Day 4590: Moneylenders in the Temple

Friday

You have, presumably, heard how one of Britain’s biggest landowners is to use its enormous capital reserves to try and bankrupt a recent successful start-up company.

Although you MIGHT have heard that reported as: “Church of England to force Wonga out of business”.

This initiative from everyone’s favourite establishment theocracy comes after the Government announced that the monthly interest that credit unions can charge will increase from 2% to 3%. That’s an increase of 26.8% APR to 42.6% APR.

So it looks like the Church only got interested when credit unions went from being CHARITABLE loans to PROFITABLE ones.

Is it necessarily a BAD thing that the Church might bankrupt Wonga? Mr Dr Vince doesn’t seem to think so. Competition is, after all, supposed to be HEALTHY and – we’re told – result in a BETTER outcome (in this case lower interest rates) for the consumer.

But I’m concerned.

Firstly, Wonga charges such high interest rates because they accept a high degree of RISK in the people that they lend to. Will the CofE be willing to sustain very high levels of losses, or will they be offering loans only to much safer borrowers? Will they, in fact, not be competing with Wonga at all, but rather with existing credit unions?

Secondly, is the problem of debt not that people are getting into more debt than they can afford? Offering them CHEAPER loans will encourage MORE borrowing, people who might have been DISCOURAGED by Wonga’s high interest rates might be encouraged to take out borrowing with a lower “Church” rate. Cheap lending, after all, is what fuelled the BOOM that led to the BUST of the Mr Frown years.

But, perhaps more importantly, I’m worried about setting a precedent of letting a religious organisation – ostensibly one with the power of the state behind it, too – decide to eliminate a legitimate, legal, if slightly odious business on ostensibly dogmatic grounds. Would we be as sanguine if the Church said it was going to use its property portfolio to start blocking planning applications for HS2? Or that they were to begin buying up buildings used for “immoral purposes” (whatever the Church decided that might mean) in order to put a stop to that?

Or it could all turn into an incompetent mess...

To move the story completely into “you couldn’t make it up” territory, within 24 hours the newly created Arch-Banker of Canterbury, Mr Justin Wibbly, had to admit to EMBARRASSMENT when it turned out that the Church is in fact an investor in Wonga.

Perhaps the DAILY MASH covers this best: “Bible story of Jesus and the moneylenders is still on his ‘to-do’ list.”

Day 4181: Dog-in-the-Manger Collars

Tuesday:

The Church of Ingrates – Britain's built-in band of god botherers – have issued their response to the Equal Marriage consultation and it goes thus:

"We have a duty to provide a marriage to anyone who asks for marriage, which, er, we're breaking at the moment when it comes to gay daddies.

"And if you make us do our duty then we'll stop doing marriages for anyone! How's THAT for a threat to marriage!"

Apparently this is a threat to the ESTABLISHMENT of the Church. Which is supposed to be a bad thing for some reason.

Day 4081: Man Who Has Never Seen Snow Demands Right to Define Skiing*

Sunday:



*Well, that's about as silly as a frock-wearing man who has vowed never to marry insisting against all sense and evidence that only he can define marriage.



Look, I'm just THRILLED to learn that the concept of HUMAN RIGHTS has penetrated the previously-entirely-inured-to-new-thinking sanctums of the Eternal Apostolic Catholic Church, prop Mr the Pope, but I think someone needs to inform the Holy Father's representative in Scotland, Mr Cardinal Keith – the aforementioned man in frock – that he can't just go making them up.

That's a little bit NAUGHTY.

Verging on the THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

For starters, it's a lovely idea that everyone has a Human Right to a mummy and a daddy – although I'm not completely sure that Mr the Pope will be okay with Cardinal Keith deciding that the immaculate conception was a breach of Mr Jesus's human rights.

Nor, I'm afraid, does article sixteen define "marriage" as between men and women. What it ACTUALLY says is that "men and women have a human right to marriage". So it does say that men have a right to marriage and women have a right to marriage. But it doesn't say that you need one of each to practise that right. Which is fair enough because some people – including some Christians and some Muslims – have believed in having, for example, more than one woman in a marriage. And we couldn't go condemning people just for their weird religious beliefs, could we!

On the other fluffy foot, I do not think that Cardinal Keith has entirely thought through his insistence that it is not for the State to define marriage. After all, the Vatican is a State.

Day 4063: Without a Prayer

Wednesday:

Lady Insider Warsi and definitely-not-a-lady Eric Pickled and man-in-a-frock (or is he a lady?) Mr Lord Canary all rush to the defence of the poor Christians who are being oppressed by a court ruling that no they cannot use the council agenda to COMPEL non-Christians to attend prayers. Shockingly, if they want to talk to their invisible friend they are completely free to do so so long as they do it in their own time and don't make other people join in. In her Valentine to Mr the Pope, Lady Warsi said this was up there with the invasion of Poland. Someone should have reminded her to not mention the War.

And THEN Mrs the Queen barrels in, reminding us all how LUCKY we are to have an established Church to defend the rights of anyone who wants to believe in religion. 'Cos I'm SURE that's how it works, and I for one look forward to seeing Brenda standing up for someone's right to conduct a black mass...

Warsi
Pickled
Canary
Council
Queen

From Blogger Pictures

Day 4045: Dr Sentimoo's Birthday Message for Daddy!

Saturday:



Welcome to extreme old age, Daddy Richard (he's like four BILLION and one, or something).

And what better way to start a special day than by listening to the news that the Arch-bigot of York [warning: contains Telegraph] is once again trying to IMPOSE his BIBLICAL view on gay daddies getting married.

Putting the DICK into DICTATOR, the purple-frocked DESPOT says: "I don't think it is the role of the state."

So, you'll be giving up that SEAT in the LEGISLATURE then, your worship?

Quick check for the COMPLETELY-DETACHED-FROM-REALITY: WE are behaving like a DICTATORSHIP because the Government ACCEPTS the will of the people and PROTECTS the interests of minorities like gay daddies.

And YOU want people to obey your commands?

There's some old proverb about "sticks" and "eyes", I don't really remember… maybe a biblical scholar like the Arch-bigot could remind me.

(And if it's the BIBLICAL TRADITION he wants, then I'm sure he won't mind standing still while we STONE him for WRITING an ARTICLE on the SABBATH.)



And then we hear, on the radio, the Ever-so-Reverend Richard Communard cooing over atheist philosopher, and designer of the All New Tower of Babel, Mr Alain de Fluffy-Bottom for his new book "All the Good Things you can get out of Religion".

"The thing about religions is that they allow you to organise doing good," suggests Mr de Fluffy-Bottom.

"Ooh," perks up the Reverend Communard, "do you think it's that we're lacking this "organised goodness" that leads to such OUTRAGES like city bankers and their bonuses?"

Because thank HEAVEN we would never get a bunch as CORRUPT and MURDEROUS as the BORGIAs or the MEDICIs creaming off riches at the top of the pile under and organised religion. And thank the LORD that a criminal fraternity like the MAFIA could never arise in a GOD-FEARING country. If only GODLESS Britain could benefit from such a society!

More seriously, it's clear that HUMAN BEANS like to make ORGANISATIONS (whether that is TRIBES or CITIES or CORPORATIONS or complicated belief systems involving INVISIBLE UNICORNS. Or whatever.)

These organisations are ALL in some way "organised goodness" and they are ALL subject to being CORRUPTED by wicked people. This is why Liberals believe in WORKING TOGETHER with others but remain WARY of power structures and favour DISBURSING power to people.

The goodness of religion is that it brings people together, but the DANGER is that it hands the POWER TO BULLY to people like Dr Sentimoo.
.

Day 3622 (again): On World AIDS Day… Some People SHOULD be Ashamed

Wednesday:


December 1st is World AIDS Day.

Across the world, people with HIV continue to face not just the prospect of a horrible disease, but also genuine prejudice, that can cost them their jobs, their homes, even their lives.

And yet today, the former Beardy Weirdy of Canterbury has decided that he's going to IGNORE that and bang on about HIS so called "right" to EXTRA SPECIAL treatment being under attack.

These SPECIAL "rights" include the "right" to hate gay daddies, the "right" to ignore employment law and the "right" to a free seat in the House of Lords Club (where he very nearly never bothers to show up).

He has set up a special website to tell the stories of some of the people who have SUFFERED for their Christian faith. (Please note: like they say in the movies, no people suffered actual SUFFERING in the course of these stories.)

