Category Archives: religion

Your faith is a joke.

Posted on by
4

So the dust has settled and the smoke has cleared, and what do we have? Another old white bloke as pope. Well there’s a bloody shock.

I’m not going to go on about time for a black pope, but here’s a newsflash, people vote for their own, so a group of old white blokes are always only ever going to vote for an old white bloke.

Apparently, the new bloke is a jesuit.

*shrugs*

I understand that this is one of those little sub-groups who differ from one of the other little sub-groups. They all agree that angels dance on the head of a pin, but they think that they do the Harlem Shake, rather than doing it Gangnam Style, or something.

I don’t care if he’s a moderniser or a reformer, or a traditionalist or a conservative. It matters not a jot to me.

I don’t care if the Catholic church, or any church for that matter, has a no poofs, no chicks rule. It is of no consequence to me. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; if you are gay and/or a woman, why would you want to be a member of this bizarre club that so hates you?

I just happened to have Sky News on when the old white smoke came pouring out. The crowd started cheering. I don’t know why, they didn’t know who’d been elected, it could have been Robert bloody Mugabe for all they knew. There were thousands of people cheering because some dude had been put in charge of an organisation that does nothing but dictate, and people choose to follow them, regardless. All very odd.

They had a little parade of voiceovers from guys who were this and that in the church, and they gave an appraisal of the character of each of the front runners. It was sickeningly fawning. Not just from the church guys, but from the reporter as well. It was all along the lines of ‘I met him once, and was deeply moved by his. . .’ whatever. Were you bollocks. Yes, I understand, you were looking after your job, that’s human nature.

I’ve been quite critical of the whole thing, in the main on my personal (real ID) facebook page. I’ve attracted some opprobrium as a result. I’ve been asked, by text and private message why I ‘hate God’, why am I being so horrible about a man who I don’t know, and is God’s rep here?

Well, I don’t hate God. I find myself in a situation where I dismiss religion almost out of hand, yet I’m not opposed to the idea of God. The thing is, the pope is no more God’s rep than I am. God, we are told, is omnipotent, so why does he need an agent?

Let us suppose for a moment that Jesus existed, and I’m actually quite happy to do so. Whether he was the son of God is a different matter.

When I see Jesus, I see a simple guy, born to a working class family with as near to bugger all as makes no difference. When I look at the pope, I see a guy with a huge palace, a throne, a private army and wealth beyond imagination. I mean, the lifestyle of the pope and his cardinals are as far removed from Jesus’ as it is possible to imagine, and the church promotes Jesus’ simple lifestyle. No-one, with the possible exception of Martin Luther has questioned this, as far as I can see, and it isn’t as if the Protestant hierarchy are living in a cardboard box under the Hammersmith flyover.

The fawning attitude is bizarre. This is an organisation which, just off the top of my head, has waged war in the middle east that we still see the legacy of today, has employed torture, has killed people in horrific ways for having a different opinion or even having the temerity to ask some reasonable questions. In recent years, we’ve seen them turn a blind eye at best to the holocaust, employ women who were single mothers or just were prepared to voice an opinion on things as slave labour in laundries, oversaw the spread of AIDS because they’d rather their followers die in agony than use a contraceptive, have instituted the sexual abuse of children on an almost industrial scale, and have sought to frustrate any attempt to investigate and prosecute this act.

‘Oh!’ the Catholic followers scream in despair, ‘you can’t tar them all with the same brush.’

Bullshit, this crap has been going on, and has been known about, for years. Name me one other organisation that would act like this and survive, either because government had taken action, or because a mob had taken to the streets and burned them out. People continue to join this organisation, and as far as I’m concerned, anyone who wants to become a member is condoning that behaviour. You wouldn’t join the IRA or ETA for the hurling and pelota, would you?

Not only the sexual abuse, but they get small children and inflict the most appalling emotional and mental abuse on them as well. You’d better love this bloke or you’re going to burn in the fires of hell. He died for you. He was nailed up. All because of your sins, which you’ve not even committed yet, but here’s a list of them.

They peddle disease, slavery and guilt.

