My law on marriage

If we are to take the Biblical view, that marriage is between a man and a woman, we must look at what Biblical marriage stood for. Christians who oppose gay marriage, if they are going to use to the Bible to try to justify their prejudices, must be consistent and follow through with the Biblical guide to marriage. So perhaps we should use the Bible to structure a new Federal law on the Defence of Marriage. Let’s call it, Futile Democracy’s Defence of Marriage Act 2010. I took it upon myself to write it up:

Section 1 define marriage:
A marriage is defined as a union between a man and a virgin woman.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
A marriage is also valid, in the eyes of God and so the eyes of the United States Congress, if it is between a man and his sister.
Genesis 20:1-14
The union also permits the man to take concubines whenever he sees fit.
2 Sam 5:13
2 Chron 11:21

Section 2 relating to women as captives:
If a man within the United States of America finds a desirable woman in a room of captives, he is entitled to marry her on the spot, without her consent.
After marrying a captive, it is required, by the consent of the United States Congress, that the man must first take her home, and shave her head.
Deut. 21:11-13

Section 3 relating to women as property:
Trading in women, is a perfectly acceptable form of property dealing, within the United States of America.
RUTH 4:5-10
Wives must not speak, or offer opinions, especially in Church, except in the company of her superior (husband) at home.
I Corinthians 14:34-35
If a man rapes a virgin, he shall pay fifty pieces of silver, and then marry her.
Deut. 22:28
If a woman is kidnapped at a party, this shall not fall under the law of the United States forbidding kidnapping, as long as the man marries the kidnapped woman.
Judges 21:19-25
When at war, is it permitted that you destroy their cities, kill all men and women and male children, take the female children for yourselves, and marry them.
Judges 21:7-23
Purchasing children of foreigners is acceptable in God’s eyes. You may marry them, as they are now your property.
Leviticus 25:44-46

Section 4 relating to adultery:
The punishment for adultery is stoning to death.
Death shall not be enforced before a quasi-trial is given for the wife. If the parents of the wife can prove that the wife is a virgin by spreading the cloth worn by the wife on a table to the City Elders, the husband must pay compensation to the parents and the wife is not permitted to see her parents ever again.
If she is found guilty, she must be put to death.
Deut. 22:22-30

Section 5 relating to pregnancy:
If a wife gives birth to a boy, she must spend a week in isolation because she is, by decree of the Congress of the United States, and God Almighty, unclean.
If a wife gives birth to a girl, she must spend two weeks in isolation, because she is, by decree of the Congress of the United States, and God Almighty, very very unclean.
Leviticus 12:5

Section 6 relating to the death of a husband:
Definitely don’t marry your dead husband’s brother.
Leviticus 20:21
Definitely do marry your dead husband’s brother.
Deuteronomy 25:5-10

Section 7 on divorce:
If a citizen of the United States of America abandons his wife and children, for Jesus, he will be rewarded.
Matthew 19:29
A woman who is divorced for a second time or widowed by her second husband, must not remarry her first husband.
Deuteronomy 24:3-4
Divorce and remarrying, is committing adultery against your first husband or wife in the eyes of Jesus and the United States Congress. This isn’t a law as such, just to let you know, if you get divorced, we think you’re scum.
Mark 10:2-12

Section 8 conclusion:
Marriage within the United States of America, is hereby described objectively as a union between a man, brother, rapist and a virgin woman, another woman, another woman, a few more women, a hostage, a rape victim, and the female children of parents who have just been slaughtered.
But NEVER let a homo marry. This is unnatural and immoral.

I think that just about sums up exactly what the new US law on Defence of Marriage should consist of, you know, if it really is about pleasing God, and not about simply being horrific bigots.

I found this poet, Alvin Lau, in a powerfully beautiful poem exploring the bullshit of Christian homophobic attitudes that are prominent on the American Right wing. I cannot think of a better way to put into words exactly how I feel on the subject of gay marriage, than Lau does:

The Enlightenment of the Devil

Dwindling aimlessly in the realm of unbelief, as I am doing recently, I am reading “God and the State” by Bakunin, along with a plethora of other books. A passage from God and the State stood out for me, because it sums up exactly how I feel about Christianity, and it’s obvious contradictions.

The quote:

“The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty-Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves.

He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.”

I wanted to expand on this quote.
What Bakunin is getting at, is the idea that the God of the Bible is a ruthless, heartless, crazed dictator. He wants His subjects to understand that they should not question Him. He holds the ultimate knowledge and they shouldn’t. If anyone disobeys him, as Adam and Eve did, they shall be punished. The Catholic Church similarly seemed to punish anyone throughout the centuries, who fell across ideas and discoveries that ran contrary to their teaching. The Church’s treatment of Galileo is a famous example of the brutality of the Church when its authority is challenged. God had the same superiority complex, and tantrum when humanity demanded educating, in the garden of Eden. He created the concept of sin, He punishes a concept that he created, and then a few thousand years later He sends His one begotten son, to die an horrific death in order to absorb the concept that He created in the first place.

God placed a restriction on knowledge. He demanded obedient slaves, and if they wanted to improve their knowledge, they would be punished. Alongside complete obedience, he demands worship. This seem like a game. It serves no overriding purpose. Pawns are played with. And to make matters worse, those pawns are given curiosity and a yearning for knowledge and self improvement, built into their mentality. This wretched little game played by God, is both pointless, and torturous.

Along comes Satan. A symbol of evil, simply, it seems, because he tempts humanity away from God. I’m not entirely sure why this is considered a great evil. We must first accept that we wish to be next to God, to be tempted from him. And that requires our faculties of reason. Perhaps then, Satan is getting a bit of a bad press. Why is the questioning of authority a bad thing? It seems to me that questioning authority, is the basis of liberty. God wants complete obedience as revealed through scripture. This means any progressive free thinking is entirely forbidden. It means if our conscience tells us that a cute old lesbian couple, deeply in love, are not evil people destined for hell, we are to ignore it and instead choose prejudice as sanctioned by the Bible. If we follow our conscience (a conscience given to us by God in the first place), we are simply being tested by the evil of Satan. It means, Galileo should have been imprisoned for questioning Christian dogma, dogma that plunged Europe into a devastating Dark Age, ruthlessly suppressing all advancement, and discarding advances made by the Greeks. Free thought and curiosity, according to God, is a sin. That is the way of God. Satan, if anything, tells you to think for yourself.

If I am to think that the the systematic murder of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of first born children, sanctioned and executed by God in the book of Exodus, is wrong, I am being tempted by the Devil away from God. I should be condemning those first born children. That is the reality of being close to God.

Further in Exodus, we see God demanding the deaths of anyone who dances around the golden calf. This includes family, children and friends of the group. Exodus 32:28 suggests 3000 people were slaughtered for dancing around a calf. I’d say this God is evil.

In Numbers 31, God commands the total annihilation of the Midianite people (The Midianites were a tribe of Abraham’s descendants through the line of Keturah. This story always struck me as particularly cruel, whenever I read the Bible. I have my copy of the Bible sat on my lap as I write this, and I cannot for the life of me workout how anyone can read it, and not despise this God as we despise people like Hitler and Pol Pot. He seems no different. After the annihilation of the Midianite people, Moses, working on the command of God, says:

“……. kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.”

Kill all the male children, but keep the female children, as long as they’re virgins, for themselves. Nice. 32,000 virgins in all. I am not sure how Christians or Jews can suggest that any children deserve that treatment. The Midianites inhabited a large area. Much of Northern Arabia was Midianite territory at one stage. They were a diverse people.

An authoritarian God, cannot also promote truly ethical values and behaviour. An authoritarian God necessarily negates free will. We must be good because we’re commanded to be good, by the standard of Holy Texts that most of us find the majority of, to be abhorrent to our sense of right and wrong. Morality is not morality, if it is forced and threatened.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church”, a book of defined Catholicism suggests that Satan exists only because God allows him too. In paragraph 395, it states:

Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries – of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence.

You may be mistaken into thinking that the above is the ramblings of an insane person. You’d be wrong. But only slightly. It is the ramblings of an insane institution; the Church. God allows Satan to exist. God therefore allows what he considers evil to exist. He is not at war with evil, he will never be at war with evil, because he is in complete control at all times. Which suggests, he isn’t all that loving afterall. But we knew that, given that he’s already wiped out a few million people, whilst condemning young virgins to a life of abuse at the hands of his followers (Catholic Priests are carrying on the tradition recently, it would seem).

Paragraph 397 states:

Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

- Interesting use of the word ‘freedom‘. You are ‘free‘ to decide whether or not to believe in God’s word, but if you choose not to, you will be punished. That’s like saying to your child “You are free to play with the skateboard indoors, but if you do, I will put your head in the oven.” Freedom isn’t freedom if one of the two available chooses includes awful punishment.

In fact, there are virtually millions upon millions of people condemned to death, and violent deaths at that, by God. I cannot for the life of me find one death ordered by Satan. All he tends to do, is tempt people to question everything this maniac in the sky tells them. Satan, although portrayed in Christian literature (although not so much in the Bible) as the fallen angel turned demon, sent to tempt humanity into evil, seems actually to be the voice of reason. If we were to take the Bible as metaphor, perhaps one could infer that Satan represents reason, and enlightenment, whereas God represents Christian/Islamic dogma and slavery.

The only way we “know” that Satan is evil, is because it is alluded to in the Bible and subsequent Christian texts. Forgive me for saying, but I am not going to rely on the writings of the single most violent and corrupt institution that has existed over the past two thousand years, to lecture me on what is good and what is evil. How hypocritical of them. It also suggests that Satan is far more powerful than God. The entire history of humanity and its suffering, according to Biblical principles, was caused by Satan. The triumph of free thought over mind-dictatorship.

Bakunin points out that Satan is the first great rebel against great an evil authoritative figure. He encourages disobedience and questioning. He is the founder of the enlightenment, millennia before the enlightenment takes place. Satan is the Christian version of Prometheus. A champion of mankind. It would appear that Christianity has taught us, that an entity that gave us the courage to investigate for ourselves, and expand our understanding, and to question everything; is evil. Genocide on a scale that would make Stalin fall to his knees in awe, gets twisted and presented as “good”, whereas educating people away from this nonsense, is presented as “evil”. Christianity is therefore a very regressive force within society. The Catholic Church embodies this regressive nature perfectly.

