This article, which spoofs religion, intelligent design and Richard Dawkins while coming up with new comical euphemisms about breasts and bums, is an testament to the ongoing genius of The Daily Mash.

Rowan Williams and the Non-Existent Fear

One of the greatest, and most important, political concepts of all time is the idea of the seperation of church and state. While we haven't quite managed it completely in this country, you'd think that we could be spared having to hear about the political preferences of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But clearly he wouldn't agree.

His New Statesman article is the sort of toss that continually gets printed by that magazine. And Rowan Williams has been comprehensively shredded just about everywhere this morning - particularly since he, as an unelected, unaccountable public figure, is really taking the piss when he criticises the democratic credentials of the coalition. One of the biggest problems, though, is that his whole article is predicated on the shakiest of grounds. Take a look at this paragraph on the much-maligned concept of the Big Society:

Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around such questions at present. It isn't enough to respond with what sounds like a mixture of, "This is the last government's legacy," and, "We'd like to do more, but just wait until the economy recovers a bit." To acknowledge the reality of fear is not necessarily to collude with it. But not to recognise how pervasive it is risks making it worse. Equally, the task of opposition is not to collude in it, either, but to define some achievable alternatives. And, for that to happen, we need sharp-edged statements of where the disagreements lie.

First up, it may not be enough to respond with things like "this is the last government's legacy", but it is still important to stress that. Labour were in power for 13 years - the situation the coalition inherited is Labour's fault. In fact, I'm amazed that the coalition doesn't spend more time pointing this out. If I was Cameron or Clegg, I'd be saying something like "this is all your fucking fault" every time Ed Miliband opened his stupid mouth. Likewise, the economy does restrict what the coalition can do. Labour could afford to do far more because the national bank account hadn't (yet) been ransacked. The Con-Dems were always going to be far more restricted as the money has been spent.

He's right, of course, when he says that the point of opposition is to offer some sort of tangible alternative to the government. But he's wrong when he talks about it coming from the left. The left (or at least the mainstream left) has become inherently conservative. That's the point of Blue Labour, that's why the Labour party in opposition can offer nothing more than "we'd do the same, but more slowly and with sad looks on our faces".

Indeed, as far as I can see radical alternatives will come from outside of the right-left political spectrum. Likewise, radical change does not - as Williams seems to believe it should - involve maintaining the current level of state power. There are radical alternatives to the status quo; these challenge that size and scope of the state in modern Britain. They dare to say that the answer to everything may not be state intervention and that the government both should not and cannot be held responsible for all aspects of national life. Take child poverty. The last Labour administration threw vast amounts of money at ending child poverty and nothing happened. It is time to consider other options and other institutions in society that might be able to help deal with and maybe end this problem. And it is striking that the head of one of those potential institutions is so utterly caught up in the statist myth.

But the biggest problem with the Archbish's article is that it is, as seems to be the case with many people writing for The New Statesman, based on unsubstantiated assertions of nothing more than the author's opinions. Williams writes about "plain fear". What fear? I have not come across anyone afraid of the coalition's policies. Sure, some people are angry and resentful about the coalition's approach, but no-one I've come across is afraid. As a result, the whole article comes across as a case based on a false assumption, and that is a fatal flaw. It isn't enough for anyone - even the Archbishop of Canterbury - to effectively say "it is true because I say it is". I doubt I am alone on demanding a little more proof of the fear that is the foundation of this article before I can treat Williams' views with the credibility that he seems to believe they deserve.

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.

On the subject of the Rapture...

...I've got some questions. Assuming that this is the second coming of Christ and not the delusional rantings of an old man who has already failed to accurately predict the Rapture once before, I'd like some clarity around the etiquette of the whole thing. So my questions are:

(1) Is there a strict timetable that needs to be adhered to? For the Royal Wedding (another big event with religious overtones) there very much was a timetable, and that way anyone interested in what was going on could more or less know exactly what was happening and when. I know there's supposed to be a big earthquake today, but what happens after that? And all unbelievers are due to be dead by 21st October - do we get to choose when we go to hell? If so, I'd like to book as later a slot for that as possible.

(2) Is there a dress code? I'd hate to be condemned to internal damnation because I wasn't wearing a suit.