If you’re woman, you can be an associate member, but know your place. If you’re gay, Jesus still loves you, but you’re still going to hell anyway, because nothing is worse than putting your penis into another man’s bottom. It’s obviously important, because it was right at the top of the list on those tablets Moses got, wasn’t it? No poofs. That was the biggie?

Oh, no. It wasn’t. Thou shall not kill. That was biggie.

It should have been: Thou shall not kill*.

*Subject to terms and conditions, unless you say or do something the church doesn’t like, ask an awkward question, look at your inquisitor in a funny way, or for any other reason where the church decides it is OK for you to be offed.

They peddle disease, slavery, guilt, bigotry, intolerance and death.

‘Ah, yes, but the Jews. . . the Muslims. . . the Proddies.’ I don’t care, I’m not talking about those idiots, I’m talking about you. Just because others did this shit too doesn’t make it alright for you to do it.

All the while they try to tell us their Head Paedo is infallible.

You put your faith in this organisation? Really? You think this organisation is a force for good? Well, I’m sorry to tell you that your faith is a joke, and not a very funny one at that.

The church is not God. They tell you that they speak for God, and you believe them. How can you be so credulous, so servile? Do you have such little self-respect? That’s probably because you had it preached, and in a few cases, beaten and raped out of you as a child.

So, no forgive me, I will accord this organisation no respect at all, and I will be actively hostile towards any person who wants to run it, they’ve been put there by the people who have made this situation so, they are one of them. Name me one of the cardinals who has spoken out, properly, passionately, violently about the evils perpetrated by their organisation. Not some half-arsed mumblings about ‘regrettable incidents’, but with the same strength of feeling they use when they’re telling us our souls are going to burn for eternity in the fires of hell if we don’t do exactly what they tell us.

No? Not one? Thought not.

They disgust me.

Reign of confusion.

Posted on by
Reply

It makes little difference to me, as far as I’m concerned they’re a private members’ club with no importance in my life. However, as they’ve decided to appoint themselves guardians of my moral and spiritual wellbeing, I’ve been trying to get a handle on the latest pronouncement from the Church of England.

Apparently, ‘a decision by the Church of England to allow gay men in civil partnerships to become bishops has prompted criticism from both liberals and traditionalists.‘ No doubt the wonderfully mediaeval laity will have something to say about this, but nevertheless, as far as I can make out, the following applies:

If you are a heterosexual male you can get married in their clubhouse, you can conduct the wedding and you can be the boss of the person conducting the wedding.

If you are a heterosexual female you can get married in their clubhouse, you can conduct the wedding, but you cannot be the boss of the person conducting the wedding.

If you are a homosexual male, you cannot get married in their clubhouse, but you can conduct the wedding and you can be the boss of the person of the person conducting the wedding.

If you are homosexual female, you cannot get married in their clubhouse, but you can conduct the wedding, however you cannot be the boss of the person conducting the wedding.

It’s all a bit screwed up, isn’t it?

If you are bi-sexual post-op transgenderist, you’ll probably cause a huge rift in the fabric of the religious/ethical continuum.

So, in summary, if there any bi-sexual, post-op transgenderists reading this, please apply to join the clerics in the CofE, just for a giggle. I’d love to see them tie themselves up in knots over that one.

And you can’t just walk away?

Posted on by
2

I really do despair. So cosseted have we become, so eagerly have we surrendered our own free will that we are incapable of saying to ourselves ‘no’, turning on our heels and walking away.

Jesus H. Christ on a little purple tricycle without a crash helmet, hi-viz jacket and bell, when did we become so hopelessly, unutterably, completely, uselessly pathetic?

Exhibit A from across the pond (don’t worry, the wind will blow it over here eventually):

An American-Indian tribe in South Dakota has sued some of the world’s biggest beer firms over severe alcohol-related issues in the community.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe are asking for $500m (£316m) for healthcare, social services and child rehabilitation.

Well hang on, are we to suppose that Anheuser-Busch have been stalking the reservation making people drink that fizzy piss they pass off as the ‘king of beers’ at gunpoint?

Tribal elders say the lawsuit is a last resort after efforts to curb abuse through protests and policy failed.