The Enlightenment, and all the advances it brought with it. The scientific method, political and social rights, evolutionary theory, separation of Church and State….. This is what the Biblical God forbids, and attributes entirely to Satan.

We should perhaps be a little more critical of the Theocratic dictator God whom punishes you for loving the ‘wrong’ person, requires constant worship, and demands complete obedience, and a little less critical of the free thinking, enlightened Devil.

So you’re offended. So fucking what?

“So you’re offended. So fucking what?”

- Stephen Fry, on the offence caused when speaking about religion.

When Saint Thomas Moore refused to take the oath of supremacy, that stated the King was the head of the Church in England, and not the Pope; he was executed. Bishop Fisher followed the same fate. As did many other Catholics who refused the oath. It was used as an instrument of propaganda and a power tool. The oath itself went on to inspire the wording of the US oath of citizenship (also nothing more than a power tool and instrument of propaganda, swearing an oath; your life, to an abstract concept of Nationalism), which ends with the line ‘so help me God’. It would appear that with over five hundred years, and countless Christianity inspired murders, Christianity itself still has a debilitating strangle hold over people, especially those who do not wish to indulge in primitive cult worship. We have not learnt a thing, as a species.

It is no secret that I find organised religion to be massively intolerable. It offends my sense of rationale. It’s bloodshed history disturbs me. I also find it particularly funny. Something to be laughed at. I do not like how much power it has over the World.

In 2006 a group called Christian Voice picketed outside the Student Union of St Andrew’s University, where a play called Jerry Springer The Opera was being performed. The musical is written by one of my favourite comedians, Stewart Lee, and is a satirical look at the World and Christianity, based on Jerry Springer Show. Christian Voice threatened members of the audience, and so many extra security guards were brought in to protect the audience. The show inside, got a standing ovation.

In the same year, and for the same reasons, Christian Voice threatened to picket strongly in force outside of the Cancer Care centre Maggie’s Centres, if they accepted a £3000 donation from Jerry Springer The Opera. Christian Voice told Maggie’s Centres that to accept the donation from a show full of ‘filth and blasphemy’ would be a public relations disaster. Maggie’s Centres therefore rejected the donation through fear and intimidation from a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. The donation would have been used to provide a better standard of palliative cancer care for sufferers and their families. But apparently that’s not as important as offending a few nutjobs and their make-believe fantasy World. The Christian Voice website, almost brags incessantly about how they successfully harassed theatres into dropping Jerry Springer The Opera, with threats of private prosecutions for blasphemy under the Incitement To Racial and Religious Hatred Act.

The show failed to gain massive audiences, due to the fact that theatres across the UK pulled out, because of the intimidation from Christian Voice. The group however said that the show’s failings was due to divine intervention rather than their own actions. Clearly divine intervention didn’t reach far enough, because Jerry Springer The Opera won four awards at the 2004 Laurence Olivier Awards, including Best Sound Design, Best Actor in a Musical, Best Acting in a supporting role, and Best New Musical. Best Musical at the Critics’ Circle Awards, Best Musical at the Evening Standard Awards, Best Touring Production at the TMA Awards, and Best Musical at the Whatsonstage.com Theatre Goers Choice Awards. This all suggests that a magic man made God had nothing to do with the lack of viewers, and more to do with the threats, intimidation, and outright bullshit of Christian fundamentalists and their rather pathetic cult.

Fundamentalist Christians are just as much of a roadblock to the betterment of humanity, as fundamentalist Muslims who insist on calling for the deaths of anyone who draws a picture of the Prophet Mohammad. The very fact that a historical speculation rather than fact is taken so seriously to the point where threats upon a man’s life are made, is evidence to me that we have allowed organised religion to dictate our way of thinking far too much over the years. I have no doubt that those muslim fundamentalists find a picture of Mohammad offensive and derogatory, and that is our fault as a society for allowing it to get that far. Generation after generation of indoctrination, and teaching our children not to think for themselves has created a bunch of angry mindless robots who think that their imaginary man in the sky is worth dying and killing for. We are teaching our children that a person is a religion or a nationality first, and a human being second. Why should it matter?

Whilst a large number of US citizens spend their time complaining that Obama is some evil Marxist for extending a decent standard of healthcare to a higher number of Americans; they had absolute no problem when President George Bush spent billions of US$ sending thousands of soldiers to their pointless deaths, and the deaths of many many innocent Iraqi’s including Children. They took it as a sign that their thuggish imperialistic temperament was endorsed by their God, when George Bush told the Palestinian delegation at peace talks in 2003 that:

‘I am driven with a mission from God’. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me.’

Perhaps when God told George to go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan, he meant that he should personally go, with a sword and shield to fight them, not sit at home in luxury, sending a bunch of kids from low socio-economic backgrounds to their deaths for a few years without actually achieving a thing other than an increased threat from another bunch of crazed fundamentalists other than his own.

I have no doubt that the power that Christianity has, and the illegitimate authority it commands over our lives is a left over from the end of the Renaissance period, and beginning of Enlightenment. John Locke quite famously said that Atheism was:

“not at all to be tolerated because, promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.”

These people have always believed themselves to be the height of human morality. The problem is that hypocrisy is lurking ever so slightly beneath the surface of the claims of people like John Locke. The Popes of the time (Middle Ages/Reformation/Renaissance/Enlightenment/present day) were almost always corrupt and up until very recently, made sure those ‘promises, coventants and oaths’ were keeping entirely with what the Church’s understanding of the words meant (which were always very loose definitions; usually definitions that made the Church richer) and enforced it upon the pain of death for those who dissented.

During his reign in the 15th and 16th Century, Pope Alexander VI (Patron of Raphael, Michelangelo and Bramante) had a long term mistress whom bore him four children. She was married to someone else at the time. That didn’t stop the Pope. Before he became Pope Alexander, Roderic de Borja amassed huge wealth, and used it to bribe electors into electing him to the Papacy. His daughter Lucrezia is said to have bore him a daughter/niece. A contemporary writer in Rome wrote that Lucrezia was “the pope’s daughter, wife and daughter-in-law“. An Ambassador to the Papacy, Burchard, wrote of Alexander introducing his son to his court, and the celebration that ensued:

“On Sunday evening, 30 October [1501], Don Cesare Borja gave his father a supper in the apostolic palace, with 50 decent prostitutes or courtesans in bright garb in attendance, who after the meal danced with the servants and others there, first fully dressed and then naked.
Following the supper, lampstands holding lighted candles were placed on the floor and chestnuts strewn about, which the prostitutes, naked and on their hands and knees, had to pick up with their mouths as they crawled in and out among the lampstands.
The Pope watched and admired their noble parts. The evening ended with an obscene contest of these women, coupled with male servants of the Vatican, for prizes which the Pope presented.
Don Cesare, Donna Lucrezia and the Pope later each took a partner of their liking for further dalliances.”

It was during this period, that the Papacy had a strict control over the lives of its citizens. It was beaten into the brains of its citizens across Europe, that Christianity was not to be questions, or attacked. The penalty for heresy in most parts of the known World, was death. So it is no wonder that we are still living with the remnants of those days; angry self righteous Christians attempting to push their sense of organised communal morality onto the masses through fear and oppressive intolerance. We have seen the death and destruction caused when they have a lot of power. They should have no power.

The power of the Papacy didn’t only exist during the corruption of the Renaissance era. In March 2010, it emerged that the office of the Papacy prevented a 1996 prosecution of Priest Laurence Murphy, who had admitted sexually abusing over 200 young boys. Pope Benedict XVI at the time was in charge of the Catholic Church’s disciplinary offices. A trial was organised, but under orders that it be kept entirely secret. We wouldn’t want to taint the righteous name of the Catholic Church. Murphy then appealed to Benedict (then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) for mercy, and the case was immediately dropped. The Pope therefore, covered up child molestation, to protect the name of the Church.

The mother of one of the victims of Murphy said:

“There should be no institution that is not accountable for what they do, that is able to hide behind the faith. You know the Catholic Church is very powerful and that should not be.”

We should not allow the Papacy, or organised religion in general any kind of say as to how we run our own lives. We shouldn’t feel guilty if our standards are below those put to us by the Church or any other religious institution. I would rather not go to a heaven endorsed by the Catholic Church.

Religion should be individual. A sense of spirituality is not a bad thing in itself. If you find a show offensive to your unproven belief, then don’t watch the show. Do not try to ban it for the rest of us. We have our own minds. Personal faith is not a bad thing. Organised faith are comprised of institutions that should be mocked, laughed at, ignored, and powerless.

So you’re offended, so fucking what?

Therefore, there is no God/free will…

I’m wondering if a Christian could clear up the following question that I can’t seem to be able to reconcile.
Let’s start with the basic premise of Western Religious thought. A supreme being – God – is omniscient, he knows all, infinitely. He transcends time, he is looking in at the whole of time from outside of time. There is literally nothing that this being does not know. He can predict the future, perfectly. It will always be right. Because, if there were even a slight subject he did not know perfectly, he therefore wouldn’t be omniscient, and therefore wouldn’t be “supreme“. He sees all, he knows all. There is no limit. Nothing can surprise him, nothing is new, nothing can possibly happen that he doesn’t already know is going to happen. He sees tomorrow, yesterday and today as now. There is no concept of last year, or next month to this God. All of time, is one.

The idea of a being that is the height of all perfection (at least, what we as humans comprehend as perfection within our limited scope) that transcends time, an Aristotle-esque prime mover, who seemingly has all of time laid out in front of him, like a photo; The left hand side of which is the absolute beginning of time, the right hand side being the end of time, poses the ultimate predicament for the religious notion of Free Will. It would appear solely incompatible with an omniscient God.

Free Will, comes from Genesis, in which Adam and Eve are given the choice of whether to eat from the tree of forbidden fruit or not. Seemingly, they eat from the tree and God, who has forbidden it, but not prevented it physically, casts the two original sinners out of Paradise and thus punishes humanity for the rest of eternity.

