Ah, a festive tradition - a Christian belly-aching about Christmas losing its essential meaning. Cue a whole host of comments, some backing the author, some trotting out the old cliches about how Christmas is actually a pagan festival and so on, until Christmas is consigned to the dustbin as the festive season ends.

So has Christmas lost its meaning? No, no I don't think it has. But that is because I don't think that it has just the one meaning. It was once a pagan thing. And yeah, there is Christian content - hence Christ-mass. But it has come to be about other things as well for some - presents, family, food, drink. For some it is just about having a holiday. And for others still it is an annual chance to be a grouch. To a large extent, the meaning of Christmas is what you choose to make it.

Therefore, if you want to have a Christian Christmas, feel free to do so. Go to church. Sing carols. Celebrate the birth of Christ. But don't expect those who have a different interpretation of the meaning of Christmas to conform to your expectations of that holiday. I don't believe in God, and will not be spending this or any other Christmas feigning deference to your favoured myth.

The Near Impossibility of President Ron Paul

Now the rest of the GOP field has peaked too early, people are adopting that predictable position - through nothing more meaningful than a crude process of elimination - that maybe the Republican nomination is Ron Paul's for the taking. This I doubt; what I find even more doubtful is that Paul would be a credible contender in a straight contest with Obama.

Before I explain why, let me explain my own thoughts on Paul. Yeah, he's dead right on some things - and I've been very impressed with his reasoned and non-bellicose approach to foreign policy, which is a great thing coming from a (nominal) Republican. I have little time, though, for his anti-abortion stance or for his apparent god-bothering. But hey ho. No candidate is perfect, and he's the best of a truly atrocious bunch. So while I wouldn't go so far as to say I want him to win - such passion over a deeply predictable contest that I will not be able to vote in strikes me as utterly pointless - but I suppose I would prefer him to. So why am I so dismissive of his chances?

Well, quite simply (and really rather obviously) what I want does not impact on reality in any meaningful way. Reality does not conform to my wishes. And the reality is that the deck is stacked against Paul to a massive extent. He is unlikely to win the nomination for his party, since even if he does win some early upset victories then the Republican establishment will intervene in favour of a much more mainstream and middle of the road candidate. I reckon there will be a replay of the 2004 Democrat primary campaign, where the genuinely interesting (although possibly a little barmy) Howard Dean was swiftly marginalised by the much more pedestrian yet mainstream John Kerry. The nomination will probably be Romney's; he's a safe pair of hands who will not damage the party too much even as he hands victory to Obama.

But suppose Paul did get the nomination - what then? Well, Obama would crush him. The Democrat electioneering machine would spend all of its time telling the American people that Paul is some sort of dangerous radical who would leave innocent people to get ill and die without health insurance. Hell, they could even outflank on the issue of security. Yeah, those charges might be false, but so what? Since when have presidential elections been about taking the high road? The Obama campaign would do everything they possible could to make Paul into a Goldwater for the new millennium, while simultaneously painting their guy to be solid, dependable and statesmanlike for the cameras.

Perhaps a truly great communicator could make libertarian ideals appeal to the American masses; the problem is that great communicator is not Ron Paul. Sure, he manages to avoid sticking his foot in his mouth most of the time, but that is not enough to win enough Americans over to what is potentially a radical realignment of the nature of government and state in their country. Plus, he's up against Obama, whose pompous speaking style manages to add gravitas to even the most anodyne and meaningless of pronouncements. Again, yeah, you can argue that this is unfair, but it is also reality. A Ron Paul presidential campaign might be enough to provoke a misled American people into handing a reluctant landslide to Obama.

Paul's best hope for next year is that his stance and policies in some way influence the Republican programme; in other words, that the long process of explaining his version of libertarianism begins. Then the next time a libertarian runs for the Republican nomination, these ideas are more mainstream and people are more likely to understand them and get behind them. It could be enough to get a Republican libertarian nominee in 2016 or 2020. It will certainly help to wrest control of that party away from the Christian fundamentalist path that Bush Junior put it on. But President Paul remains deeply unlikely to the point where it is basically an impossibility. It might comfort some libertarians on both sides of the Atlantic to pretend otherwise, but unfortunately it remains a pipe dream that helps them to escape from a political reality that remains stubbornly immune to the penetration of libertarian ideals into the political mainstream.