I should like to direct you to Mr Unity at the Ministry of Truth who can explain better than me why none of these people deserve anything but your choice of pity or contempt.

This morning the The Today Programme programme chose to interview one of these people, a Mr Gary McFarlane, a man who was sacked from his job when he refused to treat gay daddies with equal respect because it "conflicted with his religious principles". This decision was judged correct by the employment tribunal and by the court of appeal.

Would the Today Programme have interviewed a man who was sacked for erecting a huge burning cross on Mr McFarlane's front drive and claimed it was because HE was just expressing his "religious principles"? I rather think not.

Mr McFarlane's problem is not that he is BAD because he is a Christian; no, he is obviously bad because he is a BAD CHRISTIAN.

You are probably familiar with the story of the Good Samaritan. It is a PARABLE told by Mr Jesus, and in the story a Jewish gentleman is mugged. Several other Jewish gentlepersons go past and, shockingly, ignore the crime! And then along came a Samaritan gentleman and he looked after the injured man. Hooray, a happy ending. What you ALSO ought to know, though, is that the Jewish people and the Samaritan people did not get on. They had, what you might call, "religious differences". So you see the POINT of the story is that the Samaritan was GOOD not just because he HELPED a Jewish person, but because he OVERCAME PREJUDICE in order to do so.

I think you can see where I am going here.


Is it wrong of Christian people to say that they are not ashamed? No, not really.

I have no problem with the Beardy Weirdy wanting to wear a dress to work. Why shouldn't he, if he wants to.

The Liberal Democrats are VERY TOLERANT of WEIRD SEXUAL PRACTICES, even including CELIBACY. What you do or don't do in the privacy of your own home/dungeon/secluded part of the common is nobody's business but your own.

And if all two billion Christians worldwide are doomed to be fed to the RAVENOUS BUGBLATTER BEAST of TRAAL for their failure to appease the GREAT GREEN ARKLESEIZURE, then honestly that is a matter for their consciences and not mine. It's not like we can't all make up our own minds to believe our own made-up stuff. Just ask the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.

But today is a day for thinking about OTHER people who are worse off than you by LOTS, so it is TACTLESS and SELFISH and STUPID to try and stomp all over World AIDS Day.

And as Daddy said to Mr Paul earlier, it's not like you haven't GOT a Day in December for advertising your Christian beliefs, is it?

Best wishes for World AIDS Day!
.

Day 3341: Teaching The Facts of Balls

Tuesday:


Special Guest Diary from Sister Apocalypstic of the Convent of the Little Sisters of Reductio ad Absurdum.

Thanks to the forthcoming General Election, the Government is hoping to BRIBE Catholic voters with another SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, and therefore Sister A is allowed to write in a way that reflects the character of her religion…

Children,

Today, the Secretary of State for Schools – who is a WICKED sinner – has decreed that I have to talk to you about the TERRIBLE things that so called HO-MO-SEXUAL MEN do with each other.

Well, children: they BURN IN HELL TOGETHER, that's what!

The Liberal Democrats are opposed to HOMOPHOBIC PANDAS. Spokesperson Mr David Laws said: "bless you Sister."

Mr Ed Balls is NOT the School Bully.


.

Day 3328: Marginalising the BBC (that's: Bible-Bashing Christians)

Wednesday:


Today the top men-in-frocks of the Church of England voted to express their "deep concern" that the national broadcaster isn't carrying enough ADVERTS.

…What?

Oh all right: their worry that the BBC isn't pushing THEIR AGENDA hard enough.

…No, seriously, what?

OK: as a body with a symbiotic relationship with the nation, it is TRUE that there ought to be representation for all and a variety of views presented to satisfy all the deeply spiritual people of this great country. But enough about women bishops.

The BBC absolutely should not have to broadcast any more FRIGHTENINGLY DULL FAIRY STORIES!

As usual, the religions ALREADY HAVE extra privileges that ordinary groups don't get. And, in a very DUDLEY DURSLEY fashion, they are now wailing that they don't have more presents than last year.

On the radio they've got "Fart for the Day" every single day; that's a LOT of farts.

On the telly they've got "Snogs of Praise" to kiss bottom with Mr God every week. Not to mention that ghastly Sunday morning punch-up hosted by Nicky Campbell. (This week's questions: Since Mr God says Lord Blairimort was okay to invade Iraq is that all right then? Do paedophiles have the right to privacy or should they be burned at the stake in public? And is paganism more relevant than Christianity – we ask Lord Summerisle and a representative of the Scottish Constabulary…)

And that's without counting the times Dr Sentimoo or the Beardy Weirdy of Canterbury get to turn up at random as a talking head as though a lifetime of manoeuvring your way up the CofE's gilded pole makes you some kind of EXPERT rather than just a different form of POLITICIAN.

(e.g. suddenly the Beardy Weirdy pops up on the otherwise excellent "A History of the World in A Hundred Objects" to talk about an Ice Age carving of swimming reindeer… "primitive art… that's a bit like Jesus…")

Remember boys and girls, OTHER political parties have to make their OWN political broadcasts!

And they ARE really like politicians: they are a group who hold certain philosophical views and hope to convince people that they should be allowed to exercise control over everybody's lives.

Except that normal political parties get their views ROBUSTLY challenged on a daily basis. When was the last time you heard Mr Paxo scoffing at the promises that Mr Jesus is said to offer?

"Nnnnyeaaas, Messiah Secretary, but did you threaten to overrule Mr Bealzebub?"

It's also a bit rich to complain that the programmes aren't "innovative" enough. From the theatrical company who've been putting on the same three shows every Sunday since practically the Dawn of Creation! Oh no, sorry, that's the other lot – this show's just been running since the First Coming.



And while I'm on the subject, it's not just the Christians who are at it: there's a former High Court judge who's been doing some special pleading this week too: Sikh-ing Special Privileges, you might say. (Oooh, I AM sorry!)

It isn't PREJUDICE when you are expected to follow the same rules as EVERYBODY ELSE.

It's not impossible that saying you can't carry a dagger around IS breaking your human right to religious expression. On the other fluffy foot, we don't say that, for example, Aztec Priests are exempt from the laws about Class A drugs just because peyote is an important part of their religious ceremonies. So why should "religious expression" give you the "right" to ignore the knife laws?

(Are the knife laws too draconian? Well, probably, but at least there you can justify your case on the grounds of wanting to reduce the number of stabbings, compared to "we have to wear a knife because we always have".)

But to say that you have a "right" to attend any school you like whether or not you are willing to abide by that school's (entirely sensible) rules is just SILLY. Not least because lots of people CAN'T get to go to whichever school they like because of league-tables and oversubscribing and so on.

And it's just not on to keep complaining that you are hard done by because you don't get special treatment compared to everybody else.


And no, I'm not going to bring the Hindu who wants the special right to be incinerated into this as it turns out they've found a way for him to go up in smoke that's within the rules.


A spokesperson for the BBC ought to have but didn't say:

"It's a crying shame how the so-called British Church has marginalised television. If only they'd stop banging on about gay daddies and give us some proper coverage!"


.

Day 3314: Holocaust Memorial Day – You May Avert Your Gays

Wednesday:


It's UNSUBTLE isn't it, to have to bring up the Equality Bill when we're remembering the ultimate HORRIBLE consequences of NOT just treating people as people. And yet here we are: STILL not learning the lessons of history.

Let's be fair, six MILLION Jewish people being murdered for NO REASON is way more than the quarter of a million Gypsy/Romany people being murdered for the identical NO REASON and the quarter of a million differently-abled people being murdered for not fitting into a BONKERS and completely-ignorant-of-how-evolution-works EUGENIC stereotype and the we-don't-actually-know-how-many gay people murdered that we DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW because when the surviving Jews and Romany and Polish Slavs and black people and prisoners of war and the rest got liberated the Allies DIDN'T liberate the gay mommies and daddies because being gay was STILL A CRIME!!!!!

But it shouldn't be the SIZE of your holocaust that matters, but the fact that it happened AT ALL. That some people could pick a community to blame and vilify and ultimately destroy is WRONG. IT doesn't matter whether that is a community of millions or one of hundreds. Every single person is uniquely different and that should be a reason for CELEBRATION not an excuse to put people in boxes. And then LITERALLY put some of them in boxes.