It follows then that free will existed for God, at the very beginning of everything. But since then, everything has been predetermined. A chain of events leads into a chain of events, and the chain never ends. It is true that every decision you make, could have had numerous choices, but by suggesting that God is omniscient, he already knows what choice you are going to make for a given decision. You cannot change it. I was always destined to sit in my chain and write this. The choice not to write it was there, but it was predetermined that I would.

And so the question that has to be asked is; how can humanity be punished in the afterlife in hell if our sins have already been predetermined? If we are not in control of our actions, if we cannot change what we are destined to do, if God knows that I am an unbeliever, then how I can be punished for that? I had no choice. I was made this way. On his picture of the whole of time, the chain of cause and affect that he began with his own free will at the moment of all creation, lead to my eventual birth, my surroundings, the books I read, which then took my to school and to college, and so on. I had no choice. He knew it was going to happen. I cannot force myself to be different than what has already been determined that I will be. In the same way that I cannot change my decisions in the past, there is no possible way I can change the decisions I’m going to make in the future, and so therefore, if the omniscient God of Western Religions exists, freewill cannot exist. (I say western Religion, because I’m not all that knowledgeable on Eastern religion, although I am aware that the Philosophy of Samkhya teaches that there is no possible way that the soul can control the unfolding of time).

It then follows that responsibility for my actions, cannot possibly lie with me, if free will does not exist. My mind works in the way it works, because it was determined, by the creator, that this is how I’d be. I cannot possibly be held accountable for any of my actions. To be ultimately responsible for every action we perform, we must have to be 100% responsible for what we are. And since the only being that is 100% responsible for what he is, is God, the rest of us are simply victims of the chain of cause and affect that he started. The future is determined, by the past. This is why, when people tell me that poverty and war is man made, not God made, I wonder what kind of God he really is. To be ignorant to what mankind would become, God cannot possibly be transcendent of time, nor can he be omniscient, which means he isn’t perfect, which means he isn’t the supreme being, which means therefore there cannot be a supreme being, unless that supreme being knew that poverty and war and rape and murder would ensue, in which case, that supreme being is not all loving.

There is one more problem with the concept of free will, and the concept of an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God.
Buddha once stated “There is free action, there is retribution“. This, is much in line with Western thought, in that it makes no sense to me. How can we possibly be free, if we have the fear of punishment or the incentive of reward? If I tell my child that if he isn’t home by 8pm, i’m going to cook his head in the oven (hell) but if he is home by 8pm, I’ll buy him a Playstation, chances are he’s going to be home by 8pm. When there exists incentives, the balance is tipped in favour of one of the choices that could be made. Luckily, the Buddhists don’t take the words of Buddha on free will as gospel, given that their concept of Pratītyasamutpāda teaches the notion of cause and affect and the web that it creates around us, owing to our decisions. Strict determinism.

Usually, I’d take any existentialist Philosophy quite seriously, but Søren Kierkegaard (and all credit to him for this) tries to reconcile free will with a predetermined existence in quite an illogical way. He suggests that because God is the perfect Good, he would create humans who were totally independent because; “the greatest good … which can be done for a being, greater than anything else that one can do for it, is to be truly free.” It is supremely debatable that creating humanity with utter freedom is the “greatest good” given just how evil some acts of humanity were and are. Kierkegaard also doesn’t answer the question of a transcendent God. Because even if God had given us all the freedom of independence from his nature, he is still able to see what is going to happen, because he transcends time.

Either we have Free Will and God doesn’t exist in the traditional Christian sense, or God exists and we have no free will, but then heaven and hell cannot possibly logically exist, and no judgement day and so the Bible is deeply flawed.

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!

We do not torture (except when we torture)

The despicably teleological former U.S President George Bush once told the American people, “We do not torture“. Now, we know that America under Bush, did torture. Whether you mask the word “torture” behind “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” or not, torture is torture. It is a step too far. For example, according to an official memo a man named “Abu Kenami“, died whilst in an American detention facility in Iraq.
The memo states:

“on the day he died, Kenami had been punished with ups and downs several times . . . and had his hands flex cuffed behind his back (1285). He was also hooded, with a sandbag placed over [his] head. (1284).Ups and downs are apparently a correctional technique of having a detainee stand up and then sit-down rapidly, always keeping them in constant motion(1284). He was found dead in the morning after having been placed in his bed cuffed and hooded.”

If that had been the description of how an American soldier had died in the hands of a nation such as Iran, wouldn’t the American public be outraged, rather than a useless GOP keeping quiet and playing politics by choosing to shift the spot light onto Pelosi?

Torture does not combat terrorism, in fact, it pretty much does the opposite. It encourages negative feeling toward America to sweep the Planet. In the same way that destroying a Middle Eastern Country, displacing millions of people, creating thousands of orphans and killing thousands more, whilst shouting “Mission Complete” does not endear an entire destroyed culture to your cause. Combating Terrorism, by using Terrorism, will never work. Bypassing international laws and human rights laws, will never keep a country safe.
It does not matter how many times Dick Cheney insists that torture has helped to keep America safe, because as it turns out, the worst terror attack in American history took place on his watch, along with the deaths of thousands of troops. His tactics didn’t save American lives, it ended American lives. Dick Cheney is not Jack Bauer.

It’s quite obvious that these techniques amount to torture. For those who suggest that it isn’t torture, then hopefully I can count on your support when I try to suggest it be used in schools to deal with uncontrollable children? What if these techniques were used against American soldiers? I’m guessing the American Right would be insisting how terrible it is. But these people are Arabs, and so whether or not they’re terrorist, is usually beyond the point, they’re Arab, and so they’re not Christian! Or American! (See: BritishRepublican)

Philip Zelikow, advisor to Condoleeza Rice, sent a memo to his boss setting out his objections to the legal backing for torture “Enhanced interrogation techniques” way back in 2002. The use of these techniques is quite clearly cruel and unusual, which exists as a bullet in the brain of the Eigth Amendment of the U.S Constitution (Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted). Zelikow tried to point this out to the Secretary of State, having himself studied Constitutional Law. The memos he claims, were rounded up and destroyed by the Bush administration who were at the time trying to inflate the importance of strict interrogation techniques against high valued prisoners such as Abu Zubaydah, who happens to have been waterboarded 83 times without any further information being extracted from him. They did not want Zelikow’s memo gaining too much support or influencing the minds of too many people.

Retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell Lawrence Wilkerson, who was in charge of reviewing the information and evidence for War, in preparation of Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N in 2003, was not told the evidence was obtained via interrogation. Wilkerson has since stated that the use of torture for intelligence “was not aimed at preempting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al Qaeda“. Suddenly, what Pelosi knew and when she knew it, seems irrelevant.

U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, investigators in 2006, that interrogators at Guantanamo were under pressure to produce a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Burney is quoted as saying “While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq,” Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.” And yet the GOP want to focus on what Pelosi might have been told?

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could very well be lying (as could the CIA) to some extent, as to how informed she was over the Bush Administration’s use of torture. Last month she claimed that in a 2002 briefing with intelligence experts, whilst she was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that she had not been informed of waterboarding, stating “In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used”. However this month, a report from the Director of National Intelligence’s office, appears to suggest otherwise. The same 2002 meeting was described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.” Clearly contradicting Pelosi.
The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, DemocratBob Graham was among many other leading Democrats to be briefed on Waterboarding and various other techniques, according to ABC. President Obama was right to release the memos, and he was right to refer to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as torture. Regardless of the political problems it may cause the Democrats, they only have themselves to blame. Obama was right.

And so whilst it seems obvious that the Democrats in Congress who appear to be taking he moral high ground, are actually nothing more than pawns in the Bush Administrations ruthless oil game, it should detract from the fact that the three who actually plotted and authorised such criminal and anti-Constitutional acts of barbarism and terrorism, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, are just being left to live a happy quiet life, whilst their crimes and the cover ups taking place behind close door, go largely unpunished. The suggestion appears to be that the Bush Administration effectively legalised torture, to gain “confessions” and “evidence” linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9/11, in preparation for war. And so if it becomes clear that war was waged, lives were lost, countries destroyed, and billions of dollars wasted, on the basis of dodgy evidence obtained via torture, then Republicans should really back off Pelosi (The Democrats answer to Sarah Palin?), because she’s going to be the least of their worries if all out investigation is to take place. It’s a little odd that the GOP appears to be attacking the morality of Pelosi for what she knew….. about what they were doing. They appear to be more concerned about whether a Democrat was briefed on torture, rather than who actually ordered torture, effectively pissing on the Geneva Convention.

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner (whose tan is just wonderful!), stated that Pelosi should either provide evidence that the CIA had lied to her over use of waterboarding, or apologise to the CIA for accusing them of lying. Firstly, as if we’re all under an illusion that the CIA has never lied to the World. Of course they have. Secondly, If that’s what Boehner wants, then I want Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Rove to publicly apologise for a war based on lies, four thousands U.S deaths, thousands of Iraqi deaths, and a destroyed economy.
Boehner also claimed stated this weekend that “Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime“. Clearly lying to the American people, leading to thousands of deaths, isn’t. Otherwise the claims made by George Bush, that “We do not torture” and the claim that “The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.” or the claim to the UN in 2002 that “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” would have been punished, long ago.

Nothing short of a full, de-ontological investigation into the actions of the Bush Administration over the past eight years, the decisions and intelligence gained leading up to the war, who ordered the use of torture, who knew and did not object to the use of torture, and whether or not the Geneva Convention and/or Constitutional Law was broken, will do.

Republican Jamie

For one day only, i’ve decided to embrace the art of being a Republican.
And so for all you lefties (closet homosexuals) and those of you who like to engage brain activity (Satan worshippers) it’s probably best you look away now.