Sarah Palin: Not Running For President

The phrase "thank fuck" prings to mind. Now she can get back to doing what she does best - pontificating about politics, rather than actually engaging with it. Or whatever it is the slack-jawed lackwit.

Now, just for Perry. And Bachmann. And... so on.

Idiot of the Day

Apparently, atheists are so dangerous that they need to be on a register

Internet pastor Mike Stahl has come up with an interesting idea to assist Christians in day-to-day life. According to Stahl, the nation should set up an “Atheist Registry” in order to provide an updated list of anyone who is a “self-proclaimed atheist,” just as you would do for people convicted of sex crimes or associated with terrorist groups.

...

Although Stahl’s registry would only have a name and perhaps picture of the avowed, publicly declared atheist, and no physical address, he also believes that knowing who are the atheists in your neighborhood could lead to a wonderful opportunity to try and convert, too!

Yeah, put me on a registry for not believing in a mythical sky fairy and then come and try to convert me. See how well that goes!

Why Is Rick Perry So Terrifying?

The news that Rick Perry has joined the race for the Republican nomination for President sends a shiver down my spine. He is exactly the sort of politician that the US does not need – a bellicose God-botherer who is perfectly happy to send the mentally retarded to the execution chamber despite commandments in his religion like “thou shalt not kill”. He’s for freedom, just so long as it is economic – if you’re gay and you want to marry someone of the same gender, your freedom should be curtailed in the strange worldview of this Christian fundamentalist. And while I’m pretty liberal when it comes to gun laws, I can’t help but feel doing something like this makes you look like a total dickhead:



But Perry is not alone in many of these opinions; increasingly, these represent the sort of stances that a Republican candidate must take if they want to have any chance of being successful. So why is Perry particularly terrifying?

I think it is the fact that he is George W. Bush but Bush Junior turned up to 11. From what I’ve seen and heard of Perry, he makes Bush Junior – the worst President of the United States in living memory – look like a subtle and nuanced thinker in whom you could have complete confidence. And that is what makes Perry such a dangerous option for the Republicans and, if nominated, the US as a whole. After all, we know how it ended for George W. Bush. Why on earth would anyone want to replicate the sorry farrago that was Bush Junior’s presidency? Or, even worse, risk an even more extreme version of it?

And it is this sort of candidate who makes Obama look like the best option. Obama is a weak, compromised president but he does at least come across as far saner than many of his Republican rivals. And this may well be the factor that gets him a second term – not that he’s any good, but just that he’s less mental than those he fights elections against.

So to any Republicans reading this and preparing to vote in next year’s primaries – Rick Perry: just say no.

The Norway Attacks

The terrifying and tragic events in Norway are still being played out. I would be surprised if the death toll does not continue to rise, and if by the end of the rescue operations more than a hundred haven't lost their lives at the hands of what now looks like being one evil man*. As such, any comments made may well be contradicted by what happens in the near future. Nonetheless, I'd like to make some observations of the events that started to unfold less than 24 hours ago.

Like most, I suppose, when this first happened I thought that it would have been an attack (and then attacks) perpetrated by Islamic Fundamentalists. Indiscriminate mass slaughter has tended to be the watchword and the calling cardss of the Muslim militants. A couple of things nagged at me, though. Because while the terror attacks of Islamic Fundamentalists tend to be abritrary on the surface, certain key things do emerge as themes when you study them. Firstly, when al Qaeda and its myriad of off-shoots and tangentially linked jihadists attack the West in the West, they tend to attack ordinary people. As such, they tend to attack mass transport systems. They also tend to time their attacks for the morning rush hour - in part to kill as many as possible and in part to get their attacks at the top of the media cycle and therefore in the faces of the public for as long as possible. This was an attack later in the day against the PM, the government, and the ruling party in a coalition. So the fact that this appears to be the work of one right-wing, Christian fundamentalist is not a total surprise. This may be Norway's Oklahoma City bombing rather than their 9/11 - although I have no doubt that this distinction will offer scant comfort to the newly bereaved.

After any terror attack, there is that burning temptation to blame certain freedoms for allowing it to happen. Any such actions - especially since it tends to end up in legislation - needs to be left until a calmer time for Norway; for a time when the initial panic, rage, fear and deeply felt loss are all a little less raw both for individuals and the mass psyche. There will be a temptation to adopt something like the Patrior Act or 42 Days Detention in the aftermath of this slaughter for some in Norway; the country as a whole would do well do resist that temptation. Good legislation happens after debate and thought, not after the jerking of a knee.

