An experiment

Two stories mildly piqued my interest this week, not in themselves so much, but because they both reminded me of Peter Hitchens

A man (I believe 'thug' is perfectly appropriate considering his frequent use of the term) in Bristol is let off a custodial sentence after stuffing ham into the shoes of worshippers at a Mosque in Bristol

The other story is about the scouts openly recruiting more gay members, a Christian organisation, which has irked some (in my view, I don't see why, it seems Christianity has to be represented publicly by Catholics and right wing bible bashers, many Christian groups tolerate homosexuality, the established church of England being one of them, and the scouts adhere to that church)

I have a theory that we may be seeing the scouts story, as it's one of those slightly off-the-beaten-track, Christian-beat up stories, but not the bloke who got let off

Of course, the drunken racist being let off is as good a case as any for his dislike of soft sentencing, as he showed last week, but I am curious as to whether we'll see it..and if we do see it it would be a delicious irony if it focuses on how an attack on Christians is never punished

But hey, I don't want to prejudge, it may be neither, so my apologies in advance to Hitchens Jnr if this week's article is a balanced piece of critical thinking - I simply wanted to put this down before it happened rather than just say 'I said so, honest' and I couldn't really leave it in the comments, could I?

See!

(no pun intended)

While the likes of Guido have, rather bizarrely (for him, I feel), been lambasting the press for being atheist bigots because they are supposedly intolerant of a religious leader, it is clear that the Pope is trampling all over our beliefs the same way the metropolitan press supposedly do to his

Making comments about 'aggressive secularism' and 'Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society' are just as big a slight on the non-believers than a person of faith

As always with these debates, secularists have to show respect towards religious types, but conversely, they are allowed to criticise anything non-religious - this is why I shall oppose the Pope

He comes here belittling our secular beliefs, as the religious always do because they seem to think they have a (God-given?) right to be able to preach and convert the non-believers, which is a practice that would be condemned if it was addressed to members of another religion - but if you're secular you are fair game

I disagree with Guido on this, who I think is clouded by his own faith, this is not simply 'antipathy' towards the Church, it is a response to someone saying we're wrong, do we not have a right to stand up when someone criticises our ways? Can you imagine if he went to Israel and started belittling Judaism?

Wherever I see this debate, where usually Christians get offended and advocate their beliefs above non-belief - they never appreciate that being of no belief should command the same respect they demand for their faith, or others, we may not be a single organisation with rules and books, but we do have our own rational, secular beliefs and we are going to get just as pissy as a Hindu, Muslim or Jew who is being called godless by the Pope

I've said it before, even though I have my own history with the Catholic church and I know I'm completely biased against them and I'm also very sensitive to Catholic preaching, but the Pope is welcome to talk to his flock here - I have no interest in protesting him as an individual any more than I do Mugabe. However, he doesn't get to trample all over our secular values simply because he does not respect the idea of no faith, this is the ultimate irony of all the Christians who claim offence but never appreciate that they do the exact same thing

He keeps making comments like these then we are completely justified in protesting him

Stoke the flames!

Nothing like being aggressive and derisory to a country already having several issues with your visit to really stir things up, eh?

These comments weren't made by his Popiness himself, but a senior 'diplomatic' cardinal - and they will now frame the visit even if it wasn't Benedict

The Heathrow comment is slightly inflammatory, but let's be honest - it's true, Heathrow is a bloody hole

The comment that's really going to piss off the already vocal opposition is the aggressive tones about neo-atheism and general condescending attitude to the way we run our country, especially considering they lost this particular flock 400 years ago you'd think they'd have got the message by now

If the church, even if it is an individual's opinion, is going to attack us, then they will get a defence coming squarely back at them

Until now the opposition had general claims of child abuse, homophobia, sexism, promoting AIDS etc, but a largely diplomatic figure who would be hard to land a hit on, now they have a nice little nugget of aggressive Catholicism to rally them and the mostly indifferent population

Just when I thought this visit was going to be rather dull, nice work, Cardinal Kasper!

Newsflash: The Pope really does excrete in the woods

Surprisingly, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has said the taxpayers should pay for the Pope's visit

I'm shocked, truly...does he also believe Jesus was in fact the son of God?

