Happy Whatever to all!
Author Archive for PsychoAtheist
Tim Minchin with probably the best Christmas song ever written:
Happy Whatever to all!
Happy Whatever to all!
They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
Rest in Peace comrades.
And the full poem from Laurence Binyon:
For The Fallen
With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.
Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres,
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.
They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds
Uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.
They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam.
But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are
Known
As the stars are known to the Night;
As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain;
As the stars that are starry in the time of our
darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.
Laurence Binyon
Sad but true.
Most thought provoking.
No long introduction to this one, just a simple link to an article by Al Stefanelli at the Birmingham Atheism Examiner Refuting the myth that Hitler, Stalin and Pol pot were atheists.
An exceptionally well written piece.
An exceptionally well written piece.
The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
(Lord Justice Laws cf Gary McFarlane -v- Relate Avon Limited 29 Apr 2010)
Ouch!
Richard Dawkins at his eloquent best at the recent Protest The Pope Rally in Downing Street.
I agree with Dawkins, the fact that the Pope felt it necessary to attack secularism and atheism must mean that we are doing something right.
I agree with Dawkins, the fact that the Pope felt it necessary to attack secularism and atheism must mean that we are doing something right.
Ain't that the truth?
You couldn't fucking make this up:
Yeah, theocracy, that's worked in the past, right?
Yeah, theocracy, that's worked in the past, right?
This pretty much describes how my boardroom would work:
'Pacifically' - I hear that almost daily and it grinds my teeth!
'Pacifically' - I hear that almost daily and it grinds my teeth!
Another fine offering from Pat Condell:
Don't sit on the fence Pat, say what you really mean!
Don't sit on the fence Pat, say what you really mean!
I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God.
Thomas Edison (1847-1931)
Listen to him, he invented loads of stuff.
I know, I know, who would have thought it? We all know that Catholic priests are paragons of virtue who take their vows of chastity extremely seriously. There must be a mistake surely? Men of the cloth who regularly expound on the abomination of a homosexual lifestyle couldn't possibly be indulging in such practices themselves.
The diocese of Rome lashed out at the prime minister's magazine, saying its aim was "to create scandal [and] defame all priests". But it also urged gay clerics to leave both the closet and the priesthood.It may well be that the right wing publication Panorama does indeed have an agenda, hands up all those people that think there are no gay priests in Rome and that this is a fabricated story. I would be very, very surprised, given the Vatican's prior history, if there wasn't a large element of truth in this article. But what would happen if all gay clergy left the priesthood?
It said, "Consistency would require that they come into the open", but that they "ought not to have become priests".
A former Italian MP and gay activist, Franco Grillini, said: "If all the gays in the Catholic church were to leave it at once – something we would very much like – they would cause it serious operational problems."Would it?
A member of the clergy quoted by the magazine put the proportion of gay priests in the Italian capital at "98%".Ninety- Eight percent!! Fuck me that is a lot of gay priests.
Not that there is any scandal in being gay, the real scandal here is the hypocrisy of men who stand on a pulpit lambasting the actions of the homosexual community whilst at the same time lying to themselves and others about their own true nature.
Which is why it is probably a good thing that I was never stationed in Israel. Where, apparently lying to a potential mate and having consexual sex can then lead to a prison sentence for 'Rape by deception'. According to the Guardian article:
Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.WTF? This has got to be taking the piss, right? Nope, horny old Sabbar was sent down for 18 months for lying about his ethnic/religious background. Now I can understand this fine, upstanding Jewish lady (sex in a nearby building, really?) being upset about her new beau's deception, but criminal charges? C'mon, this woman quite readily had sex with a man she had just met because he told her he was Jewish and interested in a serious relationship. What really pissed her off most do you think? The fact that he wasn't Jewish or the realisation that her casual sex with a stranger didn't lead to a 'serious relationship'?
When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.
Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not "a classical rape by force," the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.Sex under false pretences? It doesn't say in the article but I wonder if Sabbar actually had any intention of forming a long-term relationship with this woman? He didn't lie about his identity and it doesn't seem as if the police had any problems discerning his location after the rape accusation. That leads me to wonder if this woman had casual sex with a Jewish male stranger she had just met who then told her he was not interested in a relationship, if the same 'Rape by deception' charges would have been brought?
The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added.
Rape is a serious crime. As far as I am concerned perpetrators should be strung up by their testicles with cheesewire. This was not rape, and this Jewish female has done a dis-service to all victims of rape everywhere. She should be thoroughly ashamed of herself and the judges who handed out this sentence have made a mockery of 'justice'.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