(3) I know Jesus is meant to be all-knowing, but frankly he doesn't offer any proof of that. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, I'd like the chance to pitch to Jesus about my worthiness before he decides whether I burn for all eternity or not. Surely not too much to ask...

(4) Is Jesus going to factor in that some of us aren't going to be ready because the conduit to communicate the coming of the Rapture was a daft old man with zero credibility? Had the Pope said it then we might all be taking it a little more seriously; as it stands, I rather think a lot of us aren't going to be ready.

(5) Bearing in mind it has been a longtime since the world last saw Christ, is he going to do something to make him clearly recognisable? The reason why I ask is because there are a couple of people in every neighbourhood who wondered around cursing people and chuntering on about the end of the world all the time. I just want to make sure that Christ differentiates himself from them. Otherwise, all manner of farcical merriment could ensue.

I hope someone comes back to me with answers to my questions soon. After all, there's not long left. Or so I heard...

Would it be too much to ask for online application portals to have "atheist" in their drop-down menu of potential religions? "None" is not an appropriate description of my religious views; I'm anti-religion, rather than ambivalent or apathetic to it.

Religious Education Today

The BBC brings us news of yet another area in which the state school system is failing:

Religious education is "inadequate" in one in five secondary schools in England, according to watchdog Ofsted.

Since “education” and “inadequate” have become largely synonymous since Nu Labour decided to shaft the state school system, it’s worth clarifying what exactly the problem is with religious education:

Its study suggested many teachers were unsure of what they were trying to achieve in the subject.

Which does raise the interesting question of what should religious education look to achieve today? Indeed, should there be any sort of religious education in state schools in this day and age?

To the latter question, I think the answer is yes – despite being a committed atheist. While it sometimes pains me to admit it, religion is still important to many people in society today, so in order to understand what religion is (and maybe even help to combat religious intolerance at the same time), religious education is important – and part of that education should also involve a discussion of atheism. There may even be a chance within this to debate questions of morality when discussing religion.

But what there is no place for whatsoever in religious education is promotion of any one religion. Religious education should not promote Christianity, or Islam, or any other religion. If pupils decide to follow a religion, then that is their choice. Religious education should be explicitly about educating kids, not promoting one religion and critiquing the others*.

To me, this is not controversial at all – but I suspect that to many religious groups it will be very problematic. But ultimately, if you want to educate kids about religion today, you have to reflect the fact that Britain today is a multicultural society where people choose to follow a number of different faiths – and some choose people not to follow any sort of religion at all.

*Which is exactly what my experience of religious education was.

Getting to the True Meaning of Easter

Quote of the Day 2

I don't know, you wait for one quote of the day and then two come along on the same day:

"It's the constant arrogation of an overstated influence on life and society that secularists like myself oppose. There's no point in pussyfooting around. You believe something dreamed up by illiterate goatherds 2000 years ago and I've got to respect it? No is the answer, after 9/11."

"Religion can't carry on unconstrained, and the constraint must be, see yourself as you are, an unelected body with no greater rights than any other interest group such as trade unions or political parties. Have your say, but don't impose yourself on the rest of us."

A. C. Grayling

The Devil and the Pope

Sometimes you don't need to satirise the Catholic Church; it just does it for itself:

"The Devil resides in the Vatican and you can see the consequences," said Father Amorth, 85, who has been the Holy See's chief exorcist for 25 years.

Doesn't the Pope live in the Vatican as well? If the Devil resides there as well, does that make them roomies? Or something more?!? I think we should be told....

"I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed. All you have to do is think about what Hitler and Stalin did."

Err, Stalin wasn't a Nazi. Small point, but worth highlighting. And the Nazi's weren't possessed by anything than a heady brew of undeserved power mixed with deeply held prejudice. To dismiss them as possessed by evil is rather to miss the point about the banality of evil; the willing killers of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are not necessarily evil - although their actions certainly are - but are rather normal humans given permission to become inhuman by the state. That's why we need to have constant vigilance against the tendencies of government to drift towards authoritarianism. And also why we need to combat any such drift (with something a little more realistic than exorcism).

Plus, wasn't the Pope once in the Hitler Youth? Does that mean he was possessed as well? Perhaps that's why the Devil feels so at home in the Vatican.

