The View from Number 80 - Skeptical Reviews

The European Human Rights Centre (EHRC) represents over 100 non-governmental and other not-for-profit organisations interested in the promotion of Human Rights throughout Europe and beyond

IS THERE A GOD?

80 is an Amazon Associate - proceeds (if any) go towards site upkeep

For inexpensive and reliable website statistics

Make your mouse clicks count - give to charity below

Space News and much more

Why Number 80? This is a question that arises often (well, twice) and refers to the reason for the name of this site, rather than "why bother?" - to save searching here is the lowdown on Number 80 - so now you know.............

Issues of the original newsletter, Past Views, run from December 1999 to May 2005. The email link at the bottom of the page is for feedback and comment if you think it may help. Please note correspondence may be published on this site unless you stipulate otherwise. Should correspondence be deemed abusive or threatening, any such stipulation will be ignored. If you place a link to Number 80 on your own website could you please link to this homepage - thanks.

Faith-Based News - check out Faith-Based News, a collection of links, updated (almost) daily, to news and comment reflecting the influence of religion/superstition/pseudoscience/irrational beliefs (this now includes so-called "alternative or complementary medicine") around the globe, with some occasional observations and asides.

No, Thank You - "The National Secular Society has condemned a secret plan for a twenty foot high replica of the Rio de Janeiro statue of Christ the Redeemer near the summit of the iconic London landmark Primrose Hill. It will be funded by the Brazilian government to celebrate the end of the London 2012 Olympics and mark the moment Rio takes on the Olympic mantle for the 2016 Games." Well it's not secret any more. What a bloody silly idea. What has the fabled Christian godman have to do with the Olympics? Zeus would be far more appropriate.

"Living in a free society means that we have the right to offend people, and in turn be offended by others. A free society does not ban books, nor does it stop people from voicing their opinions, nor allow people to be blackmailed and intimidated. In a free society we can, and should, challenge each other’s beliefs, through free and open debate, and rely on rational argument and reason rather than threats and censorship." British Humanist Association

(courtesy of Jesus and Mo)

Quote - "I have mixed feelings about J&M being at the centre of it all. A lot of people imagine that I am deliberately insulting them, when in fact I am not even talking to them. They are, in effect, eavesdropping on another person's conversation and acting outraged at what they overhear." The author of Jesus and Mo on another attack on freedom of speech, this time at the ~~Gaddafi University~~ London School of Economics. Learn more of this idiotic business from The Beaver.

Human Rights Watch - may have to consider a change of name. Executive director Kenneth Roth has said in a report that post-Arab Spring "The international community must ... come to terms with political Islam when it represents a majority preference...Islamist parties are genuinely popular in much of the Arab world, in part because many Arabs have come to see political Islam as the antithesis of autocratic rule. Wherever Islam-inspired governments emerge, the international community should focus on encouraging, and if need be pressuring, them to respect basic rights - just as the Christian-labelled parties and governments of Europe are expected to do." With unresolved and violent disputes in Egypt and Libya the Arab Spring, such as it is, has not brought stability or democratic government. What we are likely to see is autocrats replaced by theocrats.

To act as if the regime changes are a done deal is, to put it charitably, overly optimistic. The suggestion that Western governments should throw women's and gays human rights under a bus in order to come to terms with political is totally unacceptable. The idea of "...the international community should focus on encouraging, and if need be pressuring, them to respect basic rights..." is laughable. Misogyny disguised as respect is a part of Islam at a very basic level. Roth's organization is called Human Rights Watch not Muslim Heterosexual Men's Rights Watch. Roth's proposal is reminiscent of that annually occurring farce of "Islamic Human Rights" which the Organization of the Islamic Conference keeps trying to foist on the UN. Human rights are for all humans and not just those selected through the distorting lens of religious bigotry. (see The Wrong Rights?) Roth is definitely correct in pointing out the wrongs of Western support for autocrats in the Middle East - in particular those that run Saudi Arabia - but any sense he makes here is counteracted by his embrace of political Islam. For all the fine words of the Muslim Brotherhood and others, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and true, universal human rights. (Also see this from Maryam Namazie)