Thank god for Texas Gov. Rick Perry (A true Patriot, perhaps even the ACTUAL 2nd coming of Christ), who suggested Texas could secede from the Union. Texans should be proud! They don’t need evil socialist gay loving social security, medicaid, highway repair, medicare and anything else the Union offers them. Texas doesn’t need to be included in the same list of States as Gayowa. Take your Socialist Federal infrastructure back! Take back Department of Defence funding! Texas doesn’t need that commie bullshit. God will replace it all! And as for the new Texan economy, it’d be amazingly strong! Because we’re the party of fiscal responsibility you know! Plus, Bush is a Texan, so considering he’s been a fiscal genius over his eight years (I like to call them, America’s Golden Years), he can be the brand new Nation of Texas Treasury Secretary. YEAH! Texas doesn’t need your commie Union.

For the past three months a black man (I believe they are referred to as “bruvas“) has occupied George Bush’s house. It seems a little unfair. Bush had successfully managed to lower house prices SO much, that anyone (including lazy “bruvas from da hood“) can afford to buy, so much so that a bruva has taken Bush’s house from him. That’s gratitude for you. The lying liberal media (with the exception of the totally fair and unbiased Fox News) have lost control when it comes to Barack HUSSAIN (yes, Hussain!!! It sounds like insane!!! Coincidence?) Obama (YES!! Obama!! It sounds like a bomber!! Coincidence?…. Barak insane Abomber*….. God warned us!!). They’re everywhere. The BBC over here with it’s Trotskyist approach to news reporting …… i’ve never once seen them refer to homosexuals as dirty sinners, who shouldn’t be allowed near children, and are on their way to hell… even though that’s exactly what they are. The liberal media with it’s homosexual agenda must go!

Earlier I pointed out that Bush had managed to destroy push down house prices so much so that even those weird coloured people bought them up. Which in turn, lead to the crises we’re in today. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Phil Gramm just tried to help. The Liberal media and it’s muslim loving homosexual agenda will have you believe that those three helped deregulate so much that the entire market became one big mess. Well it wouldn’t have become a mess if blacks hadn’t started paying for things they couldn’t afford bringing their crime and “shiz” into crime free happy joyful white neighbourhoods!!!! We all know that the only way to deal with a fire is to set it on fire. And so logic dictates that the only way to deal with this crises is more deregulation!! Much like the only way to deal with increase in gun crime is more guns!!!

Liberals will have you believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion. As an outsider looking into the Freest country on the Planet, I wonder, where is the freedom for a Christian to block a woman deciding what she thinks is best for her body? She’s clearly wrong if the she wants an abortion. She’s going against God. Like the gays and the jews and brown people. The true followers of Jesus Christ (Republicans) have a moral duty to correct this. It wont be long before they actually want to abort children AFTER they’re born, have left college and got a job. The liberals will say it’s the mothers right. Could they be any more in cahoots with the anti-christ (who, coincidentally, is Barak Insane Abomber)? Liberals would allow a child to grow up, and indulge in premarital sex…… homosexual sex nonetheless, with same sex hookers, and then for fun, they’d go out and perform an abortion.

We fight for the right of life! Children are precious and should be treated as such! Even before birth. In fact, even before conception. Every time you masturbate you’re killing potential children, and God hates you for it, you fucking murderers. And don’t tell me that we’re baby killers just because a few Iraqi children died in our bombing. They don’t even believe in Jesus. And, they’re Iraqi, so they’d only grow up to be terrorists anyway.
We protect children! Which is why we vetoed the SCHIP program, an evil leftie commie hippy program designed to give five million poor children health insurance. Do you know how Clinton wanted to pay to cover those poor lazy kids? That’s right! He wanted to raise tax on cigarettes. Which, in turn would lead to less smoking, and less State tax revenue. He actually thought it was Constitutional to help lazy kids whilst at the same time cut smoking. All it’s doing is teaching kids to be commies and that’s un-American. “Help” is un-American.
Luckily Senate Majority Leader at the time, Trent Lott said that it was just a large inflated Government program that would not pass! Hate lazy kids but love cigarettes? Vote Lott! Perhaps if the children weren’t lazy or black or muslims, Jesus Christ would love them enough to give them more money for health insurance. But he didn’t. Because they’re lazy. And the money I spend on cigarettes I DO NOT want going to helping Satan’s children, who will probably grow up to be homosexuals or criminals any way.
Luckily Bush was on hand to veto any attempt to pass such a bill, saying that it would “federalize health care” and we don’t want no fucking evil commie healthcare system like the gayropeans in countries like Gay Britain have.
But then Barack Insane Abomber became President (America’s first Terrorist President, who will undo all the humanitarian work that Bush has achieved), and suddenly four million more children including (and this bit sickens me) the children of legal immigrants are now covered!!!! Commie Mexican kids, taking up YOUR tax dollars to fund their health care? What next? A Socialist police force covering all areas regardless of who can afford it? Some of those kids don’t even believe in Jesus. Should we be paying for them to recover? Boo hoo, they’re ill…… if they weren’t so heretical and lazy, perhaps they wouldn’t need your tax money!!

What if those kids grow up to be scientists (faggot Jesus deniers)? How guilty will you feel if you helped cure a kid who insists on Darwin’s idea that your grandma was an ape? What if he teaches YOUR kids that gays are not evil satan worshippers? What if he teaches that the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old? What if he grows up to tell us all that Polar bears are worth saving instead of letting Dick Cheney grow richer from his oil ventures? What if he grows up to support action on climate change (it’s really cold here today, Global Warming? More like Global liberal homosexual jesus hating bullshit) Could you live with yourself if all that happened? I certainly couldn’t. The liberal media would win, and that can’t happen!! Why haven’t they questioned where Abomber gets his suits from? I tell you why…. because he gets his suits from terrorist homosexuals in Iran which is near Eurogaycommieland. That’s why!

The fact remains that Abomber wants to let muslims with bombs straight from Gitmo (liberals say that some of those inmates are “innocent”….. they come from outside the U.S.of.AWESOME, so they’re not fucking innocent. They deserve it! The Satan worshipping homos) live next door to you. It’s no surprise. He’s never once came out in public and denied that he’s a terrorist, which means he’s a terrorist. Like all muslims are terrorists. He wants to let homos into the military. Yeah that’s just what they need, whilst the REAL men are killing as many dirty terrorist arabs as possible, suddenly a man dancing to George Michael records sits next to them and starts talking about shoes.
He wants your kids to be bummed in school by the gays. He thinks it’s ok to allow teachers to say “Darwin” instead of “Satan” and teach that farfetched ridiculous impossible concept of evolution. Luckily It wont last long, we have Jesus on our side….. he was the son of a virgin and God, who was killed for our sins, rose from the dead, walked around for a bit, and then ascended into heaven. And worst of all Barack Insane Abomber has never once said “I’m not a muslim and i’m not an atheist“. Logic must conclude that because he’s never said those words, he must be a muslim and an atheist aswell as being a homosexual, a jew and black (so much for racial equality, change we can believe in?). We need to stop this. Already “Gayowa” has given into to the fags and given them the right to get married (which means I never want to get married, because if I did, i’d be a bit like the gays, and that’s disgusting) turning their state into as Humanevents calls it “A mecca” for aids lovers. Our children are the real victims here (not the lazy ones mentioned earlier, they’re already going to hell). They’re going to grow up thinking that it’s acceptable for two men to get married (two women is hott!), and so rejecting Jesus Christ in the process. And everyone knows if you reject Jesus our lord, you’re going to hell. As this chart shows.

See that! Satan is a pacifist. A leftie. A liberal. A homosexual. He doesn’t believe in violence. We have God on our side. He isn’t afraid to kick ass! FUCK YEAH!

Do I feel safer with Barack Insane Abomber in the White House? No. Whilst he and his home boyz sit chillin’ to 50 Cent, talking using a teleprompter (Bush didn’t have to do that, and his speeches are just as awe-inspiring and beautifully eloquent – even more so than the terrorist who took over) the World is laughing at America because we’re the wimps now! At least Bush and Jesus kept us in the West safe from terrorism (Madrid, London, 9/11, Turkey, Tunisia, and Morocco don’t count as proof that the World is more unsafe because if the Gayocrats had been in charge since 2001, those places wouldn’t even exist now!!! They’d all be muslim….. London would now be Londonstan… Bush stopped that from happening). Barack Insane Abomber is one of those who want to hurt Americans. When end of days is upon us (Republicans vs atheist homosexual muslim jews), Insane Abomber will have a lot of explaining to do.

Thank goodness for Republican bloggers! Like Sure Sense, who rightfully warns that after the Homeland Security Document covering Right Winged extremism (it is my freedom and the freedom of the other Republican bloggers, to completely ignore the fact that a report was also released on Left Wing Extremism) is bringing about THE END OF THE WORLD! Sure Sense doesn’t like that the DOHS Document, especially line “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration“
Sure Sense, tries to analyse the line, with his own magical synopsis…..
“So what this is saying is that all Evangelical Christians, who hold homosexuality and abortion to be a sin are now potential terrorist threats. “
- YES! That’s exactly what it says. I didn’t notice it before, because I was too busy focusing on the actual words. When I read it over and over, that’s exactly what it says! They are putting all Christians down as terrorists! Which we’re not! That’s the muslims! Luckily Sure Sense is on track to be much more understanding toward us Christians, much more accepting, much less vile…
” I do not hold that Buddha, Confucius, or Mohammad can get people to God. Sure, they may help you be “religious”, but all of their teachings are about how you have to be good enough, and you can’t be.”
- That’s fucking right! How dare the DOHS attack us. Those damn intolerent, ignorant bastards. It’s everyone else, who aren’t American Christians, who’re going to hell!!! We tried to tell that to the Iraqis, they hate us for it. So fuck them!
He doesn’t stop there! He continues with his well thought out logic!!…
” From there, we’ll see Christians being jailed, and eventually martyred.“
That’s right!! As well as being a gay loving commie, Abomber is also a big fan of the works of Emperor Nero. I fear for the future of Christians.

The only way to clean up the mess that Abomber has created (It’s a new mess, totally unexpected, definitely was not the fault of the previous incredibly competent Administration, despite what Liberals might tell you), is by having tea parties and talk of secession!!! That’s the way forward for the glorious GOP! Chuck Norris/Rush Limbaugh for President/Vice President of Texas!!!!!