"(The Devil) can remain hidden, or speak in different languages, or even appear to be sympathetic. At times he makes fun of me. But I'm a man who is happy in his work."

The Devil makes fun of you, eh? Can't think why...

Atheism and Libertarianism

Given the amount of vitriol I send in the direction of religion – and, in particular, Christianity – I sometimes get comments on the blog about my attitude to religion. Most recently, I received an e-mail asking me what my problem with God is, and how I can rationalise that with being Libertarian. So I thought I would make my thoughts on religion perfectly clear for anyone who cannot pick up my position on religion by implication.

First up, it is worth noting that I don’t have a problem with God, much in the same way as I don’t have a problem with Noddy. As far as I am concerned, both are fictional characters. And I only have a limited amount of scorn and derision within me, so I have to focus on being angry with real people, rather than created characters.

No, I do have an issue with religion. To break it down, I think that most religions are so farcical in their claims that it is impossible not to mock. Why talk about “the Lord their God” when “the invisible sky fairy” comes across as so much more accurate a description? Why use the term “believers” when “God-botherers” provokes a far more satisfying reaction? Maybe it is a bit childish and a bit of pointless verbal flashing, but fuck it. I’ve never claimed to be mature. At least not consistently mature, anyway.

But I have slightly more credible reasons for my scorn towards religion. Like the damage religion does to society. It isn’t just the damage that, say, Islam is doing to Iraq or Iran. Look at what the born-again Christian George W Bush has done to the USA. When religion becomes militant, when it seeks to convert others or even whole societies, then it becomes deeply destructive. I have no issue with someone who wants to use religion as a design for life, or as a crutch to help them through a world that is often troubling and uncertain – just so long as they don’t try to convert me or use their ancient, contradictory texts as a blueprint to change society.

And then we have the privileged position religion seems to hold in society. I can call socialism a big pile of wank in front of a socialist and it is game on – the debate/argument begins. It is often fraught, and angry, but the debate happens. Criticise religion in front of many religious types, and you are met with a startled look of indignation and fear. The response isn’t to engage in an argument about the relative merits of atheism against religion. Rather, there is the startled demand to know how I can say such things, and whether or not I know that this is their religion. You can see this mentality emerging when you hear people talking about how “the UK is a Christian country”. It isn’t. It may once have been a Christian country, but it also used to be an absolute monarchy, and it isn’t anymore. We live in a multicultural country with a largely secular government. Religion needs to realise that it is just one view (actually, a number of different views) in a world filled with disparate and exponentially increasing number of beliefs. In the final analysis there is no difference between Islam and being a Jedi, or between being a socialist and a Christian. It may be humbling for someone who holds a religious views to realise this, but unfortunately for them, it also happens to be true.

So, how can I rationalise this disdain for religion with being a Libertarian – particularly when being a Libertarian inherently involves a commitment to freedom of speech. Well, the answer is implicit in the last paragraph, but I’ll spell it out just in case. I believe that everyone has a right to their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect those views. Take racism. I find it abhorrent, but I believe that people have a right to hold those beliefs is they are that ignorant. And I see very little difference between my stance on racism and that on religion.

For the religious, remember this: I respect your right to hold religious views, but that doesn’t mean I respect the views you hold. Freedom of speech allows you to be religious, but also allows others to criticise your views. Accept it, get over it.

Things I never expected to see...

...like Sarah Palin writing for The Guardian.* It even has some interesting points, right up until it hits this sentence:

We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil.

Yeah. God did that. You poor, delusional cretin. 

*Except it was originally for The Washington Post. Hey ho, share the writing wealth, I suppose.

Chaplain, The NHS and a Moron

I’m not the world’s biggest fan of the NHS; generally speaking, I see it as a monstrous waste of billions of pounds that is in dire need of urgent and radical reform, if not outright abolition. I keep my eyes open for any radical ideas for reform. However, Melanie Reid in The Times has come up with perhaps the most startling suggestion for reform – more hospital chaplains.

And she bases this on something she saw on the TV:

The first part of Channel 4's fly-on-the-wall series, which runs for another two weeks, looked into the modern world of emergency medicine. This wasn't ER or Scrubs, this was ugly reality - wave upon wave of young people, drunk, regardless, violent and rude, brought in with various terrible injuries as a result of intoxication.