Update - this article from the Telegraph promotes engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood but has this important caveat "Make no mistake: the Muslim Brotherhood is not our friend. We do not share its values on the rights of women or religious minorities, or on foreign policy. We should not embrace it. But those who are unable to tell the difference between mainstream Islamists and the Taliban are doomed to lock themselves into an unwinnable and illusory war of civilisations." The aims of the Brotherhood are the same as they ever were, but are better concealed these days. From Wikipedia "The Muslim Brotherhood's goal, as stated by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was to reclaim Islam's manifest destiny, an empire, stretching from Spain to Indonesia.[18] It preaches that Islam enjoins man to strive for social justice, the eradication of poverty and corruption, and political freedom to the extent allowed by the laws of Islam."

Press To Blame? - a letter appeared in the Guardian the other day stating "Over the past decade, a number of academic studies have indicated a worrying and disproportionate trend towards negative, distorted and even fabricated reports in media coverage of the Muslim community. Recent research at Cambridge University concludes that "a wider set of representations of Islam would signify a welcome change to reporting practices. Muslims deserve a better press than they have been given in the past decade." Firstly, what is the Muslim community? Is that Shia, Sunni or Ahmadiyya, as they all show plenty of evidence of hating each others' guts. It is a mistake to refer such a fragmented "community" as if it was monolithic. Like all other groups there is good and bad and every shade in between. To refer to the "Muslim community" stinks of Blairite multiculturalism - the failed idea that has led to in many instances to Muslim self-ghettoization and no effort at assimilation. People were not addressed as free individuals but through religious leaders representing the "community", invariably men. This lazy, condescending attitude has yet to die out.

As for the British press its coverage of most things has remorselessly headed toward the trivial, the simplistic, with little effort made on analysis of news. This can be partly blamed on Rupert Murdoch and his malign influence - his tabloids drag the rest of the press into the gutter in a misguided effort to compete. British Muslims of whatever sect, certainly do have an image problem, that is not helped by their attitudes to the position of women, to give one example, or the desire for a separate, religious legal system. This would no doubt elicit inaccurate cries of racism from the signatories of the letter but instead of the population of Britain being cowed into being anti-Muslim by the press we actually have a situation where Muslims themselves have chosen not to assimilate. Because Islam permeates the believers' lives far more pervasively than Britain's wishy-washy Christianity does for the indigenous population their prejudices against gays, for instance, are not casual things that with education and familiarity can be discarded - they are non-negotiable god-given directives (as they are to some fundamentalist Christians). Until the unlikely birth of an Islamic version of the Enlightenment this looks set to be the case and any number of well-meaning but misguided missives such as the one mentioned above will make no difference whatsoever. Looking at some of the signatories a question mark hangs over their real intentions. Signatures representing groups such as Cageprisoners, the Muslim Council of Britain and Islamic Forum of Europe do not instil confidence, in 80's view. The others do themselves no favors by associating themselves with these. The have yet to learn that "My enemies enemy is my brother" is a stupid concept.

Golden Row - "Freedom does not mean hurt the sentiments of others ..." Oh yes it does. Overseas Indian Affairs Minister Ravi has not got a grip on this freedom thing yet. The reason for his discomfort? A crap joke by Jay Leno on the "The Tonight Show" that's what. The Telegraph tells us "India is to formally object to a joke by US TV host Jay Leno in which he said that the Golden Temple, the holiest shrine for Sikhs, was a summer home for wealthy presidential candidate Mitt Romney." This rib-tickler had an effect in the US too "Angry members of the Sikh community in the US circulated an online petition protesting the "derogatory depiction" of the Golden Temple, adding that "Jay Leno's racist comments need to be stopped right here". Racist? Firstly the joke wasn't about Sikhs per se - it's more likely the temple was just the most gaudily ornate building in the NBC picture library. Secondly, Sikhs are no more a race than Christians or dare it be said, Mormons. Sikhism is now a fully-fledged member of the "We are offended" club - assuming the Muslims will let them in of course. Update - Brits climb on the offended bandwagon.