So now, the much trumpeted Liberaling of Britain revealed by the British Social Attitudes Survey, shows that since we've gone from the heady days of Conservatory Section 28 and Colin and Barry on EastEnders to swinging modern Civil Partnerships and, er, Christian and Syed on EastEnders so the public have swung from two in three agreeing that cuddles between people of the same gender is always wrong to ONE in three agreeing that cuddles between people of the same gender is always wrong… oh, we have a LOOOOOOOONG way to go.

And yet STILL the Bishops of the Church of England whine on about wanting SPECIAL RIGHTS so they don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else, just because they BELIEVE that they have a right to be NASTY. Suppose they demanded the right to fire people just because they weren't WHITE enough. No one, but no one would give them even a SECOND before ticking them right off. But if they want the special right to treat people as second class because they aren't heteronormative enough…

Sigh.

Steps towards treating people AS people have been made, sometimes in the face of the government kicking and screaming and having to be dragged to the European court and made to behave like a grown up. And, mark you, that's the CURRENT Hard Labour Government, never mind the preceding Conservatories. But it's FRAGILE and the forces of Conservatism are bringing their full evil might to bear. It would be all too easy for Mr Balloon – with his history of throwing bones to his right wing nutters, and his alliance with homophobic Parties in the EU Parliament – to cave and bring in Section 28 II this time it's personal… again!

So the BEST way to remember the Holocaust and all its victims is to ask yourself this: what are you doing to stop it ever happening again?


.

Day 3268: Government treats religious faith as an "eccentricity" practised by "oddities"… says man wearing frock*!

Saturday:

So, the Beardy-Weirdy of Canterbury wants to know why we don't like hearing about our politicians' beliefs and why, if we do, we think it makes them a bit… peculiar.

Two words for you, your weirdiness: LORD BLAIRIMORT.

Yes, Britain's most famous (living) GENOCIDAL THEIST, author of pamphlets: "How I Did It!"; "I would have did it ANYWAY!" and "Nozink in ze vorld can SCHTOPP ME NOWWWWW!", back in the news with the revelation that he DIDN'T GIVE TWO HOOTS about the legality of invading that Middle Eastern county.

Religious convictions? We'd settle for convictions for War Crimes!


We have been INCREDIBLY LUCKY in Great Britain to have got away with being only slightly sucked in to the centuries of religious conflict that have wracked Europe since… well, I was going to say the Reformation, but before that there was the Islamic Invasion and the Cursader Counterstrike and before that it was all barbarians and martyrs so it's pretty much since the Council of Nicaea and Emperor Constantine spotting a get-rich-quick scheme that involved seizing the wealth of all the religions in the Roman Empire by forcibly converting everyone to the unpopular one with no money (guess which).

That's not to say that we've avoided it entirely. Hen-er-ry the Eighth's Break with Rome (NOT a cheap holiday away-day) was a POLITICAL act. Everyone knows that. (Although of course ALL religion is a political act, really.) But his kids turned it into something of a personal cursade, what with Eddy going one way then Bloody Mary going the other.

And Earl Conrad Russell (of sainted memory) wrote of how the Bishop Wars of the early Seventeenth Century led into the English Civil War of the mid Seventeenth Century and how RELIGIOUS conflict was at the root of that strife too.

And even today there are STILL deep religious divisions in some parts of the country, not least Northern Ireland (obviously) and some parts of Scotland (often with the same roots again).

HOWEVER, what we've managed to do is find a very British COMPROMISE. And in fact a very LIBERAL compromise, with successive Liberal Governments in the Nineteenth Century legislating to remove religious prejudice from the (Unwritten) Constitution.

The compromise is this: don't mention the RELIGIOUS war… I did it once, but I think I got away with it!

The thing about religious belief is that it TRANSCENDS rational argument. As a militant atheist baby elephant I would have to say that it HAS to. For most people, faith is something that they FEEL, not something that they DEBATE.

(I say most people; obviously the Beardy-Weirdy's PROBLEM stems from the fact that he is an ANGLICAN BISHOP – debating his faith is practically all the job description he's got!)

If you hitch the cart of policy to the donkey of personal faith, you end up with a simile from I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue… but also you make people invest literally their VERY SOULS in your politics (other fish are available); it makes debating IMPOSSIBLE and even agreeing to differ very, very hard.

So, extremely wisely, Britain has chosen to SEPARATE religious views from political ones. We call this a SECULAR STATE. There is a space for people to do religion (or to not do religion if you are a militant atheist baby elephant) and a SEPARATE space for people to debate politics and BECAUSE they are separate, no one needs to get burned at the stake over a disagreement about the interpretation of the Agriculture and Fisheries Bill!

Not that Archpillock Williams wants to get his hands dirty with the nitty gritty of the Agriculture and Fisheries Bill; Bishops almost NEVER turn up in the House of Lords Club when there's REAL work to be done (unless they're out to ban Gay Daddies from getting something everyone else already has!).

But what he means, when he says politicians are "side-lining" religion, is that he doesn't just want to play in his OWN place for doing religion but wants the special right to come and play in the political sandpit too when he wants to be able to give special little favours to his special personal friends.

(For more on how this "marginalisation" works, see HERE!)

Fortunately, and even more wisely, Britain didn't make that separation with the LAW but used the MUCH MORE POWERFUL force of FAUX PAS!

Ban something and you create underdogs and martyrs (again) and will strengthen and perpetuate it – just look at the Hunting Ban. But put mentioning religion on the same level as farting at the Christmas table and you kill it stone dead – look at the decline in smoking BEFORE Hard Labour legislated to ban it!

That's why we think that the Beardy-Weirdy is a bit, er, WEIRD!

That is why people associate Lord Blairimort "getting religion" with Lord Blairimort going BONKERS.

In all honesty, the former Prime Monster could have painted his bottom BRIGHT BLUE and called himself the Queen of Marzipan and people would have thought him less peculiar. THAT would have been "eccentric", but religion… it's just not CRICKET! No wonder Mr Alistair Henchman kept us from finding out about Lord B's "proclivities" with his "we do not do God" quote.

We're not dubious of Lord Blairimort IN SPITE of him turning out to be a closet Catholic.

We are dubious of Lord Blairimort precisely BECAUSE OF his turning out to be a religious whack-job!

His latest self-justification, which EVERYONE can see is because he's going to get hauled in front of the Chilcot Commission, is that Mr Saddam was "BAD" and so ought to have been removed.

But what MAKES a "bad" person "bad"? And who gets to decide and based on what rules and evidence? Because if it is merely "people Lord Blairimort SAYS are bad" then we are into VERY dangerous territory indeed. We're DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to a religious condemnation of the INFIDEL.

Suppose there is a particularly militant anti-Western Muslim in Iraq (I don't think that's TOO hard to imagine): from their perspective they could see Lord Blairimort as "BAD" – after all, he has (according to them) the "wrong" religion and he's certainly launched wars of invasion. Does that mean that the Iraqis would be justified in invading and occupying OUR country to catch HIM and put him on trial so that the Government that they pick for us can have him executed? In Lord Blairimort's world it does!

Look, I am NOT saying that Mr Saddam was all fluffy and nice. He was a TYRANT, a military dictator who invaded other countries (sometimes with our tacit support) and had lots and lots of people killed (even if stories of "people shredders" turned out to be made up propaganda).

But that's NOT a reason for invading his country and killing a lot of people who were frankly his victims. It IS a reason for not giving him lots of money and weapons and egging him on to attack Iran. Which, funnily enough, is something else we failed not to do.

Believing things to be true JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THEM is the very DEFINITION of a religious conviction. Which may be fine for Eternal Verities, but when it comes to impartial weighing of evidence, never mind deciding to take the Country to WAR, it's RUBBISH.


Bishops – like the Beardy-Weirdy of Canterbury – would like to have the POWER that comes with political control. Politicians – like Lord Blairimort – would like to have the UNQUESTIONING support that comes with FAITH.

Thank goodness our compromise keeps them apart!

PS:

*And what's wrong with men wearing frocks?


.

Day 3251: Mr Balloon Makes Himself Look a Total Burka

Wednesday:


Are the Conservatories about to come out against Faith Schools? I think not. So what was Mr Balloon doing raising SINISTER SUSPICIONS and AIRY ALLEGATIONS at Prime Monsters Questionable Time about two schools that JUST HAPPEN to be supported by an ISLAMIC foundation?

Mr Balloon's "question" was whether the Government's anti-extremist fund was being used to, er, fund extremists.