What's even the point in asking his opinion...of course he bloody thinks the Pope should come here, he probably also thinks we should all join his church

While I agree on the point about state visits - this is not really a 'state' visit, he's the leader of a religion, he does not come representing the national interests of the Vatican as a country, but his own religious views

And while he may represent 1 in 5 people on the planet (a statistic Catholics love), it's more like 1 in 12 in the UK (or 8%), and probably far less in actuality, polls show a minority welcome the visit, most not caring about it but also not wanting to waste money on a visitor who can easily self-fund and provides no tangible benefit in coming

We cut national services and yet spend on this abuse-riddled organisation to self-promote?

The argument follows that he was invited - true, but following up on that whole democracy thing, where most of us don't want to pay, which democratically elected leader invited him?

That's right, Gordon Brown, in February last year - the same government who created a load of expensive new commitments just for electoral purposes forced their successors' hand once again, knowing full well they would not be the ones to welcome the old git

Would Blair, the elected leader, the man who avoided any ties to Catholicism til he left office, have invited the Pope to these shores for the first time in history? Unlikely

If Brown wants to meet the Pope maybe he, or the Labour party should fund the visit

Go back?

I'm not going to go on about Glenn Beck's rally, because let's face it, it's crazy

But this stood out

"America today begins to turn back to God"

and the BBC reports

'Some individuals at Mr Beck's rally said honour and morality had diminished in the US because of the separation of government and religion'

Now, people can certainly want the US to be more religious, that's freedom - but surely comments or implications that it should somehow go back to God are just plain misleading, designed to stir the blood of the ignorant

Separation of government and religion was laid out in the constitution, the United States has always been that way - and while we may be more secular now in practice, the US was originally a mirror image of the British model (unelected head of state, established church etc), they were the ones stopping government bodies invoking religion long before we did such things, so now to call for it to go back to God is not only bizarre, but downright offensive to their own constitution, the same one held up by their historical conservative heroes and the basis of their 'patriotism'

It's her again

Last week, Allison Pearson got on my tits a bit with her claims of how great marriage is for society

On that entry I received a comment (anon) that pointed out she herself is divorced, and has children with a man she isn't married to

Wikipedia confirms this, as much as it can confirm anything (it also states she is my near-neighbour - so many annoying media types seem to take up refuge in my dear city)

So while I cannot claim certainty on the matter, I do have to question this article

My husband would kill to defend our family... so why has Munir Hussain been jailed for protecting his? [italics mine, of course]

Far be it for me to suggest she is lying, I have no proof of that, but I do have to question the headline, and would ask her to confirm her status, perhaps on her wikipedia entry - considering how she slammed unmarried mothers last week I would hate to think she is a hypocrite, or indeed, misleading the public on this issue

Democracy/mob rule

Sorry I've been a little quiet lately - nets been playing up for one, and I've been busy, kind of lost my impetus to write, hopefully I'll get it back soon

One thing that interested me though, was the Swiss vote to ban minarets (or muslim towers)

There's been a fair bit of praise in the blogosphere for 'democracy' - the right to stop islamification and what-not, and of course the issue of sovereignty

Now if a country does want to stop islamification by such measures, and even if that includes extreme measures such as repatriation, then that's their choice, I'm all for sovereignty

But I personally do not see how Switzerland can call itself a liberal democracy (or direct democracy) if it's going to attack one religion over all others, this is against the idea of freedom of religion, simple as that

That is my issue, it's nothing to do with Islam per se, could've been Jewish or Hindu temples for all I care, but I just can't see how you can say you believe in freedom of conscience and tolerance and then pick on one religion because you dislike it

Many people dislike Islam, fair enough - but to ban certain aspects of it? Some have said that non-muslim practices aren't welcome in the Middle East so why should we be accommodating, but that really doesn't matter to me - the fact is we are the liberals with a long history of freedom, we shouldn't be engaging in a tit-for-tat battle with religious dictatorships any more than we should deny Chinese immigrants economic rights for coming from a communist country

