Ave Sharia

I find it difficult to believe that Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had no idea of the furore he would create when, in an interview on Radio 4, he posited that the adoption of Sharia law in the UK was “unavoidable“. Clearly, as a man of faith, he is well accustomed to immersing himself in a land of the fantastical, but if he genuinely believed that someone in his position would be able to make such comments without provoking a maelstrom of media frenzy then he must have a very slender grasp on reality altogether.

How bizarre that the head of the Church of England should endorse the legitimacy of a legal and social framework of an entirely different – but equally absurd – religious belief. Talk about a lack of focus to the job at hand – I thought the first commandment specifically stipulates that there is only one god, yet here is the Archbishop of Canterbury implicitly stating that there is at least one other worthy of state recognition. Remember that the Church of England is officially the religion of the United Kingdom as defined by our constitutional arrangement because the reigning monarch (much to my never ending contempt) is both the head of state and the head of the church. So by arguing that Sharia law should also be recognized in some circumstances he is sanctioning much more than simple multicultural pluralism. By endorsing multiple constructs he is undermining our entire legal framework.

Now clearly the archbishop was not advocating the public beheadings, lashes and lopping off of limbs which is commonplace in the parts of the Middle East and Africa that adhere to a fundamentalist, savage and barbaric interpretation of Sharia law, but that doesn’t make his comments any more welcome in my view. With its Medieval views on women, sexuality and social mores it has no more relevance to modern Britain than the reintroduction of trial by ordeal to determine if someone is a witch or not. Its unsuitability to modernity is the official decree of the European Court of Human Rights, which regards Sharia as incompatible with democracy.

Indeed, the introduction of parallel legal systems is incompatible with common sense. The archbishop believes that it will be necessary for the social cohesion of people who find themselves torn between the practice of their faith and their requirement to live according to British law. Well, boo hoo. I could not disagree more strongly if my life depended on it. Surely we only have a hope of social cohesion if we live as one people under one rule of government and law, with no exceptions? Some have pointed to the existence of the Beth Din, which already settles matters on behalf of Orthodox Jews. Well, there should be no place for that either. Like I said, no exceptions. Where would it end? I know of another group of people who live their lives according to their own code and rules. They operate outside of state jurisdiction and, when their own codes are broken they deal with it internally to the exclusion of all others. They’re called the Mafia and the code they follow is Omertà. Shall we sanction the introduction of this, too? After all, it might help to assimilate some Sicilians who are struggling to adapt to the British way of life.

There is only one way to ensure social cohesion: one law – determined by an elected body, not a Stone Age text obsessed with beard length and the different ways of slaughtering beasts – applied universally to everyone in equal measure. Anyone who is unhappy with that arrangement is of course entirely free to live somewhere more to their choosing.

Thankfully, the archbishop’s thoughts do not seem to be shared by the majority of British Muslim opinion so this teacup will soon be without a storm. For the time being, anyway.

An assault on freedom of expression

The chocolate Jesus exhibit has been cancelled following an orchestrated campaign by the Catholic League, who called the piece an “assault on Christianity”. The league, which boasts some 330,000 members, bombarded the hotel due to host the event with complaints, calls for a boycott and, inevitably, death threats. As I commented in yesterday’s post, the exhibit looks poor: boring and devoid of meaning. It’s not something I would choose to see, but the fact that it has been pulled in response to thug tactics is sickening.

The scary thing is the way such a response was so quickly generated, like some sort of SWAT team for religious sensibilities. From The Guardian:

On Thursday the league sent emails to 500 other religious groups – including Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist with a combined reach of millions – calling on them to boycott the Roger Smith hotel in which the gallery, the Lab, is based. Within 24 hours the hotel was so inundated with calls and visiting protesters that it pulled the exhibit. 

I’ve written to the hotel myself, threatening to boycott them unless they put the exhibit back on. Alas, no response. One man cannot make a difference. Not unless he’s Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, who went on to say, in something of a veiled threat:

“All those involved are lucky that angry Christians don’t react the way extremist Muslims do when they’re offended.” 