First things first; if your idea of medical reality comes from ER or Scrubs, then you really do need to do some work in joining the reality based community. They are fiction. They are not real. Likewise, The Bill doesn’t represent real policing in this country in this day and age. And prison isn't actually like Porridge.

What this does point to, though, is not so much a problem with the NHS (although fuck knows there are a whole load of problems with that institution) but rather with society as a whole. If our youth is pissed up and looking for a ruck, then is that really a problem for the hospitals? Or should society as a whole actually be looking at those problems, leaving hospitals to look after the sick and ill? After all, hospitals sometimes struggle with their basic core mission of looking after other people’s health – tasking them with improving the moral rectitude of the whole nation seems a little ambitious.

Not, however, for Melanie Reid:

We would be sensible to regard it as a modern morality play, especially in a week when the National Secular Society called for the NHS to stop funding hospital chaplains. The society estimates that £40 million a year is spent on giving religious groups a presence in hospitals. In many areas secularism has much to recommend it. In this instance they are wrong and mean-spirited. There has never been a greater need for a spiritual presence in hospitals.

We’d be sensible to call it a documentary rather than a modern morality play. On the grounds that, you know, it is a documentary.

And why is there a need for greater spiritual presence in hospitals? Unless Jesus himself comes down from a cloud and opens a can of serious whup-ass on some of the scum clogging up A&E, I rather think the scope of the Church is limited in dealing with these problems.

Not so for the author of this curiously crap article. See, the patients really are part of the problem:

The patients showed a total lack of responsibility for their actions. They swore at staff, they smirked, they were abusive, complaining, obstructive, hysterical and completely unapologetic. As for gratitude, why, it's a free service, isn't it? What's to be grateful for? There was an almost total lack of the embarrassment or thanks that former generations would have displayed.

Just to clarify for everyone, the NHS is not free. But you can’t blame this young proles for treating it as if it is free when every bit of rhetoric about or defending the NHS refers to it as a free service, now, can you? This whole fucking country labours under the delusion that the National Health Service is free. No it fucking ain’t. It is free at the point of service. And if you want people to start respecting it a bit more, then you might want to remind people that it is something they have paid for, out of their hard-earned taxes.

But it isn’t just the wayward youth who contribute to the demand for chaplains to save the NHS: it is the doctors as well:

The doctor, a young man with empty eyes and a hard-drinking face, did not engage with us. He spoke as if we were five miles away. For all he was utterly professional and faultless, I felt as if something had died inside him. He was almost like an addict: I wondered if he was so hooked on the adrenalin of coping with stab wounds and fights that nothing less than that stirred him.

That paragraph is borderline libellous; if I was the doctor and I saw that, I’d be very keen to slap a law suit on someone who disses me on a national newspaper’s website.

And the irony of talking about ungrateful people in the same time as implying a doctor who was “utterly professional and faultless” might also be a hard-drinking adrenaline junkie may have escaped the author, but it hasn’t escaped me.

You see the same look in abbatoir workers' eyes. They shut down all feeling, all judgment. The patients, deserving or not, have become lumps of meat to them. Monica Garnsey, the maker of the documentaries, believes that what patients want most is the sense that their doctor is sympathetic. But their patience has been stretched too far

Again, there’s a gap between talking about gratitude for the professional medical workers in the NHS and then comparing them to abattoir workers.

Yet I’d actually rather have a doctor who sees me as a lump of meat in need of a clean, clinical cure/treatment rather than having a doctor who is a clueless fuck but wants to be my best bud. I’m not looking for sympathy from the doctor or the nurse; I am looking for them to make me feel better.

So maybe a little moral panic would be a good thing; maybe we need more chaplains, if only to check the growth in this new amoral, compassion-neutral transaction, where the drunk and feckless not only waste billions of pounds but leave hospital as ignorant and unreformed as they went in. Maybe we need to be a bit more judgmental, for all our sakes.

I’m going to throw this out to my readers – can anyone really think of an occasion where moral panic has been a good thing? Because I really, really can’t think of a single example to back up that ludicrous statement.

