortion, and to call it murder, but they do not have the right to vilify (IE libel) individuals.

The magazine is planning an appeal on grounds of "infringement of freedom of speech". The editor also denied comparing abortion to Nazi exterminations, as well he might, as I'll come to shortly.

OK, we all know that there are many good reasons for being opposed to abortion as simply a choice, fewer for being opposed to it in cases such as this where there are medical grounds for seeking one. I would state categorically that religious belief, and adherence to religious doctrine, do not count as legitimate reasons for anything at all. In any circumstances, for any reason, ever. If your opinion - no matter how deeply and passionately held, however genuinely and even well-intentioned it is - is based upon a belief; based upon what you have been told by an authority, whose own authority rests simply on belief and tradition; based upon a random interpretation of an old book (that you almost certainly have not read from cover to cover) that you believe to be the word of God, a God you cannot prove or in fact feel any need to prove because you know he exists, and you know your opinion comes from doing what he wants, then quite frankly, your opinion is worth about as much as one of my farts, so kindly keep it yourself.

I'll say it again - opinions derived from religion are worth nothing. Absolutely nothing at all, because they are based upon nothing. If you want to bring real morality to a discussion, to invoke (in this instance) science, medicine, or give a real reason why this lady should have been forced to have a child that could've blinded her, then I'm sure you could find lots of decent things to say and have a really good, mature discussion about it - perhaps even win the debate. If you want to say that you think abortion is simply murder, in any circumstances, but hide behind an invisible man in the sky (or all-too visible Nazi in the Vatican) rather than actually think (if you are capable of it) why you really hold this opinion, then you need to have your bible (large print, naturally) inserted width-ways into the aperture you normally use to speak out of. Alternatively, shut the fuck up until you have something constructive to bring to the discussion, you faith-obsessed simpleton.

OK, first rant over, and I know before you say it that I'm not being very constructive here either, and you will have noticed by now that I've not actually stated what I think about abortion as a whole, or this case in particular. Well sorry to disappoint, but my personal opinion on the subject is worth very little too, and will remain hidden unless you want to contact me and really find out. (Don't bother, it's almost certainly not worth it.)

Does this disqualify me from commenting on this case? I think not, because whilst my opinion on this particular case is largely worthless, the continuing damage done to all and sundry by the witless witterings of the Catholic clergy compels me to speak out, and roundly condemn the Church and all its minions and followers as deluded, dangerous and deeply damaging. (Yes, I am experimenting with alliteration, well spotted.)

In this instance you might have little or no sympathy for Ms Tysiac because she was told after the birth of her second child that having another could blind her. How foolish, you may say, to get pregnant again - she should have used contraceptives... No, of course not, that isn't allowed by the Catholic church either. Perhaps she should have abstained from sex, after all, if male priests can control all their sexual urges and remain celibate... Best not go there for now eh? There's a whole blogs-worth of comments on that score. No, of course the Church would not force her to abstain from sex; it doesn't deal in cruelty and misery, after all... they would probably recommend 'natural' methods of contraception such as hoping for the best and coitus interruptus, well known to work of course, and who better to advise you on this subject than an organisation entirely made up of men who have never had sex (well, consensual sex with an adult, anyway)?

I'm slightly puzzled as to why the Church does not allow contraception, and yet thinks that pulling your wang out before you ejaculate would not frustrate God's plans. Or why cunningly working out which days you'll (probably, unless your unlucky) be ovulating and not having sex on those days does not go against God's grand design of filling up the world with even more Catholics. I know I haven't been educated enough in the ways of divinity to understand the difference, so I apologise for being such an ignorant heathen, but it just seems a bit daft to me.