Right, i’m off teabagging with the other ten Republicans (which the Liberal media wont cover by the way!!!) We don’t want our children inheriting such a huge tax burden!!!!(that’s not to say we wont accept the tax cut they’re giving us… the biggest in middle class U.S History apparently…..which makes them SECRET communists or fascists. One of the other!) Our children have a right to inherit an overly polluted earth free from tax burden!! We’re revolting for the sake of FREEDOM and that makes us Patriots! Unlike when those Lefties protested the Iraq war, the un-American homosexual Jesus hating muslims.

For true freedom (we freed Iraq baby!!) vote Republican in 2012. If you don’t, then you’re going to hell.

*Watching too much Abomber increases the risk of cancer.

The Eternal Sunshine

Often at night, I’ll revisit past dreams; playing them out as they played the previous night. Never noticing until I wake that I’ve been there, that I’ve done that, and that I’m likely to do it again the next night. The sensation of dreams, the deep perception of real, whilst I’m dreaming are as indubitable to me as is the touch of reality when I awaken. Whilst asleep, dreaming is mine and your reality. Reality of course, does not provide the possibilities that dreams provide. I once walked out of my house in Leicester, into the heart of Time Square, New York City, in a dream. Clearly not possible in reality. But to the Jamie in the dream, it wasn’t a strange experience, it was real.

So this leads me to wonder (usually when I have far too much time on my hands) where reality stops and the manipulative World of the dream begins. What is real? Who interprets real? What is concrete truth? If you were to tell the dream me that exists in my dreams that he is not real; that the people he talks to; that the feelings he dwells on are not real; he would tell you that you should be thrown into a mental institution. Similarly, if someone were to tell me that the people I know and love; the life I cherish is not real, is merely a dream of it’s own that one may only escape by death alone, i’d question your sanity.

But then surely that which is “real” is only what our conscious perceives to be real? When I scrupulously observe a large piece of wood with beautifully colourful leaves hanging off of it, my conscious immediately informs me that I’m staring at a tree. If I see that same tree in my dream, my conscious is telling me I’m looking at a tree. Much like it did when I was not dreaming. How am I to logically interpret reality, given that my conscious is so flawed and so fickle in what it allows me to believe to be truth? It’s telling me that both, are trees. So which am I to believe?

If my fickle conscious has convinced me that life, and what could potentially be a higher version of a dream, is “real” then surely my mind has the strength to convince me of anything if my conscious believes it to be so. It’s the reason schizophrenics believe without doubt that they have multiple personalities or hallucinations. What’s to say that we’ve all not just accepted our own form of hallucination as reality? This then leads me to wonder, if you can in fact learn to control conscious, then would it be possible to control “reality“?

“In these deep solitudes and awful cells,
Where heav’nly-pensive contemplation dwells”

Alexander Pope wrote “Eloisa to Abelard” as what I interpret to be a poem dedicated to forbidden romance in a deeply Christian World full unforgiving prejudice and fatuous ideas surrounding “sin”. Perhaps his masterpiece. Eloisa is stuck in a World of Nuns and hard Christian values that permit her no freedom. However, there burns a place of solitude away from everything she has come to dislike with the convent life, etched into her mind. Her constant. Her serenity. Her truth. She knows she cannot be blamed for her “unnatural” thoughts, for which a “Vestal” is forbidden; regardless of who says otherwise.

“How happy is the blameless vestal’s lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned;
Labour and rest, that equal periods keep;
Obedient slumbers that can wake and weep;
Desires compos’d, affections ever even,
Tears that delight, and sighs that waft to Heaven.”

The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind (as well as being Jim Carrey’s best film to date) strikes a chord with me. It’s a constant. Something that exists in the mind to forever remind you of what is real and what is a mere dream or manipulation of reality. Something that exists in life, every day but which does not reside in the dream World. When I dream, the perception of reality is new every time. The dream me, does not recall past dreams. He doesn’t think “I’ve been chased like this yesterday” or “I was playing football in this exact place two nights ago”. It is de ja vous without realising it. And so, does not exist. It cannot exist. It harbours no short term memories. Nobody in my dream harbours a short term memory. I could burn a house down in a dream on Tuesday night and it’d be standing back in it’s rightful spot the next night. It is purely a sinister mind trick. But is it a mind trick, purely because my mind knows what a trick is? If I were being tricked into believing that what I perceive to be reality here and now, as I write this, how would I know? I wouldn’t, surely? In my dream, my mind is conscious that it is playing a nasty trick on me. But for dream Jamie, he has no idea he’s not real. When I awake, the idea of a trick is a gratuitous, superficial discussion. Surely the World we have come to accept, is merely the way that we react to Nature and influence on the senses? Reality, is what our sense tell us it is. But what if there’s a higher plain, riding above our available senses? What if we’re missing something? Gratuitous, superficial, but thought provoking and enlightening at the same time.

The constant in my life, the forever, the hot iron that has branded itself onto the front of my deeply flawed and easily manipulated mind, is the concept of “change”. I spend much of my time worrying about how my life will turn out. Scared of the uncertainties that exist on the path I’m indelibly following. If I’m ever going to be truly happy. And what makes for great happiness. I constantly need to “change” aspects of my life to aid my search for serenity. It is always there. When I fall asleep, it is there. When I awaken the next day, it is there. It is my constant need to change. From job to job, friend to friend, study to study; all because I do not know what makes me happy. And although I have succumb almost entirely to the meticulous need to change, lodged deep in insecurity and frustration, it is comforting to know that the very need to change, is paradoxically, the “Eternal Sunshine” that beams brightly, the very unchangeable constant that makes me….. me.

Tao Te Ching: Violence

When I was 19, I first came across Tao Te Ching and it’s teachings. I didn’t read it as a guide to my own life, simply as a work of literature; a beautiful work of literature. At around this time, I read the Old Testament and a part of the Koran. As works of art go, the Old Testament and the Koran, are genius. Fantastic stories that transcend time. It amazed me that I was reading words that have been read by great scholars and kings for generations. What the Bible and the Koran didn’t do, was provide me with answers. Nor did they act as a moral guide. I consider them to be war manuals, intolerant hate filled nonsense that may have applied to a time long past, but has no room in society today.

Tao Te Ching is different. It fits my liberal way of thinking, whilst also providing a beautiful moral guide that has more relevance today than it ever has before. I cannot possibly live by it’s guide, because i’m far too materialistic and Western, engrossed in Capitalism and things that do not matter, to be able to forget it all and live a Taoist lifestyle, but as ethical systems go, Taoism is mine. One of the passages I come to read over and over, is the passage on violence.

“Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men
doesn’t try to force issues
or defeat enemies by force of arms.
For every force there is a counterforce.
Violence, even well intentioned,
always rebounds upon oneself.”
- Tao Te Ching

I’ve always been aware of street gangs around the City that I live. I never associated with anyone in them, because it seemed their lives were meaningless and irreconcilable with my philosophy on life. Whenever i’d hear stories about fights that my friends had got into, i’d think “why?” …… “He called me a cunt, so I smacked him!“…… well i’m sure that did the trick! I’m sure he doesn’t think you’re a cunt any more!…….. and more often than not, it backfired, and they’d end up getting the living shit kicked out of them. Violence for me, was for weak minded, insecure idiots. It did nothing for me, and I hate associating with people who live like that. “I’m going to knock him ooout!”….. shut up you moron.
The term “governing men” to me, refers to anyone in any group considered the leader. I always felt great respect for those who could fight with their minds and their words.

Violence used always comes back to haunt those who use it. America use force across the globe to further their business empire. Be it Shell or Exxon in the oil fields of Iraq, or Coca Cola draining the water supplies of the third world for financial gain; eventually people start getting a little bit annoyed, and half the planet starts to plot revenge in the most sinister and deadly of ways. And then, terrorism strikes Western cities, the most evil of men think they can use violence to stop violence against the lands they were born. And so America uses violence to try to stop the violence that tried to stop the violence used against them, and a vicious, unbreakable circle is born. It doesn’t work. It never worked. It didn’t work in Iraq, it wont work with Iran.

Similarly, my fellow left wingers appear to be unable to fathom that although Israel in both Lebanon and now in Gaza have committed acts of what can only be described as genocide…….. Palestinians have also caused despicable suffering and heartache in Israel. Road side bombs or in 2004, Hamas launched a rocket that fell within feet from a school in Sderot, killing a four year old child and an Israeli man. Also in 2004, a female suicide bomber killed four and wounded twenty at the Erez Crossing in Gaza in which Hamas claimed responsibility. The list goes on. Where were the protesters when Hamas were wreaking chaos across the World? Is the death of one or two innocents, not worth talking about?

Violence makes the World more unsafe; violence breeds violence; violence breeds ignorance.
Suddenly Americans are seen as evil Imperialists hell bent on killing anyone who stands in their way of an unrivalled business empire. Muslims are considered inherently violent, wishing death upon anyone who says a bad word against their Prophet. It’s as if different species of human have been man made. It is forgotten that a Muslim came from nothing, much like an American came from nothing. The Pakistani came from nothing. The white Brit came from nothing. We’re all the same. We’re all human. It doesn’t matter if we chose to walk around naked, or covered in Muslim attire, we’re all from the same void.
The Muslim in Iraq is just trying to protect his home against that foreign invasion force whom he didn’t invite; the American man is just trying to make money to feed his family. Neither can be blamed for the circumstances in which he or she is born. And so it isn’t difficult to come to the conclusion that one man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter. One man’s hero, is another man’s villain. The World is built on contradiction, and whilst we’re all from the same place, we’re all so very different. Those differences should always be respected.

“
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn’t wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.“
- Tao Te Ching

The joy of sexual liberation

“One minute, he’s just a teenage lad in Alaska having joyful unprotected sex, the next minute- get to the Republican Convention! I think that is the best safe sex message of all time. ‘Use a condom, or become Republican!’ “ – Russell Brand

When a woman keeps a wild ape, and it one day acts like a wild ape, resulting in it being killed, my instant reaction is “poor ape”. When a bull fighter dies bullfighting, my instant reaction is “the bull didn’t want to be there, so I really don’t care that you’ve died”. When an ape is shot, for being an ape, I feel for the ape. I do not however, feel that Ape Legislation is needed to curb this in the future. It’s an unfortunate and mad episode that probably wont be repeated. End of discussion.

