Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Nazi Joe Speaks Out ( Without Thinking)!

According to Joe Ratsarse, quondam member of the Hitler Youth, and currently masquerading as Pope Benedict XVI in his annual Xmas address to the Curia:
"The distinction between male and female is innate...it is God's will...and anyone who does not live according to God's will is as great a threat to mankind as global warming!"
So all you poofs, trannies, sex-changers, and other forms of disgusting deviant transgendered folk are as threatening to the human race as global warming and are an vile abomination to God.

Presumably the Roman Catholic clergy will now eschew the wearing of their sumptuous frocks, and Pope Joe will be leading by example (according to the Vatican, the frock he is wearing in the piccie cost 173,000 euros - excluding the jewelllery).

However, the Vatican were quick to jump to Joey's defence, saying that he was only saying what he believed, and that we had no right to criticise him for doing so.

Presumably, therefore, the Vatican will allow me the same privilege when I say that Joey Ratsarse is a fucking ignorant psychopathological bigoted fuckwit and that the ordure which he spouts defiles the universe.

Oh, and if this so-called 'God' of theirs is listening - he's a fuckwit too for allowing Joey to be his spokesperson.


Tuesday, November 11, 2008

The Stink of Zen

Recently I encountered a rock-musician, songwriter, and gender dysphoric who goes by the soubriquet of Gloria. Now Gloria is clearly so disturbed by his general psychological condition that he continually makes remarkable claims about his talents, knowledge, qualifications, the 'famous people' he has met and, in particular, his deep and special knowledge of Zen. As evidence of his superior knowledge and experientiality of Zen, Gloria claims that he 'is an ordained Zen priest' and that he has 'passed the first 200 koans'. Furthermore, he claims that his advancement in Zen had been endorsed by words from the mouths of half-a-dozen of the foremost modern Zen masters whose names he was happy to recite as having personally witnessed his enlightenment. Strangely enough, none of those Zen masters had had the foresight to complete the customary paperwork which always accompanies the rituals evidencing one's affirmation, ordination, and enlightenment.

Frankly, anyone who claims to have attained enlightenment because they have allegedly 'passed the first 200 koans' is a complete phoney who demonstrably understands absolutely nothing about Zen. In fact, that type exemplifies what Lin-Chi (died 866CE, one of the leading lights in the eponymous school which is still extant in Japan), called 'spiritual dilettantes', since they are people who cannot tell truth from falsehood, grasping from non-grasping, obsession from enlightenment, and he concluded that they are just people who have simply left one social group and entered another, but that they have no real understanding of Zen whatsoever.

Strange, too, that Gloria appears completely unaware of the other main, yet ancient, school of Zen extant today in Japan, namely Soto, which lays no importance on the study or 'passing' of koans. Now, if the accomplishments of practitioners of Soto Zen are to be admitted - and Rinzai masters do see Soto masters as equally accomplished as themselves - then it should be obvious even to complete phoneys like Gloria that claiming to have 'passed' a large number of koans is completely meaningless and quite contrary to the spirit of Zen, whatever school one follows.

What's even more amusing about Gloria's ignorance about Zen is that he is completely unaware of the fact that when the Rinzai temples were set up in Kamakura in the 13th century to train the samurai in Zen, the samurai were generally so completely ignorant of Indian and Chinese Buddhist history, culture, writings etc., that the Zen masters had to invent shikin, or 'on the instant' Zen, and even ki-en Zen (Zen adapted to the pupil), so that the samurai could experience what Zen was about. Neither shikin nor ki-en Zen involved the elaborate study of koans - if koans were brought up at all - yet there is no doubt that many of the samurai became enlightened, despite not studying or 'passing' koans . Thus, even the Rinzai school of Kamakura demonstrated that the study and 'passing' of koans are not necessary prerequisites for attaining enlightenment. Consequently, anyone who boasts about the number of koans they have studied and allegedly 'passed' is as far away from an understanding of Zen as the Earth is from the furthest reaches of the Universe. Or, as the ancient Zen verse has it:"One ten-thousand of an inch and Heaven and Earth are set apart!"