And of course the drunk and the feckless are going to leave hospital as ignorant and unreformed as when they went in – it is a hospital for fuck’s sake, not a shitting school. And as for being more judgmental, that’s all very well – until you consider that judgement and morality is relative. Which allows me to be more judgmental and call Melanie Reid a god-bothering, shrill ignoramous.

In a world sometimes scarily lacking in values, chaplains have a vital symbolic role as well as a practical one. Chaplains, in my experience, do not proselytise; they simply afford patients the kind of time, care and compassion that medical staff can no longer give them. No, they cannot cure binge drinking, but they do stand for something resolutely good and wise.

Chaplains, in my experience, do proselytise, and therefore should be removed from hospitals forthwith.

Of course, my argument is anecdotal and unsubstantiated. But then so is Melanie Reid’s. Her deeply flawed argument easily exposed, let’s move on from that paragraph.

The secularists have missed the point completely. They contacted 233 acute and mental health trusts, which spent £26.72 million on chaplains. This money, they say, could be used to employ 1,300 nurses or 2,645 cleaners, which is as facile as saying that we could save £3 billion plus in A&E budgets by banning booze.

Seriously, this woman actually debates whether it is better to have fucking God spods in wards or nurses who can actually help people get better? What the fuck? Maybe we should go the whole hog, and stop investing in any new medicine and equipment. Instead, let’s have a cathedral in each and every fucking hospital. Then, maybe, we can heal people through the power of prayer.

Terry Sanderson, the president of the society, even claimed that people in hospital should seek visits from their own vicar, priest, rabbi or imam if they needed religious support. What an arrogant man he sounds.

No, he sounds sensible and pragmatic.

It is non-religious people, lost in a crisis, who need chaplains the most. Look at Jade Goody, married and blessed as she was dying.

Right, so we should continue to employ chaplains in hospital because Jade Goody got Jesus before she shuffled off this mortal coil? The policy of the whole of the NHS on God should be governed by Jade Goody converting to Christianity in her final weeks and months? Goody’s death has been used as justification for some good things, and also a whole lotta crap. This is perhaps the biggest load of crap yet.

Look at the tragic, chaotic lives of some of the young people lying in A&E with no family to phone. It is the injured, the dying and the bereaved, who seek, not necessarily God, but a little kindness and succour at their time of greatest need.

Don’t we employ people – like, say, social workers – who can offer a bit of kindness (and at the same time, something more useful like practical help) for these people in their hour of need? And is Reid really so detached from reality that she believes that your average, drunken and violent young chav is going to show even an iota of fucking respect to a priest?

Besides, aren’t they already chaplains in hospitals? If they really are the answer to the problem of nauseating oiks attending A & E, how fucking come the problem still exists? But then, I suppose, keeping chaplains in hospital is a very NHS thing to do. Keep on throwing money at something that doesn’t work.

Gordon does something good!

Albeit unintentionally.

As has widely been reported and promoted elsewhere, there is a campaign going on at the moment to raise enough money to get a slogan on the side of a bus that suggests that God doesn't exist, and that we should all just get on with enjoying our lives. The neutrality of the message has won me over as a supporter - I can't be bothered with militant atheism (I can't be bothered with anybody who is shrilly evangelical about any belief - believe what you like, just shut up about it when you are around me) but the message is a nice counterpoint to the increasingly ubiquitous Alpha course and other demented religious advertising. If you want the atheists to have their say and are also sick of Christian advertising and evangelicals, then you can sign up here.

And whilst you are there, take a look at some of the totals. As I write the campaign has made £55,288.90 - the target was a mere £5,500.00. And, best of all, the Gift Aid stands at £13,039.22 - that's right, over £13k of government money is going towards the promotion of atheism.

I wonder how Gordon Brown, who was raised by a minister of the Church of Scotland, feels about that?

So this campaign is pissing off evangelicals at the same time as probably pissing off Gordon Brown. And as such, it is one of the most worthwhile causes I think I have come across for a good, long time.

"See, some of my bestest friends are..."

So, some priest or other has got himself into hot water over some comments he made about homosexuality. The BBC sums up these comments really nicely:

He suggested in his internet blog that homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: "Sodomy can seriously damage your health."