But where was his EVIDENCE?

As his BBC chum Mr Nick "mate of Dave" Robinson spun it, some of Mr Balloon's facts were less than accurate. There's a word for facts that are less than accurate. And it ISN'T "facts".

So are we going to be having Government by WILD ACCUSATION and WITCH HUNT now?

Listening to the radio coverage on PM yesterday, you would have thought so. First up was Mr Michael Borogove, gyring and gambling around the truth. Told that there were in fact some letters from the schools and their trustees flatly denying his claims, he dismissed these with a wave of "well I haven't read those" and carried on making his point as though his TOTAL LACK of EVIDENCE trumped the evidence that he hadn't bothered to read. And yet, he got away with it.

Next up to bat was Schools Bully Secretary Mr Balls. Asked about these allegations, he replied that yes when they had first been raised two years ago, the schools were inspected and found to be fully compliant with the requirements on "spiritual development".

Yes, okay, you may shudder at the idea that your children's school has ANYTHING to do with "spiritual development" (assuming that doesn't mean an illegal still in the chemistry department!) but nevertheless that is surely the end of the matter: there was a question raised, we inspected the schools, it was shown that there were no extremists brainwashing youngsters using the language lab. Job done.

Let me just repeat this point, because it's quite IMPORTANT. These are NOT two "opinions" with equal right to be heard. Mr Borogove is making an assertion; he has NO evidence. Mr Balls is reporting the results of an investigation; he DOES have the evidence.

And yet, it was Mr Balls being given a hard time, as the presenter repeatedly jabbed a finger at him crying "witch, witch, witch!" Or something like that.

By the end of the day, though, the Conservatories were apologising – or at least UNpologising – for talking a load of total HONK.

The Newsnight Show featured Mr Paul "Not Very" Goodman going quite PINK in the face with the force of his unpology, as he explained that even though Mr Balloon had been completely wrong about all the facts, he had raised a very, very, very important point and so should be made Prime Monster.

"I can see you're not going to answer my questions…" said Mr Paxo turning away.

"I HAVE answered them!" squawked the Conservatory, "AND one of your questions was WRONG!"

"No you haven't," said Paxo and visible muted the mike.




Mr Michael Borogove was no longer giving interviews, and was last seen in a head-to-toe tea-towel standing four steps behind Mr Balloon and keeping his mouth shut.


.

Day 2870: MUST… NOT… LAUGH…

Sunday:


People having a scrap over a shrine in Jerusalem; that could never happen!



All hail the Prince of Peace!

Day 2825: Credit Crisis – Church Takes Action

Thursday:


The Beardy-Weirdy of Canterbury and Mr Dr John Sent-to-Moo, the Archpillock of York have joined forces to attack MERCHANT BANKERS.

Apparently the Bishops condemn people for investing faith in an INVISIBLE POWER that inexplicably acts for BENIGN reasons, and for selling a product that is of no MATERIAL benefit to anyone…

…hang on; this is a JOKE, isn't it?

Day 2748: Religious Right trumps Gay Rights

Thursday:


Or do they?

The news that the Registrar who won't marry gay daddies because of her religion, Ms Lillian Ladle, has won her case should be treated with a little bit of caution.

She CLAIMS that this is a "victory for religious liberty". But is it?

It is important to recognise that Ms Ladle's complaint was that she had been BULLIED about her refusal to comply with the terms of her job (namely, provide marriage for anyone who asks).

Would things have turned out the same way if the council had merely politely required her to do her job?

(It should be said that the Council denied abusing Ms Ladle, indeed said that some of her gay co-workers felt abused by HER, but that was not the finding of the Tribunal.)

We should also notice that her job has recently CHANGED, from being effectively freelance – where she could do swapsies to avoid doing her job if it involved the no-doubt onerous task of pronouncing two gay daddies husband and husband – to working directly for the council where she was forced to make a direct refusal. So it's not completely fair to say that she should just lump it, when she previously had a legitimate loophole that didn't DENY anyone a marriage while allowing her to get on with finding it ICKY.

We might want to remember, though, that people CHOOSING the registry office for their marriage have DECIDED that they do not want religion sticking its oar into their big day. Is this in fact the sort of job that a person with "religious objections" is really cut out for?

"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs," she says, and this is TRUE.

But equally, religious freedoms should not be used as an excuse to deny people equal treatment just because you have a personal prejudice.

And we can't get around the fact that refusing to treat gay daddies equally for no other reason than BECAUSE they are gay daddies IS a prejudice. Ms Ladle might not like being TOLD that she is homophobic, but unfortunately that is exactly what she IS.

Day 2738: Men In Frocks Do the Splits

Monday:


Ooh, it's been AGES since we had a good religious SCHISM! And LOOK! There's one happening right now in the Church of Little England!

It's all about the FUNDAMENTALISTS: some of the Anglicans want their FUNDAMENTs placed on the FENCE; and others want to be MENTALISTS.

A group calling themselves FOCA* (Fellowship Of Confused Archimandrites) – not to be confused with the Beardy Weirdy of Canterbury and his old Fellowship of Anglican Religious Traditionalists – has decided to set up their own "church within a church"

Now, the Archpillock has replied telling them to depart in the BIBLICAL FASHION or, as Genesis puts it, "Go Forth and Multiply".


This all began with the news that a third of Anglican bishops were planning to boycott the Beardy-Weirdy's regular church fete and bun-fight, the Lambeth Conference.

Then, worse, they decided to set up a RIVAL shindig in Jerusalem, because OBVIOUSLY there's never been any question of religious differences THERE!


The Jerusalem Conference, or GAFCON (Gruesome Anglicans Find Conservative Oppression Nice), was attended by old friends like Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria and Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda. You remember them, Mr Akinola is the one who pressed for gay daddies to be banned in Nigeria, and Mr Orombi thinks that gay people in the UK are HIS business but polygamy (please note difference from polyamory) in Africa is not OURS.

Also in attendance was Britain's HOLIEST WOMAN™, Ms Anne Ratkin, and SHE says that it was wasn't about hating gay daddies AT ALL, but all about loving the Little Baby Jesus™.

"The one thing you have to realise in order to understand GAFCon… is that it is not really anything to do with sex."

Well, yes and no. Or to be more specific, no.

The final statement from Gafcon spells out their objectives. It's mostly a load of the usual honk, but the key paragraphs are at 8…

We acknowledge God's creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.

…and 13…

We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

To translate from the ECCLESIASTICAL: gay daddies are EEWWW, and we're not taking orders from anyone who won't say so out loud. And that means YOU Mr Beardy-Weirdy!

You can bleat all you like that REALLY it is "…about the Lordship of Christ, the sinfulness of man, the reliability of the scriptures…" (and here are some clues for nothing: he's not; you are; not even remotely) but when you choose your closing highlights it seems ODD that sex is right in there if you HAVEN'T all been worrying your heads about it.

Mr Theo Hobson disagrees with Ms Ratkin, and think there MAY be a hint of POLITICS in the conservative bishops' manoeuvrings.

And maybe he has a point. If Ms Anne is RIGHT and they don't give a hoot about sexuality, then clearly they are just using it as a WEDGE issue to try and seize power from the Archpillock in Canterbury. This means that they are not REALLY bigots. It means that they are hypocritical, traitorous and power-hungry bigots. ('Cos you don't get let off being a bigot just because you don't MEAN it when you oppress people!)

The Bishop of Southwark, Mr Tom "It's what he does" Butler says "No Compromises".

He is right! Like Marxists and Militants, you offer to meet these people halfway and they let you move, stick right where they are and make all the same demands. Then they expect you to meet them halfway again – or rather now three-quarters of the way from your original position. And so on.

As with ALL schismatics, the FOCA-ers are keen verging on DESPERATE to prove that it is the OTHER side that are the SPLITTERS. The People's Front of Judea may have deserted their principles but the Judean People's Front will remain true to the true meaning of truth!

Here is an example of one of them at work, Canon Chris Sugden, explaining how it is REALLY all the fault of the Episcopalian Church for no longer living in 1529…

Observe how he dismisses the Archpillock's actually quite reasonable questions of "how is this parallel church going to work logistically?" and "who appointed you anyway?" as having "more in common with Yes Minister than godly dialogue in the church of Christ". Subtext: we're terribly saintly and you are so grubby and political. Like most people who diss "politicians", they are actually DEEPLY political… it's just the messy compromises of DEMOCRACY that they are dissing; they prefer their politics DEMAGOGIC.