If you'll just indulge me a while: - pull out your head from your pious arsehole, wipe the excrement of papal dogma from your eyes and take a quick peak at the real World, allowing what you see to penetrate the mush of musty old stories gathering dust in what could have been your brain, now - see more clearly? Good... tell me what is the difference between not conceiving by wearing a johnny, and not conceiving by not having sex at every single opportunity? Why is it wrong in the Pope's eyes to crack one off, but OK to pull out at the last minute? Why do I produce enough sperm with each ejaculation to repopulate half of Europe? If each human embryo produced is a sacred and blessed life, a little miracle granted the gift of life by God, why do so many of them spontaneously abort? A few other questions spring to mind but you get my point. Can you answer me without saying 'God'? Can you? Can you give me an answer based in reality? I doubt it, but don't worry, it's OK, panic over, you may now replace your head... feel the walls of your religious rectum close over your eyes and ears... yes, that's better, isn't it? Now you can give me a really good, if slightly muffled, answer from the comfort of your own intestines, or perhaps even issue a challenge. Who am I to question Papal authority? To question the rulings of Christ's Vicar on Earth? Who indeed.

I said earlier that I would turn to Father Gancarczyk's comparison between abortion and the Holocaust, but actually I've decided to put that in a separate post. Many of you will be aware of the Church's almost gleeful collaboration with the Nazis, and why any Catholic figure should know better than ever to even allude to them, far less try to use them to further their cause, regardless of how far up their gastro-intestinal tract their head may be.

Comments and abuse welcome.

Gordon Brown Makes Me Depressed

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:50:00 +0000

This morning I watched Andrew Marr interviewing Gordon Brown, or rather receive virtually identical replies to each and every question - Yes I'm the right man for the job; I'm single-handedly responsible for saving the world from bankers; Labour will bring us out of recession faster than the Tories (by borrowing more money that my grandchildren will be paying off) etc. Gordon Brown's a hero - no really - it takes some balls to be so unpopular, so bloody useless, and yet remain so determined and bloody-mindedly confident that he really, really is doing our country the best service he can by fighting on to the bitter end and consigning Labour to at least ten to fifteen years in opposition. Good on you Gordon.

When he first took over I thought he'd be alright, there is after all no doubting that he is a very intelligent and determined chap; a career politician, even if he is bit on the dour side. This even seemed a redeeming feature for a while after the unspeakable irritation engendered by watching Blair grin as his leadership hit the rocks.

Two years of his sheer bloody awfulness however has convinced me that actually, he's got barely half a clue what he's doing. I can't help remembering how, as Chancellor, he sold off our gold reserves when the price was at it lowest for years, just to pour a few more billion into public services whose expenditure has rocketed whilst efficiency has dropped by 5%. That gold would certainly come in useful now...

I could go on for a while but actually thinking about Super-Gordon for too long just makes me want to curl into a small ball and cry. And that fake smile (shudders) is enough to give me nightmares.

So we'll only have to deal with him for another few months, at which time I suspect a lot of pundits will be asking this question:

Is Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain? And no, before you ask, I haven't forgotten about Jim Callaghan.

Is The Force Against Tesco?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:42:00 +0000

A chap by the name of Daniel Jones was asked to leave a Tesco store in Bangor, north Wales, after refusing to remove a hood that he 'believes' he has to wear in public as part of his religion, and is now considering taking legal action against the company.

Mr Jones, 23, is the founder of the 'International Church of Jediism', which apparently has as many as 500,000 followers worldwide.

Jones (a.k.a. Morda Hehol) said: "It states in our Jedi doctrination (sic) that I can wear headwear. It just covers the back of my head, you have a choice of wearing headwear in your home or at work but you have to wear a cover for your head when you are in public."

He obviously wrote the religion quite well and thought about how to get attention - doubtless you don't have to wear a hood at home because a) no-one is looking and b) you might get a bit hot and sweaty. Similarly when at work because a) you don't want to look a complete freak in front of your colleagues without at least a few hundred years of tradition to support your 'choice' of apparel and b) you'd never get hired in the first place. Speaking as an employer, if any prospective candidate came to an interview wearing a hood and claiming to be a Jedi, I most assuredly would not hire them, however good their CV. Whether you wish to interpret this as religious discrimination or discrimination against the mentally ill is up to you.
In public, of course, one must make a visual statement of your religion; how else is anybody to know that you have chosen the path to salvation and all who disagree are damned?

In response a wag from Tesco's PR department said: "He hasn't been banned. Jedis are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods. Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood.If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers." Clearly they're not fearing a land-mark legal ruling or a massive compensation claim - they'll probably get away with giving him an apology and a light-sabre.