I honestly couldn't marry this with Britain - we have allowed all religions to exist here for several centuries and the principle remains, simple fear of a certain religion is hardly a rational reason to deny a certain group the right to practice their religion

What I see this as coming down to is the age old question of when democracy becomes rule of the mob

I ask - would it be right to ban gays simply because a 60% majority disagreed with their practices? Or how about if 60% wanted to ban free speech (e.g. through the BNP, blasphemous literature etc)? Any minority viewpoint could be crushed in this system, that's why we have fundamental, inalienable rights

Dear God (or L.Ron)

Just reviewing my own blog - the bloody ad was for Scientology - a full length vertical banner, my apologies if you see that - it's Google ads, not me

Well, one out of two isn't bad

For once I actually agree with (Archbishop) Cranmer (see Sept 19th)

He posts in response to this story in the Sun over a regional Tesco (Bangor) ejecting a Jedi for wearing a hood

‘Threat to safety’ etc etc no doubt - but the hoods are not the issue, the issue is that other people are allowed in wrapped head to toe in black cloth, revealing nothing but eyes

These are of course Muslim women in burkhas - I know they are allowed in because, aside from it being common knowledge, I have been many a time besieged by these trolley-menaces (for some reason they seem to have little spatial awareness...)

Now there is respecting religion and there is this - why is a person in a crash helmet, or a hoodie/Jedi knight outfit, obliged to show their face, but a woman in full Burkha not?

Religious reasons of course, it is 'disrespectful' to ask them to take it off - bollocks is it, we're just cowards

The fact is, it's a legitimate safety concern, if a shop (or an airport!) requires you to not hide your face then you can't bloody hide your face in there - either you accept that or you don't go there

But no no, we must be able to do what we want where we want because it's a religious thing - we will ignore the fact that it isn't a religious requirement at all, and question the logic here

We can debate academically about religious freedom all we like, but the cold hard reality is that some aspects of Islam (for I do not wish to slander all followers) are tolerated in spite of the law for no logical reason - there is no legal definition of a religion - and to secularists like me, we see all religions as equally silly nonsense

Many may ridicule Jedi knights, but to people like me, they are as valid as Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews etc - they may well be a bit of a joke, and we know it, but they are based on pretty much the same thing - fiction, in a thousand years it may be that Jedi is a proper respected religion based on the ancient tales of Skywalker, as told by Luc-as in the holy trinity (the prequels got lost in time)

'Real' religions have no logical grounds on which to be seen as superior - except they are older and have more followers, Scientology is a legally recognised religion in some states

So the fact is, you allow adherents of one religion to cover people's faces, but no others may do this - the law is for all, religion must bow to the rules - there is a reason Christianity is so tame nowadays - because it was controlled by modern Anglo-centric liberalism, we (as in, every western nation) developed our own codes of what is acceptable, you don't get to usurp that with an alien culture and then cry foul when we deny you the right to behave how you would in another part of the world

In this case it simply refers to an article of clothing, but we are happy to condemn honour killings and female genital mutilation, another part of certain people's religious convictions - why do we have to tolerate this when it's clearly also against our laws

I will put it in simple metaphor - let us say a religion states that all members must be naked at all times - acceptable?

Yeah right, that religion would be forced to practice these acts (which are against public decency laws) in private, and they would have to conform, but considering the 'tolerance' shown to Muslims this should be permissible, just as it is their duty to cover their whole body, despite public interest, it is their duty not to cover any part of their skin, despite public interest

This is nothing against Islam - I simply believe that the law should apply fairly to all, and it should be respected by all

---

The second I refer to is Peter Hitchens, who, in a tirade against the Unions briefly mentioned the film 'Good', a story about a German academic drawn into Nazism through his support for euthanasia

Hitchens smugly declares this as

"about a nice, civilised academic who is slowly seduced...by ambition, flattery and his own anti-Christian moral liberalism.
Fashionable Leftists wouldn’t want to be reminded that the National Socialists shared quite a few of their views."

Liberalism takes us nearer to fascism than we might think...