Perhaps, but the net result has been the same. A piece of art (bad art, in my opinion, but that is not the point) has been withdrawn to protect the feelings of a minority. Another smack in the mouth for freedom of expression from the proponents of fairy tales. It’s like the Danish cartoons all over again. There may not have been riots, flag burning or calls for jihad, but it’s still religious zealots playing the offence card to get their way; it’s still setting a hideous precedent.

“We’re delighted with the outcome,” said Kiera McCaffrey, a spokeswoman for the League. Yes, I bet you are. It’s a delightful small victory for you. But the question now is: where’s next?

Sweet Jesus!

An art gallery in New York City has stirred up controversy with its latest exhibit: a naked Jesus made entirely of milk chocolate. Predictably, some Christian groups are outraged by this stunt – conveniently happening over the Easter period – and have called for a boycott.

Why is it always Jesus? I’d say that’s a subject pretty well covered by the arts over the last couple of thousand years wouldn’t you? Not that I would consider this to be ‘art’, incidentally: more a hackneyed stunt designed to ‘provoke’. Well, it’s certainly provoked a response from me: an overpowering yawn. The ‘artist’, Cosimo Cavallaro, is known for making use of food in his work, and once famously decorated a hotel room with mozzarella cheese. What creativity! Da Vinci would be jealous. What is the likelihood that Cavallaro will also be depicting Mohammed using Halal meats during Ramadan? That would certainly push a few boundaries and create a stir. Highly unlikely though. Because while Christian groups are likely to complain and be offended, they’re not very likely to kill him for his art, are they? They’re generally a much softer target.

Lady Sane and myself are going to be in New York City over the Easter period ourselves…. I think we’ll give this one a miss though.

Oh, the Devil will make work for idle hands to do…

Allow me to introduce you to Theo Hobson, an occasional contributor to the pigsty that is Comment Is Free. Theo announced in a post a couple of days ago, without a trace of irony, that he “believes in Satan”. How quaint.

I’ve never really understood the whole Satan thing. I suppose if you must believe in the existence of fictional characters then he’s as worthwhile as any other (up there with Zeus, Thor and, I don’t know, Champion The Wonder Horse). But how do Christians reconcile the existence of Satan with their belief in an omniscient, omnipotent God? The very existence of Satan contradicts the concept of an ‘almighty’ doesn’t it?

The medieval philosopher St .Anselm set out to prove the existence of God with his ontological argument. It’s rubbish: a question of semantics rather than anything demonstrative. Basically speaking, he posited that if you can conceive of (i.e. agree to the theoretical existence, but not the actual) some being “than which nothing greater can be conceived” and accept that such a being would be ‘God’, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than God. But if God does not exist, then you can imagine something that is greater than God – namely, a God that does exist. Ergo, God exists. Like I said: a rubbish argument. Couldn’t we perform the same mental exercise with anything? Sausage rolls, teapots, leopards, rocking chairs…

I wonder if Mr Hobson followed this reductio ad absurdum to come to the same conclusion about Satan? “I am capable of conceiving a being (or a beast!) so vile, so vicious, so dripping in pure undiluted evil. What could possibly be worse than that? Why, such a thing that exhibits all the same qualities but really does exist. Therefore, Satan is real! Eeek! Lock up your chickens! Hide the Black Sabbath albums!”

To quote from the article:

Christian faith, in my experience, is all about engaging with Satan, arguing with him, and, above all, trusting that God has defeated him, crushed him. Faith is knowing that, thanks to Jesus Christ, Satan is finished. He might be strong in the short term, but in reality, he is a spent force. Through faith, one can defy him. 

Erm. So Christian faith is about engaging with somebody that has already been destroyed by the power of your faith? That can’t be easy. If Satan has been defeated and crushed, what is there to engage with? If, thanks to Jesus, Satan is finished, who are you arguing with? And if your faith is so very powerful, why did Satan ever exist in the first place? For Hobson, belief in evil is intrinsically linked to a belief in Satan – the personification of evil. Again, an argument without legs. I believe in the existence of ‘sleep’ – that crusty build up that forms in your eyes overnight. Am I therefore compelled to believe that the Sandman put it there? What a truckload of gibberish.