And then he puts the onus on the Archpillock to fix this, demanding that the Beardy-Weirdy should come to neutral territory – and then redefines "neutral" to mean:

"…not at the Lambeth conference, which is already a compromised gathering since those who initiated this crisis, the consecrators of Gene Robinson, will be present…"

So only places where the other side of the argument AREN'T. That is an, er, INTERESTING definition of neutral.


Why should any of us CARE? Surely this is no more significant than an argument between two groups of LIVE ROLE PLAYERS. After all, THEY gather together to dress up in funny clothes and argue about the rules and who has the largest magic totems!

Well, the religious lobby with their "SPECIAL RIGHTS" already put a heavily conservative argument against our more liberal legislation. And now, in this DEEPLY UNDEMOCRATIC way, an EVEN MORE conservative faction are trying to mount a takeover so that they can wail and scream even more about taking us back to some pre-Medieval dark age based on a 4000-year old desert survival guide that has little or nothing to do with the morality of what Mr Jesus is actually supposed to have said.

And we don't give DUNGEONS & DRAGONS players seats in Parliament for FREE!

(Though it might be fun if we DID – role double-six or get eater by the Dragon Maggie!)



*"Mothers Opposed to the Occult" or "MOO" earned Joyce Summers a withering "nice acronym, mom" from her daughter, the Vampire Slayer. But this is closer to the "Clean Up National Television" slogan that Ms Mary Whitehouse was allegedly dissuaded from using according to the BBC's recent hagiography (with emphasis on the HAG).

PS:

The last schism – more of a mini-schism really – was when several hundred American parishes broke away from the Anglican Communion over the ordination of lady vicars as the "Continuing Anglican Movement".

As the Controller-known-only-as-the-Controller might have said when presented with a Continuing Anglican Movement Pie: "how strangely unappetising".

Fortunately, there is no chance of a revolt over the ordination of ladies like that today… oh!

Day 2696: Hybrids, Chimeras and Talibaptists… oh my!

Monday:


(In fairness, they're more like TaliPAPISTS in this country.)


Yes, obviously, it's the return of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and the attempt by an alliance of Social Conservatories and Roman Theocrats to HIJACK the issue as an excuse to start a CULTURE WAR against science.

The media are, typically, giggling about the fact that several of Mr Frown's own Cabinet DEFIED his personal plea and voted PRO-LIES.

But surely the far more worrying development is the Conservatories AS A BLOC throwing their weight behind a discrimination, superstition, anti-choice agenda straight out of the book of Victorian values.


On the CRUCIAL votes, the Conservatories were top keen to vote against the modern liberal country that Great Britain has become, and cocksure enough to do it blatantly.

On reducing the abortion limit to 22 weeks, the Conservatories voted 134 (plus 2 semi-detached Independent Conservatories) in favour to 27 against (Liberal Democrats were the most divided on this difficult issue though thankfully leaning the right way overall: 23 for and 32 against)

On the question of whether the law should insist that a daddy is necessary to have a child, the Conservatories support was 144 to 12 for legislating against any family that does not fit their ideological catalogue.

On trying to ban the use of hybrid embryos they WERE more divided, 80 in favour and 64 against, but the majority of the Conservatory Party were still on the opposite side to the PROGRESSIVE will of the House and (on this occasion) their own leader, Mr Balloon.


Losing the fight to embed the patriarchy in law was Mr Vague's Dad the former Conservatory leader, Mr Iain Drunken Swerve, or IVF as he is known.

He was at pains to emphasise that just because he thought that Lesbians (no, NOT from Lesbos, let's not go THERE again)… just because he thought Lesbians were thoroughly inadequate to be parents, he was NOT being HOMOPHOBIC – he wouldn't go so far as to say that some of his best friends are gay daddies, but some of his best friends are… senior Conservatories.

The whole business is about pinning people down and making them live the way that the Conservatories WANT them to live. But people do not need the Conservatories' permission to live their lives, and thankfully the House of Commons agrees.

So instead Mr Drunken Swerve's "need for a father" will be replaced by "supportive parenting", which seems MUCH more sensible and allows for recognition of all of the DIFFERENT kinds of families that people are able to come up with for themselves.


The argument over abortion, led by the Conservatory MP Ms Nodding Doris, was almost MORE sinister, not least because of the way it was suddenly attached to the Embryology Bill out of the blue.

I am not really QUALIFIED to spout about the abortion issue. But if there is one statistic that convinces ME, then it's THIS:

Britain: abortion legal: 20% of pregnancies end in termination.
Brazil: abortion illegal: 30% of pregnancies end in termination.

That certainly LOOKS like the way to save BABIES (and MUMMIES, who are JUST as important) is to give mummies CONTROL over their own squishy bits reproductive organs. That means being PRO-CHOICE. It means education. It means contraception. It means equal rights and equal pay and job protection and a whole lot of other things too. But all of those things add up to giving the power and the decision to the mummy.


However, the debate isn't as simple as the yes/no question over ALLOWING abortion at all. No matter that that's what the anti-abortion campaigners want, they've realised that – for now – they're not going to be able to wind THAT particular clock BACK to the Dark Ages. So instead they are adopting SALAMI TACTICS.

Daddy Richard says: they want to kill abortion by slicing it up piecemeal.

I say: Yeuch, icky metaphor daddy! [Daddy Alex AGREES!]

The scientific consensus is that we put the limit on abortion at 24 weeks because up to 24 weeks the chances of a baby surviving on its own are really quite low.

Obviously, this led to all the news shows going out and finding someone whose baby HAD survived being born at 23 weeks and then – rather disingenuously – NOT interviewing the NINE OTHER MUMMIES whose babies had all DIED.

Also, the chances of survival drop off AMAZINGLY quickly: from below one in ten at 23 weeks to below one in ten-thousand at 20 weeks (in fact in the most recent survey no babies at all survived being born so early).

But you can SORT OF see that people might think that given that there is SOME chance of survival at 23 weeks and a tiny chance at 22 weeks then MAYBE there is some justification in letting MPs decide to lower the limit, just on the precautionary principle, so we're covered as science gets BETTER at saving very early premature babies.

This is a TRAP.

Because the REAL danger here is that MPs choose to take the decision AWAY from Independent Scientific Advice. Essentially that would mean that you take the science OUT of the debate and then just debate on SENTIMENT.

And once you've got THERE, it's much, much harder to defend the right to an abortion with inconvenient things like COLD HARD FACTS, when the other side can say: "ooooh, just look at the li'll BABIES!!!"

(Actually, they say that a lot already – but at least you can counter it with: "yes, but the SCIENCE says…")

Fortunately, as you know, MPs decided to stick with the scientific advice.

But we still need to be aware that the HARD-LINE Conservatories have STILL scored a victory by getting their AGENDA to the centre of political debate. The Progressive Movement is STYMIED so long as the choices being presented are between the STATUS QUO (which Conservatories love) or going back to their Fantasy Fifties (which Conservatories love).

One thing is for certain: the ONLY way to make sure that you don't replace a barking mad power-crazed authoritarian Labour with barking mad power-crazed authoritarian Conservatories… is to make sure there are enough LIBERAL DEMOCRATs to keep the s HONEST!

PS:

One OTHER effect of this bill is that "Saviour Siblings" will be allowed.

This is GOOD: I think Mr Jesus could DO with a sister or brother to help him get out more.

Day 2692: Relic Box of Einstein's Hairdo

Thursday:


Four things that Professor E is famous for:

Number 1: E = mc2

Number 2: Sock phobia

Number 3: Turned down the presidency of Israel

Number 4: "Mr God does not play dice"

Except it turns out that that last quote ought to be: "Mr God does not play dice… because he's IMAGINARY!"

Mr Albert often referred to Mr God POETICALLY, something that's been used as a sign of BELIEF. But, in this forgotten letter, he lays it out a bit more BLUNTLY:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

The question of Mr Albert's belief, unbelief, respect for the traditions and history of his people, or general sense of wonder at the fact that the world can even be understood at all shouldn't amount to any part of a hill of beans, certainly not compared with his HUGE contribution to our understanding of the positively BRAIN-WARPING ways in which our universe works at a very large scale.

But that hasn't stopped his words being USED (or AB-used) by the more ZEALOTIC religious types as evidence of a big famous scientist who believed in Mr God. As though that would actually make a difference to the Mr God real/not real question anyway.