I'm not sure how to take this... If the guy is being genuine and really thinks his religious freedom has been infringed upon, then he either needs psychiatric help or a good kicking, I'm not sure which. It's possible however that it's just a stunt to show up just how ridiculous the laws protecting religious expression are, and how damaging they can be when used by some people with a politico-religiously motivated agenda. I'm sure most of you remember that Tesco recently faced a legal challenge, under the same set of laws, from a Muslim store worker who refused to handle alcohol (despite being well aware that this would be part of their job). The Chemist chain Boots was also in the spotlight, about a year ago I think, after a pharmacist - a pharmacist! - refused to dispense the contraceptive pill because it went against her religious beliefs.

So if the former is the case, then I'm sorry Mr Hehol, but you're just a sad little wanker. And if the latter, then thank you Mr Jones for bringing down such a great deal of derision and ridicule upon your head in pursuit of reminding us all just how stupid the laws pertaining to the free practice of religion are. The Jury is still out.

Ahmadinejad Still in Denial

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:02:00 +0000

That ridiculous little election-stealing monkey, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was once more railing against Israel and denying the Holocaust, at a rally held in Tehran for the annual Al-Quds day. Al-Quds day was instigated by Ayatollah Khomeini shortly after the revolution of 1979, as a day for Muslims around the world to protest against the creation of Israel and the treatment of Palestinians.

Please do not assume that my reference to the dirty, ranting, crumpled little cretin as a 'monkey' is in any way indicative of racism - I am talking only about him, not his co-nationals or co-regionalists (incidentally, Persian women are some of the most beautiful in the world, which is probably why we're not allowed to look at them, but I digress now and am sounding sexist instead of racist, so I'd better move on) I speak only of the fact that he bears an uncanny resemblance to lieutenant Columbo after three weeks on the street. Also, you have to admit that he does look a bit like a monkey.

Of course appearance counts for little where politics is concerned (haha), politics being a discipline where substance is all (haha, again) and we all know that the backbone of Hobo-dinejad's policies involve hating Israel, hating Jews, and giving any Iranian with more than half a brain a strong desire to emigrate. Oh, and of course being the region's military great-power; any chance of the country taking it's rightful place as the region's economic and technological power-house being thoroughly stifled by corruption and religion.

So Tramp-adinejad and his fanatical bigots were rallying yesterday to celebrate Al-Quds. The supporters of his 'defeated' election rival, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, were also out and about being attacked by the state's thugs, sorry police, and Mr Mousavi himself was forced to leave the rally after his car was attacked.

Mr Beggar-dinejad said that the Holocaust was "a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim" and that "the pretext for the creation of the Zionist regime is false."

It never ceases to amaze me that the political leader of a country entirely based upon centuries old mythical claims can reject mountains, and I do mean mountains, of real, recent, tangible evidence that several million people were murdered for their beliefs just a couple of generations ago, simply for political expedience. I really wonder how many Muslims (and I know it's not just Muslims, before you write in - there are a surprising number of Christian Holocaust deniers too) around the World do not believe that the Holocaust took place. And this is the nub of the matter, the problem with their position is simply one of belief. To the religious mind, belief trumps all else, and the desire to believe a premise is often all that is required to accept it, IE believe it. Evidence to the contrary of your accepted position simply becomes an inconvenience to be skirted around and dismissed - IE dis-believed . For example - I hate Jews, however happy the idea of five million of them dying would make me, I don't want to accept that this happened, because it is convenient for me to believe that it was all a conspiracy to create a Western-friendly state in the middle east, and displace millions of my co-religionists. Because I want to believe this, all evidence that contradicts my position must be false. Only the religious mind can work in this fashion, can work on the principle that truth is something to be chosen and moulded by your preconceptions, rather than something real and definite that exists outside of yourself.

Ahma-dinnerjacket's comments regarding the Holocaust brought the usual condemnation from Western leaders, and the usual 'concerns' regarding Iran's nuclear program, as well as the renewed threat of even more sanctions. I wonder if it might be more appropriate for the World's leaders just to ignore these outbursts - would it not be more effective for World leaders just to laugh at him? To treat him with the derision that this pathetic little excuse for a man deserves, and perhaps to send him a box of bananas, or a signed portrait of Peter Falk? I wonder if my opinions exclude me from a career in the diplomatic corps...