Likewise, there is the temptation to stigmatise the (more often than not minority) groups who are associated with the crimes. Witness the rise of Islamaphobia in the West after 9/11 - a rise that missed the point that it was not Islam that committed that crime, but a small bunch of Islamic fundamentalists with a clear political as well as religious agenda. So again there may be a temptation in the aftermath of these attacks to stigmatise conservatives, Christians, individualists, libertarians. Any such stigmatisation is likely to misrepresent all four positions. Furthermore, and far more importantly, any such stigmatisation is like to increase the radicalisation of affected minorities, and make further attacks more, not less, likely.

Finally, it is easy for those watching this drama from afar to get caught up in the political ramifications and the hysteria around it. However, this is not just the political - this is personal as well. Because with nearly 100 people dead, there are hundreds of people now in mourning. Family and friends, spouses and lovers, brothers and sisters have all lost someone through the brutal attacks of yesterday in shocking circumstances. So as fingers points and people pontificate, let's try to remember the appalling personal tragedies that also occurred yesterday, and the heart-breaking grief that so many must now be feeling.

*Although whether it is logistically possible for one man to carry out such slaughter is still understandably being questioned by some.

On Dogma

Let’s begin by sketching an imagined, but I would say wholly realistic, debate between a Christian and an atheist. The atheist might reject Christianity on the grounds that it has been responsible for much bloodshed over the course of its history – and just the thought of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the years of bloody conflict in Northern Ireland support this case. The Christian might respond that secular movements have also got a lot of blood on their hands – and it would be ludicrous to deny that something like Stalinism was not responsible for immense death and suffering.

Of course, either one of the participants in our imaginary debate could deny that their particular view is responsible for the slaughter. A Christian might point out that it is only a corruption of their faith that could allow for something like the Inquisition – after all, didn’t Jesus talk about the most important commandment being that you should love your neighbour? Likewise, a secular Marxist could point out that Stalinism is a gross distortion of Marxism. Now, I’d argue that both positions require highly selective readings of their sources. Just a cursory flick through the Old Testament will show you a God happy to smite as well as offering a vertiable myriad of regulations designed to control many aspects of life, often backed up by the threat of death. Likewise, Marx may not have intended to create Stalinism, but it is difficult to really see “the dictatorship of the proletariat” ending up as anything other than, well, a dictatorship.

There might be more merit in a secular libertarian like me pointing out that the Christian has, to some extent, created a straw man to fight – after all, not all secular beliefs are like Stalinism (libertarianism being a good example). But this is to miss the point the Christian might be trying to make – that slaughter is not unique to religion, and therefore the root cause of that sort of slaughter needs to be located somewhere other than in religion.

I’d be inclined to agree. The problem isn’t the belief in a god or the teachings of a secular thinker per se, but rather the way in which that belief manifests itself. The problem comes when a belief becomes a dogma, and those who follow that belief see their view as an unassailable truth that must be protected at all costs. It is a short leap from that position to the idea that anyone who does not share your beliefs is a problem, and either needs to be converted or silenced (with all the menacing implications that the latter concept has). And it is here that an atheist can be just as dangerous as a Christian, and there is far more common ground between the two views than might at first be expected.

This is why I can’t stomach someone like Richard Dawkins. Yeah, I agree with him that God does not exist. I see no reason to believe in a benign being in the sky watching over us than I do in a benign being living at the North Pole and having an impossibly busy night once a year. But I don’t care too much about what other people believe. As long as they don’t proselytise their faith, they can believe exactly what they want. Which is precisely where Dawkins fails for me – he wants to convince the God-botherers that their views are delusional*. I don’t care what beliefs they hold just so long as they bother God rather than me.

And the dangers of dogma is one of the key challenges facing any thinker genuinely interested in liberty, in part because sometimes the beliefs you hold will be changed by others into a dogma. There are many who believe whole-heartedly in liberal democracy – but when this becomes a dogma that the most powerful nation wishes to force on other countries through violence whether they like it or not, it becomes a concern.

It is the challenge of the liberally minded to always question the extent to which a view has become dogmatic, and whether other views – regardless of whether a liberal likes them or not – are being allowed to be heard. It is not religion that is the problem; it is a dogmatic religion that refuses to allow dissent that is the problem (or religious fundamentalism, to put it another way). The problem is dogma, and the solution is a commitment to critical thinking that challenges any “truth” that is blindly and unthinkingly held, especially if that “truth” is intolerant of the views and beliefs of others.