On the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation one in four children suffers foetal disorders caused by alcohol abuse.

Well stop fucking drinking, then. Jeeeeeeeeeeeesus. How is it the brewers’ fault? You can always, y’know, not buy the beer.

The lawsuit also names the nearby town of Whiteclay, Nebraska, which has four beer shops that sold nearly five million beer cans in 2010 despite having only about a dozen residents.

You’re suing an entire town because some people can’t pass by without buying their entire bodyweight in piss poor American beer? Perhaps you need to look at LSD consumption, because you’re bloody tripping.

Alcohol is outlawed on the reservation and the nearest town which allows alcohol is 20 miles (32km) away, Mark Vasina, president of Nebraskans for Peace, told the Associated Press news agency.

Right, so they have to travel 20 miles to buy the booze. . .

The lawsuit alleges that beer makers and the shop owners knew the alcohol would be smuggled into the reservation for consumption or resale.

OK, I see where you’re going with this, you want to persuade the courts that the act of selling beer is incitement to smuggle? And what happens when one of the shopkeepers turns round and says ‘Oh no, I’m not selling beer to you, you’re Sioux’? I think I can guess.

Meanwhile, Tom White, the lawyer representing the tribe, told the Associated Press news agency: “You cannot sell 4.9 million 12oz [356ml] cans of beer and wash your hands like Pontius Pilate, and say we’ve got nothing to do with it being smuggled.”

Yes, yes they can, because they’re not the ones moving it.

The Sioux nation was one of the proudest on the face of the Earth, now they hold everyone but themselves responsible for a section of their society who are alcoholics. Do you not mount some sort of customs style ‘border control’?

One final question, perhaps one for Leg-Iron if he gets to reading this, how much beer would you have to drink to have an adverse effect on your unborn child? A lot, I’m guessing, I don’t know what the human capacity by volume for beer is, but it seems odd there’s no mention of wine or spirits which would seem more likely candidates. This is just another story in the British press denormalising alcohol. Get used to it drinkers, because you were cheering when they went after us smokers. Alcohol; kills babies and ancient civilisations.

Meanwhile in the UK, some clot has been to court to have the practice of holding prayers before council meetings declared unlawful.

Now, I’ve no time for religion, but if people want to pray before hiking taxes and spunking it on that vital fact finding tour of the Seychelles, then go ahead, you ain’t hurting anyone.

Oh no, that’ll never do, you see Peter Bone, bless his little cotton socks, was ‘uncomfortable’ during prayers and not want to walk out of meetings because it would look ‘discourteous’ to the public.

Why should you feel uncomfortable? You could review your notes or something whilst the doddery old vicar pushes his nonsense, your decision not to take part is as valid as theirs to join in. If you’re that uncomfortable did it not perhaps occur to you to walk in after they’d had their prayers? You wouldn’t have missed anything and you wouldn’t have been discourteous to legions of the good townsfolk of Bideford who obviously turn out for these meetings.

No, now they’ll probably have to go outside and do it, then they’ll be passing local legislation to ban smoking in the vicinity. Thanks for that.

I couldn’t give a toss if church leaders are furious about it, but it is so undignified and makes you look pathetic. Really, banning harmless activities just because you don’t like it marks you out to be an arsehole of the highest order. Muppet.

 

Let’s just substitute one word, shall we?

Posted on by
9

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.

Posted on by
2

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.

Absolutely barking.

Posted on by
4

Omid Djalili makes the observation that when there is a controversy regarding Islam, the media will usually wheel out a chap nominated as a representative of the Muslim community who waves his arms about while ranting and raving and behaving like a general lunatic.

The hardline Jewish reps tend to be a little more palatable for Western consumption. Whilst they are just as hateful and hardline as their Islamic counterparts, they aren’t so manifestly bonkers. Or are they?

A Jewish rabbinical court condemned to death by stoning a stray dog it feared was the reincarnation of a lawyer who insulted its judges, reports say.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

The dog entered the Jerusalem financial court several weeks ago and would not leave, reports Israeli website Ynet.