Well, I think they probably WON'T want to do that any more!

Day 2686: Cardinal Goes Godwin:

Friday:

Always bracing to wake up to my chum, Professor Richard, coming on the radio to dice up Mr Humpy.

"You wouldn't let a politician get away with saying these things without asking where's your evidence?"

"Ah, but when it comes to faith it's a matter of what they believe…"

"Precisely! There's absolutely no reason to take seriously someone who says, 'I believe it because I believe it'."


Unfortunately an hour later Cardinal Carpark Mary O'Conman was on. With his claim that if Britain becomes "spiritually homeless" we'll be like the "godless" regimes of the Twentieth Century, like… the Nazis.

That is just WILFULLY IGNORANT or FLAGRANTLY DECEITFUL. And if your ONE ground for getting a BULLY PULPIT on the radio is just claiming "I'm a wise old man; I know stuff" then you just proved that you don't deserve your job.

Chairman Mao: aggressively atheist, difficult to argue with that; Mr Stalin (not Mr Frown), have to put my fluffy feet up to him too in his own strange making-a-sort-of-religion-out-of-Marxism way.

But not the Nazis.

Mr Adolf was a religious NUT. He based his ADDLED THINKING on some kind of bad-trip mish-mash of Catholicism and the Norse religions, but you can't get away from the fact that he and his goose-stepping loons were on a RELIGIOUSLY-inspired CRUSADE.

Nor, I have to remind you, can you avoid the CULPABILITY for the Catholic Mother Church SUPPORTING him for his campaign against Jewish people… pretty much the MAIN evidence for marking out the Nazis as the Number One in the All-Time-Evil Hit Parade.

And forgive me for bringing it up, but, er, didn't your BOSS – Pope Benelin – kind of used to WORK for Mr Hitler in the Hitler Youth. Oh SURE, it was "compulsory"; not EVERYONE passed up their principles to join, though, did they?

You can just see the PREJUDICE bubbles forming in his be-mitred brain: ooh, the Nazis… they were EVIL weren't they… they must have been ATHEISTS!

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

And all the more IRONIC because he was SUPPOSEDLY on air to big-up the speech he made to say: why don't we talk to the atheists because their non-belief is ALMOST like a belief, isn't it.

The CENTREPIECE of his argument is his assertion that: "The interesting question about atheism is what is the theism that being denied?"

In many ways this is the LEAST interesting thing about atheism.

Certainly, Professor Richard, born and raised in a so-called Christian country, concentrates much of his fire on the Christian myths and stories. And how a lot of them are not very NICE. (Fried cities, murdered courtesans, sacrificing children and fluffy animals and all.) But you have to bear in mind that Christianity TAKES IT AS READ that it's already proved that ALL other religions are NOT TRUE… so someone brought up with that only has to prove ONE MORE.

Of course, for the Archbigot, the UNDERLYING assumption is that someone who does not believe in Mr God has a SECRET belief in Mr God hidden inside them.

Professor Richard would sort-of agree… except he'd say he talks a lot about Christianity because that is the religion that got to him first and tried to BRAIN-WASH him.

His reply would be… well, Cardinal O'Conman, does that mean that you have a secret belief in Mr THOR? And in Mr Sutekh? And in Cuddly Cthulhu? And the flying Spaghetti Monster?

Everyone in the world is an atheist about EVERY religion ever… except at most one. Some of us just go one religion further.

That is to paraphrase Professor Richard, but if you think about it it's self-evidently true. Okay, there just MIGHT be one or two people who actually believe TWO contradictory religions, but that's got to be WEIRD, right? So, really the NATURAL state is to disbelieve almost everything you hear about almost every religion (with the exception of the one you believe in).

Professor Richard said that he had read the Cardinal's speech: never, he said, had he seen someone take five-thousand words to say nothing.

[A: Please sir! Please sir! I have!]

But why should I just take Professor Richard's word for it? So I have read the Cardinal's speech MYSELF.


(Professor Richard was RIGHT, though.)


The Cardinal-Archbigot starts off with a TYPICAL religious ASSERTION:

"No one generates their own faith: it always comes to us through the goodness, example and insight of others: that is the meaning of tradition…"

Except, no… "faith", such as it is, is a response to what we LEARN from other people, but it doesn't have to be from their "goodness" – it is a response to their habit. We learn our behaviour mainly from our daddies and mummies, but also from our friends, school-chums and so on.

No one generates their own ability to SWEAR using bad words either, but you would hardly say that it comes to us through the "goodness" and "insight" of others.

In fact, this is one of Professor Richard's MAIN COMPLAINTS: children are especially adept at learning from their parents, it is a SURVIVAL trait, but it also means that they are IMPRESSIONABLE and especially open to believing ideas JUST because they are told to. He thinks that the idea that there is a Mr God sticks with people BECAUSE it has been IMPRESSED upon them, NOT because they have LEARNED if it is true.


Cardinal O'Conman then quotes Cardinal Henri de Lubac, who tells of a priest who lost his faith. When a visitor congratulated the priest on having finally got rid of this religious nonsense, the priest said, 'From now onward, I am no more than a philosopher – in other words, a man alone'.

Lubac then says that this is true because the priest has left his "home".

The PROBLEM with this jolly little story is that it is basically Lubac saying "I heard this thing that I think is true and you know what, it's true". In fact, it's WORSE than that: it's CARDINAL O'CONMAN saying "I heard this bloke I know saying that he heard this thing that he thinks is true and you know what, when he says it's true it IS true."

What if I tell you a story about a priest who has lost his faith and the Cardinal comes and consoles him on his loss, and the priest replies 'but no, at last I am free of all that pointless guilt and rigmarole'. (At which point, the Cardinal calls for Pope Benelin and his friends from the INQUISITION, but we'll not go there…) Is this story any MORE or LESS true than the one that the Cardinal tells us that ANOTHER Cardinal once told him?

Because, in fact, this is indicative of the problem with THEOLOGY as a whole: it's all based not on things you can PROVE, or even things that you can make a DECENT CASE for, but on something someone once SAID. Ultimately this means it's FALLACIOUS, because it's all based on the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Remember how I was repeating things that Professor Richard says earlier? Did you notice that I also tried to make sure that it STOOD UP to examination on its own MERITS and not just because someone FAMOUS said it?

How many times does a sermon or a Fart for Today begin with something like "Mr Saint Paul once said…"? It's got NOTHING to do with whether that one thing that Mr Saint Paul said is true or false in itself, except that Mr Saint Paul said a LOT of things, and some of them not very nice, especially concerning LADIES and their HATS. What the sermoniser is REALLY doing is STARTING with his answer and then looking up for something that Mr Saint Paul said and using THAT in order to make it LOOK like his answer is more right.

Mr the Cardinal ADMITS as much when he says:

"Our faith is not founded on the conclusions of reason, but it is grounded in the Logos, the expressive Word that comes from God…"

Only he then immediately goes on to add: "…and it is compatible with reasoned thought."

And you know: it REALLY isn't.

All elephants are PINK
Nellie is an elephant
Nellie is PINK

Compatible with reasoned thought?

Davros thought so, but he's an IDIOT.

It ISN'T compatible with reasoned thought and here is WHY: the PREMISE (elephants being pink) is false (just look: there is PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE all over my diary to PROVE it false). And, and this is the killer, "reasoned thought" requires that you CHECK YOUR PREMISE.

"Revealed truth" (daddy says: look up oxymoron) "Revealed truth" means that you SKIP the important REASONING part of "is this a REASONABLE assumption to base my logic upon?"

And you end up making NONSENSE statements about Nellie.

Cardinal O'Conman says that faith should be about TRUTH not about the social benefits.

(Actually, of course, he doesn't: being a THEOLOGIAN he bases his argument on what someone ELSE as said, so he cites an unnamed Muslim cleric saying that Pope Benelin said it and then backs it up by citing Mr TS Eliot saying it too, but you get the point.)

The PROBLEM, once again, is that "Does Mr God exist?" is a TRUE/FALSE question. It is one or the other. It is not an answer that should change depending on who you are asking.

Cardinal O'Conman said that he had been at PRAYER so he had not listened to Professor Richard (which makes for an INFORMED response, I do not think) but if he had he would have heard him say that.

"Does Mr God exist?" OUGHT to be susceptible to inquiry.

And you really OUGHT to be able to ask the "is this a REASONABLE assumption to base my logic upon?" question.