Fundamentalists on the march

It’s always heartening to see a group of religious warriors – walking testaments to their God’s message of love, peace and tolerance, remember – up in arms lest a law be passed that would forbid them from discriminating against anyone whose lifestyle might ‘offend’ their ‘beliefs’. They feel that a new law designed to forbid businesses from discriminating against homosexuals forces them to compromise their deeply held religious convictions. Well, if your deeply held religious convictions are little more than a excuse for deep seated bigotry then good. Bollocks to your convictions, quite frankly. In reality, the people demonstrating outside Parliament were fighting for the right to uphold prejudices held together by the flimsy notion that their beliefs stipulate that they are entitled – nay, required – to do so. Bummery = badness. Because it says so in the Bible. Oh, the Bible. The fucking Bible.

{Sigh}. Do we really have to go through this conversation again? Do we? Really? Yes, I suppose we do.

‘Back The Bible’ said one of the placards held up at the march. “I’m concerned that the Biblical laws should be upheld,” said Ralph Brockman, a Baptist from London. “Christians… cannot and must not be forced to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong,” said Thomas Cordrey of the Lawyer’s Christian Fellowship. You’re not being asked to, Tom. The purpose of the law is to ensure equality for everyone, in much the same way that it is rightly illegal to put up a sign saying ‘No Blacks’ in a restaurant window. The law is upholding the right of everyone to be treated in the same way, regardless of their sexuality which, for the record, is none of your concern, whatever the Bible might tell you.

This idea of strict adherence to the teachings of the Bible is an interesting proposition though, considering the mass of contradictions, anachronisms and downright gibberish contained therein. The long-departed Realist covered some of this ground many moons ago with this piece about the deranged ramblings to be found in Leviticus and some of the surreal commandments it contains. I was reminded recently of this classic viral email that did the rounds several years ago, wherein an anonymous correspondent wrote an open letter to ‘Doctor’ Laura Schlessinger, a conservative talk radio host in the USA, famous for dispensing ‘no nonsense’ advice to her callers. An outspoken critic of all of society’s ills such as sex outside of marriage, contraception and (gasp) homosexuality, she has been known to invoke the Old Testament as a common sense guide for living.

I reproduce here the letter in its entirety. It’s very funny. Even if you’ve seen it before, it is well worth reading again and could just as pertinently be posed to those marching religious fundamentalists who would have us live our lives according to the values of the stone age.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

 

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

 

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

 

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

 

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

 

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

 

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

 

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

 

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

 

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

 

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

 

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

 

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

 

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

 

Genius. Right, I’m off to continue reading Richard Dawkins’ brilliant treatise on atheism The God Delusion. It should be made compulsory reading in every school in the land.

 

Caveat lector. This is a rather rambling piece.

As anyone who has ever tried to do so will attest, writing a blog can be hard work sometimes. You have to juggle the desire to write with other commitments and there are times when there is loads going on, you’re itching to say something about it, but you just don’t have the time. Other times, you feel like writing, but there are no stories around that really inspire you. Another scenario is when there are loads of things going on that would usually set you off, but you cannot summon up the energy for some reason. I’d say I’m experiencing the third situation now. This is a consequence of writing a mainly political blog: you’re really at the mercy of the current news agenda. I could write about other things I suppose, but I tend not to because I don’t think that’s why people come here and, secondly, I’m not terribly interested in writing about things going on in my personal life. I don’t treat this blog like a diary. Some people do, and that’s great, but it isn’t for me.

So why am I writing this at all? Because sometimes, as I’m sure other bloggers will agree, there is a clock ticking in your head, counting the days and hours since the last time you published anything, and after a while it can start to bug you. So here I am on a regular Sunday afternoon, reeling off thoughts purely to satisfy the little voice in my head constantly reminding me that I need to write something, anything, today.

But there are plenty of stories out there, mostly of a religious nature it seems. And perhaps that is putting me off writing about them: it just gets me worked up and, in any case, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. But what choice do I have?

So come with me while I load my shotgun and head for the nearest cylindrical container housing cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates.