*A curious tactic to take, I’d argue, when you are trying to win over other people – always difficult to build up rapport with someone after you have attempted to destroy someone’s belief system and then called them mental for having those beliefs in the first place.

Christanity, Conformity and Freedom

Over at the Orphans of Liberty, luikkerland seems to be proposing something really rather illiberal - conformity to Christanity. While the bulk of the article is a long and not especially interesting story of his/her encounter with the sort of unthinking moron we're all aware of but try to avoid contact with, the first paragraph is alarming in its implications. Let's take a look:

I was interested to see Mr Higham’s piece on writing a constitution as a task in a process to right the country. I don’t disagree, but having a constitution by itself is not enough. A constitution becomes unstuck if the people are too corrupt, distracted or fearful to uphold it. What is required in the first instance is the instruction of the people (and I actually feel that people have gone short of being preached to) so that they can tell the difference between what is natural and what is the constructed elaborate fake. A constitution should be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but too many Britons don’t know what the obvious is. Look at this example of confusion, for instance: some people believe that the death penalty is barbaric, and that abortion is civilised. Look at how many do not understand that Liberty comes from the prohibition of corruption and vice – the means by which society is undermined and manipulated by those encouraging and introducing it – applied equally across all parts of society.

First up, constitutions. I can see the appeal, and think they do represent a potential tool in the fight for liberty. But they are also open to interpretation at the same time as being very much snapshots of the period in which they were created (a point that further broadens the potential for biased interpretations). Furthermore constitutions can just be shams whatever the rhetoric contained in it, such as the 1936 constitution of the Soviet Union.

So, in a sense, luikkerland is right - constitutions need the backing and proactive support of the people. And that people needs to be intelligent, engaged, committed to liberty and to tolerating those who do not share their viewpoints. Which is where luikkerland falls short in his analysis. The only real tolerance (s)he allows for is a tolerance contained within their own Christian prejuidices. Which is almost by definition illiberal.

But let's unpack this a bit - let's look at why luikkerland's ideas are illiberal. First up, there seems to be the suggestions that we should be preached at. This seems extraordinary to me given we're only just getting over 13 years of Nu Labour rule where we constantly preached by the son of a priest and by a Christian Prime Minister. But, no doubt, that won't count for luikkerland - even though Blair has now converted to Catholicism. What's the reason behind this need for preaching? The fact that people need to understand the "bleeding obvious" rather than the "constructed elaborate fake". Unfortunately, the bleeding obvious seems to be predicated on the deeply divisive and not at all credible idea that we are "the ultimate creation of God". Which is, of course, a "constructed elaborate fake" for many people in this country.

It is pointless to ask Christians for proof of their beliefs - quite rightly, they point to the notion that their religion is based on faith, so if proof was forthcoming then faith would be fatally undermined. But they also need to understand that fate is not something you can turn on and off. I cannot choose to have faith in God; on balance, using my faculties of reason and critical thinking, I see no way in which God can exist. So to expect me to subscribe to the notion that liberty is about the "prohibtion of corruption and vice" is deeply troubling, especially if the concepts of corruption and vice are seen through an explicitly Christian lens - since Christianity is far from tolerant.

A Christian viewpoint might see homosexuality, sex outside of wedlock and blasphemy as examples of corruption and vice, yet for me there is nothing wrong with any of those concepts. Furthermore, even on issues where there might be a wider consensus of what constitutes vice outside of the Christian faith - such as the use of prostitutes or people having extra-marital affairs - what right does anyone have to suppress actions between consenting adults based on the long, contradictory teachings of a book written millenia ago? True tolerance, true liberalism should allow people to conduct themselves in whatever way they like as long as that behaviour dies not fall foul of the Harm Principle.

Luikkerland cites the "confusion" people have over the death penalty being a "barbaric" and abortion "civilised". This is quite a common Christian fundamentalist simplication of these two highly complex moral issues. As someone who is pro-choice, I believe that in certain early stages of the pregnancy a woman should have the right to choose whether or not they terminate that pregnancy. This does not make me pro-abortion or into a believer that abortion is civilised - rather, it subscribes me to the thoroughly liberal view that the state should be restricted as much as possible when it comes to our bodies and what happens to them. Which is why I am also opposed to the death penalty, which is perhaps the ultimate example in states physically intervening in the lives of their citizens. There is no confusion here, there is consistency - it is about limiting the state's right to interfere in the lives and choices of its citizens. You might argue that the state should interfere in these circumstances and control both whether a woman has a baby and whether a criminal is murdered by the state - that's fine, but such arguments have little to do with liberalism.