Rowan Williams on Newsnight

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:10:00 +0000

His Holiness The Bearded One was on BBC's Newsnight program 'Aftershock, The Crash A Year On' on Tuesday night (the title of this post is a link to the video on the BBC's iplayer service) to discuss the causes and effects of the crash. As you may remember, The Bearded One and his conservative side-kick Dr John Sentamu both made a little bit of a stir last year as the crash was unfolding, by comparing money to a new idol that has been worshipped by certain sectors of the business community (See Hypocrites? Of course not, they're our spiritual leaders! for my take on this at the time).

Admittedly the Archbishop was not given a central role in the program - about 40 minutes were taken up with reports by the economics editor and a debate between business leaders, an ex bank chairman and economics professors - but he was interviewed for several minutes, and his answers were treated with real respect by the interviewer, Jeremy Paxman, a man noted for his tendency to rip less exalted interviewees to shreds.

Everyone has an opinion on this subject, of course, indeed we're all experts now, but where is the sense, and what is the point, of giving serious air time and credence on a serious news program - this edition of which was entirely devoted to a matter of global significance, the effects of which may be felt for generations - to a man who has devoted his life to the study and interpretation of unreality?
Paxman's first question may just have carried a twinge of sarcasm - he basically asked the Archbishop if he thought it was odd that the political leaders who espoused the credit-based capitalism blamed for the collapse (Tony Blair, George Bush et al) were Christians. The bearded one gave a small wry smile at this, but answered that yes he did think it was odd, especially when 'some of the inspiration for Tony Blair's ideology did come from communitarian and non-strictly capitalist origins'. So straight away, we're in to the important stuff - Christians were in charge, why did their Christian values not stop this greed? Can anyone else see a little smidgen of irony here?

I've transcribed the rest of the interview for you below (see how thoughtful I am?) to save you the bother of watching the video, though I do recommend watching it anyway as it has good entertainment value. The Archbishop's interview begins about two-thirds of the way through the program.

'I think what happened was an enormous wave of unreality, in the whole system whereby the connection of financial instruments, financial operations, with reality, with production, with relationships just disappeared.'
Paxman - 'Do you wish now that the Church had spoken out more about that climate?'
'I guess I do, but I suppose like most people we felt intimidated by expertise, and that's a very dangerous place for the Church to be, because what I hear now is people saying that experts, in fact, didn't know particularly what they were talking about, there was an enormous confidence trick going on.'
Paxman - 'They convinced the rest of us they did'
'They convinced the rest of us, because I think that most of us have grown up with the idea that economics is an exact science, and that suggests that we haven't actually read Keynes in the first place, because Keynes' stress on uncertainty as something utterly unavoidable in economic activity beyond a certain level, that again seems to have vanished.'
Paxman - 'What do you think this whole crisis has done to us?'
'It's left us I think with, as we saw in the clip just now [reference to a report by economics editor Paul Mason] a quite strong sense of diffused resentment, there hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year, there hasn't been what I as a Christian would call repentance, we haven't heard people saying that actually, no, we got it wrong, the whole, fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty.'
Paxman - 'You're talking about the bankers now?'
'I'm talking about bankers but also about all of us who, as you reminded me, Church included, colluded with this.'
Paxman - 'So we should all repent of what...'
'We should all I think, look back and say...
'Politicians too?
'Politicians too...'
'Everybody?...'
'We can look back and say, well we, we were, hypnotised into that sense of unreality, we allowed a big gulf to open up between how finance appeared to be operating and what it was really generating in terms of wealth, as well being for a community.'
P - 'What do you think we should have learned from what's happened?'
'Certainly that economics is too important to be left to economists, that there is no such thing as the rational self-regulating market beyond a very very limited range of activities, therefore that awkward amateurs do have their role in this, whether it's artists or historians or even the odd theologian [wry smile] coming in to say, well, what is wealth? What is this wealth creation that we talk about? We can understand how investment and production that allows purchasing power to be in the hands of more people, that's wealth creation. Whether wealth creation is simply the statistic of a larger amount of money on paper or a screen to be concentrated in certain hands, whether that counts as wealth creation, I'm not even sure.'
P - 'And when you see, as we are told now, of many of the financial institutions going back to business as usual before hand, bonuses and all the rest of it, what do you think?'
'I worry. I feel that, that that's precisely what I call the lack of closure, coming home to roost, it's a failure to name what was wrong, to name that, erm, well, what I called last year idolatry, that, projecting reality and substance on to things that don't have them.'
P - 'What should the Government have done'
'[laughs softly] I think the Government was bound to act, in the way it did as a damage limitation exercise, I, I'm not an economist, I can't comment on the details of that. I saw what Baroness Vadera [Junior minister in the department of business]said about that earlier today in the Standard [London Evening Standard, daily newspaper] I understand the motivation, I don't know what Governments can do...'
P - 'Should they have capped bonuses?'
'I would have said yes, yes, and I think that, that's one of those things that, feeds, the, what I call the diffused resentment that people are...'
P - 'Mm'
'... Somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and what you get, again becomes more obscure.'
P - 'You've referred to resentment now two or three times, [pause] how strongly felt is that? Do, do, d'you, d'you, d'you fear unrest almost?'
'I wouldn't go as far as that, what I'm picking up is just that sense of, of, bafflement, of, a muted anger, that the bonus culture isn't challenged, I wouldn't say unrest but I think that what we are looking at is, is, the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional if the levels of inequality that we've seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged.'
Paxman thanks him and closes the interview.