For Gloria the stink of Zen is clearly a heady perfume, but for those of us who are just a little more knowledgeable, it is a putrescence.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Saintliness of Hypocrisy

According to the apologists for the Roman Catholic Church and the Anti-Semite Brigade (with apologies for the tautology), the soon-to-be-sainted Pope Pius XII was a saviour of the Jews during World War II. According to an article in 'The Telegraph' today, the current Pope, Benedict XVI (himself a former Nazi), maintains that new research shows that his predecessor
"...spared no effort, wherever it was possible, to intervene [for Jews] directly or through instructions given to individuals or institutions in the Catholic Church"
Benny XVI continued with his peroration of excuse for Pius' public silence regarding the atrocities committed to the Jews by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy with this:
"[Pius had to work] secretly and silently [to] avert the worst and save the highest number of Jews possible."
Then Benny went on and cited a meeting Pius had in the Vatican in November 1945 with 80 death camp survivors who ”thanked him personally for his generosity”, as if Pius' "generosity" merited thanks per se. Furthermore, even if all 80 of those survivors owed their lives directly to the intercession of Pius himself - an event even more unlikely than the existence of this entity that the Roman Catholic Church refers to as 'god' - the numbers are insignificant given the Pontiff's position compared to the thousands of Jews saved by other, less-powerful, ordinary people who actually put their own lives on the line in doing so, unlike anything Pius ever did (allegedly).

Incidentally, Benny fails to appraise us how many of those 80 survivors were actually Jewish, but given the general anti-Semitic stance of the RC Church, I wouldn't be surprised in none of them was.

Truly Pius XII is a hypocrite saint.

Next, we'll be hearing how Benny Ratsarse only joined the Hitler Youth in order to run a resistance organisation against the hated Nazi regime and that he too is worthy of sainthood.

United in hypocrisy, the pair of them, but then only a hypocrite or a delusional psychopath could profess to believe any of that risible mumbo-jumbo that the Roman Catholic Church espouses.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Why They Don't Want Women To Spoil Their Fun!

According to the BBC, some 1300 male clergy at the Church of England's General Synod had threatened to leave the Church if safeguards were not agreed to reassure those in the CofE who objected to the consecration of women bishops.

The picture tells us why.

Some senior churchmen admit privately that "at least 40% of the clergy are gay", and nearly 100% of the clergy are misogynists.

After all, "God" doesn't need a woman, so it can't be natural to be subservient to one, can it?

BTW, the picture is not meant to suggest that paedophilia has anything to do with homosexuality per se. Gays are not child molesters.

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Fake Priest In Vatican

The BBC carries a report today that a fake priest has been discovered in the Vatican.

What is so surprising about this latest story is that it was considered newsworthy at all.

All priests in the Vatican - and everywhere else too - are complete phonies peddling bogus nonsense and risible mumbo-jumbo to ignorant, superstitious, imbecilicly credulous and psychologically damaged dolts who do not have the moral fibre to face reality without the false crutch of religion.

Now there is a story that is newsworthy.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Shock, Horror: Gafcon Exposed For What It Really Is - Hypocrisy!

After my scoop yesterday regarding the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon), a snapper managed to catch The Reverend Doctor Immanuel Di Lombrosi, Bishop of Liguria, and his close circle of pederasts colleagues indulging in some after conference frolicks. When I contacted the Bishop-prick today to ask them for a comment, they were naturally reticent to go on record. However, Monsignor Di Fratelli was prepared to be quoted. "Fuck off," he said, though I'm not sure if that was an invitation to join in their sordid little practices or not.

Is it significant that the crozier the Bish is holding is brown, do you think? Or could that be priestly ordure adhering to the shaft?

On that subject the Monsignor had no comment, and he walked away with a peculiar shuffling gait, rather like he was suffering from a particularly bad case of haemorrhoids.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Back To Basics - But Only When It Suits.

This is a picture of Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian's first openly gay bishop.

The fact that he is gay doesn't bother me in the slightest, though I have difficulty accepting that an honest man who is not suffering from delusional psychosis can really believe in the superstitious, supernatural, mumbo-jumbo and arrant nonsense that is the reality of religious so-called "belief" - belief, that no psychologist or epistemologist could possibly classify as "justified true belief".

However, the fact that Bishop Robinson is gay exercises the Anglican Communion to the point of self-destruction (good for you, Gene, perhaps you're an undercover atheist at heart, as Professor Georges Rey maintains).