Similarly, when a fourteen year old boy impregnates a girl, my instant reaction is “aah bad luck“. Controversial as that might be, when suddenly talk of “We need more abstinence teaching” erupts, I find myself somewhat bemused and I must confess, amused. Why are they wasting their time telling me what I already know, when they could be doing something useful, like teaching the benefit of love and acceptance, understanding and tolerance? Something that will actually matter in the long run, instead preaching abstinence to a bunch of horny teenagers who will ignore everything you’ve said the moment the classroom door swings open for break time?

They could have spent six hours a day teaching me the benefits and joy of not having sex, when I was a teenager; nothing was going to stop me. It was almost like the grey haired, grey skinned Conservatives who evidently lost their personalities around about the 1970s were telling me in their equally grey, drab, lugubrious, monotone voices “We weren’t sexually delinquent, and look at us now!!” and i’m sat there thinking “yeeeeaaaah, i’m going to do the exact opposite of what you did.“

During sex education at my school, I do not remember much of what was said. Mainly due to my overbearing sex drive that still burdens my existence to this day, informing me that the woman at the front of the class showing us all how to shove a condom on a cucumber, has a great pair of tits. Abstinence is almost telling me it’s wrong and somehow “different” to find a joy in casual sex. It isn’t wrong. It isn’t different. It’s how we’d all be if society accepted it. I knew damn well that the safest form of contraception was to not have sex, but if the indelibly attractive girl sat two seats infront of me were to turn round and say “Hey Jamie, let’s have sex!“, i’d have been nude and waiting with a bed, some romantic music, and a candle (or rushing off her with me to the school toilets – more likely) before she’d finished the sentence. In the years that followed, I was a bit of a slut, and I loved it. I was suspicious, and still am (people who worked with me who read this blog, or went to school with me, who read this blog will attest to this) of authority. I always felt like I was being forced to be something i’m not. That I must be how authority wants me to be, whether that authority was a boss, a teacher or a man-made “God” (If the Jonas Brothers go to heaven, I really don’t want to go to heaven), there was always something other than my mind, telling me how to be a good person, and it conflicted with my own ideals, it seemed to contradict itself. The same people who were telling me that a good wholesome christian family was morally superior, were telling me that immigrants are ruining Britain and homosexuality isn’t natural. My idea of love and responsibility to fellow man did not follow theirs. No amount of adults (especially given that my teacher was pregnant at the time) telling me that the best option in a scenario that included me, an incredibly attractive girl and her saying “let’s have sex” would be for me to say “hey, let’s just cuddle” were going to bring me over to what I saw as their restrictive and soul destroying Sex-Nazi regime.

They still aren’t.

I have wonderful philosophy of the sexual liberation kind. An insatiable yet desirous mind like mine is such a beautiful contradiction. I’m the (some would say) disturbed kind who will see a feminist take her bra off to burn it and instead of thinking “I support your cause!!!”, i’m thinking “Bra off? She’s well up for it”. I think people know my kind as “ignorant”, I simply know my kind as “men”.

I can’t go through a day without spotting an attractive lady; a fleeting smile on a train station platform, a casual glance in a shop – and trying to act disastrously cool. The addition of the adverb ‘disastrously’ is needed, believe me. It has to be used to describe how I become when presented with such beauty. Illustrating this point perfectly; two incredibly attractive women strolled past me a year or two back, and whilst I dedicated the limited supply of energy I could to looking somewhat desirable, I tripped over. Noticing that I had committed irrevocably to the falling in an overly dramatic way, I felt I had to continue the over dramatic fall until it’s rightful conclusion, which just so happened to be an incredibly camp squeal and for the first and only time in my life, for some reason, found my self saying to the girls as they walked by laughing at the twat on the floor…. “oooooo what am I like ey?“……. Smooooooooooth.

I cannot fault anyone for having a high sex drive, and enjoying themselves. You could have slept with 2000 men or women, if you enjoy sex, then go for it. If you want to wait for the right person and have a regimented sex life, then fine, you’re individual, that’s your right. Labels such as “tart” and “slut” are not necessary.

So with that said, I did some research.
Over at goodmorals.com (When it comes to sex, me and good morals don’t mix too well, so this site was already setting alarm bells off, I sense I was about to be told off) the author had a few words to say about my sort of philosophy, and so I want to argue some of her points now, with a deep, scrupulous answer to justify my ideal of free love and salacious togetherness…….

She uses this to highlight why women are being used as sexual objects by men….
“Consider: At a daily beer-chugging contest in Cancun, boys “punish” girls who spill a drop by demanding a “breast-flashing.” A female diarist reports that “Megan and Anna” were chosen by the guys up on stage to run into the ocean and do a bathing-suit swap with the guys.”

- Is Cancun expensive? That sounds magnificent. Do Megan and Anna have Facebook? They sound fun! They certainly don’t sound like they feel dirty and raped. In fact, in that situation, and knowing the minds of young men, Megan and Anna were much more in control of those boys than vice versa.

“In a Penthouse-sponsored contest, a male audience shouts for young women to “take it off,” and many comply. “

- It’s like a filthy story. The debaucharous swines. I tell you, i’d be the first to cover my eyes, until the evil licentious acts stop. Yeah that’s a lie.

“……not to our daughters’ liberation, but to their debasement.”

- And I’d like to thank the parents of such girls for adding to my market.

“while most boys just want to have fun, so long as they can find a willing partner.”

- Are “good morals” and “fun” impossible to reconcile? If the subjective nature of “Good morals” leads me to a boring sex life, whilst frustration and stress takes over my life, then I think i’ll leave the ‘ole good moral thing to someone else.

“Second, they respected and encouraged girls’ natural modesty. In their view, modesty — the quality which leads human beings to avoid sexual displays — acts as a kind of armor to protect girls’ sexual vulnerability.”

- I never realised all women had such weak minds. Is it REALLY us men who are leading them to a terrible life of sexual fun and excitement that’s the problem? Or is it patronising snobs like the author of this site, presuming all women don’t have the power to say “no”. And this modesty thing she speaks of can fuck off. Excuse my lack of eloquence.

“Far from oppressing girls, modesty puts them on equal footing with boys, by prompting them to avoid casual sex while they search for a suitable lifelong partner.”

- That doesn’t put her on an equal footing with men!!! An equal footing with men, would mean all women were fantastically easy to bed. They aren’t. In fact, women hold much more sexual power than men! You flash your boobs my way, and I’ll happily rob a bank for you. That’s power!

“Is it only girls who lose in a pornographic culture? No, boys suffer too. For starters, they grow up confused.”

- I’m not confused. Never have been. I like sex. I like casual sex. I like relationship sex. If someone wants to sleep with thousands of people, because they enjoy it, I encourage them to. Similarly, if someone wants to wait for that one special person, although I couldn’t do such a thing, I encourage them. Go with whatever you feel is right for you. For me, what is right, is enjoying life.

“By delaying sex, girls inspire boys to strive to be worthy of them. They help boys learn to consider others’ needs and desires, and prepare them to assume the obligations of home and family.”

- By delaying sex, you’re punishing me, for not washing the dishes or something. You cannot control human nature. Some of us have high sex drives, some of us don’t. You cannot impose universal rules or principles when it comes to consenting adults. I reject the suggestion that because I quite like to … you know….. enjoy myself as it were, i’m somehow unable to consider the needs of others. If I get into Politics like I hope to, it will be purely to help those less fortunate, because the welfare of those who are unable to speak for themselves politically, I care deeply about. And of course, if they happen to be pretty, bonus!

“We buy our girls postage-stamp size tops and skirts, and drive them to movies that glamorize promiscuity.”

- I cannot thank you enough.

I wonder if the author of that site sees a Calvin Klein advert, full of muscle bound men in tight underwear and says “those poor men, they look like they’re having fun, but really…… they’re being used and exploited.”

Joking aside, why is sex such a taboo? Sex is supposed to be fun, exciting, pleasurable, and relaxing. I like the idea of sexual liberation. I never “matured” when it came to sex. I still giggle at an equivocated form of language I may have thrown together that in my mind is a magnificent innuendo, but in the minds of other’s is just a little too puerile. (Admittedly, sleeping with a girl, who’s clearly enjoying herself, and ignoring, with alarming skill, her cat sitting at the end of the bed watching every thing with it’s one working eye that appeared to say “you dirty fuckers” is a real passion killer for me…… never again… I learned from that)………..I believe in sex, free from shackles of good wholesome Christian based morality. I love the mellifluous sound of the phrase “sexual liberation” and impunity in the same way that I love immigration impunity, total freedom to roam, total freedom to fuck….. that’s my beautifully crafted political position for when I run as President of the World (It beats “Make love not war“). Be gay if you want to be gay. Sleep with whoever you want to sleep with. Attach or detach any ‘feelings’ that you feel may or may not be needed for a sexual relationship to exist. We’re here for seventy years and then, nothing. Have sex with whoever you want to, love everyone regardless of their differences, live for peace and justice, reject malice, ignore racial boundaries, help those who need it, and enjoy yourself!
Stop worrying!

Now, let’s shag!

Let’s all have sex!

To be a Libertine is to be seen as blemish on an unforgiving morally absolute society. Debauchery isn’t wise, if your aim in life is to be accepted. You forever find yourself having to explain your sinful ways to others, whilst their damning eyes, condemn every last word that leaves your devilish mouth.

The sexually promiscuous generation are aching to break the chains of bigoted religious morals.

It seems lately that sexual promiscuity is the norm. But widely condemned. Even by those who fuck everything that moves. A libertine is not engulfed by the need to please an all powerful master that may or may not exist. A Libertine knows no social boundary, and does not care when contemporaries scorn at their very existence. A Libertine, by definition is free. The only restriction on their freedom is their ever more fickle conscience.

I have a fickle conscience.