OK, so I've just transcribed it without dropping in any comments of my own. I am pretty sure that any atheists reading this have spotted the irony and hypocrisy a mile off, and I would put a little bit of money on most Christians spotting it too, but just in case you haven't, go back through the transcript and wherever you see a reference to 'finance', 'economist' or 'wealth' etc, substitute 'religion', 'Christianity', 'God' or 'The Church', and hopefully the hypocrisy will leap from the page.

I'm not saying that the man didn't have anything worth saying about the subject, he is, after all, a decent and intelligent chap, but as I said, we all have an opinion about this subject now, and he was giving his opinion as leader of our State Religion. I would therefore give his utterances more value if he had merely given the interview as Dr R. Williams, 'Concerned' of Canterbury.

I can sense your disappointment there, yes you at the back - 'What! how can he transcribe a whole interview without dropping in his customary sarcasm?' Well fear not, because I can't resist it, I just didn't want to clutter up a decently funny interview with my pointless witterings until you had a chance to read it for yourselves.

There now follows the same transcript, with previous square brackets removed, and my own attempt at humour and/or outrage inserted.

'I think what happened was an enormous wave of unreality, in the whole system whereby the connection of financial instruments, financial operations, with reality, with production, with relationships just disappeared.'
Paxman - 'Do you wish now that the Church had spoken out more about that climate?'
'I guess I do, but I suppose like most people we felt intimidated by expertise, and that's a very dangerous place for the Church to be,[Should be used to it after 300 years] because what I hear now is people saying that experts, in fact, didn't know particularly what they were talking about, [We in the Church do, of course] there was an enormous confidence trick going on.' [!!]
Paxman - 'They convinced the rest of us they did'
'They convinced the rest of us, because I think that most of us have grown up with the idea that economics is an exact science, [just as many of us were forced to grow up believing the Church is aways right] and that suggests that we haven't actually read Keynes in the first place, because Keynes' stress on uncertainty as something utterly anavoidable in economic activity beyond a certain level, that again seems to have vanished.' [Last year he quoted Marx, now he's invoking Keynes - are we seeing a further shift to left in the Church?]
Paxman - 'What do you think this whole crisis has done to us?'
'It's left us I think with, as we saw in the clip just now a quite strong sense of diffused resentment, [and a great deal more uncertainty that my minions are even now attempting to capitalise on (Church attendance is reportedly up in some areas as a direct consequence of 'material uncertainty')] there hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year, there hasn't been what I as a Christian would call repentance, [repent ye sinners! Fill our collection plates!] we haven't heard people saying that actually, no, we got it wrong, the whole, fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty.' [We will never see this day while belief is prevalent, maybe one day.]
Paxman - 'You're talking about the bankers now?'
'I'm talking about bankers but also about all of us who, as you reminded me, Church included, colluded with this.'
Paxman - 'So we should all repent of what...'
'We should all I think, look back and say...
'Politicians too?
'Politicians too...'
'Everybody?...'
'We can look back and say, well we, we were, hypnotised into that sense of unreality, we allowed a big gulf to open up between how finance appeared to be operating and what it was really generating in terms of wealth, as well being for a community.' [Just keep substituting 'religion' for 'finance', no further comment is required]
P - 'What do you think we should have learned from what's happened?'
'Certainly that economics [theology] is too important to be left to economists, [theologians] that there is no such thing as the rational self-regulating market [religion] beyond a very very limited range of activities, [preferably none at all] therefore that awkward amateurs [non-believers] do have their role in this, whether it's artists or historians or even the odd theologian [scientist] coming in to say, well, what is wealth? [religion?] What is this wealth creation [fiction] that we talk about? We can understand how investment and production that allows purchasing power to be in the hands of more people, that's wealth creation. Whether wealth creation is simply the statistic of a larger amount of money on paper or a screen to be concentrated in certain hands, whether that counts as wealth creation, I'm not even sure.'