As the BBC reports today,
"The rift in the Anglican Communion - superficially over homosexuality - has been widening steadily ever since the ordination by its American wing of the openly-gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003...Three hundred traditionalist bishops and archbishops - who believe that the Bible outlaws active homosexuality - are staging what is in effect a rival meeting to the Lambeth Conference, the 10-yearly gathering[in the highly symbolic site of Jerusalem] of Anglican bishops from all over the world
Typical of the buffoons, mountebanks, charlatans, and self-aggrandising despots in attendance at this Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon) is he Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi - who is boycotting the Lambeth Conference - and who said his wish was to emulate the first Christians.

Orombi is typical of the Gafcon traditionalists, who have gathered in Jerusalem to demand that the Communion as a whole - including the Americans - go back to the stricter reading of the Bible they say would have applied in the early history of the Church which was born in Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago.

Funny then that I don't hear Orombi advocating the return of black people to slavery and subservience to the white man - both of which were policies supported in the not too distant past by a "stricter reading of the Bible".

Neither do I hear him or his traditionalist colleagues demanding that any of the injunctions in Leviticus apart from Chapter 18:22 be enforced on all members of the so-called Communion.

Presumably, also, these phonies and mountebanks want all aspects of science teaching that are not in literal accordance with the so-called "inerrant words of God" as set out in Genesis 1 to be abolished.

In short, Orombi and his gang are just another bunch of self-seeking, self-promoting, self-aggrandising, manipulative, homophobic swindlers, but then that is typical of all religious types who are not certifiable as suffering from delusional psychosis.

Question: Why is it that it takes an atheist to point out that religious people in general, and their clerics in particular, are the least likely people to adhere to a "stricter reading of the Bible" but choose only to parrot the sections which suit their particular prejudices and predilections?

Answer: Because the Bible is a complete lie, from beginning to end, and those people who claim to "believe" it are complete liars - or else they are insane.

Meanwhile, I hope that Gene Robinson doesn't give in to this bunch of homophobic trash meeting in Jerusalem as he has as much right to hold office in the church as any of them, as they all believe in fairy-tales.

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Bleating Christian At It Again (Lying, That Is)!

Here we go again, that carefully coiffed charlatan, Rowan Williams, the Arch-Buffoon of Durovernum, is claiming that the Gordy Broon's Government is not giving sufficient preference to the Church of England, according to his preface to a highly-biased report published by the Christian special-pleading group, the Von Hugel Institute (situate at St Edmunds' College, Cambridge), and entitled "Moral, But No Compass". N.B., the title is an oblique reference to Broon's own recent claim that his religion (Church of Scotland) and dour Presbyterian upbringing, has given him a 'moral compass' which guides him at all times.

One of the most ridiculous criticisms that the report had to say about the Government was this:
"Every participant in our study from the Church agreed that there was deep 'religious illiteracy' on the part of the Government."
Naturally, neither the manipulative mountebanks who wrote the report, nor the charlatan Dr Williams explain what is meant by 'religious illiteracy'. Hardly surprising, really, since it is no more a personal or intellectual failure to be 'religiously illiterate' (whatever that is supposed to mean), than it is to be 'astrologically illiterate', or 'fortune-telling illiterate', or un-knowledgeable regarding the contents of the ancient scribblings about any of the other superstitious nonsense and make-believe that is passed off by proclaimed "believers" as empirical fact. However, it is egregious in the extreme for the soi-disant Christians behind this report - or for any other religious movement, for that matter - to suggest that one can be moral only if one adheres to the minutiae of their particular delusional and psychopathological religious view of the world. How dishonest of them to keep braying that old calumny and lie, but then one can hardly expect religious promulgators to demonstrate any personal integrity or academic rigour, or to have any regard for fact, since they have never, over the millennia, been able to produce a single shred of empirical evidence proving their claim that their particular "god" exists, never mind being able to evidence any of the spurious claims that they make for this supernatural and non-existent entity.

Frankly, Gordy Broon's so-called 'socialist' government does indeed merit serious criticism, since all he and his predecessor, that other great soi-disant 'man of faith', Tony B-liar, have done little but bankrupt this country, swindle their supporters, and line their own pockets whilst simultaneously stroking their own grossly distorted egos. However, it is a complete fabrication and a downright libel for Christians to accuse either Brown or Blair of "religious illiteracy". Not only have this pair of megalomaniac buffoons done more to increase the role of faith in public life - they are both committed to increase the number and funding for 'faith' schools, for example - than any other Prime Minister in living memory, but they are both, by their own admissions, deeply religious. Thus, the report is little more than a tissue of lies put out with the intention of preying on the guilt and neediness of religious people but, hey, what's new, as anyone who has so much as dipped into the so-called "Holy Bible" can confirm for themselves. Not that those who suffer from "religious illiteracy" would know that.