Getting to the GIST of his sermon, the Cardinal then put forward the suggestion that theists and atheists have a lot to talk about.

(Well that's TRUE, but I SUSPECT that he meant on the subject of RELIGION, rather than Liberal Democracy.)

His suggestion is that religions' folks should use their DOUBTS about their faith to talk to atheists because a wobbling faith is JUST like not believing in something just because it's written down.

This, of course, is where he starts on the "atheists really just WANT to believe" cant.

"In his recent book about death, 'Nothing to be Frightened Of'," says the Archbigot, "Julian Barnes begins with the words, 'I do not believe in God, but I miss him': this is the dilemma of so many people today. But where does this sense of 'missing' God come from?"

His answer seems to be that we all need a bit of LOVIN', a bit of MEANING, a bit of giving us a HUG when we are LOW. And that's where Mr God comes in.

Well, frankly I think that that's a bit RUBBISH!

I think that people are BETTER than that: the strength to live your life, to bear up under your troubles, to be happy lies within you and in your family and your friends.

Cardinal O'Conman goes on further to try to explain this feeling of "missing Mr God":

"A baby is called to self-consciousness by the love and smile of his mother…. It reveals four things to him: 1) that he is one in love with his mother, and yet he is not his mother, and so Being is one; 2) this love is good, and so the whole of being is good; 3) that this love is true, and so being is true, 4) this love is a cause of joy, and so Being is beautiful

"And of course, when you talk about the reality that is one, true, good and beautiful (what Thomists call the 'transcendental attributes'), you are talking about God."

Well, call me old-fashioned but I THINK what you are talking about is your MUMMY.

In fact, Dr Freud would say straight away: you feel the loss of the love of your MOTHER so you feel the need for a REPLACEMENT love, the love of an INVISIBLE FRIEND.

Yes, of COURSE I am oversimplifying. I am only eight [R: seven]; I am not a DOCTOR of PSYCHIATRY!

People have a sense of needing of something other than themselves, not just because their earliest bonding memories are of their mummies, but also because humans – like elephants – are communal creatures who actively form communities and links to each other. That ability to CONNECT – EMPATHY, if you like – is at the root of all of humanity's strengths. It just also contributes to the weird side-effect of empathising with all sorts of other things too: television programmes, political parties, soft toys, pet names for cars, imaginary friends (I mean ACTUAL imaginary friends, rather than being disparaging about Mr God this time).

You can't say that all of these are REALLY just because people are secretly searching for a Cuddly Cthulhu in their lives, can you?


You see, what Cardinal O'Conman clearly fails to realise is that for the atheist having doubts isn't a big deal.

I understand that if you DO believe, then it is one of the RULES that you have to, well, believe it. And this means that some people, when they find they don't, actually, totally believe all of the mysticism that they are asked to, find themselves WRACKED with DIFFICULTIES. For the believer, DOUBT is bad because it can be PAINFUL and it makes you feel you've let the side down.


Mind you, it probably DOESN'T help that the "side" is telling you that you are in actual physical danger of going to HELL! Believers are told that if you STOP believing then you are REJECTING Mr God and that leads to PUNISHMENT in the hereafter which if course you believe in. This makes having DOUBTS even MORE painful.

And, just in case the imaginary hereafter turns out not to exist, SOME theists have been known to practice precautionary punishment i.e. burning, stoning or shooting by a religious mob! Which is even MORE PAINFUL STILL!!

In CONTRAST, the rationalist, existentialist atheist doesn't give TWO HOOTS. Keeping an OPEN MIND is actually part of the deal. So, certainly, you can entertain the odd "well MIGHT it be true" notion and it DOESN'T shake your world.

Because, and this is what the Cardinal will find really SHOCKING, atheists do NOT spend all day and all night going round ACTIVELY DISBELIEVING. WE just don't waste our time with it. There is much more FUN to be had.

So, when you say: "oh we believers should go out and talk to atheists about our doubts and win them over," I'm afraid my response is: DON'T WASTE MY LIFE, GRANDDAD!

Anyway, clearly realising that he's just advocated DOUBTING Mr God, the Cardinal starts rowing back sharpish.

"We should remember that the proper response to God is that of faith, not absolute certainty"

he says before reaching for yet another quote:

"Si comprehendis, non est Deus, said St Augustine: 'if you understand, it is not God'."

Ah, the "Argument from Incomprehensibility"; I'm afraid it is just another FALLACY.

You do not need to be able to UNDERSTAND Mr God to at least show some effect of his (or HER) presence!

I don't comprehend QUANTUM MECHANICS either, but I can still prove to you that it exists because – gosh wow – the SEMI-CONDUCTORS in your computer are allowing you to read my diary over the Wibbly Wobbly Web.

You could say that Mr God is OMNIPOTENT and chooses to make his presence INDISTINGUISHABLE from his absence. That would mean, though, that there is a scientific and understandable reason based in physical laws of the universe for everything that happens everywhere ever. (Because otherwise you could spot Mr God by seeing where the rules are broken.)

I quickly add that that is NOT the position of the Catholic – or any other – Church. Because otherwise prayer would definitely be pointless. In fact, ALL religion would have to be pointless, because if it wasn't then Mr God would AGAIN be giving himself away!

So religions MUST assume that MR God makes a difference. A NOTICEABLE and, more importantly, COMPREHENSIBLE difference. In which case, it's not unreasonable to say: what the blinking Nora IS it?


But the Cardinal isn't having any of THAT. He says:

"The atheism we see around us today perhaps flows from an apologetic which attempted to prove God’s existence independently of any religious tradition or faith…"

There you go: we're back to saying that elephants are pink. You can't prove Mr God's existence independently of saying: "well it says so in this big book I've got". Hmmm.

The "Argument from Tradition" – it's really just the "Argument from Authority" in a older frock. Yes, it's another FALLACY.

So as he draws towards his conclusion, the Archbigot says: "I was extremely fortunate to have been born in to a loving family which gave me a sense of meaning and of 'home'."

Once again, by 'home' he means faith and the Church.

Here's the thing, your eminence. Most people, eventually, have to LEAVE home. It is sad and scary but it is a necessary part of life. It's called GROWING UP.

It is what EMPOWERS us, let's us make our own choices and just get ON with our lives.

Atheists are NOT Nazis. That's childish name-calling. They are quite the OPPOSITE: Nazism is based on the Fuhrer Princip, that of the supreme wisdom and authority of the leader; Atheism is about NOT investing power in some supernatural figure, whether human or divine.

And it's about NOT staying at home relying on mummy and daddy, but going out and FACING the world, and its fears and its wonders and its beauty.

And it's time you LET us.

Day 2653: Expelled Exploded

Sunday:


Exciting news! My top chum, Professor Richard – husband of one-time time traveller Romana, who used to be in Doctor Who, and friend of the late Mr Douggie Adams, who used to write for Doctor Who (and some travel books) – is going to be in Doctor Who too!

This seems like an opportune moment to WARN you about another screen appearance for Prof Richard, the man rightly acknowledged as the Theresnosuchthingasgodfather of British Atheism.

It is a movie called "Expelled", which alleges that science is really a conspiracy by atheist Nazis to suppress Unintelligent Design and persecute teachers who believe in Mr God.

And – proving that even the brightest of elephants can be taken in some of the time – Professor Richard got fooled into appearing in it.

“The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ‘shock effect’,”

How did they fool him? Well, when they approached Professor Richard, and also Mr Professor PZ Myers and a number of other REAL scientists, they CLAIMED to be making a documentary called "Crossroads" about a cheap soap set in a Birmingham motel… no, that's not right. They claimed that "Crossroads" would be a dispassionate appraisal of the clash between scientific and religious thinking.

This – as you may have been able to guess – turns out to have been what is technically described as a HONKING GREAT FIB, or in religious language: breaking Commandment Nine.

But Professor Richard got his own back by getting into one of their "invitation only" screenings… though, at the risk of undermining my hero's reputation as a MASTER SPY, that's "invitation only" in the sense of "free tickets available off of the wibbly wobbly web".

In fact, Professor Richard happened to be in town for the American Atheists conference, and Professor PZ was the one who got the tickets…

…which it was probably why it was Prof PZ who the brave little STORMTROOPERS for Freedom of Speech picked out of the queue and EXPELLED from "Expelled".

Clearly not "intelligently designed" with an IRONY GLAND there then.

Professor Richard gives his review of the "movie" here.

