The curse of Mother Theresa

2010 marked 100 years since the birth of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu; Mother Theresa. She is a Catholic heroine, beatified by the Catholic Church in 2003 at St Peters in Rome by Pope John Paul II, and given a Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. She is known the World over for her aiding the impoverished people of India, and in particular, Calcutta. She is often idolised, considered a wonderful, caring, selfless human being.

I could not disagree more with that perception.

There are a great deal of those beatified who are certainly worthy of such high admiration. Anne-Marie Javouhey is perhaps one of my favourites. She founded Institute of Saint Joseph of Cluny at Cabillon in the early 19th Century, dedicating her life educating the poor and slave populations across the World. She was an emancipator, far before my most revered emancipator, Charles Sumner was even born. Javouhey worked tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of the poor and the ill. For this, she deserves all the admiration that the Catholic Church bestowed upon her.

There are also a great deal of those beatified, who do not deserve it, and should be absolutely condemned. Isidore of Seville is a Saint, made so by Saint Clement VIII. Isidore once wrote an essay calling for the Christians to take Jewish children away from their parents by force, and educate them in the Christian way. A wonderful study by Bat-sheva Albert called “Isidore of Seville: His attitude toward Judaism and his impact on Early Medieval Cannon Law” shows that Isidore was concerned with writing instructions for the clergy to adhere to, and those instructions were unusually marred with vicious language aimed directly at Judaism, and perpetuated the persecution and suspicion of Jews during the Medieval period. We could claim that Isidore lived in the 6th Century and that we’re typically viewing and condemning him through 21st Century vision. The problem is, Isidore’s views on taking children away from their parents simply for being Jewish, were radical even for the 6th Century. Because the rational conscience of humanity is often at odds with the irrational immorality hell of organised religion.

Unfortunately, Mother Theresa is not even close to being as admirable in any way, in comparison to Javouhey, and actually closer in terms of the destruction to human life, to Isidore of Seville.

Her order, the “missionaries of charity” did more to inflict suffering, pain and poverty on people needlessly, than the actual causes of that suffering and pain and poverty itself. She believed that poverty was a virtue to brought one closer to God. The more a person suffers, whether they ask for that suffering or not, the closer they are to God according to the warped fantasy of Mother Theresa, recently beatified. Primitive equipment was used to treat wounds. No pain killers were used at all. Unsterilised needles equipment was used. People died far sooner than they would have had Mother Theresa actually bothered to recommend actual medical treatment for the poor that she was apparently “helping”.

Her use of fairy tales to promote suffering and pain should be viewed with the contempt it deserves. She believed suffering was good, abortion was wrong, and birth control was evil. In a country like India, villifying birth control is reckless at best. According to a freelance writer, Judith Hayes, Mother Theresa once told a cancer patient in her care that she did not need pain killers, because:

“You are suffering like Christ on the cross, So Jesus must be kissing you.”

How else would someone come to such a positively dangerous position that does nothing but cause unnecessary pain and suffering, if not for belief. Why would a sane human being refuse pain killers to a dying lady in pain, other than a belief in a God. And what a poor argument for an all loving God that would be.

Mother Theresa sat on a fortune. Banks accounts all over the World, filled with millions upon millions in donations. People were led to believe that they were giving money to alleviate suffering. Instead, the millions of dollars sat unused, like a bottle of water and loaf of bread hanging over the mouths of the starving, being held just out of reach by an insane Nun who wallowed in her feet being kissed by impoverished “Calcutteans”.

Calcutta itself, the capital of West Bengal, is home to far more people than it can sustain. Almost 6 million live in Calcutta and the streets are paved with the homeless. 6 million people, in 71 square miles, is ridiculous. That being said, it has cultural heritage that far surpasses anything else in India. Mother Theresa tried to persuade people against the use of condoms. In a city vastly overpopulated, she was attempting to ban condoms, and persuading people that abortion was a great evil; even for victims of incest and rape. Millions of people were being put at risk, because Mother Theresa and the Catholic Church indulged in an irrational campaign against the use of contraception.