In short, all these Christian special pleaders really want is to stem the decline of their own power and prestige. Instead of appointing a "Minister for Religion", as the report demands, the government should take all steps to secularise all the organs of state and to ensure that religion has no direct input whatsoever in our daily lives.

Religious "belief" is psychopathological belief, and the sooner our establishment has the moral and intellectual courage to come out in the open and say so, the better. In the meantime, if we cannot consign all self-proclaimed religious "believers" to lunatic asylums, let us at least confine them to their homes and places of worship and hear no more from them.

As for religious people having morals, well all I can say that there is little empirical evidence of that.

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Education: A Weapon Against Ignorance.

At least, that's what Ed Balls, the Labour Government's illustrious "schools secretary"(sic) is quoted by The Guardian as having said yesterday in the Times Educational Supplement. Balls was writing in the TES to explain the Government's latest asinine policy, which is to send British-born Imams into schools to lead citizenship lessons to give a counter view to the "al-qaida version" of Islam. Apparently, these clerics would be vetted to ensure they do not hold radical views, which can mean only that they do not hold the Qur'an as the immutable words of "God, since much if not most of the exhortations, instructions and orders contained in it are what many would consider extreme per se and radical to a fault.

According to Balls:
"A very small number of young people of school age may already be at risk of being drawn into criminal activity inspired by violent extremists. Extremists of every persuasion tend to paint the world as black and white ... exploiting fears based on ignorance. Education can be a powerful weapon against this."
Pity that our so-called "schools secretary" (sic) doesn't appreciate that if education did its job correctly in the first place, it would result in pupils being trained to develop the intellectual equipment which would enable them to comprehend that all religion is completely indistinguishable from ignorance, superstition, fairy tales, make-believe, and delusions

In short, that so-called religious "belief" represents, and is a manifestation of, the psychopathological needs of its adherents, and that religion should have no place in our public life whatsoever.

Heavenly Rewards, For Men Only!

According to the celebrated translation of the Qur'an by NJ Dawood , sura 56 verses 12- 39 promise that the rewards in Paradise for those who have earned Allah's grace and favour, will be as follows:
"They shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris, chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds... We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand..."
Now whilst there is no actual mention in the Qur'an of the number of virgins allotted in Paradise to these faithful men who have served Allah, it is specifically stated that 72 virgins will be the "Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise" in Hadith 2687 of the collection of the sayings of Muhammad gathered by Al-Tirmidhi (died 892 CE) . The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Tafsir (Qur'anic commentary) :
"The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."
These two places were, respectively, a suburb of Damascus and Yemen, and they lie approximately 1,500 miles apart, which suggests that either Paradise is a very big place, or else that there are few inhabitants there, especially when one recollects that a dome of a width of 1,500 miles is merely "the smallest reward" for those who attain entrance to this imaginary place.

It is also notable that whilst the carnal and lustful desires of men of the faith are catered for, women are not accorded the same consideration - unless, of course, they are to take consolation by being penetrated by the eternal, rock-hard erection that men are promised according to the Qur'anic commentator Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ), who wrote:
"Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected [to Paradise] never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [note the discrepancy in numbers] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas."
Seems rather one-sided and, frankly, misogynistic to me, but then any religion that instructs a man to beat his wife with a stick when she does not please him undoubtedly is just that. As Sura 4:34 has it:
"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
Seems to me that Islam treats women as anything other than equal to men, whether on Earth or in "Heaven".

Maybe it is about time that Muslim women followed the example of their Christian counterparts whose loss of loss of "faith and piety" has been blamed for the steep decline in Christian worship, as it was those very freedoms from superstition and male-enforced control and domination which enabled women to take their rightful place in this world - as equals to men.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Mad Tony Finally Cracks Up

According to the BBC, Mad Tony Blair, our quondam Illustrious Leader and Chief Baloney Merchant, has finally completely cracked up and demonstrated to everyone who has a scintilla of intelligence that he is indeed a raving lunatic. As of now, our Tone is going to dedicate his paltry life to uniting the world's religions in some Jesus loving crusade against the ungodly amongst us.