It reminded a judge of a curse passed on a now deceased secular lawyer about 20 years ago, when judges bid his spirit to enter the body of a dog.

These are important people in their community. This man, a judge, a person who is supposed to deal in fact, thinks it is the reincarnation of a lawayer who said a bad thing, probably something along the lines of ‘you’re all nuts, you lot.’

One of the judges at the court in the city’s ultra-Orthodox Mea Shearim neighbourhood had reportedly asked local children to carry out the sentence.

One of the judges what? Are you telling me that a community leader set up a bunch of kids to stone a dog to death because he thought it was the reincarnation of a lawyer?

What chance do these kids have?

Another demonstration of why religion is still a dark age practice where people demand that others live their lives by someone else’s interpretation of a superstition and should be pointed and laughed at at every opportunity, and why I’m convinced that the best way to deal with both sets of nutters on this landmass is to starve them of cash and supplies and just let them get on with it.

There’s no reasoning with people like this, none at all.

Worse than a warble glomist? Not quite.

Posted on by
3

Ecological doom and gloom has been something I’ve grown up with. As I matured and became aware of the world around me the big scare was the ozone layer. I stand to be shown evidence to the contrary, but I think that one was probably right, it seemed to me that there was a bloody great hole. The rush to ban CFC’s seems to have arrested the problem, at least, I think so, it’s a story we’ve not heard in a long, long time. I’m assuming that nature and this planet, being the marvellous things they are, will, in time repair the damage, maybe this process is underway? As I say, the story is such a blast from the past it is easy to forget that it ever happened at all.

However, I do remember that the scare at the time was that with the hole in the layer as it was, the entire populations of Australia, New Zealand and the southernmost residents of Argentina and Chile were going to die in agony of rampant skin cancer. I certainly don’t recall that happening.

Ecomentalists love to catastrophise, and with good reason, it makes people give them their undivided attention and the contents of their wallets. The whole global warming/climate change gig has been running for a while, since I was a teenager, certainly. I’m now in my mid 30′s. I distinctly remember being told that islands in the Pacific were doomed and that the only way you’d be able to visit St. Paul’s would be by going for a paddle. All this was to happen in the next ten to fifteen years, unless action was taken. Now. I was scared, the house I grew up in in rural Kent was below sea level, with only the flat expanse of the reclaimed Romney Marsh between us and the channel, it was surely doomed.

We are told that CO2 emissions continue to rise, or at least do not fall to a level below those which were recorded some five years after the first catastrophic predictions were made. The house in which I grew up is still dry, no atolls have disappeared, I have yet to see anyone wear a souvenir St. Paul’s life jacket.

Still the predictions of despair come, every time the same time frame is quoted, near enough to be alarming, but far enough into the future to allow redemption. I’m not sure if the countdown clock is re-set each time.

People talk about the Green God, and environmentalism being a new religion, and they are entirely right. The similarities are striking.

It may be a bit of laugh, but Harold Camping confidently predicted the onset of Armageddon this weekend, the fact that you are reading this is a demonstration that this didn’t happen.

Well, he’s at it again:

Evangelical priest Harold Camping has set a new date for the world’s end as he backtracked from a prediction that ‘Judgement Day’ was supposed to come last Saturday.


The US Christian, who made headlines for his outlandish claim that a selected 200 million of the world’s population would be raptured, has now marked 21 October 2011 in his calendar as the real date for the apocalypse.


The 89-year-old had previously stated that an earthquake – bigger than anything ever felt before – would strike each corner of the planet by 6pm local time on Saturday 21 May.


But according to Camping’s new end of world forecast, the globe will actually be engulfed by a huge fireball – exactly five months after the botched doomsday prediction.


Speaking of the failed ‘Judgement Day’ on his radio show last night, he claimed that 21 May 2011 was just an ‘invisible judgement day’ and that he understood it as a spiritual, rather than physical event. 


After hiding in a motel for two days, the Californian preacher admitted his Bible-based calculations were incorrect.


He said he believed rapture didn’t come because God decided to spare humanity five months of “hell on earth.”