In New York, a homeless and poor shelter was going to be installed in the Bronx. The plans included two storied building. The City Planning Commission insisted that for the disabled, their must be an elevator. The Nuns applied for a waiver of the Disabled Access Laws, on grounds of nothing else but “religious belief”. Mother Theresa and the Nuns refused to allow an elevator to be installed because their religious beliefs forbade them from using “modern conveniences”. When the Commission refused them the waiver, Mother Theresa and her Nuns threw their toys out of the pram and abandoned the project. They would rather let people suffer, than install an elevator.

Susan Shields, an ex-member of the Missionaries on Charity tells her story, about what she witnessed when she was a Sister in the organisation run by Mother Theresa:

When Mother spoke publicly, she never asked for money, but she did encourage people to make sacrifices for the poor, to “give until it hurts.” Many people did – and they gave it to her. We received touching letters from people, sometimes apparently poor themselves, who were making sacrifices to send us a little money for the starving people in Africa, the flood victims in Bangladesh, or the poor children in India. Most of the money sat in our bank accounts.

The flood of donations was considered to be a sign of God’s approval of Mother Teresa’s congregation. We were told by our superiors that we received more gifts than other religious congregations because God was pleased with Mother, and because the Missionaries of Charity were the sisters who were faithful to the true spirit of religious life.

Most of the sisters had no idea how much money the congregation was amassing. After all, we were taught not to collect anything. One summer the sisters living on the outskirts of Rome were given more crates of tomatoes than they could distribute. None of their neighbors wanted them because the crop had been so prolific that year. The sisters decided to can the tomatoes rather than let them spoil, but when Mother found out what they had done she was very displeased. Storing things showed lack of trust in Divine Providence.

Mother Theresa once claimed that doing good for the sake of altruistic reasons, is wrong. She claimed:

There is alwayst he danger that we may become only social workers or just do the work for the sake of the work. … It is a danger; if we forget to whom we are doing it. Our works are only an expression of our love for Christ. Our hearts need to be full of love for him, and since we have to express that love in action, naturally then the poorest of the poor are the means of expressing our love for God.

She was essentially saying that the only moral course a person must take in regard to charity, is to extol the virtues of poverty, let the sick and dying suffer, abandon painkillers, and ban birth control, all because it will take us closer to “Jesus”. It is virtually impossible to reason with someone who is so shockingly unreasonable, it borders on psychopathic.

When Mary Loudon, a volunteer in Calcutta asked one of the Nuns responsible for patient “care” why she was not sterilizing the needles, the nun replied:

There is no point.

And continued to wash the needle under a cold tap.
Loudon then tells a story about a fifteen year old boy who went from having a simple kidney problem, and by the time she was writing this, he was dying. The Nuns had refused to give him antibiotics and would not allow him to be taken to the local hospital. He needed operating on and was just being left to die, whilst the delusional Nuns of the order of Mother Theresa prayed for him. The Nuns argued that if they did it for one, they’d have to do it for all of them. Not withstanding the fact that they were running a shack with unsterilized equipment, they also were sitting on millions of dollars; enough to build a top class hospital. The decision not to use that money to help people, was entirely down to religious belief.

People in the care of Mother Theresa, were given no painkillers, treated with dirty implements, given no specialist care, no professional diagnosis, and more often than not, died because of easily curable injuries and disease. They were indoctrinated to believe that if they doubted Mother Theresa, they were doubting God, and would be punished in the afterlife. They died, for the sake of a multi millionaire religious fundamentalist.

The English Renaissance

The European Renaissance was a breeding ground for absolutely magnificent Italian painters and sculptors. Carravagio, an early Rembrandt, is a particular favourite of mine, his macabre use of shadowing is stunning. Bernini’s sculptors in the centre of Rome, define the city for me. But the likes of Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Titian, Donatello and Botticelli are synonymous with fantastic art work. Especially when you view them up close. Standing in the centre of the Sistine Chapel and gazing at Michelangelo’s handy work, is simply incredible.

So one wonders, why were there no great English Renaissance artists? Why did we miss out? I honestly cannot name one great English Renaissance artist up until the Hellenism of the Eighteenth Century; but even then, our artists were nothing in comparison to our Poets who invoked Antiquity when speaking of paradise. Lord Byron and John Keats among those.