Apparently these comments were meant to be satirical. Hmmm. I love a bit of satire. But these comments appear to be more grossly offensive than satirical. I'd like to say that there is a fine line between satire and rampantly homophobic ignorance. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Still, his "satire" allows me to propose my new scheme, which is tattooing the words "Believing in a invisible, fictional sky fairy can seriously damage your common sense and tolerance for others" on the foreheads of Christian bigots everywhere.

And the Rev Mullan has some other thoughts on homosexuality as well:

In the same blog, Mr Mullen called for all gay pride parades, which he branded "obscene", to be outlawed.

So not just branding gay people, Mr Mullen also wants to suppress them. Although in fairness his desire to suppress gay people was also clearly demonstrated by his idea of tattooing them.

But what gets to me - what really gets to me - is this classic justification for his atrocious views:

"I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion."

Oh, bless you, Rev Mullan. Bless you. I haven't heard this justification used (in an apparently serious way) for a good long time. But it really is the classic excuse for pig ignorant comments. There is no difference between Rev Mullan's comment and a member of the BNP saying "I have nothing against immigrants, some of my best friends are immigrants..." Or the redneck in America stating "I have nothing against black people, some of my friends are black people but..." Or even a Nazi concentration camp guard stating "I have nothing against Jews. Some of my best friends were Jews, but..." And all I have done with those phrases is adjust them slightly; the sentiment is the same. As is the response to all such statements - having friends who are gay/black/immigrants/whatever doesn't stop you from being an ignorant prick. If, you know, you are an ignorant prick.

I don't know the Rev Mullan, but judging by his comments he comes across as the sort of nasty little bigot who is hiding behind his prayer book and church frock. And in being bigoted, he is missing perhaps the key teaching of his Messiah - "Love Thy Neighbour". And to clarify for the Rev Mullan and his knuckle dragging ilk, that is love thy neighbour. Not love thy neighbour unless they are gay, in which case you can tattoo them and suppress them.

Still, it would be wrong to brand all Christians as bigoted little shits based on the words of the Rev Mullan. It is only some of them who are bigoted little shits. And I can say that with a good degree of confidence - see, many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion.

Ruth Kelly, Former Minister

I was expecting that whilst I was away that I would miss out on a lot of high profile, crucial stories that practically demand the second hand opinions and mild swearing of this blog. I was completely wrong. Basically, whilst I was away, nothing really happened in the news.

Perhaps the biggest story for me as I trawl through what has happened over the past week and a half is the news that Ruth Kelly has stepped down from the Cabinet. And may I be the first to offer my heart felt congratulations. Her departure from British Politics is most welcome and a definite step forward.

My dislike for Kelly isn't based on the way she looks - although Lord knows she represents a stinging rebuke to all those who claim that modern politics is based on looks. Kelly dresses like a slightly stressed bag lady, and would not look out of place walking round a park, mumbling to herself about whatever incoherent thoughts go through the mind of a bag lady as they do their daily stroll around the park. She is also not the most attractive of people, resembling a Picasso rendering of those two upside down faced people from Everything But The Girl. But we can't just judge our politicians on how they look; I retain a sneaking fondness for William Hague, but will concede that he looks and sounds eminently punchable.

No, my dislike of Kelly comes from her religious views. Don't get me wrong, you can pretty much believe anything you like as far as I am concerned. That lizards rule the world, that the Holocaust didn't happen, that everything is at the whim of a temperamental invisible sky fairy - your beliefs may make you an absolute fucking idiot, but you can still have them if you like. Even if you are a member of the deeply conservative (which for the Catholic Church - arguably the most conservative organisation ever created - is really saying something) and, frankly, deeply strange Opus Dei.

The problem comes, though, if you are a member of a deeply strange Christian cult and are made Minister for Women and Equality. Because for a member of Opus Dei, equality is something dangerous and should be feared. After all, those who don't believe what you believe are wrong. Those who dare to have sexual relations (especially with members of the same gender) for any other reason that procreation, are evil and should be judged. Again, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong (if you wish to be an archaic moron) with holding these views - it only becomes an issue when your beliefs directly oppose your ministerial brief.