P - 'And when you see, as we are told now, of many of the financial institutions going back to business as usual before hand, bonuses and all the rest of it, what do you think?'
'I worry. I feel that, that that's precisely what I call the lack of closure, coming home to roost, it's a failure to name what was wrong, to name that, erm, well, what I called last year idolatry, [said the man with a graven image of a man suffering unspeakable torture dangling from his neck] that, projecting reality and substance on to things that don't have them.' [!!]
P - 'What should the Government have done'
'I think the Government was bound to act, in the way it did as a damage limitation exercises, I, I'm not an economist, [I don't have any more of an idea than the rest of you; the fact that I am a spiritual leader, well versed in bullshit, lends credence and authority to my opinion] I can't comment on the details of that. I saw what Baroness Vadera said about that earlier today in the Standard. I understand the motivation, I don't know what Governments can do...'
P - 'Should they have capped bonuses?'
'I would have said yes, yes, and I think that, that's one of those things that, feeds, the, what I call the diffused resentment that people are...'
P - 'Mm'
'... Somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and what you get, again becomes more obscure.'
P - 'You've referred to resentment now two or three times, [pause] how strongly felt is that? Do, do, d'you, d'you, d'you fear unrest almost?'
'I wouldn't go as far as that, what I'm picking up is just that sense of, of, bafflement, of, a muted anger, that the bonus culture isn't challenged, I wouldn't say unrest but I think that what we are looking at is, is, the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional [said the chap who not so long ago voiced the opinion that adopting some aspects of Sharia law in the UK is 'unavoidable'] if the levels of inequality that we've seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged.' [Thanks for having me, I'm off back to the palace now for a couple of sherries and a quick chat with God before bed.]

There simply is no sense in giving authority to the words of a spiritual leader, when they are speaking as such. I would ask that the BBC ask someone more qualified to give their opinion and fill five minutes next time - just grab a random passing bloke off the street for a good common-man's opinion. Alternatively, for balance they should also invite the chief Rabbi and whichever member of the Muslim Council of Great Britain is currently claiming to speak for all Muslims five minutes too, then I could write a post three times as long.

It's Religion Jim, but not as we know it!

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:38:00 +0000

On a little more light-hearted note today - I was gazing last night before I went to sleep, as I so often do, at the few stars whose light is able to penetrate the dense orange fug of London's night, wondering how many of them might have planets like our own orbiting them... how many of them provide light and life for alien worlds. Thinking how many planets, in all the vastness of space, and all the immensity of time past, present and future, might hold intelligent life, might hold civilizations of thoughtful beings like ourselves. Lost in my frequent nocturnal imaginings, it suddenly occured to me that our own planet, with just one dominant species, has managed to spawn at least seven major religions, and countless minor ones. What if there are, or have been, or will be, millions of planets with intelligent aliens, all with thousands of religions of their own... imagine a Universe where religion is endemic - imagine interplanetary holy wars!
On this happy note, I let the curtain drop and tried to get some sleep.
Amazingly, I didn't have any nightmares.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place - or Tarred With Two Equally Nasty Brushes

noreply@blogger.com (Dave) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:12:00 +0000

On Friday a demonstration planned by a group called Stop the Islamisation Of Europe (SIEO) in Harrow, north-west London, was called off at the last minute, at the request of the police, in order to prevent a breach of the peace. The group wanted to protest against plans to build a new, larger mosque next to an older building that is no longer big enough to serve the needs of the local Muslim population.