Oscar Wilde wrote of this particular brand of English Renaissance as:

“of the vision of Homer as of the vision of Dante, of Keats and William Morris as of Chaucer and Theocritus. It lies at the base of all noble, realistic and romantic work as opposed to the colourless and empty abstractions of our own eighteenth-century poets anti of the classical dramatists of France, or of the vague spiritualities of the German sentimental school”

He shows here that 18th Century Romanticism, and Hellenism of the pre-Raphaelites were essentially the English catching up to the methodology of the Italian Renaissance artists two centuries previous. The essence, being a passionate romantic humanism. You can see this very essence, in the works of Millais and Rossetti. Works that take their inspiration from Antiquity, and Renaissance Europe. If you go to Tate Britain, you will see “Ecce Ancilla Domini” by Rossetti. You could be forgiven for thinking it was created in Ancient Greece or Quattrocentro Italy, or Renaissance Florence; it was produced in 19th Century England. And whilst these works certainly take inspiration from the Italian Renaissance (despite the Pre-Raphaelite’s apparent disdain for Renaissance artistry), they still have a wonderful individual quality of their own, that separate them into something entirely new, yet I can never quite figure out what that quality is. It is simply there. The Pre-Raphaelites represented a lost idea of spirituality, in an age of enlightenment. We can safely say, that England gained it’s Renaissance, two or three centuries after the rest of Europe.

But that still begs the question, why wasn’t England producing any art of any worth during the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries. I’d suggest, it was all because of Religion.

The Italian Renaissance artists of the 15th-17th Centuries, were all Roman Catholic. They followed the Catholic tradition to it’s very fundamentals. And whilst the art itself may have presented Holy figures as mere mortals, the grandeur of those Holy figures, was supremely Catholic; colourful and striking, romantic backdrops and visions of the Divine with human emotion and imperfections. The artists were commissioned by Popes and grand Catholic nobles like the Medici. Renaissance art in Italy, was Catholicism on canvas.

England, around that same time, had spent the 1530s breaking with Rome, and separating ourselves entirely, from the Continent. Catholicism became a dangerous practice. Even the Catholic Queen of England, was lucky to have survived it. Queen Catherine just so happened to be a close relative of the powerful Holy Roman Emperor, who was a staunch Catholic. She had his support. If it wasn’t for that relationship, she would have been almost certainly executed during the English Henrician reformation. Catholicism was dangerous in England in the 16th Century. Catholic extravagance, including it’s art, were not appreciated in England. The Reformers considered them to be the same sort of anti-Bible sentiment, as idol worship. The Pope, the great art work commissioner, was considered an anti-Christ, in the eyes of the English reformers. And so, by that logic, i’d argue that any attempt at such elaborate and extravagant art works used for the eminence of the Catholic Church, would have been utterly obscene, to the English Court.

The Court painter, the man behind the great portraits of Thomas More and Jane Seymore, was Hans Holbein, a man who followed the writings of Luther, and Erasmus. Holbein was a humanist, and gradually became very anti-Catholic. Perfect for the Tudor Court.

Catholicism, whilst it has been rather violent, and has a history of very unchristian-like viciousness, has undoubtedly produced some of history’s most beautiful works of art. One wonders what great works of art may have been produced throughout England, had the break from Rome not happened, and had Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon produced a son and heir in the first place.

The rules of Marriage

It is rather ironic that anti-gay marriage proponent, and self named “defender of Traditional Marriage” in California, Doug Manchester is getting divorced. Almost poetic. Perhaps if Mr Manchester had spent less time funding anti-gay movements, less time stealing $9.3million from the joint account of him and his wife of 43 years, and more time trying to save his traditional marriage, this essence we know as Karma wouldn’t have made him a bit of a public laughing stock.

Mr Manchester told the New York Times in July 2008, that he was funding Prop 8, because; “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church leads me to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.” I hope I can count on Manchester’s money to help me fund an initiative designed to ban divorce… because the Catholic Church doesn’t look too kindly at that particular subject.