Now you could argue that it is not Kelly's fault for being made Equality Minsiter - that decision was made by Prime Minister Blair. I would argue, however, that it is her fault for accepting the role. What on earth stopped her from saying "actually, Tony, I've had a think and my religious views probably mean that equality will never be one of my priorities, so I will have to turn down the kind offer of being Minsiter for Equality"? Actually, I can take a guess at what stopped her - the Nu Labour obssessions with ministerial posts, ego boosts, and big salaries.

Which is why I am glad that Kelly has gone from the Cabinet - the decision to make her Minsiter for Equality sums up the contempt that Nu Labour seem to feel towards their ministerial roles. Kelly's beliefs made her unsuited to the position she held - fair enough, but it didn't stop her boss from putting her in charge of equality or from her accepting the role. Kelly can believe what she likes, but she shouldn't then be hypocritical enough to accept a ministerial job that flies in the face of her absurd religious beliefs.

But I'm calling for Nu Labourites not to hypocritical - the very definition of a waste of time. I'm going to do something more productive now, like build a perpetual motion machine or command the tide to turn back.

New Look Seven Deadly Sins

The seven deadly sins have been updated by the Catholic Church. I'd have loved to have been on that committee. I'd have made watching reality TV a deadly sin, obviously.

So what have they decided on as the new deadly sins?

Mgr Girotti (some random papal spokesman) said genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs were all mortal sins.

What a stupid list. What a really, really stupid list. It is like the church went to Polly Toynbee, and asked for her wishlist of random hippy crap. And since when has the Catholic Church not been "obscenely wealthy?"

And what do you get if you break the rules above?

Eternal death.

Which sounds pretty fucking scary. Until you realise that all death is eternal. What's the alternative? Coming back as a zombie, shuffling around with lumps of flesh falling off you whilst muttering "brains"? Because if that is the alternative to eternal death, then I'm off to do some genetic modification through carrying out experiments on humans, to make a shit load of socially unjust cash that I will use to increase the misery in the world. And once I am done, I'm going to throw everything I own that is not biodegradable into the sea. Whilst high on drugs.

Being Nasty to Christians

Via DK I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury – a bearded prig who is the defender of an ancient fairytale in this country – has launched an attack on freedom of speech. Because of all those nasty-wasty people being all mean and pooey to him and his fellow god botherers. Awww, the poor baby. Give the poor baby a big, fat hug.

Anyhoo, I’m not going to attack Williams too much – both DK and Harry Haddock do this with considerable aplomb. But there is an interesting implication to Williams’ gripe.

See, I thought if you had faith in Christianity, then you had faith in it. It would take a lot more than the evil, nasty atheists dissing your religion to get you to change your mind. Take Mike Huckabee over in the US. His faith isn’t shaken or altered by anything – be it common sense, scientific fact, actual events or political expediency. It doesn’t say a great deal for the religious convictions of Williams that he feels his religion should be placed on a pedestal over every other belief in the country, religious or otherwise.

Yeah, there is also the argument that if there are a whole host of people in the country dissing Christianity then it might be difficult for Williams et al to indoctrinate – sorry, convert – new recruits to the cult of the "sky fairy", to borrow Harry’s wonderful phrase. But again I say this – if Christianity is good enough, if Christianity is still relevant to the modern age, then they should have no problem winning new people to their cause. The godbotherers in the US seem to have no problem with this. But if the Christians in the UK cannot do that in this modern day and age, then maybe it is time to let Christianity go. Let it fade into the history books, like the belief the world is flat, or that the heavens are ruled by some dude called Jupiter.

The joy of having freedom of speech is that you can test your views, and see if they can stand up to the arguments of your fiercest detractors. All Williams stance says to me is that he doesn’t feel his arguments can stand up to debate.

However, he does say one thing that I can agree with:

"And behind this is the nagging problem of what happens to a culture in which, systematically, nothing is sacred."

Yep, it is a problem if nothing is sacred in society. But instead of making a deeply unconvincing story based on a third hand ancient text sacred in society, why not make something else sacred? Something more useful?

Why not make freedom of speech sacred?

Mr Eugenides points to yet another example of unbelievable crassness amongst those vying for the highest office in the USA, this time from Mick Huckabee:

"It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations — from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia."