And there is a splendid irony in luikkerland decrying the perceived manipulation of others at the same time as advocating preaching to spread the word of his/her own chosen dogma. The whole concept reminds me of the notorious assertion by Rousseau that people should be forced to be free. Luikkerland is fine with you being free, but just to clarify - freedom means conforming to what (s)he believes in.

Liberty is about tolerance. It is about finding ways in which differing conceptions of the good can live in peaceful co-existence with each other. It isn't about conformity, whether that conformity be to a socialist or Christian dogma. Don't get me wrong, I think that luikkerland should be able to write what they want where they want, and I don't see any problem with such illiberal bilge being on a website at least nominally committed to liberty. But I do think that those of us genuinely committed to the cause of liberty should not be afraid to call this for what it is - social conservatism drifting toward the reactionary, with a healthy dose of Christian fundamentalism thrown into the mix. Freedom it most certainly is not.

Update: Longrider says something similar over at the Orphans of Liberty; unsurprisingly, I agree with what he says - especially this:

Liberty does not need religion to survive. Religion does tend to rely on liberty though.

Ooo, guess who's back? It's Harold Camping, the Preacher with a hard-on for the Rapture, here to explain what happened - or, rather, why what he predicted didn't happen. Apparently he got his calculations wrong. I don't think many people would dispute that right now. But he does seem remarkably indifferent to those who spent their life-savings advertising his idiotic predictions for him. From the BBC:

Asked if he had any advice to offer those who had given away their material wealth in the belief the world was about to end, Mr Camping said they would cope.

"We just had a great recession. There's lots of people who lost their jobs, lots of people who lost their houses... and somehow they all survived," he said.

"We're not in the business of giving any financial advice," he added.

Well, I'm not in the business of offering financial advice either. Instead, I'll offer a little bit of common sense advice to all those who wasted their time and money on this delusional, fundamentalist idiot: don't listen to him, or anyone like him, ever again.

The Pastor Who Cried Rapture

We've all made predictions that didn't come off, and we've been left with egg on our faces. I remember being so sure that David Davis would win the last Tory leadership election that I advised a couple of friends to put money on that outcome. I was wrong, they lost their cash, life went on. Which is the way it goes.

Unless, of course, you predict that life won't go on, and that the world will end. Because there's no wiggle room when you predict something like the Rapture and it doesn't happen. It's pretty absolute. When you're wrong, everyone can see you're wrong, and people are either laughing at you or hating you, depending on how they treated your really rather ludricrous claim about the end of everything.

Perhaps this pastor truly believed that yesterday was the end of days. Perhaps it was a more cynical ploy to to increase the profile of his radio station - in which case it worked a treat. Except that it can only ever be a short-term win for the pastor and his organisation. After all, this is the second time he has said the Rapture is coming only for nothing to happen. You'd have thought that his credibility would have been shot to shit after the first time, but no. Many still seem to have believed him. Surely, though, even the most devout of people - those who believe that the Rapture is something more than the final fiction in a fictional book - must be at the very least doubting this pastor's predictive ability when it comes to the Rapture?

No doubt that if this pastor shows his face in public again it will be to spout a whole host of excuses about why the Rapture didn't happen. I just hope that the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and the next time he decides he's a-going to ascend to heaven, even fewer people treat his mad ramblings with anything other than the utter scorn they deserve.

Theroux, Westboro and Christianity

So, I got round to watching the new Louis Theroux documentary. The one about a family of (Christian funda)mentalists. Two thoughts strike me about it.

Firstly, I really don't like the way Theroux undertakes his investigations. There seems to be an inherent contradiction within them. When interacting with his targets (and make no mistake about it, they are targets) he seems to be determined not to provoke, or even judge, them (except in the voiceovers). Indeed, one of the most painful yet enlightening moments in his most recent documentary is when he is forced to reveal what he actually thinks of the homophonic shitheads he's dealing with in front of them. Yet the whole premise of his programme judges them. In this case, they are the most hated family in America. In the past, they've been Nazis. Or Weird Weekends. The whole point of his work is that he believes he is dealing with freaks who should be investigated - that's how he selects them. So, as far as I am concerned, he should either engage with them and challenge them properly on the areas he finds weird or freakish, or he should redefine his work as being a broad and open-minded investigation of counter-culture. Not the weird.