A fickle conscience is the very essence of the self confessed Libertine. Ami Perrin, argued in the middle of the 16th Century that the current state of Geneva and it’s religious policy of making everyone within the Calvinist realm, succumb to it’s terms, uniformaly and without complaint, was misleading and an attack on freedom. That people should break away and as long as they weren’t hurting anyone, should live as they wish. In this, Perrin can be described as a Libertine.

Today, Libertines have very little to fear except the wrath of the God-loving few, who insist that pre-marital sex is morally wrong, let alone sleeping with a different person each night of the week.

I differ from these God-loving few. If for example, I were to tell a Christian my sexual conquest record, they would frown disapprovingly, and possibly even try to rescue me. It seems they would have us believe that God hates those who like to have sex, but he just loves those who despise homosexuals and preach segregation. Surely that in itself, that attack on freedom, freedom that doesn’t hurt anyone else, is morally wrong? Not beautiful licentious debauchery?

You often hear “oh, all these teenagers having sex with random people, it’s just not right”…. why isn’t it? There’s no one harmed in it, so what’s the issue? What isn’t right, is all these teenagers stabbing each other to death, or stealing, or threatening innocent people, what isn’t right is their utter destruction of the English language. A few teenagers getting laid every Friday night is way down my list of “what’s wrong”.

Sex, for me, is merely a hobby. There to be enjoyed whenever and with whoever I want. My fickle conscience provides me with one extra road block. It tells me that we’re all humans, regardless of our religious belief, our sexuality, and our skin colour, and so there must be no malice in the wonderful World of promiscuity. And so my conclusion, is that as long as both people are consenting, and both people treat each other with respect, then what is the problem? It’s not hurting anyone. It’s enjoying yourself. It has absolutely nothing to do with a God, or his followers, who I chose to sleep with. I certainly don’t feel guilty about my sex life. Nor do I regret any of them, even turning Laura into a lesbian.
Sex is my opiate. I use it to relax. Some people drink, some people smoke, some people read works of fiction like the Bible, I have sex. Sex is my drug. It’s a get away from the World, a place where I can forget any problems I may have. In this, sex is like meditation for me. My salacious eyes are a part of my very essence.

Why does God hate me for who I am? Why do I have to suppress who I am, to please him? Fuck him. I’m me. I quite like me. I don’t want to change.

I often hear people say “the best contraception, is not having sex”…. oh how very witty of you. Geniuses. It’s like saying “The best way to cook a steak, is to cook a steak”. Don’t blame sexual promiscuity of a raise of teenage pregnancies. Blame ignorance. Blame parents too ashamed to talk to their kids.

I’m spoken for. I have a beautiful girlfriend. We’ve been together over two and a half years. And in that time, I can honestly say, my sexual antics have been limited to me and her. I have never cheated. This is where the fickle conscience comes back into play. If I were to cheat, it would have a negative affect, it would upset my lovely girlfriend, and so the balance is tipped in the wrong direction, someone has been hurt by my actions, and so it ceases to be the act of a Libertine, and becomes the act of a cunt. (No pun intended).

If it helps a marriage, for it to be open, then I’m all for it. If that’s what works for a particular marriage, then why should it be considered unnatural? Why should any sexual act be considered unnatural if both adults are consenting? Surely, if both want and enjoy it, then it’s at the top of the “What is natural” scale. If two men want to have sex, if they both enjoy sex with each other, then why is that unnatural? if two women want to have sex, then it’s fine (and even more so, if they film it and send it to my email address). No one has to right to tell anyone else what is and isn’t natural for them. Surely it’s disastrously unnatural if you’re gay, but have to pretend to be straight in order to appease the hate filled bigots in society?

The natural vs unnatural debate can turn back around and really knock the “no sex before marriage!” posse for ten. I’d suggest, quite controversially maybe, that human beings are not supposed to have just one sexual partner. By sewing together the emotional bond of love, with sex, it suddenly means we’re supposed to save ourselves for that one special person. When actually, the two needn’t be entwined at all. Humanity, like the animal World, is sexually promiscuous. We don’t want to just stick with one partner, if it were deemed socially acceptable, we’d all be fucking each other like sex starved inmates at an all male prison. We just fear the wrath of society.

I lost my virginity when I was 15. I don’t regret it. The sex itself was shit. But it opened up a new World for me. Like with anything, the only way you improve is with a huge amount of practice, and when I split with my ex, I got that huge amount of practice, and I certainly enjoyed every last second of it. It would be wrong to say “Oh I wish I hadn’t, my innocence….lost forever.” Sexually, I have no regrets. In fact, I loved it.

Where’s the Christian American pro-life attitude when it comes to guns? Weapons designed, to end life? Or when it comes to bombing the life out of other nations? Where’s the pro-life attitude when it comes to ending World wide poverty? Get your fucking priorities sorted.

To sum up, sexual liberation is the act of breaking free from the chains placed on us by Religion and Society. And as long as it causes no harm to yourself, the other person/people involved, or anyone indirectly affected by the intercourse, then no one has the right to claim it to be unnatural or immoral, because it isn’t. Even if you want to sleep with another person, every night of the week, and don’t even know their names. Who cares? Why is that a problem? Who’s it harming? Questions like this, can never be answered thoroughly and without social or religious bias by those who condemn promiscuity.

Now i’ve got that formality out of the way, does anyone want a shag?

The Jesus before Jesus

The Cult of Mithras dates back to around 1400bc, in Ancient India. The Romans then picked up on it after travelling home from Persia during the reign of Nero, and suddenly this new cult in Western Civilisation was born.

According to Roman tradition, in the Chambers Encyclopedia, Mithras’ birthday was the most important of all festivals surrounding him. His birthday was said to have been celebrated on December 25th. The birthday of Jesus, which we have no way of knowing, was decided upon as the 25th of December, by Emperor Constantine, in 313ad, 313 years after Jesus was born.

On December 25th, Mithras followers celebrated “The birth of the Sun”. The importance surrounding Mithras is better known today than it’s ever been. He was said to be able to perform miracles, he was a great teacher, had many followers including twelve disciples and of course, was named “the lamb of God.” When Mithras died, his “rising” three days after his burial was celebrated throughout Rome and Persia.

Franz Cumont, Professor at the University of Ghent, once wrote about Mithras: “The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians’, purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord’s supper salvation of body and soul..”

Within the Church of Mithras itself, the followers baptised each other, created a hierarchy, and had the Eucharist.
Within Rome, a picture relic, showing the young Mithras on the knee of his virgin mother whilst three Persian Magi offer gifts to the “sun of God” stood for all to see. Just to remind those who worship Mithras that when they died, Mithras would be there, casting judgement on their souls.

So to sum up, Mithras was….
Called “The sun of God”.
Born of a Virgin mother.
Had three people bring gifts to his birth.
Had twelve disciples.
Born on December 25th.
Died and then rose again three days later.
Hated the idea of Abortion but just LOVED the idea that everyone should have a gun (ok, I made that bit up).

His followers…..
Would baptise themselves.
Believed in a final judgement.
Celebrated the Eucharist.
Had a big festival on December 25th.

Now, I don’t know about you, but it all seems very familiar.

The British Culture War

The bandwagon at the moment seems to be, quite arrogantly and horribly misinformed, a version of…….
“Britishness doesn’t exist any more! It’s been destroyed by the immigrants and New Labour!”
About a year ago, I probably would have agreed, but i’ve got older, smarter, and above all, less cretinous.

Nationalism:
I wonder if all of those who claim our ‘culture’ is dying could name, without searching on google, a great British Artist? A great British musician from the classical era? A great British commander from the War days? The date that India gained independence from the British Empire? The last ten Prime Ministers? The last four Monarchs? A great British war poet? The date that England became Church of England? A great battle in WWII that finally pushed the Germans back? I doubt it. Because “culture” in Britain no longer means any of that, “Culture” means getting pissed every Friday night.

Britishness to me:
To me, now, Britishness is changing every day. Which is a great thing. It moves with the times. We don’t allow religion to mix with our Politics. Belief isn’t “If you’re not Christian, you’re not welcome” in our Country. Although, this gives rise to a new hypocritical sense of Nationalism that is becoming an increasingly dangerous thing.
What you may find Britishness inside, I may see it differently, and so Britishness can never be a static, universal truth. I like it like that.

Places like Iran, stick to outdated religious principles. Unwilling to change with the times. The great thing about Britain is that the majority of us (I accept some remain ignorant) are happy to move with the times, to accept the different cultures that have contributed such a valuable amount to our society, and our economy.
We aren’t the culture of top hats and “how do you do”.
We aren’t the tea drinking nation.
We aren’t any other stereotypical view of Britain. We’re a huge cultural mixture. Who (regardless of how the media like to hype the situation) understanding of others beliefs and we’re willing to talk, relate to and befriend people regardless of their beliefs and opinions.
We’re White, we’re Black, we’re Asian, we’re straight, we’re gay, we’re men, we’re women and it has absolutely no affect on our every day life.
Britishness is not static, it isn’t like a religious belief that cannot be changed. Britishness updates every single second. It’s a constantly working mechanism that, if embraced, can cope with all the pressures of multiculturalist England today.

It would appear that the top hat wearing, tea drinking, small corner shop family run business owning,”cheery-o chap” speaking British ways have long since died. It isn’t because of immigration and it has very little, if nothing to do with New Labour. It has to do with the changing nature of humanity.
- You and I both don’t wear tradition British Clothing, because American jeans like Levi, and hoodies sporting “Greenday” logos are the fashion now.
- I don’t want to wear a top hat and say “Good day to you madam”.

New Labour didn’t open the gates. Conservative Open Market policies did that. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that when a rich prosperous country opens it’s gates to foreign investment, people are going to start to move country. If you want a wide variety of choice with regard to the products you buy, expect large numbers of immigrants offering that choice. You can’t have it both ways. PLEASE try and understand this, for the sake of intelligent thought.

The small family run tradition British businesses, the grocers, the small video rental shops, struggle to exist in a place where Tesco and John Lewis rule the waves. You can blame big business for this.

For the people who insist that “Britishness doesn’t exist”, I’d like to know what drastic changes have occured in your every day life, that have made you a little less British and a little more Polish, or Pakistani, or Indian? And then, go back into your ignorant minds and count all the aspects of your life that are actually American influenced.