Since when has paedophilia been publicly and institutionally supported?

Anyhoo, America has now had four years to find someone with the competence to take over from Bush when he finally is forced from office in just over a year’s time (by a constitutional amendment rather than the Democrats). And frankly the line-up is more than a little depressing. It really says something when the most capable looking candidates for both parties are the most tedious and predictable on both sides – Clinton (despite the nepotism) and Giuliani.

But this is a crucial election for the US. They have had eight years of President Bush – perhaps the worst President since Herbert Hoover. He has done massive damage to the image of the US abroad. He has fucked the economy, and left an already divided country even more divided through his passionate embrace of the religious fundamentalists who call themselves the Christian Coalition. They need someone to come into the White House who is not an extremist. They need someone who is intelligent and intuitive. They need someone who believes a diplomatic solution is not just a precursor to war. And the Christian fundamentalists like Romney and Huckabee, or the Pakistan baiting Obama, are not going to make the grade.

It may be an alarmist point of view, but there is some truth in the idea that this is an election where America chooses their position in the world for the future. Other economies and other nations, like China and (under the iron grip of Putin) a resurgent Russia, could very easily come to challenge the US’s claim to being the world’s only superpower. The US needs to make the choice of whether they will treat the Bush administration as an aberration, or a template for their political future.

The Golden Compass

Saw The Golden Compass last night. Whilst it wasn’t as good as the book (although few films are) it was a pleasant surprise – a well paced, well produced adventure film. Even the kid in it managed not to be too wince-inducing. It even managed to have some of the nastiness of the book reproduced in the film (particularly when the bears fight at the end).

There’s been some criticism of the film for watering down the anti-Christian/anti-Catholic sentiments of the book. And, yeah, the enemy in the film, the Magisterium, is presented a lot less like the Church and more like a bog standard dictatorship. But this change isn’t to the detriment of the film – in fact, far from it. The film’s subtext is about free will, with the heroic characters within fighting the attempts of the Magisterium to tell people how to live not just in the world of The Golden Compass, but also in all other worlds as well.

And that message of fighting for the right to think for yourself, regardless of whether it is against religious or political authority, is pretty potent. And it is nice to see what is on paper a kid’s movie giving that message.

The Teddy Bear Row

Watch me fall on the wrong side of opinion, both popular and blogosphere, with this post. But fuck it, I think it needs to be said. And since I’m struggling to write coherently at the moment, here’s a series of questions:

Does it seem hopelessly backwards for a country to prevent people from naming a teddy bear after a long dead prophet?

Does sentences such as 40 lashes, a fine and imprisonment for the above "crime" seem not just a little excessive but actually totally ridiculous?

Does it seem extreme and worrying that people would call for harsher penalties for anyone convicted of that "crime"?

Does Sudan have an appalling record when it comes to Human Rights?

If you were going to teach in that country with an appalling Human Rights record, would you get to know the law?

If you were going there to learn about the culture, wouldn’t you actually learn something about how religion is viewed in that culture, and the importance of religion within that culture?

If you were teaching in that country, wouldn’t you make sure that both you and the children you are teaching stayed on the right side of the draconian laws?

If you were convicted of a crime in a foreign country, would the British government be within their rights to say "Tough shit, you’re guilty"?

Was Gillian Gibbons fucking lucky to have the support of the British government?

Was she fucking lucky to get a presidential pardon?

(The answer to all the questions above is, by the way, yes.)

Now, I’m not saying I can stomach radical Islam. But the fact is Sudan is an Islamic fundamentalist state. If you go there, you should accept that. And I can’t claim that I knew about Sudan’s farcically excessive laws on teddy bear naming (although the maniac reaction to the Danish cartoons last year may have set off some sort of warning bell), but you can bet your life that I would have found out about it before going to that country to teach. And when the kids mentioned naming that bear after the prophet, they would have been told to sit down and drink a tall glass of shut the fuck up.

You can bellyache all you like about Sudan, and how hysterical and barbaric their behaviour has been, and I’ll agree. But I also reckon Gibbons has to accept some of the blame for what happened to her, and realise that she got off lightly. If you go abroad, then know the laws of the land you are in, and regardless of whether you agree with them or not, obey them.