But it seems almost counter-intuitive to complain about Louis Theroux's journalistic flaws when he is dealing with an organisation as appalling as the Westboro Baptist Church. Yeah, Theroux could do more to improve his journalistic integrity. The Westboro Baptist Church could do more to be fucking human. They are odious, ignorant people. They hide behind an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible to justify their homophobia and rage against America. Their leader is a nasty, hate-filled misanthrope. They are, in short, repugnant Christian fundamentalists.

Of course, it is tempting for an atheist like me to condemn Christianity as a whole based on these malign Christians. But to do so would be wrong. Yes, it is true that this "church" can find its justifications in the Bible, but much of the Bible contradicts itself. Large swathes of the Old Testament contradict the Ten Commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and Jesus's own favourite, "Love Thy Neighbour". And the Bible is not unique in that regard; chunks of the Koran, for example, do not fit with the beliefs of moderate Muslims. And this phenomenon is not solely applicable to religion. Taking Marx at his word is blueprint for dictatorship and for Stalinism, whereas a more critical, moderate and intelligent engagement with Marxism can still find moments of value even if the theory as a whole is fatally and fundamentally flawed. The problem with the Westboro lot is not that they are Christian, but rather that they are dogmatic about it. They refuse to allow for any deviation from their flawed and self-justifying reading of the Bible. Just as those Muslims who strap bombs to their chests and go into battle refuse to engage critically with the Koran, and the Stalinists refuse to allow for any deviation from their dictatorial reading of Marxism.

Therefore, the documentary shows that the problem is not Christianity, but the religious myopia of those who unthinkingly treat Christianity as dogma. The mentalists in the Westboro church are no more representative of moderate Christians than the actions of Timothy McVeigh are of those who legitimately question the scope of the state. I'm no Christian - I believe the worship of the Invisible Sky Fairy is no more rational than a belief in Santa or the Force - but I do get that the extremists lackwits of Westboro have little to do with the much more benign beliefs of moderate Christians.

Mike Huckabee - Still a Mentalist.

Ah, Mike Huckabee – it’s been a while since you last crossed my mind. I assumed your political career was over – mainly because you were beaten to the Republican nomination by a grumpy old man whose main selling point was that he was saner than you. But no. You’re still out there, talking terrifying shite.

Here’s the latest quote from one of the US’s favourite bible-bashing political nut-jobs:

I almost wish that there would be, like, a simultaneous telecast, and all Americans would be forced — forced at gunpoint no less — to listen to every David Barton message, and I think our country would be better for it. I wish it’d happen.

David Barton is, in case you were wondering, a fellow Christian fundamentalist. And the apparently delusional Huckabee thinks his fellow citizens should be forced at the barrel of a gun to listen to the fundamentalist toss.

Of course, Huckabee being Huckabee does this with a smile on his face, and makes his extraordinarily illiberal suggestion in a lighthearted way. Which is precisely what makes him so dangerous. He puts a genial face on Christian fundamentalism: he makes his brand of extremism look very, very friendly. Surely he can’t be a threat? I mean, he’s very folksy. Even when he is talking about using the threat of violence to make the people he aspires to rule to listen to his own particular brand of ethereal bullshit.

If Huckabee does run, I hope that this quote is repeated over and over again, so every moderate Republican can see and understand that Huckabee is a dangerous loon.

Pastor Terry Jones Speaks!

And while the underlying message is less ignorant than normal, the speech is lacking in both coherence and eloquence. Let's take a look:

[First words inaudible]...

Best part of the speech.

...what would have to happen for us to call our event off. As we prayed about that, in the past we did have one idea.

I'm guessing it wasn't having pretty much the whole world opposing your event...

This idea we put out in prayer to God. That if he would want us to call this off, if we have accomplished our goal, then our thought was the American people do not as a whole want the mosque at the Ground Zero location.

The American people do not exist as a whole. Don't attempt to force homogeneity on one of the most diverse nations in the world.

That if they were willing to either cancel the mosque at the Ground Zero location, or if they were willing to move it away from that location, we would consider that sign from God.