The word “traditional” in the horribly right winged mantra; “traditional marriage” is almost ironic in itself. In the same way that American’s tend to call tall people “shorty“. Whilst marriage certainly has been a case of man and woman throughout history (mainly because society had not evolved to the stage where homosexuality was acceptable, and that punishment for homosexuality was considered perfectly legitimate, yet for some odd reason all Christians, even Mr Manchester would agree we’ve evolved enough as a society to ignore other sections of Biblical “traditions“, such as Exodus 21:7 – “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do“), it has no traditional precedent in the slightest.

Take Biblical marriage for example. If the homophobes among us are going to chant the boring, unoriginal, ridiculous mantra of “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” (God also made Eve out of Adam’s rib. So when you’re finished attacking Gay people, why not surgically remove your own rib, and try to raise it into a Female, go on, try it!) then they also have to, by their very own logic, point out that Exodus 21:10 states “If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights“…… So, traditional marriage, in the very earliest sense, the very essence of what marriage traditionally meant, was that you can marry as many women as you like, as long as you look after the first wife.

Now, if we skip forward to the New Testament, we see; Matthew 22:23-32, which paraphrases Deuteronomy 25:5, with; “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him“
Traditional Marriage is becoming a little bit complicated. It certainly isn’t a romantic union of pure Love between a man and a woman. It can be apparently between a man and many women, a man and his brother’s widow, or if you’re King David – anyone you quite like the look of on that particular day.

Roman marriage was not much filled with love and romance either. Roman women were expected to marry, purely to produce a son, and purely because the wealth of the girl, when married, moved entirely to the husband, who would use it as political capital. The ceremony itself did not involve mother-in-laws crying at how happy their Daughter looked, or the kissing of the bride, or the romantic glance into each others eyes. Instead, it consisted of the two households signing into agreements about property and wealth, and the agreement from the new wife that she would provide children, pretty much on demand. If a wife failed to produce male offspring, the male would often divorce her and just move on to another woman in the hope of producing a male.

Skip even further, to Renaissance Europe, and England in particular, we are presented with the death of King Henry Tudor, and the crowning of his second son (Prince Arthur, originally supposed to succeed his father, died young), the 17 year old King Henry VIII. Henry’s new bride, and the widow of Arthur (sticking with tradition so far!) Catherine was the daughter of the recently formed Spain (the marriage between Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile) and so a powerful Princess. The marriage between Arthur, and then Henry, and Catherine was one designed purely to create an ally out of England and Spain in the face of a powerful enemy in France. Henry soon became overly bored with Catherine, given that she failed to produce any living sons to succeed Henry. She gave him a daughter, the future Queen Mary, and Henry wanted a son. He became convinced that he was cursed to have no sons, and that God did not appreciate him marrying his Brother’s widow (clearly the contradictions of the Bible confused him). It was always going to be difficult to get a marriage annulment from the Pope, given that the Pope was now under the control of The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who just happened to be Catherine’s nephew. This in turn, lead to Henry deciding he didn’t need the Pope’s permission, and so broke from Rome, which set the ball rolling for what he now know as the Protestant Reformation – cemented fully, during the reigns of Henry’s only son King Edward, and his daughter Queen Elizabeth – the very reason us Brits aren’t some mindless Catholic drones. Meanwhile, Catherine, was simply banished from Court. And the subsequent marriages of Henry, were all designed purely for the creation of a male heir. Marriage in Tudor England, Renaissance Europe, and in fact, the preceding centuries had absolutely nothing to do with love, nor was it anything like it is today. Marriage was reasons of power and wealth, the joining of two strong families with visions of grandeur. It is the reason Henry’s father, Henry Tudor married the niece of Henry’s enemy, Richard III. It cemented the Tudor dynasty beautifully. Marriage in the proceeding centuries following the Tudor’s comes directly from our 16th Century King, marrying six times, executing two, and divorcing two, all for the sake of a male heir.