And then of course, there are those who insist that England has gone “PC mad”.

Political Correctness:
Certain phrases that have found their way into our language in order to appear more “understanding”, for example if I were to suggest that because i’m losing my hair, in order to reduce the risk of offending me, instead of saying i’m balding, i’d prefer you used the term follicle regression, would indeed, take the piss.
If half the dirty old men in on the planet decided that they hate that term, and prefer the term “gender enthusiastic geriatric”, we’d laugh at them, because it’s ridiculous.

To me, that’s what political correctness is. Taking something that wasn’t offensive in the first place, and claiming it was TOO offensive.
Mankind, suddenly becomes Human Kind.
Housewife suddenly becomes homemaker.

When you use the term “paki” to describe anyone who happens to have an Asian complexion, you aren’t exercising a form of anti-policial correctness, you’re exercising ignorance, cuntishness, and above all, you’re starting to prove the case for the rest of the World hating us.
When you try to justify such ignorance as “well, it’s just like calling me a brit!!”, you have delved beyond the realms of ignorance, and infact, deserve to be shot.

When you use any kind of intended abuse, to personally attack someone, you cannot hide behind “omg, this country is so fucking politically correct!!” or “I’m just being honest!!” in a lame attempt to justify your ridiculous point of view…….. You cannot defend yourself.

When one Muslim woman complains that a British Flag offends her. That is one Muslim woman. It isn’t Islam on the whole. It’s like saying Ian Huntley is a white British man, so therefore all white British men must be paedophile child killers. If you then accuse all Muslims of being anti-British, then those same Muslims have a right to come up to you and express the view, through the media, across the World, that all British Women like to kill children and bury them on the Moors, because Myra Hindley did. I very much doubt you’d be banging on about their right to be politically incorrect then, you’d be disgusted.

People seem to think that “free speech” entitles you to be a cunt, and then not have to deal with the consequences. Free speech means you can say what you want, but you must deal with the problems inevitably faced by your ignorance. Don’t back away from it. And don’t hide behind a horrible cliche like “politically correct”. Freedom of Speech has consequences. You do indeed have the freedom to say whatever you want to say, there is nothing stopping you. But have to guts to deal with the subsequent problems you have caused.

Political Correctness hasn’t got “out of hand”, it isn’t worse than it’s ever been. Ignorance is on the rise. This new breed of arrogant Nationalism is on the rise. Too many people think they can be as offensive as they like and they’ll somehow gain support and not have to explain themselves deeper, not have to give it any intelligent thought, if they just use “I hate political correctness!” to justify their own unjustifiable prejudices. I don’t know if it’s a post-Empire thing, but it seems a high number of Brits have decided that Britain is the God of all Countries.

There is an odd thing happening. The British public seem to be paying an unusual amount of time to the Media, and so jumping on the bandwagon portrayed at the time.
The Sun – “Gordon Brown is wonderful”
The public – “YEAH! GO GORDON!!!”
The Sun – “Actually he’s a bit shit”
The public – “Yeah BOOO GORDON!”
It takes away any individual thought. I would like to see more people forming their own opinions, understanding that the media is controlled, they are private enterprises, and so, full of bias. I would like people to, instead of jumping to an illogical conclusion, research both sides of an argument and then come to a well rounded, well thought out opinion. It may agree with your initial jumped-to conclusion, it may change your mind completely, like the whole “Britishness” debate has for me. But it’s the only credible way you will answer a deep question such as the one surrounding the British Culture War.

It is people who think in this regressive, nazi-esque way, who destroy the country, no one else.

The hypocrisy of the Christian Right

 

****

Hitler was a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
Sadam was a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
Polpot was a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
Osama Bin Laden is a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
General Pinochet was a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
George W Bush is a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
Myra Hindley killed kids, and was hetrosexual.
Ted Bundy killed college girls, and was hetrosexual.
Ian Huntley killed two little girls, and was hetrosexual.
And yet the Christian Right has the fucking nerve to suggest it’s homosexuality that is a cancer on the Planet.

It strikes me as utterly inexcusable that a Nation bound to the values of freedom and fairness, condemn anyone who happens to have a different sexual preference to one that happened to be written down, 2000 or so years ago, when you know, it was alright for grown men to sleep with fourteen year old girls. And they hold that time up, as a guidance for all morality.
It’s bigotted, it’s unfounded, it’s another case of using that horrible form of social manipulation… “God” ….. to justify ones own disgraceful prejudices.

It would seem that happiness is not an individual freedom. It seems that the Christian Right Wing, decide what should be considered happiness. Gay people are not wanting to get married, in order to spit in the face of hetrosexual couples. They just want the absolute freedom to be happy, just like a hetrosexual couple, and no one has any right to deny them that freedom, if you voted in favour of Prop. 8, you should be incredibly ashamed of yourself, you’re beliefs on this matter, are wrong.

I read this today, in regard to Proposition 8, a Law banning same sex marriage in California……
“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”

What an idiot.
“Hey, what you doing today?“
“Oh you know, this and that, some golf maybe, a bit of homosexuality, maybe go swimming”.
Clearly, from an misinformed, bigotted Christian, insisting that HIS God, is one of peace, love, and unity, and yet paradoxically, condemning everyone to hell who isn’t an avid fan of his favourite work of Fiction, the Bible. Aside from the fact that the fundamental principle of Christianity is that God is perfect, and does not make mistakes, and therefore by definition, would accept homosexuality for what it is, just another form of love, because he created it, there are absolutely no other reasons to feel that gay marriage would undermine male/female marriage.

He went on…
“Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable.”

The difference, that he chooses to ignore, is that homosexuality, between two consenting adults, is not harming anyone, it’s nobody elses business, it isn’t causing any harm. It’s a sexual preference. Nothing else. It isn’t wrong, it isn’t unnatural. It has nothing to do with the Christian right. It’s personal choice. For what possible reason is it wrong? Use your own mind on this one, not one of a vile, hate-filled God.

One guy suggested that he wants to ban gay marriage, because he doesn’t want his kids indoctrinated with the idea that homosexuality is ok, at school, when in fact, he suggested that homosexuality was “another form of abuse”. This man, shouldn’t be having kids, if he’s just trying to pass on messages of hate to his own children. I’d be far more pissed off, and have to remove my kids from school, if they were teaching that it’s wrong to be homosexual. If one of my kids thinks he may be gay, and the school is telling everyone that it’s wrong, i’d pull my kid straight out of that school. And what the fuck is with “it’s just another form of abuse”….. clearly when God created Christians, he may have overestimated his ability.

Another guy suggested that gay guys are much more promiscuous than hetrosexual males and so far more likely to spread disease. I’m a hetrosexual male, and i’m promiscuous. I love sex. Infact, sex to me, has nothing to do with “procreation“, it’s all about fun, enjoying myself, relaxing, and above all, happiness. If a God would rather me sit in my room, rocking backwards and forwards, crying over the fact that i’m a dirty sinner, whilst I condemn anyone with opinions of their own to hell, then that’s a God who quite frankly, can fuck off.
If I were to settle down and get married, have kids. I’d be lying to myself. I’d be hugely unhappy, and would be wasting both mine and my partners life, because it’s just not me. Not a Christian, not a Politician pandering to the bigots, and not a God is going to tell me otherwise. I’m me. Sex is such a taboo subject, people telling other people who they should love, how they should live, and who they should enjoy sex with. It should not be like this.

Why is it perfectly ok for the Christian Right to attack anything that isn’t directly pro-life….. homosexuality, abortion, but they seem to keep quiet when THEIR right winged Christian government destroy over 600,000 innocent lives in foreign countries, for reasons we still don’t know of? It seems great to be pro-life, as long as that life is white, christian, American, and doesn’t grow up to be gay. It takes hypocrisy to an entirely new level. I wish they would just admit that they use the Bible to justify themselves, and that it isn’t actually a religious matter, they just hate gay people, or go one step further, they hate anyone who happens to be slightly different. Because, God, as we all know, is a red neck from Texas, which is why they relate to him so well.  

It’s beautifully ignorant of the far right Christian hate brigade, to cite Leviticus, with…
“A man shall not lie with another man, it is an abomination” ……as proof that God is up in heaven throwing darts at a poster of Elton John, and yet they cleverly ignore verses in Exodus, such as…

“On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death.”
My dad works on a Sunday sometimes. Infact, tomorrow is Sunday, i’ll be doing some University work, for monday. Is God sending me to hell? Should I be put to death tomorrow? The Christians who despise gay people due to a verse in leviticus, and therefore morally obliged to put anyone to do death who happens to work on a Sunday, otherwise, their argument is void of all intelligence (As if it isn’t already). And does this hell consist of free thinkers, as opposed to the easily manipulated hate filled lunatics God seems to use as his spokes people, because if that’s what Hell is, i’m quite looking forward to it. It’ll be refreshing to be honest.
Exodus 21:7…
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do.”
Fantastic. If i’m ever in need of some spare cash, God says it’s alright for me to sell my daughter into slavery. That’s fine then. So, if my dad works on a Sunday, but then sells my sister into slavery, has he cancelled the sin out, with his morally superior act of selling kids into slavery? Will be be saved?

The point is, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to have a problem with homosexuality, other than ones own personal hatred toward anyone who happens to be slightly different.
They claim it’s “unnatural”. Surely it’s far more unnatural to surppress who you are, in order to please a bunch of ignorant bigots? In fact, i’d go one further, and say that what is far more unnatural, is blind obediance to a man in the sky, something that can neither be proved true or false.
Gay couples who love each other, just as much as hetrosexual couples, who simply want to be recognised for their bond, should have the same level of rights as hetrosexual couples. Hetrosexual couples, are not superior.

When it comes to equality, clearly a large section of Americans are living in their own little World. Don’t bang on about how you voted Republican, to protect civil liberties and freedom, and then demand that other sections of society give up their rights to the same freedom you wish to preserve, you bigotted, out of date, idiotic, mindless, despicable excuses for human beings.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

GOD LOVES HATE!

Rant over.