So God doesn't so much move in mysterious ways - he is actually full-on fucking obscurantist. He talks to rednecks on Florida through the mouthpiece of Muslims in New York - and said Muslims aren't even talking about the same thing as Jones and his idiotic ilk. Yep, this may be a sign from God, but even if it is a sign from a fictional deity, it remains very open to interpretation.

We have, or he has [indicating Iman Muhammad Musri, standing beside him], been in contact with the imam in New York City.

I, with the imam here, will be flying up there on Saturday to meet the imam at the Ground Zero mosque.

Has the Ground Zero mosque actually been built yet? Or is Pastor Jones so delusional that he thinks he's going to meet people at a place that hasn't even been built yet?

And, by the way, the proposed mosque isn't on Ground Zero. By all means go there, Jones, but you're going to be a couple of blocks away from where you need to be.

He has agreed to move the location. That of course cannot happen overnight. But he has agreed to move that.

Except reports say that those behind the mosque haven't agreed to move the location.

We felt that that would be a sign that God would want us to do it.

Like a transatlantic mobile phone call, the coherence of Pastor Jones's statement is starting to become garbled, incoherent, and not worth going on with.

The American people do not want the mosque there.

Well, some American people don't want the mosque there. Others do. Like the people building the fucking thing two blocks away.

And of course Muslims do not want us to burn the Koran.

Which is precisely why you said you would do it, you antagonist, fundamentalist little twat.

The imam has agreed to move the mosque. We have agreed to cancel our event on Saturday.

Again, the first half of this sentence may well not be true. But hey, if delusion has got Pastor Jones to cancel his little book burning, then so be it. After all, it was the delusional belief in an ersatz God that created it the idea of a book burning in the first place.

And on Saturday I will be flying up there to meet with him.

Good. Enjoy New York. Take in a show, have a hot dog. And enjoy the celebrity while you can. Because hopefully you, Pastor Jones, are about to disappear from the public eye forever.

Christian extremist lackwits call for Koran burning

Oh, good golly gosh this sounds like a such a dumb fucking idea:

A small US church says it will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary.

And the justification for it?

But organiser, Pastor Terry Jones said: "We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam."

Well, Pastor Terry Jones is clearly a fucktard of the very highest calibre if he thinks that this will be a clear message getting to radical Islam. After all, his country has invaded two nations and destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives trying to send a message to radical Islam. And if radical Islam is getting the message, it is only making them more angry. Which is what Jones's little piece of idiocy will do, if it goes ahead. Make angry radicals even more angry. Woo-hoo! That's great work there, Terry, you empty-headed lackwit.

Of course, burning books is never a great sign, but as we know, radical Islam is not above having the odd burning of stuff itself. So why shouldn't these Christians get in on the act? Well, partly because their religion is big on turning the other cheek rather than burning books, but also because this is a reactionary and stupid thing to do. The only comfort arising from this situation is that more mainstream Christians in the US and elsewhere are making their voices heard and are shouting this idea down. Which is what they need to do. Because the extremes of religion - whatever that religion might be - are very dangerous. And they discredit the whole of that religion; it becomes tainted by association with the bigots. Just as Jones reckons he is sending a message to radical Islam so Christian churches in the US need to send a message to their radical, or extremist elements - and they need to tell Jones and his odious ilk to go fuck themselves. Or more Christian words that have the same meaning.

Moronic Bigot of the Day: Richard Carvath

Oh, looky, we've got a hate-filled, god-bothering Neanderthal on our hands. Ladies and gents, I give you - Mr Richard Carvath:

Hmm... I've a lot of time on my hands right now and so I've been bobbing about the web a few places I haven't been for a while. I just happened to look up homosexual-pervert LGBTory Chairman Matthew Sephton who is over at a homosexual-pervert event in Liverpool today (the first Liverpool Pride).

"Homosexual-pervert" - good fucking God, we're back in the dark ages here. What a pig-ignorant thing to say. Only a bone-headed lackwit would even consider using such a deplorable phrase.

[Matthew was my rival candidate for Salford and Eccles at the last General Election. Despite having an easy ride - all the money, media and machine that any candidate could wish for - Matthew only managed to come in third as the Conservative Party candidate. It's a shame the Tories didn't pick a real conservative candidate rather than this homosexual-pervert activist. Any Tory candidate worth his salt and with those resources available should've at least beaten the weak Lib Dem Norman Owen into second place. Sephton failed to do so. Indeed after the count Hazel Blears appeared to be grateful above all to her Tory rival!]