A couple of centuries later, and America has just elected it’s first President. George Washington at the helm of perhaps the most impressive Government in American History. John Adams as Vice President. Alexander Hamilton at the Treasury. John Jay as Chief Justice. And most importantly to this blog, Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State. Jefferson is possibly one of the most contradictory characters in American history. He promotes small government, wont actually shut up about the joys of small government and how destructive large government is….. and yet it is Jefferson who expands government the most when he becomes America’s 3rd President. Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, writing that “all men are created equal” yet, he owns many slaves. When Jefferson’s wife died, it is widely assumed that he had a long affair with a slave in his possession, Sally Hemings, whom he does not free, but instead, has sex with. His own personal sex slave. She then has children, which DNA testing has supported the notion that all six of them, were Jefferson’s. The four surviving children, also become his slaves until the age of 21 (two ran away). A man has needs!!!! Jefferson refused to marry Hemings, stating of mixed race marriages; “The amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent“. So, marriage between blacks and whites during the 18th Century, it would seem was just as sneered upon by the elites, as gay marriage is today. Jefferson, was the 18th Century’s version of Doug Manchester when it comes to marriage.

In fact, it was only in 1967 that the U.S Supreme Court announced it’s decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia, that Anti-Miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.

Marriage has been a subject that has no formal tradition. It isn’t something that has been set in stone since the Biblical era. In fact, it doesn’t resemble Biblical or even early Christian traditions in any way shape or form. It has been used for wealth, prestige, political gain, property, and power, producing of children, much much more than anything to do with a sense of love and unity. Marriage, like society, evolves. We exist at a time when the next stage in the evolution of Marriage is occurring, and whilst 16th Century Europe struggled to come to terms with a major stage in Marriage evolution, with what it meant for a King to proclaim himself more important than the Church when it comes to the institution of Marriage itself, I’d suggest that in today’s World, society in general has evolved to a much more sensible and reasonable level to be able to accept changes, like the inclusion of homosexual couples, without taking opposition to the extreme.

If we are to cite obscure passages in the Bible, to state our case against certain subjects, then we must also cite the Bible to state our case against accepted norms. I’m sure I can count on Mr Manchester’s support when I start selling my children into Slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7-11.

The Church of Me

“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” – Thomas Jefferson

I’ve always wondered where the line between inventive cult nonsense, and respectful religion is crossed. If I were to say I believed in a talking prophetic snake that lives in a cave on Saturn, i’d be told i’m crazy. Yet, a story in which a man is born to a woman who has never even so much as had sex, lives a miracle filled life, dies, raises from the dead like a zombie messiah, walks around for a while, and then ascends into Heaven, is highly respected, and actually has political influence, purely because billions of people believe in it? A factitious God of an old Testament that appears to resemble tyrannical dictators throughout history, filled with gratuitous hate, than a loving God; but it must be respected? Why? It is illogical to be disrespectful to another human being based on their sexuality or their race or their gender, something they have no control over, however their religious belief is simply a concept, an idea, ideas do not demand respect inherently.

Religious indoctrination, is somewhat unnerving and in my humble opinion, impossibly detrimental to the workings of society and the relationships we form. Homosexuality is looked down upon for no justifiable reason; kids are made to say prayer in school without actually given the choice of what they want to believe; non-believers are condemned to hell regardless of great humanitarian works they may undertake; candidates for President have their religious beliefs tested before facing election; Gospels that contradict each other, leave out important parts of the Story (Jesus virgin birth is only mentioned in two gospels); the wars it causes, the lies it thrives on, the terrible acts people have taken in it’s name. It’s all so wrong.

It amazes me that the line between absolute nonsense and respectful religion is not crossed because there is any sort of empirical evidence, but crossed simply because more people chose to believe it. Some of those, will regard anyone who dares to question them, impertinent heathens destined for hell. The restrictions the system of what it’s followers deem to be universal God-given facts, places on the World have not improved the World. It hasn’t made the World a safe haven. We’re not peaceful, we’re not safe, we’re at the most dangerous point in history. Religious dogma and the intolerance it lives off to feed it’s outdated traditions, is living in the middle ages.

For me, spirituality is an inward manifestation of insecurities, imperfections and a deep desire for guidance. I myself, rely on the Tao Te Ching when my own personal insecurities demand guidance and reassurance that my philosophical and sociological thoughts and opinions are both logical and respectful. Spirituality is not something to be forced onto society as a whole. I would not dream of telling people that they either conform to my way, or be damned. I do not condemn Christians, they are entitled to believe as they wish. I merely condemn the need to force religion onto others, through political process and the education system.