During his hour-and-a-half radio broadcast, he said: “It won’t be spiritual on 21 October. The world is going to be destroyed all together, but it will be very quick.”

Most people are looking at this guy as some sort of nutter, many of them will be environmentalists scoffing at this man’s, and his followers’, credulity.

But stop for a minute. Consider the similarities.

He uses a text, which a mutual friend of mine on Facebook described thus:

Sometimes we take the Bible too literally, forgetting it’s actually a composite work of fiction translated from a mishmash of defunct languages via Latin and therefore about as near to the ‘absolute truth’ as unsolicited email from Nigeria.

A harsh, if fairly accurate description. Say this to a Christian, (the same will also hold true of Jews and Muslims about their holy texts) and you run the risk of being shouted down. You see, it is all true, the animals in the big boat, the walls of the city falling down, the parting of the Red Sea, it is all true. It must be, because it is written here. The text cannot be challenged. It is, a-ha, gospel. Any attempt to question the content or the interpretation is, literally, heresy. It cannot be allowed.

Now speak to the warmist, question their data, their holy book, question the interpretation of their data, you’ll get a very similar response. The denial of peer review is an anti-heretical device.


People who leave the fold are treated in a similar fashion to those who have turned their back on the Westboro Baptist Church.


They too have their Popes and high priests, people who are infallible. There can be no discussion.


They too confidently predict the end of the world. Some would suggest here there is a difference, the faithful of the Abrahamic religions welcome the prospect of the end of days, even if with more than a little trepidation. Enviromentalists want to avoid the scenario, but why do I get the impression some of them would derive great pleasure from treading water as the seas rise with an indignant look on their faces, saying ‘I told you so’?


And just with Camping, when the predicted end does not materialise, they just pick another date. And another, and another.


There is very little difference between the methods of control used by religious organisations and the activities of the environmental lobby. There is very little difference between the two camps’ desire for our cash and our unquestioning obedience to their pronouncements and decrees. Very little difference in the way they want to have the say in how to run your life.


Actually, there is one difference, Camping has at least had the guts to hold his hand up and admit his calculations are wrong. That is a confession I’ve yet to hear coming from the Green Church.


Save resources, water, food and energy, reduce waste. It makes sense on a personal and national economic level, but don’t dare preach to me and spread your baseless tales to get what you want, you just look like these guys:

Update:

American Thinker has had similar thoughts.

For the people.

Posted on by
2

Twitter was alive last night with talk of events down at the council chamber where Lambeth council do their business. There have been a number of demonstrations against the cuts to public spending which are planned by the council and things came to a head last night when, well, I’ll let ‘uncutter’ at Indymedia London take over:

Lambeth town hall in Brixton was taken over and occupied by protestors as the council met to vote through budget cuts of tens of millions of pounds. Hundreds of people gathered outside the town hall (as they’d done previously two weeks ago) and at around 7pm took over the chamber chanting “This is what democracy looks like” and “No ifs, no buts, no public services cuts!”, before holding a people’s assembly.

After withdrawing the council members met under a police guard to vote through the cuts. The occupation ended at around 9pm as people marched out after 2 hours of discussions and speeches at the ‘people’s council’.

This sort of thing chills me to the bone. I always get very uneasy when activists and politicians talk about ‘the people’. I’m afraid that in a population of 272,000, a group of hundreds does not represent democracy, it does not even represent double figures of the population in terms of percentage. To try and pass it off as democracy is misleading.

I’m not going to get into the whole Keynsian discussion again, but I will state that I do support public spending cuts, because there is so much that goverment is involved in. that it has no business doing. I do not trust the politicians and civil servants to cut where the fat is, though. They will always protect their own empires and pet projects.

A ‘people’s council’ (sic) does not represent the people. It never can, even the most representative, even handed and well regarded assembly cannot represent the people, it can only represent the majority. I am not convinced that a hastily convened peoples’ council in Lambeth is representative of the majority. This is a term used to marginalise and stigmatise people. What we saw last night was a trailer of things to come, or things that have happened elsewhere. A group of people, through force and violence, establish themselves and then claim to speak for ‘the people’ as if the population is one homogenous mass with identical wishes, desires and aspirations.