In the event around twenty or so of the demonstrators turned up, and were met by more than a thousand counter-protesters organised by United Against Fascism (UAF). The counter-demonstration was well organised and supported, and several well known figures including the local MP (one Tony McNulty) and the London Assembly member for Brent and Harrow gave talks at an earlier rally. There were a few minor clashes between police and members of the UAF when the small contingent of SIEO chaps turned up and were chased away by Muslim youths, many of whom were inexplicably wearing balaclavas or scarves to cover their faces and wielding sticks, bottles or stones in that time-honoured tradition of peaceful counter-demonstration.

There has been almost universal condemnation for the SIEO, and the Culture Secretary, John Denham, compared their aims and methods to those of the Blackshirts' anti-Jewish marches in the 30's and National Front rallies in the 70's. Condemnation of armed and masked young men has so far not been forthcoming.

I have a lot of sympathy with the UAF and support much of their stated position, though I emphatically do not share their leftist political ideals. In this instance I have no sympathy at all with the SIEO's demonstration - I see no reason why the Muslims of Harrow should not have a mosque large enough for their needs (apart, of course, from my idealistic desire to see all places of worship rendered obsolete). The BBC's report showed footage of the inside of the current mosque - a poky little building with a low, corrugated iron ceiling. Were the SIOE marching against 'Islamism' or 'Islamic extremism' however I would be right behind them.

The problem I have is that I feel stuck in the middle and unable to express an opinion that I feel I have arrived at through common-sense, reason, and a genuine concern for the future of my country, without being labelled either a fascist or a leftist.

It is a real, genuine problem that so many Muslims in our cities live in isolated communities and want nothing to do with non-Muslims. It is a real problem that in many mosques up and down the land, Imams imported from Arab countries or Pakistan rail about the primacy of Islam and tell their flock - many of whom are young men, unsure about their positions in society and undecided about the direction their lives should take - that Western values will corrupt their faith and that they should reject them. It is a real problem that some sections of these communities hate their own country so much that they would gladly kill our citizens in the name of their faith. It is a real problem that so many young girls are sent for brief 'holidays' to visit their 'uncles' in north Africa or Pakistan, only to return without their external genitalia. It is a real problem that so many young men and women are sent to their parents countries to get married (not to mention the number of women who are married against their will) rather than marry here. It is a real problem that so many people who come to live in this country despise the values that it stands for - that our grandparents fought and died for - and want the country to change to suit them. And I could go on... Now tell me honestly - because I am perfectly prepared to review my position if I am mistaken - does saying any of this make me a fascist? An Islamophobe? A racist?

It is a real problem that minor far-right parties like the British Nationalist Party (BNP) are gaining ground in some areas of the country, by exploiting and misdirecting the fears of sections of the indigenous population, but this is only possible because politicians in all major parties feel unable, or are unwilling, to speak out against the growth and increasing insularity of Muslim communities, for fear of incurring the wrath of a minority who are not only willing to use violence, but who are positively itching for the chance.
I despise the BNP and all that they stand for, but does this make me a lefty?

So this post is for all those people who, like me, feel trapped between a rock and a hard place. Who would naively like to see people of all faiths and backgrounds just coming together and getting along with one another. Who would like to see second and third generation immigrants genuinely feeling that Britain is their home, without expecting it to change for them. I know I'm dreaming, and I know I'm being hopelessly naive, but hey, a man can dream, can't he?

Check the following links for background info:

BBC's online article
SIOE homepage
UAF homepage

Just to clarify, I do not and would not buy either the Daily Mail or the Daily Express. In fact, I would rather walk around in soiled underwear than use either of these publications to wipe my arse if I'd run out of toilet paper. Just thought I'd clear that up.