I cannot prove that there is no God. Nobody has that authority. But similarly, I cannot prove that there is a God. I am simply against mass indoctrination based on superstition and out dated tradition. You and I have equally unknowing minds, whether you’re a preacher or an expert in Biblical studies or an Atheist. You have no deeper understanding of the workings of the Universe than I do. You are not an expert.

It is my general belief, my own deeply held Philosophy that you should act always according to the maxim, that you do to others that which you have problem having done to you. If you wish to sleep around, fine. If you wish to be straight or gay or a transsexual, fine. If you wish to do drugs, fine. If you wish to drink, fine. It is your decision. As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, there is no problem. As long as you’re friendly, polite, and well intentioned, then nothing else matters. A bigoted, supremely prejudice myth based God certainly doesn’t matter.

Of course the Story of Jesus, and what he wants and expects, has been hijacked by the Right Wing, for it’s “freedom” agenda, which apparently doesn’t take into account the fact that the wealthy preachers, Popes and ministers are as unlikely to get into their heaven as an agnostic such as myself is. I may be a bit controversial here, but judging by Jesus’ standards, i’d say he’d be condemned as a Socialist by today’s standards. Otherwise those lepers would have had to produced their insurance documents before being cured. The bread and the fish would have been distributed to the hardest working, or those who were the sons of the hardest working. Acts 2:44-45 reads like a section of a Socialist manifesto: “All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” He certainly didn’t preach the message of ruthless competition and winner takes all wealth. I’d go one step further, and say that by Biblical accounts, Jesus was executed, because he supported the less fortunate and so threatened the wealth of the rich.

It amazes me that Christianity (especially American Christianity) has developed almost an entirely separate sect, to the teachings of Jesus. They some how manage to combine the teachings of Jesus, with Nationalism, with Capitalism, and with the odd skewed understanding of “traditional marriage“, despite all three of those, going against everything Jesus ever taught. If you’re going to insist that gays shouldn’t be allowed to be married on religious grounds, then perhaps I could count on your support when I try to marry six wives, like King David. Or when I try to pass a law requiring all the brothers of dead men, to marry their dead brother’s widow and have children, as sanctioned in Matthew 22:24. (“Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him“). Why just go after homosexuals? Why not the brothers of dead men, who haven’t married their brother’s widow? Surely they’re sinning too? Christianity itself was a product of it’s time. It has no relevance today. The only basis it has, it to allow those with deeply held prejudice and intolerant views, to cite the Bible for justification. Much of the time (as is the case with the entire Catholic Church), they are so far off the mark of Biblical teachings, i’m almost inclined to believe i’m more of a Christian than the Catholic Church could ever be.

If it is true, that hell is going to be packed with Atheists, sexually promiscuous women, scientists, those who undertook great acts of kindness but weren’t Christian, Democrat Presidents, anyone who has ever touched pigskin, among others – then Hell is the fun and happy place to be! If the option is “Become a gay hating Republican, or go to Hell“, then i’m afraid it’s Hell every time. If my mother, my father, my grandparents, me, and all of my friends who do not subscribe to Christian doctrine are damned to an eternity in a torturous Hell, then the God that created these ridiculous rules, is a God I want nothing to do with.

And so with all of that in mind, I have decided to formulate my own religious system of beliefs, based on the following points.

Thou shall treat others, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religious belief, as equal to yourself.

Wednesday is to be the day of sex. This is important to my new Religion because sex is the binding essence of all life. And let’s face it, we’d all quite like to have sexual freedom.

A man can lie with another man as he would a woman, if he so wishes. To ignore your true feelings and to oppress your sexuality, for this is unnatural. (Leviticus 18:22)

Anyone who offers their daughters up to be raped by towns people (even if it is to save angels) is not the good guy! (Genesis 19:8)

No one shall ever say “My country is a Christian country“. Especially when (as is the case with the U.S.A), it isn’t, and never was.

There will be no list that says “Thou shalt not murder“, because it’s common sense, it didn’t need writing down, it isn’t morality based on Religious beliefs. Instead, we shall replace pointless Jealous-God Commandments like “Do not have any other gods before me“, and replace with much more principled and practical moral codes (which the Catholic Church could really benefit from) like “Thou shalt not rape, molest, slaughter, torture, or intentionally hurt another“.