In The Breach - the sub-heading for a piece by Karen Armstrong in the Guardian is somewhat hard to swallow. "The hajj, subject of a new exhibition at the British Museum, shows that a respect for other faiths is central to Muslim tradition". This seems at odds with the reality in Pakistan and Malaysia for instance. Whenever Muslims in a country are in the majority then other religions are inevitably persecuted to some degree. One is reminded of a line from Hamlet "...it is a custom more honor'd in the breach than the observance." To say that Armstrong's article is inaccurate is no overstatement. The condescension Islam displays to the "people of the book" cited by Armstrong is merely a milder form of the slavery extended to other religions not claiming descent from Abraham.

Treatment of other religions, of the book or not, has varied in a capricious fashion over the centuries and currently the highly intolerant pan of the balance is fully laden. The only way people of all faiths, including Islam, are treated fairly is to have a secular government, otherwise, as Christopher Hitchens said, religion poisons everything. (The above in a slightly different form was posted in the Guardian. Perhaps the best comments so far are those by grueneKatze and DavidPavett)

Race To The Bottom - “Before we marry the guy next door, don’t you think we ought to have a fling with a tall, dark stranger and see if he can support us in the manner to which we’d like to be accustomed?” Richard Land, a top figure in the Southern Baptist Convention, explaining to NPR the choice of Santorum over Mitt Romney. Now that's a strange kind of imagery for a godfearin' man to use. See For the religious right, faith without works an optimistic op-ed by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.

...And In Happy News - we learn that the Iranian government propaganda channel has fallen foul of the regulator "Ofcom has revoked the licence of Press TV after the regulator failed to be satisfied the channel’s licensee had sufficient control over the programmes broadcast. It follows a series of meetings and correspondence between regulator and broadcaster." Wait for the squeals of censorship from the likes of the ayatollah's shills George Galloway and Yvonne Ridley. According to BBC news "...the media regulator formed the impression that editorial decisions on the channel were being controlled by the offices in Tehran, instead of the UK." No shit. Wikipedia says of Press TV "Press TV is a 24-hour English language global news network owned by the state-owned media corporation Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). Its headquarters are located in Tehran, Iran."

Nadine's Nadir part d'oh - the Guardian carried this early today about a scheduled debate in the House of Commons on a sexual abstinence bill that targets girls. "The bill, proposed by Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, would require schools to offer extra sex education classes to girls aged 13 to 16 and for these lessons to include advice on "the benefits of abstinence"." There is a lot of nonsense talked about the benefits of abstinence - there don't really seem to be any, except in the minds of right-wing Christians like Nadine. See this report (PDF) from June last year "The American Foundation for AIDS Research (AMFAR) has issued a new report on abstinence-only sex education that reviews all of the studies so far and concludes that such programs are not only a waste of resources, they can actually diminish the sexual health of those who undergo such training."

Furthermore, "A federally-supported, 10-year evaluation of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs found that these programs had no impact on youth remaining abstinent, age at first intercourse, number of sexual partners, or condom use. In fact, these programs appeared to have negative effects on knowledge: abstinence-only program participants were less likely to know that condoms can lower the risk of STIs, and more likely to report that condoms never protect against HIV." Why would anyone want to pursue abstinence teaching if it doesn't work and is actually harmful to young people's sexual health? People like Nadine whose view of the world is not reality-based, that's who.