News about veils continue to dominate, in particular the story of a teaching assistant suspended for refusing to remove it in class. Yet more evidence that this country is hell bent on persecuting Muslims at every opportunity. Because clearly, there are no practical considerations to be taken into account here. In a job where being able to communicate with young children is something of a prerequisite, it makes sense that the person be covered from head to toe. I’ve decided to wear a motorcycle helmet to work from tomorrow. Or maybe a Ku Klux Klan outfit. And who is my employer to dictate otherwise?

Elsewhere, the cabinet is split over new laws for gay rights, after protests from religious organisations terrified about sodomy in the streets, endless Judy Garland conventions in their churches or Graham Norton having the right to defecate in Westminster Cathedral. Or something. I stopped reading halfway through, so if anyone wants to tell me what it’s about, please do so.

Meanwhile, according to the Muslim Council of Britain, Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, is pandering to an ‘Islamophobic agenda’ following the government’s decision to cut funding and official ties with their organisation. Why was our government helping to fund this group in the first place? Or any other religious promotion group for that matter. Not in my name.

British Airways, meanwhile, have stoked controversy by sending home a worker for refusing to conceal a Christian cross while on duty; a contravention of their uniform code. A code that extends to all religious clothing and paraphernalia, with the exception of Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs. Ann Widdecombe has stated that Christians are “being persecuted” in the current environment. Which is patently as nonsensical as the claims from the Muslim Council of Britain or this opinion piece in The Sunday Times arguing that ‘Muslims are the new Jews’. Although I suspect that the stance by British Airways is driven by a misguided PC belief that one of their employees displaying Christian iconography might be deemed ‘insulting’ to non-Christian customers and co-workers. The only thing this policy insults is everyone’s intelligence. I expect that the vast majority of people could not care less and there is a world of difference between wearing a piece of jewellery and wearing a niqab in the name of your faith: namely that the former does not prohibit the wearer from doing their job effectively and the latter, if said job involves meeting and greeting with people, does. A fairly simple, common sense position to take on the whole issue.

And it is all about practicality rather than discrimination. If I were to wear a small cross around my neck to work tomorrow, my employers wouldn’t be concerned. They might, however, object if I were to commandeer the boardroom and slaughter an ox as an offering to the lord almighty. Both could be defended as representations of my personal religious affiliation, but the latter is clearly impractical in the workplace, not to mention incredibly messy. And I know this from bitter experience.

Meanwhile, that execrable little turd George Galloway stuck his snout into the trough at the Respect party’s annual conference yesterday, proclaiming that anti-Muslim comments are the last “respectable” form of racism in our society. This from a man whose party used Oona King’s mixed race, Jewish heritage as a race-baiting electoral tactic while competing for the seat of Bethnal Green and Bow in the 2005 general election. Money quote from his speech: “It’s a disgusting, ugly sight and sound to see or listen to.” You certainly are George, you certainly are. Besides, Islam isn’t a race.

I can’t think of anything else to say. Which brings me back to where I began. I’m going to bed.

Abolition of limbo now in limbo

I was highly amused to read this week that the Pope has decided, after lengthy investigation and consultation by the International Theological Commission, to consign the concept of ‘limbo’ to the dustbin of history. Limbo, commonly understood to be some sort of halfway house between ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’, has long been something of a headache for the Catholic Church. It is supposed to be the eternal resting place of unbaptised babies (because they would not have been cleansed of ‘original sin’ – of course.) and anyone unfortunate enough to have lived before Jesus. Which all seems a bit unfair doesn’t it? But that was the problem: the Church wants us to believe in the concept of a loving and forgiving god; yet this same god is apparently quite happy to condemn the souls of millions of innocents to an eternity in purgatory. How can we possibly reconcile these two different sides to the almighty? Hmmmm. It’s a real chin-stroker alright.

Prior to the 13^th century, it was taught that all unbaptised people went straight to hell when they died, but that was considered a bit harsh on babies who could not possibly have committed any sins yet. And so ‘limbo’ came to be. A place where people would suffer no pain, but neither would they experience the ‘Beatific Vision of God’. In 2004, Pope John Paul II commissioned an investigation with the task of coming up with “a more coherent and enlightened” way of dealing with the fate of innocent infants. The results of that investigation are now known and limbo, it seems, is going to be consigned to, well, philosophical limbo. It’s out. Passé. It was never official Catholic Church teaching anyway and, in the words of Pope Benedict himself: “It has always been only a theological hypothesis.” (Unlike the rest of the Church’s beliefs and teachings of course, which are all based on solid facts and hard evidence.) But isn’t it nice to know that there are people out there spending their time mulling these things over? That people are taking over two years of their precious lives to come to the conclusion that a concept patently made up to plug a theological gap (which has now become inconvenient), a place that clearly does not and could not exist, doesn’t exist?