It is a strange, twisted view, and is rather unfair to the film, and any 'liberal' (although I've no firm idea what he actually means by liberal), to condemn the main character's viewpoint as specifically being linked to Nazism

The point of the film was that any 'good' person can be quite easily corrupted by evil, I think the best way to destroy Hitchens' selective reasoning is to point out that abortion (another liberal pet-peeve of his) was of course, outlawed by the Nazis, whereas it was legalised in Weimar Germany (no doubt this is just as guilty for the converse - bringing down Weimar by destabilising the family structure..)

Hitchens points to the current support for euthanasia (somewhat different to the 1920s version I might add) and shows how evil leftie things such as this are not that far from the Nazis - but surely his own (and many conservatives') opposition to abortion is just as in line with Nazi ideology as to be pro-euthanasia was, after all they played to conservative, traditional thought far more than they ever did to liberalism, but no, support for a liberal idea that the nazis used in a horrific way is far more dangerous than any of the bulk of conservatism (family, nationalism, anti-obscenity etc) that made up Nazi ideology

In short, I found it a rather vile comment that is insulting to both the makers of the film and any 'liberal' who he smears with this contorted view, I don't expect a huge amount from him, but he's usually a decent person

But one conservative out of two isn't bad for me

Religion...you think it's a fair fight and then you realise...

..That there's a perfectly reasonable reason why most of our PMs have been religious (or rather, Christian)

You see, this article in the Tablet assesses the religious motivations of all our post-war leaders - they even do us unbelievers the service of not including Churchill, who was a sceptic but nominally a Christian (as pretty much everyone born before the 1980s is)

Nice of them you think, sparing us the debate over Churchill's religious beliefs (particularly when you get those annoying 'Hitler and Stalin were atheist' lines)

They are taking a line that historians may well gloss over religious motivation of the most recent leaders, as few have dared to embrace religion in public, and that would be a bad thing apparently - well fortunately their case falls pretty flat when they get on to Major, who admitted in his memoirs that the church he never belonged to 'appealed' to him - whoop de doo - I'll leave it up to the future historians to assess how worthy that musing is for tying into his various policy decisions

Nope, this is really a thinly-veiled attempt to highlight that religion still is very, very, (hurumph) important in British life and that our leaders have been supportive of morality despite the social trend towards secularism

If anything Major is indicative of most Brits - baptised for no reason but tradition and raised secular, a few thoughts about something he had little experience of hardly qualifies him as a religious mind

Blair of course is the shining light - we all know he was religious, and somehow I don't think anyone will be glossing over that aspect of him (so again you wonder, why the worry?), although you might argue that catholic-convert Blair is hardly normal and one man does not indicate a trend, and with Major cut out it's looking like a pretty weak case

But what-ho - all I really felt I needed to say was that all you need to do is look at when our youngest Prime Minister was born - 1953, to see that current social trends have sod all to do with a man who was an adult by 1971 - as always, politics is a good thirty years behind 'society'

Give it twenty to thirty years and we get someone my age, born in the 80s and educated in the 90s and then you might see the shift - I think you'll be unlikely to find someone who was brought up remotely religious - most baby-boomers abandoned the religion of their parents, subsequently the rest of us didn't even get any forced down our throats and don't even have that piece of the brain that is a little child being brainwashed, in our heads

Cameron is of course, an official, worshipping Anglican - for what it's worth...

..The Camerons just so happened to have been going to the church allied to the CofE primary school where their little daughter was enrolled last year, for a mere three years - make of that what you will, Peter Hennessey

Atheist Brainwashing Bootcamp!!@1!!1!!!

The Mail asks should we be worried about Britain's first atheist summer camp?

Well, ummm, no, not really - why should we be worried about it when most camps are already run by Church groups or the Christian Scouts/Guides?

Are we particularly worried about camps run by those with a specific religious agenda attempting to place their ideas about God and what-not on our kids?

Not really...so why should I be any more worried about one that doesn't preach any religious dogma?

Even if a case is made that they do promote an agenda, how is it any different from what Christian (or other faith) camps do?

As far as I'm concerned this is just a feeble defence from the Christian-minded who think their religion should be the only viewpoint allowed

In fact it's such a weak jibe that I don't even need to rant about it, which is a shame really because I need a good rant...