Let’s just substitute one word, shall we?

I want you to read the following from the Archbishop of York on the BBC website today, and what I want you to do is to substitute the word ‘slavery’ for ‘marriage’ or ‘same-sex marriage’.

Ministers should not overrule tradition on the issue of same-sex marriages, the Archbishop of York has said.

He supported civil partnerships, he said, but only “dictators” tried to overturn history and redefine marriage.

The government will open a consultation on the issue of same-sex marriages in March. A consultation on the subject by the Scottish government ended last month.

But the Archbishop told the Telegraph that it was not the role of government to “gift” the institution of marriage [liberty? - Wolfers] to anyone.

“I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is.

“It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just (change it) overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

“We’ve seen dictators do it, by the way, in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.”

It goes on for a while, and demonstrates exactly why I have no time for organised religion. You see government is bad enough with its desire to rule our physical lives, but the churches (yes, and mosques and synagogues etc) seek to control our very spirits, and that is worse.

The thing is John, what you are putting forward are so similar to the arguments that were put forward when the movement to abolish slavery was near to approaching its goals. Tradition, God’s will, an affront to liberty, State interference, all of them were held up as examples of why the abolitionists were wrong.

So, Dr. John Sentamu, were they wrong? I’m guessing you think that the abolitionists were right, and yet you see fit to restrict freedoms to others. Odd that, isn’t it?

Here’s a shock for you, when you say ”I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is”, I’d agree with you. But then, neither is it the role of the Church, and you admit so yourself.

Dr Sentamu also said both black parishioners and white working class churchgoers were poorly represented in the Anglican church.

And that’s because your organisation is now utterly irrelevant and yet you still seem to think you should have a big say in the way things are done around here. You can’t scare us any more, you don’t scare us any more, and religion is based on fear, ‘if you don’t do what we say, you’ll burn for eternity in the fires of hell’. We don’t believe you. Haven’t done for a long time.

You see people’s relationships are no business of anybody but those involved in those relationships, but so important are those relationships to people that they feel the need to certify them, to make them some how ‘official’. Now, I’m not suggesting that the Church of England or any religious institution be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, it’s your club, you make it quite clear that you don’t like homosexuals, and quite why they’d want to be a member of your club is beyond me. The CofE doesn’t have a monopoly on God, none of the religious clubs do, and I see no reason why the Big Gay Pink Church of God can’t be started, it’ll have no more or no less credibility than all the others, and they can be free to tell ‘breeders’ to take a hike and can be free to ensure that ordination of Bishops is only open to lesbians or transvestites, I really don’t care, it’s their club. Go knock yourselves out.

But the Church has no place blocking the marriage of same-sex couples in civil ceremonies, none whatsoever. It is of no concern of yours. You don’t own the word marriage.

Then he comes out with this, I’m almost at a loss;

“We supported civil partnerships because we believe that friendships are good for everybody.”

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Friendships? What the actual fuck are you going on about? You know you sound like a mother who has tried to come to terms with her son’s homosexuality but can’t quite make it. “This is my son Gary and his. . . . ‘friend’ Kevin.” In many ways this is worse than overt bigotry, it is almost silent, cowardly.

But Dr Sentamu said the Church would not stand idly by if the government sought to allow same-sex marriages to be on a par with heterosexual ones.

Oh, bless him, he’s going to allow the gayers to be ‘friends’, he’ll even let them get a bit of paper to say that they’re really good ‘friends’. Here’s an idea, John, let’s stretch the metaphor of the piece, shall we? Why don’t we make sure that they have to ride at the back of the bus, or have their own waiting rooms at train stations, or entrances to shops? I’m sure they’ll be grateful for that, it isn’t like they’re proper people is it? Have we heard that argument before somewhere?

But he said: “When I was a vicar there was a lady who didn’t want me to take her husband’s funeral because I was black. I took one funeral and at the end a man said to me, ‘Why did my father deserve to be buried by a black monkey?’ We received letters with excrement in.”

Yeah, discrimination is hurtful, isn’t it? So why, having been on the receiving end, are you so keen to make other people feel second class?

I have a word for people like you, a word that gets wheeled out very rarely. That word is ‘cunts’.

I despise the Church, not because I have a problem with God, certainly because I have a problem with the evil that they have done in God’s name, but most of all because they, all of them, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever, are peddlers of the most sickening bigotry.

Well don’t go there then.

Author’s note: Tonight’s posting is sponsored by ‘Tasty Old Wife’ Cider of Old Wives Lees, Kent. A fine little cheeky monster which is matured in whisky vats, giving it a rather cheeky smoky flavour.