What unmitigated, abominable nonsense of the highest order! Nonsense on stilts, to borrow Jeremy Bentham’s legendary phrase. Nonsense sent to Nonsense College and awarded a PhD in Advanced Nonsense with honours, presented by Professor Nonsense of the International Committee for the Advancement of Nonsense. Never mind the fact that there is just as much evidence for the existence of limbo as there is for the existence of heaven or hell: none whatsoever. A colossal waste of time.

But the matter is still not satisfactorily resolved. For it appears that official abolition of the concept of limbo will be held up for another year. A suspended sentence, if you will. So we now have a situation where the proposed consignment of limbo to philosophical limbo appears to be in, um, limbo.

I’m going for a lie down.

This is an outrage! The Pope, Islam and perpetual offence.

So, to recap. The Pope makes a speech in Germany and, touching upon the concept of violence within religion, repeats a quote made by Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus in 1391: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Cue hysteria and outrage across much of the Muslim world. Cue shock, disgust and despair. Cue thousands of Muslims taking to the streets in India, Pakistan, Turkey and Gaza burning effigies of the Pope, clashing with the police and attacking Catholic churches, outraged that their religion has again been associated with intolerance and violence. I mean, where does this undeserved reputation come from?

 

Some Muslim gentlemen turn up to engage in a
philosophical debate about their belief system.

Andrew Sullivan here reproduces a quote from a spokeswoman for the Pakistan Foreign Ministry which perfectly summarises this response: “Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.” Beautiful. This is right up there with the one I quoted from someone protesting against the Danish cartoons in Afghanistan: “They want to test our feelings. They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers.”

 

 

Bonfire of the Inanities

Islam strikes me as a particularly childish faith. Of course, all religions are childish with their superstitions, anachronisms and rituals; their reverence of ‘sacred’ texts, rocks, buildings and animals. But Islam in particular is so rigid and inflexible, so unopen to dialogue, reasoning or criticism, so unchanged since the Middle Ages, it sets itself up for strife. It is the Daily Mail of religions: stuck in another age, frozen rigid in a permanent sense of outrage, preternaturally conditioned to take offence at the slightest opportunity. Prepared to kill in defence of its beliefs. Beliefs that are not open to debate under any circumstances.

And so the Pope, quoting from an ancient text and making it very clear from the outset that these were not his own words, has been forced into making an apology for words which he is not personally responsible for in the hope of nullifying the anger that has erupted – again – through the Islamic world. (Question to Muslims everywhere: is there anything you don’t get offended about?) Of course, one might question the Pope’s motives for highlighting this particular text, and one could also point out that the Catholic Church is in no position to criticise or comment on any faith that seeks to enforce and perpetuate its belief system through violence, as it worked well enough for them for hundreds of years. A pot-kettle-black situation if ever there was one. But it’s little short of depressing that for days the biggest news story has been caused by the leader of one redundant belief system quoting some words spoken 615 years ago by somebody most people have never even heard of, criticising the philosophy of another redundant belief system.

Non-theists like myself can only howl in despair and rage. I think I might take to the streets in protest. Would anyone like to join me?

Putting the ‘mad’ in Madonna

As pop icons go, Madonna is hard to beat. Pretty much at the top of her game for over two decades now (creatively barren spell in the mid 1990s notwithstanding; nor will we mention the hideousness of Don’t Cry For Me Argentina – we all cried, Madge. We all cried.), she has a veritable cannon of pop classics for the casual listener to choose from. I, for one, have very fond memories of driving down to Brighton with Citizeness Sane a few years back listening to Immaculate Collection. Borderline was always my favourite. Even now, after a few nips of cooking sherry, I am occasionally known to bellow “Madge!” when asked what we should listen to next. Because there are times when only some quality Madge will suffice. And I speak as an unreconstructed, overgrown indie-boy.