This is always a mistake made by authoritarian (mainly left-wing) regimes, people are individuals. What you are doing is trying to project your view of what you think the people should be onto that population. You believe that your ideas and policies are right. Well, I think the same of mine, of course I do, otherwise I wouldn’t hold them, the same holds true for you. The difference between us, is that I do not seek to impose my vision on others. What happens when people do not share you views, do not want your vision? We’ve seen it time and time again, Stalin, Hoxha, Pot, Mao, all ruled in the name of ‘the people’. How many of them were the wrong sort of people? How many of them were imprisoned, executed and subjected to horrific treatment as a result? Kim Jong-Il rules in the name of the people. I didn’t see any election, he was annointed. What do the people think of him? I’m sure his approval rates are through the roof, his population wouldn’t dare express anything but satisfaction. What about Gaddafi? Ask him this morning, he’ll still tell you he’s ruling in the name of the people, it is the enemies of the people who are stirring up trouble, the real people love him. So much do they love him, he would submit, that they are happy that 10,000 lie dead on the streets of Libya. This is what rule in the name of the people looks like.

Let us not kid ourselves here. When you claim you are acting for the people, you are using it as a crutch to prop up your own crumbling credibility. Oh, you know that the majority follow you. You know you have the support of tens of thousands in your borough. You know that everyone is up in arms at the cuts.

Everyone? He asks with eyebrow raised in a questioning fashion.

Well, everyone that counts.

Ah, there we go. No. Not everyone, otherwise in the recent general election your lot would have found themselves with an increased majority. That, no matter how flawed, how un-representative, is the closest we have to democracy in this country. And when people stop counting, that is where the trouble begins.

I’m not suggesting that we’re about to see RAF air strikes on the population of Brixton, but unelected, unaccountable people make odd decisions and have, what appears to me, a skewed view of the world. I’ll give you an example.

I was watching the first episode of Heston’s Mission Impossible on C4 the other night. (The link is to the 4od player) I like Heston, he is imaginative, passionate and practical. His series on the overhaul of the Little Chef menu was very good. In this, the first episode of his new series where he does the same to different sectors of the catering industry, he was working his magic at Alder Hey hospital. No hectoring and lecturing in the style of Jamie Wotsisname here, just getting on with the job.

Notes from a hospital bed is an established critique of the terrible food on offer in our hospitals, so head over there, and you’ll see the form guide. Needless to say, the food given to the kids in the hospital was terrible. Without wanting to come over all lisping and mockney, surely, kids in hospital need decent scran to aid their recovery? Yet they were served dross and plates were returned, untouched. Parents, who have paid for this food, without the option to opt-out, in the form of their taxes, were having to bring in grub for their kids. It is a story reproduced throughout the NHS.

In the first portion of the show, Heston went to the kitchens to investigate and was shown a menu, it looked alright, it transpired it was for the staff canteen, public restaurant and (I really couldn’t believe this) outside functions. The head of catering stated that 90% of food prepared in the hozzie kitchens was fresh, from scratch. The 10% excluded? Yes, the children. The group that is the hospital’s enitre reason for being. Out of a cooking staff of 14, only two were making the childrens’ food. ‘Welcome to the NHS’ was the response from the head of catering.

He would maintain that he is absolutely acting in the best interest of the children. However, there was no communication between the kids and the kitchens.

Gaddafi, Kim and the Lambeth Peoples’ Council would maintain that they are absolutely acting in the best interest of the people. However, there is no communication between the people and the government.

Of course, those occupying Lambeth council chamber last night would say they were different, just as every unelected, unaccountable, dictatorial regime that has gone before is different. This time it will be different, this time we’re not the same as all the others, we care, we know what is wrong, we know the answers. Every time the end result is the same.

When you invoke the name of the people, you are hiding behind a legend, in the same way that Westboro Baptist Church invoke the name of God when they indulge in their revolting homophobic activities. When the Islamic fundamentalists bomb innocent people, or beat, maim and execute people, they do it whilst hiding behind the shield of an unspeaking God, you would no doubt condemn their actions, yet from where I’m sitting, you don’t look so different when you hide behind the shield of a silent supposed majority.