If you’re a Politician, your belief in this religion, shall not interfere with your duties to the public. You shall not try to influence policy in the direction of religious dogma.

My birth will be determined, three hundred years after i’ve died, by Roman dictators.

Touching pig skin is not dirty, any God who says it is, is just being pedantic.

Two thousand year old scribblings, do not constitute “absolute truth“.

Creating light, after the Earth and Heavens, is just ridiculous. God (me) created light first. I’ll create the sun first. Because there would be no way to distinguish day from night otherwise, and that’d be a ridiculous way to spend, let’s say, the first three days. (Genesis 1:16)

When I die, please Gospel of Jamie writers, let’s agree what my last words were. I don’t want three different versions, like with Matthew, Luke and John.

Homosexuals can marry. Why should they be excluded from the misery of marriage?

Just so you know, I probably wont spend more than an hour a day, blessing America.

Good deeds will get you into my heaven!

Believing, by blind faith, rejecting all evidence to the contrary, is the great catastrophe of mankind.

If something good happens to you, you will not be required to say “God blessed me, thank you Lord“, whilst ignoring the plight of millions in extreme poverty. I’d be a shit God to bless Britney Spears with the ability to get rich and win awards, and yet ignore millions of others. If good things happen to you, I really don’t need you to thank me on National Television.

Money is not the driving force of life. Less is more.

You cannot charge money for anything with my name on it. There will be no huge Vatican like building. Any money donated will go on community projects (Communist God?).

You may wear clothing woven from two different types of material. It would be a most ridiculous and pointless rule ever suggested (Leviticus 19:19).

Women are not created for the servitude of men. To suggest otherwise, is just more prejudice, bigoted nonsense (I Corinthians 11:8-9).

Women may be in a position of power (1 Tim 2:12).

You may not sell your daughter, nor any person, into slavery. (Exodus 21:7).

You may lust after whomever you wish, because it’s perfectly natural, everyone does it (Matthew 5:28).

You may associate with Atheists (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).

Let’s please not celebrate the traditional marriage. Between man and woman. And between the man and his concubines (II Sam 5:13). And that marriage between a believer and non-believer is forbidden(Gen 24:3). And that if there is no decent man, single women should get their father’s drunk, and sleep with their dads (Genesis 19:31-36). Biblical marriage is just a nightmare.

It is not acceptable to pick and choose passages, just to attempt to justify your own hatreds.

Please understand, that Evolution doesn’t mean your great grandfather once slept with a monkey. That’s not how it works.

It is okay if you do not take the Bible seriously. You are a free, rational thinking, entity. You are free to believe whatever you so wish, you are free to think, without fear of punishment for those beliefs.

Join the Church of Jamie today!

The Britain in “Tate Britain”

It isn’t a feel, it isn’t a tantalising smell, it isn’t a mellifluous sound, it isn’t a piercing glance. The truly underlying concept of what Britain is to me is that there is not a static concept of “Britishness”. It is not a finger print that never changes. Britain is forever changing to meet different challenges and expectations. We are black, we are white, we are gay, we are straight, we are rich and we are poor, we are business minded, we are family orientated, we are liberal, we are conservative, we are moody, we are loving. Britain is constantly changing, updating, and moving with the times. We are a dynamic nation, and whilst we hold slight conservative principles we are essentially a liberal nation. That which may be “British” to me, may not be a wholly “British” ideal to the next person, and so the true concept of “Britishness”, as a static concept, just doesn’t exist. I set out to investigate this with regard to the “Tate Britain”.

Strikingly, the exterior of Tate Britain; the stairs leading up to the pillars that heroically support the entrance of the building, had a profound affect on me, that is to say that I felt that for a building named “Tate Britain” there was very little “British” influence. As ones eyes start scrupulously scanning the building from the bottom upwards, there is an air of Roman-esque influence and so consequentially, Greek influence. I was reminded of The “Temple of Saturn” in the Roman Forum. A broken building with merely the supporting pillars remaining. “Tate Britain” is like looking into the past and experiencing the power of an empire, a fully functioning ‘Temple of Saturn’ with its history and it’s power. And so this led me to consider the concept of power and the past.