According to Tone, religion can cure malaria and extreme poverty, so expect him to start doling out the £12,000,000 to the poor he has earned since having the decency to step down from running ruining the UK (BTW, Tone, like you I bank at Coutts, so a quiet little donation into account number 382146717 would be appreciated).

This coming Friday, Tone is launching his "faith" foundation in New Yoik - presumably he thinks that the citizenry of that country will be more appreciative of his latest venture folly, since they are what his master, George Dubya Bush, called "the most religious Nation on Earth" when addressing the World Economic Forum in Egypt recently. Not to be outdone by Bush, Tony Baloney declared:
"Faith is part of our future, and faith and the values it brings with it are an essential part of making globalisation work."
What a fucking mendacious and duplicitous, psychopathological prat you really are, Tone - as if we didn't know it all along. Or are we supposed to forget that Saddam didn't have "weapons of mass destruction that could hit the UK within 45 minutes", to mention perhaps your most blatant and egregious lie?

Actually I'm wrong. Mea culpa, Tone. Your most blatant and egregious lie is that there is a "God", since there is even less evidence to substantiate that claim than the one you made about the late lamented Saddam and his WMDs.

I hope every one of your days is filled with misery, you insincere fucking hypocrite, and that you wither and die horribly with the knowledge that your non-existent, so-called "god" can't save you .

Addendum: Actually, next to Tone's claim that this "God" of his exists, despite no-one over the millennia ever having been able to produce the tiniest shred of empirical evidence to substantiate that spurious claim, his other grand lie is that he is a "socialist", since all he's ever done is to rob the poor to fund rich bastards like himself and his uncharming damsel, Cherie, of letterbox-mouth fame.

Pair of phonies, both of them. No wonder they were welcomed into the Roman Catholic Church.

Bleating Bishop Blubbers Bullshit

According to the Daily Telegraph, in the new right-wing rag mag, Standpoint - its mission statement, according to The Independent, is to "defend and celebrate" Western civilisation in the post 9/11 era - the Bleating Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, blubbers that the "social and sexual" revolution of the 1960s has led to a steep decline in the influence of Christianity in this country.

Good to hear that the decline in Christianity had nothing to do with the fact that people have become better able to comprehend that religion is entirely bogus and sham, based on nothing other than the needy psychopathology of shallow inadequates, the chronically delusional, and those who wish to manipulate other for their own self-aggrandisement and self-promotion.

Naszir-Ali continues his petty little tirade by accusing his fellow prelates of failing to resist this decline in their own power and prestige, and this attack comes just days after his previous one accusing the Church of England of failing in its duty to convert British Muslims to Christianity.

Without Christianity, Nazir-Ali claims, Britain would never have become a global empire, and that we would have remained a "rabble of mutually hostile tribes". If he thinks seriously that we are anything other than a "rabble of mutually hostile tribes" today, then it shows just how totally out of touch with reality he really is - as if we didn't already know that from his delusional "belief" that this so-called "god" of his exists objectively.

The risibilities continue with Naizir-Ali siding with the unnamed academic who lays the blame for the loss of "faith and piety among women" for the steep decline in Christian worship. How dare those stupid women! Don't they realise that Nazir-Ali's "god" created them to be entirely subservient to men? How dare those ungrateful wretches use their intelligence to see religion for what it really is - a con-trick played by unscrupulous charlatans like Nazir-Ali on the week and needy amongst us. And what about the implication for men of Nazir-Ali's support for the academic's ridiculous claim? Men, it would seem, didn't have the ego-strength and intellectual equipment to eschew religion unless women had already done so, therefore it is all the fault of women that men have also been leaving churches in droves. Do I smell religion's familiar stench of misogyny here?

Not content with blaming women for the decline in Christianity, Nazir-Ali then turns on Marxists and blames it all on them, for it was Marxist students who encouraged a "social and sexual revolution" to which liberal theologians and Church leaders "all but capitulated".

"It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves. While the Christian consensus was dissolved, nothing else, except perhaps endless self-indulgence, was put in its place."
How strange is it not, that so many of the atheists I have ever encountered were anything other than Marxists, but then we mustn't forget that the Bleating Bishop is writing for a new right-wing rag, and that his intended audience like to call everyone who does not support their views "Marxist", irrespective of their actual political and social affiliations.