But why take HIS word for it, when you can LAUGH and POINT at their own propaganda.

"But even worse, along the way, Stein uncovers a long line of biologists, astronomers, chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment"

What the movie is ACTUALLY about is pushing the assertion that believers in Mr God the entirely scientific and credible (I say SARCASTICALLY) "theory" (likewise) of Unintelligent Design, that has nothing to do with Mr God at all honest injun, are being PERSECUTED: i.e. kept out of teaching jobs and even fired just for no other reason than that they want to ignore the set curriculum (not to mention the Constitutional separation of Church and State) and fill their pupils' heads with religiously motivated brain-bilge instead.

Remembering that this is the country where, when the President's DAD was Vice-President, he said:

"I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under Mr God."

is it COMPLETELY believable that it is the SECRET ATHEIST CABAL who are doing the persecuting, as opposed to, just for example, the blatantly out-in-the-open religious theocrats who make it difficult-verging-on-the-impossible for anyone to get a job in public service in Americaland without expressing a deep and abiding lurve (but not in THAT way) for Mr Jesus?

And anyway, it turns out that their "evidence" doesn't stack up. As this review by Mr Dan Whipple from Colorado shows, the cases of "discrimination" that they cite just don't stand up to examination. Claims that Mr Richard Sternberg was removed from the Smithsonian prove problematic when you learn that he never worked for the Smithsonian. The allegation that Mr Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure because the faculty of astronomy at Iowa State University "unfairly" based their decision on his book about Unintelligent Design collapses when you know that he HIMSELF submitted the book for their consideration. And so on.

"an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma… that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory"

Their OTHER "theory" is that knowing about Mr Darwin automatically turns you into a Nazi.

This is their equation:

"Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany."

which is said in HILARIOUS spoiler tags in this review on the movie's own website.

If you don't want to know the ending look away now… "Adolf did it!"

So, I know, Godwin's Law, but they mentioned the Nazis first so they lose.

Thing is, Mr Adolf WASN'T an atheist. He was some sort of weird cross-breed between Norse Mythology and Roman Catholicism, neither of which are RENOWNED as Atheist belief systems.

And Mr Adolf did NOT base his ideas on evolution.

For that matter "eugenics", which is selective breeding applied to human monkeys rather than pigs or dogs or cows or sheeps or other animals, does NOT follow from evolution either.

Selective breeding had been going on for AGES and AGES before Mr Darwin realised that it was going on in nature TOO. About TEN THOUSAND years, in fact since the agricultural revolution and people started farming crops (your mileage may vary if you believe the Earth was created in 6000 BC).

To say that something is happening in nature is NOT the same as saying that that is a good reason for people to do it too.

It is a FALLACY to suggest that just because a person ACCEPTS a FACT about how something works in one part of nature it means that they believe that that way of working should be IMPOSED universally.

In fact, Professor Richard often says that he is passionately AGAINST Darwinism being APPLIED. He believes in social services, universal education, health care and support for the unemployed. If ANYONE is a "Darwinist" in the area of public policy it is the right-wing Mr-God-bothering THATCHERITES like Mr Balloon with their "get rid of the failures" policies.


Suggestions that "evolution is racist" or that "Mr Darwin was a racist" are just as FALSE. If anything, evolution and genetics show that, for all of your different colours, human monkeys are one of the LEAST differentiated species on the planet. Famously, there is MORE genetic differentiation between two tribes of CHIMPANZEES on opposite sides of a river than between any tow humans ON EARTH. (You can thank a near miss with extinction in the last Ice Age for that, by the way.)

To point at "the Origin if Species" and hoot about the rest of the title being "…or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" is to show DRAMATIC IGNORANCE. Mr Darwin talks about races of CABBAGES, or PIGEONS and all sorts of things. He is talking about VARIATION within species. He's not recruiting for the KKK.

As Professor PZ explains, Mr Darwin was no more a racist than anyone else in the Victorian era… that is to say actually quite a bit racist, but only because he'd been taught all his life that the British were the Best. And certainly no worse than Mr "I freed the slaves" President Lincoln.


If by now you are worrying that I am only going to stop writing my fluffy diary in order to go back to my secret volcano base and polish my black leather jackboots before receiving my next set of secret instructions from Uber-Professor Richard, then I suggest you put on your best TINFOIL HAT and go out to see this movie.

Otherwise, I should look forward to some more EXCITING Doctor Who!

PS:

I am indebted to Uncle Alan for bringing this BUNKUM to my fluffy attention.

Day2639: "A Lie that Lurks in the Appeal"

Sunday:


This is what the Cardinal Arch-Bigot of Westminster has to say:

"Atheistic secularism ultimately diminishes us; it kills the human spirit under the pretence of liberating it."

"It says that this is all we are, this is it! We have no significant purpose; we're merely chance products of material processes."

Quite simply, this is NOT TRUE.

It is CHILD'S PLAY to reverse the accusation:

"We have no significant purpose… because omnipotent Mr God has already decided it for us; we're merely chance products of… the WHIM of a supernatural creator."

Does this get us any nearer the "TRUTH"? No!


We can find significant purpose for ourselves WITH OR WITHOUT the need for intervention from a father/god figure; we can be inspired OR rendered purposeless BY the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent overbeing who has decided our fate from the beginning of time.

Ms Linda calls me a RASCAL for saying that the Cardinal of Scotland is wrong to whip up opposition to the Fertilization and Embryology Bill by FRIGHTENING people who don't understand with talk about MONSTERS.

Well, maybe I AM a bit of a rascal, but what does that make the Cardinal?

(And Professor Winston Moustache, not un-famous as a believer in Mr God, has gone a GOOD BIT further than me in calling the Cardinal a FIBBER!)

I am a militant atheist baby elephant because I do not believe that Mr God is real; your personal mileage may vary.

But DOUBT is very important. You cannot be a proper LIBERAL if you are not willing to listen to what the other side has to say.

That means I will NOT dogmatically refuse to believe that Mr God COULD exist: it means that I have had a SERIOUS think about the evidence and decided, on balance, that at the moment it is NOT SUFFICIENT to convince me.

The main form of evidence for Mr God has got to be the – very large numbers of – personal testimonies, witness statements if you like, from people who feel "touched by Mr God", either moved emotionally or even spoken to in words.

However, and I do NOT mean this insultingly, there are also people who genuinely believe that they have been contacted by ALIENS.

Equally, is it not surprising that people ascribe these events to the version of Mr God with whom they are familiar? Relatively few people of CofE background feel the touch of Mr Krishna in answer to their prayers.

This leads me to find it MORE PLAUSIBLE that people are making an ERROR in understanding where these feelings/convictions/messages are coming from. I believe that they are putting the "culturally accepted" explanation of "it's Mr God" on something that comes from INSIDE us, not from a supernatural source OUTSIDE. Brains are really smart but also really DUMB, and the classic "seeing patterns that aren't there" is an explanation that I believe.

Does any of this make a difference?

Yes: if people like Mr Cardinal O'Conman are going to insist that coming to my conclusions means that I am AUTOMATICALLY WRONG, not just about this but about everything else.

That's not respect for beliefs; that is PREJUDICE and that I why I keep calling him the Arch-BIGOT.

I do not think that I am claiming any "special rights" when I say that he should NOT be allowed to get away with calling me "Evil" just because I don't believe and he does.

I would HOPE that you would consider my diaries on their own merits, and not just dismiss EVERYTHING that I say just because you come to a different conclusion.



I think that we are all the result of a long (and still unfinished) process of natural selection shaping us to be a better and better fit for our environment. I think that there is STRONG evidence to support this, both in the physical history of the Earth, its rocks and fossils, and in the biology that is going on all around us.

Furthermore, I think that this is MORE inspiring: we can have, not just a set of rules to follow, but a GOAL of making a still better future for ourselves and our inheritors.

So the purpose that I pick for myself is (part one) to improve myself (in the old-fashioned and frightfully paternalistic sense of the word "improving" meaning through learning and through experiencing art and music) AND (part two) to improve the world for other people (so long as it is with informed consent, by solving problems where I am able to).


The Cardinal says that he believes: "that freedom of belief, openness to its arguments and respect for the insights it brings is a critical resource for our society."

I would AGREE… so long as you remember: the Freedom to Believe MUST INCLUDE the Freedom to Not Believe.

PS:

Lesson for today, your eminence: SECULAR ≠ ATHEIST