No, you’ll get no support from this quarter.

The obligatory religious bit.

Posted on by
1

I am no theological historian, but even I know that when Augustine was sent over to Kent to start the conversion of the population to Christianity, he faced an up-hill battle.

The old Celtic and Saxon polytheistic beliefs were really deeply ingrained, and people were unsure about this new belief structure. I should imagine that many received the ‘good news’ with the sort of scepticism that most of us would reserve for the dogma of Scientology.

The Romans had had a couple of experiments with the calendar, more, I believe, in a drive for accuracy and efficiency than for any hard and fast religious reasons, but the devotees of the old Celtic and Saxon religions measured their days by the passage of the sun, moon and seasons.

The problem for the church being that whilst many may have converted, probably just for five minute’s peace, (they were most likely fed up with the spineless insipid missionaries knocking on the door of the hovel, quoting selected lines of Latin at them to prove some point which didn’t really make sense to them anyway, and leaving parchments explaining how believing in this Jesus chap would explain the horrible stuff that was going on in the village and give them some comfort, which they couldn’t read.), when the big important stuff happened, they reverted to the old ways.

Rollo (not the kid’s TV character boy-king, but the ancestor of William the Bastard Conqueror) was given the province of Normandy, he was given it on two conditions; firstly that he’d stop sending raiding parties into France, as it was getting on everyone’s tits, and secondly that he converted to Christianity as it was what all the cool, progressive, cutting edge 10th Century European leaders were doing. Come his death, somewhere in the late 920′s, he displayed a superb capacity for pragmatic cynicism by having a hundred Christian devotees beheaded in front of him in his death bed, to appease the old Norse gods he had followed. Then, just to make sure, he made sure that the Christian organisations were given a shit load of gold, to appease them for the fact that he’d just offed a hundred or so of their mates.

Of course, the general population didn’t really have the contacts and resources to slaughter a load of people and then give out a ton of cash in recompense, but when the landmarks of the year rolled around they’d still adhere to the old ways.

So when the shortest day came around, when the Sun reached its lowest point in the sky, they’d have a little celebration to mark the fact that the days would now start to get longer. But there was no room in the church calendar for this sort of stuff, it had to be changed. But how to do it? Well, of course, that was when Christ was born. (As an aside I saw a programme on one of the satelite channels a while back in which a historian was saying that the Roman census was carried out in the summer, so there would have been no race to Bethlehem in December.) So, you can have your little celebration, we’ll just come in and change the reason for it.

Similarly when Spring rolls around, and everyone’s thoughts turn to eggs, bunnies and little fluffy chicks, it has nothing to do with nature coming out of hibernation, it’s all to do with the death and then, then, (this is the good bit), the re-birth of Christ. At the same time of year? What are the chances? You’ve got to hand it to the church, it’s a great bit of marketing.

So when the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton gets involved in a story like this:

A bishop has urged parents not to let their children dress up in ghoulish gear in the run up to Halloween.

The Rt Rev Kieran Conry, the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, wants to reclaim the festival as a Christian celebration.

He suggested children should dress up as saints rather than traditional Halloween garb.

In the Christian calendar, Halloween falls on the day before All Hallows’ Day, a day to honour all the saints.

 The Rt Rev Conry said Halloween had “no meaning to it whatsoever” and was a waste of money for parents.

He’s completely forgetting that people have been marking the point in the year when the trees lose their leaves and the plants die back, or at least stop growing, for thousands of years. This is why people dress up as ghosts and skeletons, it is a marker of death in the natural cycle. And what does it say about us that 1400 years after death of Augustine that when the big markers roll around, we still go back to the old ways to recognise the landmarks?

Perhaps that marketing campaign by the church, almost one and a half thousand years in the running, hasn’t been as effective as they thought, because they are still fighting to stop people celebrating in ways that we’ve done since before the Roman conquest. Of course, the difference now is that the church can’t have us shunned, fined, imprisoned or put to death for failing to conduct ourselves in a manner which they find acceptable.