Britain itself has deep Roman roots, dating back to the Emperor Claudius invasion of Britain in 43AD. And so British Ancestry is drowning in Roman influence. Furthermore, the pillars themselves are a universal symbol of grandeur and power. Suddenly, I was linking a Roman-esque style building, the the power and influence of the British Empire. Perhaps the exterior of “Tate Britain” was much more “British” than previously considered. The multiplicity of influences on the building itself stands as a beautiful metaphorical reminder that our culture is actually a multiplicity of cultures, from Roman, to Anglo-Saxon, from Catholic to Protestant in the 16th and 17th Centuries, to the influx of Islam, Hinduism and other influences we see today.

On entering “Tate Britain”, and noting the boring lackluster interior, I wanted to see some real British artwork.
I took myself immediately to the Turner Prize exhibition. I felt that I had failed immediately in recognising the significance of the work of, for example, Turner Prize Nominee Cathy Wilkes. Her mannequins and shopping conveyor belts did little but confuse me. I turned to the description on the wall, which dubiously read ……
“Wilkes’s installations apprehend an end point in our understanding. A point in which words become insufficient and the naming of objects is disconnected from our experience of them.”
With this, I realised that I wasn’t at all confused; I was merely outside of the circle of modern artists whose very consumerist essence acted not to show me the brilliance of British contemporary art, but more like a used cars salesman pretentiously trying to sell me a heap of junk as something of profound beauty. The “deeper meaning” for me, was nothing but the artist asking “I wonder what I can get away with calling art.”

However, considering my deep disapproval at the Turner Exhibition, it further cemented my belief of Britain as a Liberal, ever changing culture. What one may see as art and beauty, someone else will see as nonsense. And seemingly vice versa. Everyone, although in essence we have similar traits, is different entirely with regard to our preferences in life, and nothing sums this general feeling up as perfectly as “Tate Britain” it is the very essence of liberal Britain. Nothing is guaranteed. It doesn’t promise masterpiece, it doesn’t promise grandeur. It isn’t the National Gallery in that respect.

Contrasted with art work in the Vatican Galleries, which one expects to be strictly religious and Catholic in origin. “Tate Britain” one would expect to find British flags, portraits of Henry VIII and Churchill, the National Anthem constantly on loop throughout, football fans everywhere, Shakespearian actors quoting lines from Hamlet, cups of tea laying around the place, senior citizens complaining about the youth of today, and the French. I expected anything stereotypically British. But what “Tate Britain” manages to do, is break convention, break stereotypes, to say “Britain isn’t a static concept, it’s progressive and free” and it succeeds masterfully.

The Francis Bacon exhibition shows an art form trying to advance with the times. Portraiture that doesn’t act in the same way that Photography acts now; Francis’ portraiture is different and very unique. And so the argument that Britain is not a mere static concept grows ever thicker. Francis seems to want to connect to the essence of his subject rather than just what he sees on the outside. Something as different and unexplored as perhaps the Renaissance artists of old attempted to depict Saints and holy figures as mere mortals. Breaking convention and charging down limits. Slashing the very essence of what “Portraiture” means. And in doing so, adding to the notion that Britain is ever changing and updating, nothing is ‘absolute’.
At worst “Tate Britain” represents the idea that art “superiors” are aware of something within a specific art work that the rest of us aren’t, which gives them ample opportunity to condescend those of us outside of their circle, the same can be said for Government, for business, for the media, and so certainly represents Britain in that way. At best, “Tate Britain” through the essence of the building itself, to the surreal and unexplainable works (unexplainable to me) exhibited for the Turner prize, to the seemingly progressive nature of portraiture from the 2006 “Tate Britain” exhibition of the works of “Holbein” such as the infamous piece “Henry VIII” through to the 2007-2008 exhibition of Francis Bacon and his surreal, progressive, and unique “Portrait of Henrietta Moraes”.

As suggested previously, “Tate Britain” does not promise you works of art that you will find incredibly masterful. In most cases, I found the works in the Tate to be contrary to that. They appeared nothing more to me, than a waste of perfectly good canvas. The Tate doesn’t promise any different. It promises differences in opinion and values. Differences in attitudes toward art works. And above all, differences in that which each individual person, whether a British national or otherwise, considers in their own unique way, to be an idea of “Britain”.