Another of Nazir-Ali's objectionable implications is the familiar bleat uttered by his kind that only by being a Christian can one be a decent and moral person, and he even claims that all such values stem effectively from Christianity alone. What absolute bunkum, but then Nazir-Ali is a snake-oil salesman, after all, and would be more at home addressing the public from a fairground stall in Barnum's Circus than from a church pulpit.

Incidentally, at the time of writing this, there were 93 comments on the Daily Telegraph's blog on Nazir-Ali's article, and all but 1 of them was favourable to him and what he espoused, but whether that indicates real support for his views or simply reflects the right-wing attitude of that newspaper's readership, I'll leave that for you, dear reader, to decide for yourself.

Addendum: Since writing the above, I have found this interesting critique of Natzi-Ali which condemns him far more effectively than I have. Enjoy.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Science versus Religion, or the Psychopathology of Faith.

As you can see, the above flow chart is an accurate diagram of how science works. An idea or an hypothesis is posited, then tested experimentally. If the experimental evidence doesn’t accord with the hypothesis, then most scientist will make another run or two at it just in case something was wrong with the experiment. But if a number of experiments don’t confirm the hypothesis, the hypothesis is abandoned or modified and the experiments start again. If the evidence does confirm the hypothesis, then a new and useful piece of knowledge has been added to the sum of knowledge. That is science.

Now, compare the flow chart for religion:-

Notice the difference?

Monday, April 21, 2008

Muslim Morons At It Again!

Yes, folks, it's true, for according to the BBC today, "Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth."

Aye, 'course it is, and the Moon is made of green cheese, and the inmates really are running the lunatic asylum.

But does anyone in authority outwith the would-be Caliphate raise a voice of dissent at these ridiculous assertions?

No, because (a) religions are held to be exempt from criticism per se, despite the fact that all religious belief is truly psychopathological, and (b) anyone who has the temerity to criticise the repressive nonsense that is Islam risks being murdered by some of its adherents who believe that they will be rewarded in a non-existent place called "Paradise" for committing homicide in the name of their spurious "god".

Next, they'll want us to believe that it's OK for a man to beat his wife with a stick if she disobeys him.

Or that adulterers should be killed by lapidation.

It would be excruciatingly funny if it wasn't so egregiously sick.

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Archbishop Still In Denial

Is Rowan Williams, the artistically coiffed Archbishop of Canterbury, any nearer to recognising the truth?

Not only is there no "God" , but many of his own flock consider that he is not the man to be leading the Anglican World-wide congregation.

Nevertheless, the man is sufficiently hubristic to insist that he was correct in advocating that our law should take account of religious beliefs and even extend the concessions already granted to theists. A visitor to his website will find that this duplicitous man is still trying to justify his position with more egregious nonsense of the same ilk:-
"[He claims that his core intention was] to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state"
Well here's one right granted to a religious group that I'd like to tear out, not merely tease out, namely the fact that the Archbishop and his 25 fellow Bishops have the right simply by virtue of their position in the Church of England to sit in our second chamber and directly influence the passing of legislation so that it accords with their particular religious views.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before Williams will be adding his voice to that of the Muslim clerics who want the same privileges that have been extended to the Church of England, so that Imams qua Imams will also sit in the Lords. After all, that way they will be in a better position to shape our laws to suit the Islamic religion and bring its some of its adherents nearer to their dream of building a world-wide caliphate.

I wonder, though, why it is that those Muslims living in the UK who are so desirous of living under Sharia don't emigrate to one of the avowed Muslim countries where they will find themselves more in accord with the way of life practised there? Admittedly, few Muslim women used to the rights and freedoms available to them in the UK would care to exchange that for a life in Saudi, Iran, or Afghanistan, to name but a few examples, but many of men would love it, for it would not only legitimise but increase their power and control over women.

Friday, February 08, 2008

The Penny Drops, But Not Loudly Enough.

Following my earlier story about the mad prelate Rowan Williams, the Arch-Buffoon of Durovernum, it seems that has has undergone a brief flash of insight and realised that he is completely out of touch with the majority of people who live in this country. Apparently, Williams is allegedly shocked by the response that his ignorant and ill-consider advocacy of the adoption in the UK of aspects of Sharia and that these should supersede our own juridical traditions.