No, it would appear that that particular little perk has now passed to the adherents of the green church and the anti-smoking/drinking/eating church. Nature abhors a vacuum, and it looks like Rome and Canterbury’s loss is their gain.

Wow, what an eye opener.

Posted on by
1

I’m too often negative on here. But then there’s a damn sight more to attack than there is to defend in this world if you ask me.

I’m normally very hard on religion, or at least religious organisations, but on this occasion I’m going to cut a bloody huge length of slack.

I’ve been enjoying the series run by Channel 4 on a group of Amish teenagers who have been over in the UK on an activity which apparently plays a very important part in their culture. At first I thought this was going be another mawkish freak-show, but the Amish youngsters have been portrayed in a very good light, and I’ve found the series (the third episode of which was this evening) to be very thought provoking.

I think the point of the show, which is available on 4OD for those of you who may have missed it, is to give us an idea of how someone from an alien culture views our society. The Amish are ideal for this purpose, they speak English but are about as far removed from our culture as you can get without having to rely on people who spend their time ranting and raving on the street about demons whilst burning flags and throwing shoes at people.

But what has struck me has been the Amish themselves, rather than their views on us. They don’t go into too much detail about the Amish, the usual, no electricity, no TV, big families, funny beards, horses, but nothing of any great substance.

What is clear is that here is a community which is completely at peace with itself. Crime is almost unheard of (barring one fairly major incident recently), the respect between neighbours is remarkable, and in the case of barn raising, it would seem the Amish really like their barns, the whole community will turn out to help out with the raising and have a bit of a party, as much as being Amish allows a party, to celebrate.

The kids are schooled within the community in their own schools, or at home. It is obvious they love one another and are completely devoted to their families. The result? From what I’ve seen of the kids on the TV show, educated, compassionate, friendly, honest and thoroughly decent people.

These are the sort of people you would love to have move in next door to you, they seem generous and willing to help, without knocking on the door every ten minutes and they certainly don’t seem to pry into others’ lives.

The one thing I do have an issue with is the whole religion thing. They set great store by the bible and their submission to God’s will. I’ve no time for organised religion, I’ve stated before that if I were God, then those who claim to speak for me would be first in the line when my smiting trousers came back from the dry cleaners.

But that being said, whilst it is obvious that their faith is the single most important thing in their lives, there doesn’t seem to be any desire to stamp their feet and demand rights or special treatment. You don’t see Amish preaching on street corners or knocking on doors trying to convert people to their truth. Not once has one of the Amish youngsters been judgemental about those they have been staying with, and only once or twice expressed alarm or unease over what they have been exposed to, and that in voice over rather than on camera.

Their isolationism appears to give them a refreshing view of the world. They may not know who Marilyn Monroe or John F. Kennedy are, they may be completely divorced from the politics of the country they live in, but it just doesn’t matter to them. They have their own community and leave everyone else alone.

I’ve often heard them described as being secretive. But I don’t think that’s fair, this sounds like a name to slight them, make them seem as ‘other’, don’t trust them. They don’t want to be around us. I’ve not seen anyone secretive, I’ve seen people happy to discuss their way of life and beliefs, they’re just not about to scream and shout about it. They don’t mind if we take an interest or not, it doesn’t matter to them. They don’t care about our way of life. They’re not making a judgement on us, it just isn’t important to them. All that is important is surrounding them.

As far as organised religion is concerned, the Amish faith is probably the least organised one I’ve seen. I don’t mean they’re some kind of bumbling amateurs, it just seems to me that the practice of the faith is left to the individual church, family even person.

And then the clincher, before the kids are baptised into the church, they are told to bugger off, see the world and decide if their baptism is really what they want. What other religion does that? Which other sect asks those about to be baptised, ‘are you really sure this is for you?’

This sounds like the most Libertarian religion I’ve ever come across, existing in a community which displays many classic examples of Libertarian community living. Their habit of eschewing technology, alcohol and tobacco would drive me up the bloody wall, but from what I’ve seen the Amish have a very enviable life.

But of course, the Amish would point out very politely and gently, and only if I asked them their opinion, that envy is a sin.