Anyhow, where was I? Ah, yes.

The price of a church wedding could soon increase by up to 50% under plans being considered by the General Synod.

The move – to be discussed later by the Church of England’s law-making body – would see fees rise from £284 to £425.

Blimey, times must be getting tough. Bit of a bummer now, what with them not being able to demand a tithe from all and sundry.

The Church of England insists the hike is justified and says couples in some parishes could pay less under the plan.

Yes, one of the best ways of paying less is by not getting married in church.

No doubt some people will be up in arms about it. But really, I ask this question of people not just in this category, but of the women that want to vicars and bishops and homosexuals that want to be vicars and bishops.

Why?

Why do you want to be part of this organisation that doesn’t want you as a member (in the case of the girls and the homosectionals) and will treat you with utter contempt when you do join (in the case of . . . well, anyone not called Rowan Williams)?

You can start your own church, you know, you don’t have to join their’s, and any church you set up will be just as valid as their’s. Oh, they’ll tell you it isn’t, but it is, people said the same to the Catholics, Church of England, Methodists, Baptists, Seventh day advent hoppists (Red Dwarf joke), don’t even get started on the Amish, Presbys, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and Coptics. Really, will one more make any difference?

You are completely free to start your own, and bollocks to the rest.

I’ve gone a little off the original topic here, but I don’t give a damn.

If you want to love your God, then go and love him in your own style. God won’t mind, the churches aren’t his construct, no matter what those churches say. Any God that holds a pair of breasts or a fondness for bum sex against you isn’t worth worrying about.

Life is too short, go, be happy, you don’t need anyone’s permission, grudging or otherwise.

The One That Is Glad Someone Is Making Sure I Can Sleep Safely In My Bed At Night. . .

Phew. Thank God for that.

I’ve been very worried. Whilst I’m far from convinced that man has a major part to play in climate change, (indeed I’m not entirely sure the climate is warming, Xmas in the North East US/Maritime Canadian provinces, anyone?) it is true that over the last 100 years we have done some shocking and idiotic things to our planet.

The destruction of the South American rainforest could have very bad results, it could lead to the extinction of a number of animals, birds and insects, some yet to be discovered, not to mention flora that could prove useful in drugs development, it means the destruction of the way of life of aboriginal communities that have lived quite happily in leafy isolation for thousands of years and it means we’ll still have to put up with Sting generally getting on everyone’s tits and producing albums of lute music. It is a bad thing.

However it pales into insignificance when compared to the threat posed to our way of life by consenting men putting their willies up each other’s bottoms. Well, that’s what the Pope says.

He explained that defending God’s creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction.

Well, I’ll put aside the God bit for now. I’ve said before, if I was God, those who run organised religions and claim to know what He wants and speak for Him, would be right up the top of the smiting list. Self destruction? Certainly. Where will we start? Slavery? Hatred? Wars which still have religion as the catalyst? How about repression in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Saudi, Iran, China and a host of others? No, good old Pope Benedict gets right to the heart of the matter by saying self-destruction is brought about by a bit of bum sex.

I’ve never indulged myself. My arse is strictly a one-way street, but if it makes you happy, then carry on, it’s not doing me any harm. The same goes for you ladies, if you want to take a close interest in the workings of another lady, that’s fine.

People have been doing this sort of thing to each other before the Christian church existed and we’re still here. If God really was concerned about it, I’m sure He would have taken some action by now.

So, Popey, why not get your own house in order first? Why not take some proper, radical action about the systematic sexual abuse of children perpetrated by your organisation? The old joke has it that Priest stands for Paedophile Resident In Every Small Town. I’m much more concerned about the harm done to unwilling or co-erced participants in this.

When push comes to shove, what two consenting adults get up to with each other is nobody else’s business, as long as no third party is being harmed. That’s harmed, not offended, by the way. It certainly isn’t the business of some old member of the Nazi Youth who has swapped one ugly totalitarian auhoritarian regime for another.

Let’s hope we see Stephen Fry deliver his own festive message, (this is a celebration of the winter solstice, I’m sure I read somewhere that the Romans held the census in the summer, so old JC is probably a Cancer) where he warns that old celibate Germans with ridiculous dress sense are a big threat to humanity.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. You religious lot have had it. You are corrupt, irrelevant and discredited. You’ve had a good run, but it is now time to go. So why not be good chaps and fuck off and leave us alone, eh?