According to the BBC, Williams is overwhelmed by what is described as the "hostility of the response" to his remarks and is allegedly in a "state of shock" (and I thought that they had dispensed with electro-convulsive therapy in our professional psychiatric institutions, but perhaps that other psychiatric institution known as the Church of England still employs them). However, why Williams should be upset is a mystery, for he spoke with almost total ignorance of the following facts:-
  • Though so-called Sharia Law has as its origin "the inerrant words of God", there is no single version of Sharia applied throughout the Muslim world, since the Imams who hand down their judgements interpret the Qu'ran and the Hadith according to their own persuasion and precedent.
  • Sharia law treats men and women differently, even with regards to the subject of divorce which Williams seemed to have in mind, as a women has a far harder task of obtaining equal treatment to that of her husband when she wants a divorce, so Sharia is essentially discriminatory, unequal, divisive and sexist, not to mention that many of the punishments it imposes are barbaric - a fact that Williams himself recognises - and all these things are matters which we in this country have fought long and hard to remove from our society.
  • Whilst the overarching British juridical system has been developed and moulded over centuries - admittedly with the interference of the established churches here - the law, whether in Scottish or English law - remains secular and is meant to be applied to all, irrespective of their religious persuasion or lack of it, position, rank, or whatever their unique claims are. The penalties for breaking our laws are man-made ones, not those allegedly ordained by some imaginary entity called "God", though no doubt Williams would like to see us revert to the situation where ecclesiastical courts ran all our affairs once again, but we have long since refused to accept the dominance of religion and its quondam power over our lives.
  • There is no valid justification per se for people of specific religious persuasions being treated differently under the law than the rest of us and for Williams to suggest that they should be given such privileges as of right is simply wrong. Admittedly our law has made such concessions - for example, Sikhs are excused from wearing a crash-helmet whilst driving a motor-bike because their turbans are a religiously imposed dress-form whilst any non-Sikh without a helmet is charged and prosecuted - but when this happens it simply represents bad law which causes much resentment.
Actually, I suspect that the real reason behind Williams' affront to the nation yesterday was to pander to those Muslim clerics who have been calling on him to discipline the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, for speaking out the other week pointing out that Muslims had turned parts of Britain into no-go areas for non-Muslims. Despite the fact that Nazir-Ali backed up his claims with evidence, it is considered by many of a liberal bent that one should not point these uncomfortable facts out, even though what Nazir-Ali said is undoubtedly true. These inconvenient truths also meant that Williams could not pander to his Muslim friends by contradicting Nazir-Ali directly, so he had to find another way of ingratiating himself with them. Nevertheless, the truth of Nazir-Ali's claims did not stop the Muslims' bitter complaints, nor the subsequent death threats to Nazir-Ali and his family , who are now under Police protection. Strangely enough Williams has been silent on that issue.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Proves His Critics Correct: He Is Mad.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, finally lost his vestigial grip on sanity yesterday when he announced that it was unavoidable that the UK allows parts of Sharia Law to supersede our own laws. His reasoning for this astounding demonstration of his insanity was that Muslims in the UK would feel ostracised and left out of British society if they were forced to continue to accept the parts of our laws that they did not agree with. Nevertheless, the Arch-Buffoon of Durovernum was quick to point out that he did not want the parts of Sharia which imposed what he referred to as "extreme punishments" or discrimination against women to be adopted here, which will be welcome news for all those adulterers who would otherwise face execution by lapidation or beheading. However, it is rather strange that Williams has never suggested that those non-Muslims amongst us should also share the privileges he is advocating for Muslims and that we too should be able to set aside the laws of the land which we do not agree with but are forced to adopt.

Frankly, I think it is time this mad prelate was sent to Riyadh to preach to the Saudis that Christianity is the true interpretation of the "word of God" and that Muhammad misheard the dictation of the Archangel Gabriel so that Williams can experience directly the benefits of Sharia Law for himself. Either that or he should be incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital here under the Mental Health Acts and medicated with large doses of risperidone.

Thank goodness every political party and religious denomination in this country has condemned the Arch-Buffoon's remarks as divisive, unacceptable, muddle-headed and wrong. It is only a pity that Williams did not have sufficient insight to appreciate that for himself, but his lack of insight merely confirms that the man has lost his vestigial grip on sanity.