The phrase "a real conservative candidate" links, inevitably, to a picture of Carvath - and he has a face only a mother could love. He also seems to miss the point that conservatism is not the same as being a reactionary; in case of doubt, Carvath is definitely the latter.

And let's look at the results from the particular election Carvath is talking about. He's right, Sephton did come third - which is not a great result but probably par for the course in a seat held by a high-profile former Labour minister. It is also worth noting that Sephton got 8,497 votes while our new friend Carvath came last with 384 votes. Which means that Carvath got just 4% of the support afforded to Sephton. Not that Carvath is bitter, of course. No doubt that Carvath would blame that on the lack of a party machine behind his candidacy, but that misses the point that the reason why he doesn't have a party machine behind him is because he's a despicable, reactionary bigot with intolerant homophobic views.

Will Matthew be gyrating on the back of a float wearing only a thong through the streets of Liverpool? Who knows, the mind boggles. Well, whether or not he's wearing bondage trousers and nipple clamps on the back of a lorry today, I have no doubt that my old chum Matthew Sephton supports the recent overturning of Prop 8 by a judge in San Francisco.

He probably does support it, what with it being a triumph for LGBT campaigners. Then again, most open-minded people will also support the over-turning. What with it being the right thing to do 'n' all.

This development is alarming because it'll probably end up in the US Supreme Court for a definitive legal decision as to whether the United States defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman (or not).

Yes, it probably will end up in the Supreme Court. It is the, well, supreme court in that land. And as such it is where all appeals fight their final battles.

This is the way that abortion was legalised in the US (in the Supreme Court with Roe vs Wade in 1973): abortion was legalised in the US not by legislation but by judicial activism.

No. This is wrong. Carvath's view is completely the wrong way round. The 1973 Supreme Court decision did not legalise abortion - it said that restricting access to abortion was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. According to this judgement, it was the constitution that legalised abortion when it was first written centuries ago. Carvath may disagree with this interpretation of the US constitution, but it doesn't change the basic fallacy of his assertion that Roe v. Wade legalised abortion.

Is the same about to happen with the homosexual-perverts' 'holy grail' of completely subverting the definition of marriage?

Hopefully.

I hope not, but with Barack Obortion in the White House and backing the perverts, who can safely predict that sanity will prevail in the Supreme Court?

Barack Obortion? Hilarious, Dickshaft Cuntvath.

And this notion that the Supreme Court is a naturally liberal body or one that naturally follows the sitting President is also fallacious. You only have to look at the notorious ruling in favour of Bush Junior after the 2000 Presidential election to see that.

Here in the UK it is tragic that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and David Miliband are all pro-pervert and do not recognise that marriage is an exclusively heterosexual institution.

Erm, David Miliband isn't Labour leader yet.

And in this example, Cameron, Clegg, and (I'd imagine) all of the candidates for Labour leadership are simply following the wishes of the electorate: both the LGBT campaigners who want equal rights under the law, and those tolerant voters who don't want to see discrimination based on sexual orientation (or in any other way, for that matter).

We are more likely to see the perverts get their way here by means of parliamentary legislation in the next four years. The perverts don't need to pursue their cause through the courts here because top-level British politicians from the major parties are already doing their bidding.

Goddamn those politicians! Doing the bidding of the electorate. What a crazy fucking notion for a democracy.

Well, you know what I think about marriage and about the homosexual-perversion: I've spoken out on these themes plenty of times. I sincerely hope that marriage remains correctly defined in both the USA and the UK in the years to come. As for Matthew Sephton and his pervert pals at Liverpool Pride, they can get the help they need here and here and good luck to them.

The links lead to ignorant organisations who dismiss homosexuals and bisexuals as sinners, and offer them a cure for their sexual orientations. They are the sort of bigoted and malign organisations that a malign bigot like Carvath would know about. I'm not going to link to them as they turn my stomach.

Carvath is simultaneously the worst kind of Christian and conservative: he is a close-minded bigot who hides behind scripture, and uses religious and political beliefs as a smokescreen that he believes, falsely, validates his atrocious views. Both the Conservatives and genuinely tolerant Christians should speak out against the likes of Carvath - him and his odious ilk do nothing but harm for their causes.

Quote of the Day

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

Barry Goldwater