But she should definitely stick to music, as anyone who has watched any of her films would surely agree. And she definitely shouldn’t get involved in political lobbying for, alas, it seems she has. As adherents of the ‘religion’ known as Kabbalah, Madge and husband Guy Ritchie are reported to have approached the government and nuclear industry a couple of years ago, proposing an initiative to rid the world of nuclear waste by the wonderful magical powers of Kabbalah fluid. Apparently, this special elixir has successfully neutralised dangerous nuclear waste in Ukraine. According to one official party to the conversation: “It was like a crank call… the scientific mechanisms and principles were just bollocks, basically.” Surely not?

The Kabbalah Centre (based in California – of course – and founded by former insurance salesman Philip Berg in 1984) believes that water is a uniquely important substance (which, to be fair, cannot be denied. Should their followers ever doubt this, I recommend they try to live without it for a week or two. No, really. Try.) that can be given magic healing powers (oh dear) through “meditations and the consciousness of sharing”. The consciousness of sharing? This makes no sense. Not even semantically.

It gets funnier. According to insider reports at Kabbalah Centre meetings, Berg leads with chants of “Chernobyl” and other nuclear power plants, which other cult members believe is instrumental in healing the problem of nuclear waste. Both Madge and Guy have been seen taking part in this event, incanting the name while facing east. Which makes sense: it would never work if you faced the other way. That would just be a waste of time.

Oh mercy!

Madge, please stop trying to save the world with this horseshit and stick to what you do best: making pop music and irritating the church. And Guy? Ditto. Although I’m not sure what that is, now the bottom has fallen out of the market for ‘geezer’ gangster films. Perhaps you should get Phillip Berg to lead a chant of “Guy” from Kabbalah HQ whilst looking over the Hollywoood hills? Perhaps that will drum up enough positive energy to reinvigorate your flagging directing career? Oh, to be rich, famous and stupid.

Midweek review

We’re halfway through the week. Let’s sit back and reflect on some of the issues of the moment.

1. I must say, I’ve been enjoying this immensely. The US Episcopal Church has ‘stunned’ Christians around the world by electing something called a ‘woman’ as a primate in the Anglican Church. I have no idea what a ‘primate’ is in this context – I thought they were apes? Ironic, given the aversion of much of the American Christian movement to evolutionary theory (or any type of theory, save for that which involves shutting their eyes and talking to the sky), that the leaders of their church are named after our simian ancestry. Anyway, it’s caused a right rumpus because, err, um. Nope, I cannot get my head around it either. A woman? A representative of 50% of the planet? In the upper echelons of the church? Outrageous. They’ll be appointing homosexuals next! What’s that, you say? Oh. Let’s just sit back and watch them squabble over this pointless debate, perpetually reinforcing their own utter irrelevance to the rest of us.

 

2. Speaking of utter irrelevance, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, has called on ministers to review the existing abortion law and to lower the upper threshold from 24 weeks. An emotive subject, for sure, and there are probably very good reasons for reviewing this in the light of medical and technological advances. Two important things to remember here though. Firstly, the number of terminations carried out at this late stage is statistically minimal and nearly always performed for a valid medical reason. Secondly, when the time for the debate is appropriate, it will be based on the reasoning and expertise of the medical authorities, not the wishes of the Vatican. The day that the good Cardinal himself can carry a baby to term is the day we should listen to his opinions on the subject.

 

3. Watching England in the World Cup has so far been a painful experience. Last night’s game against Sweden was particularly frustrating. Sure, both of England’s goals were great, but what’s happened to the defence? That second Sweden goal couldn’t have been more comical if Harold Lloyd was in the six yard box on roller skates heading towards two men carrying a big sheet of glass. Against the likes of Argentina or Brazil, we are going to be humiliated. Oh, and England fans? Please stop singing the tune to The Great Escape. It’s just embarrassing.

 

4. It’s June 21st, summer solstice, the longest day of the year. From now on the days are getting shorter, the nights are rolling in. Winter begins here, ladies and gentlemen. Christmas cards will be in the shops before you know it. Enjoy!