Now the Guardian has a new piece on Nadine's Big Idea "A controversial bill backed by MPs that called for teenage girls to be given lessons in sexual abstinence has been withdrawn." We are told "A spokeswoman for the Commons information office said it might be rescheduled for another day, but for now had been "removed from effective orders". The Guardian called Dorries, but the MP said she was too busy to speak or explain why the bill had been removed. One reason she won't offer is that it was ill-conceived, unsubstantiated crap. Nadine, just drop it and find something actually useful to do with your time. Also see Nadine's Nadir. On a somewhat related note see The joy of judgmental Christian sex. Update - Dorries' abortion counselling proposal which was apparently dropped (see Nadine's Nadir linked above) may be pushed through on the sly.

Mistake? - no, this actually could be a good move. Yellon didn't sign on for what has transpired. The BBC tells us "The president of a London university atheist society has resigned over a row about an image of the *Prophet Muhammad. The society at University College London (UCL) published an image on its Facebook page showing "Jesus and Mo" having a drink at a bar." The reason being "UCL's Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society said its president Robbie Yellon was stepping down to be replaced by former vice president Michael Thor. "Robbie stepped aside because he signed up as president to organise events and run a student society," said Michael Paynter, secretary for the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies. "He did not appreciate the stress he would be under when dealing with a controversy like this, so he wanted to make way for someone else."

Which seems like a wise move. Changed circumstances require different skills. Now what's needed to combat this attack on free speech is someone who is prepared to be aggressive in standing up for their values. Not physically aggressive obviously, but someone who will not stand for being dictated to by religionists and capable of carrying the battle to the narrow-minded bigots. A good role model in that respect would be perhaps be the late Christopher Hitchens. The modern industry of people, religionists in particular, being offended at the drop of a hat and expecting others to appease them has gone too far. It is a facet of the failed idiocy of multiculturalism and should be discarded.

Although Christians are by no means unrepresented it is the followers of Islam, the religion of blame and resentment, who have most wholeheartedly embraced the "I am offended" culture as a means of shutting down debate on the more obnoxious aspects of their beliefs. The nonsense word Islamophobia with its connotations of racism is used in the same way to stifle dissent. (See here for the background to the UCL story. Also relevant is Islamist Fanatics Make The Case For Free Speech)

It is deeply ironic that the group that triggered the Jesus and Mo fuss by their hypersensitivity, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association, are from an Islamic sect that is persecuted by other Muslims as heretical. 80 wrote about this in 2010 - see Unwelcome Baggage. A secular society protects their right to worship as they choose. They don't seem to have absorbed this idea. The Ahmadiyya sect also featured in Islam's Internecine Hatred paying for ads on busses that proclaimed "Muslims for loyalty, peace and freedom". It's a nice concept but Islam has a very long way to go on the peace and freedom side of things.

* A minor point, but why does the BBC report say the "Prophet Muhammad"? It doesn't, as far as 80 knows, say the "Lord Jesus" or the "Lord Shiva". Such honorifics are for the devotees of a religion and have no place in reporting an item of news unless in a quotation. For one daft moment 80 thought the corporation was, perish the thought, currying favor. Another thought occurs - the BBC describes this as a row over an image of Muhammad - it isn't. It is an image of a character in a comic strip called Mo' and not the inventor of Islam. The author of the strip made this clear years ago. So there.

“Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations.” Christopher Hitchens

Saucers And Triangles - the Daily Mail carries a report about a couple of UFO sightings in southern England. Apart from the "craft" looking thoroughly unconvincing they are very much old school in shape. How so? They are the standard "flying saucer shape" as promoted by George Adamski back in the 50s. There are, you may not be surprised to know, fashions in UFO shapes often dictated by the current crop of science fiction movies. Oddly enough the saucer shaped UFO is an exception to this. The first modern report of the things is down to Kenneth Arnold, a pilot, who actually said the objects he saw flying in formation were arrow or boomerang-shaped. It is likely the "flying saucer" moniker was coined by an imaginative newspaperman. "Arnold would later complain to famed CBS newsman Edward P. Murrow: “I said that they flew like they take a saucer and throw it across the water. Most of the newspapers misunderstood and misquoted that, too. They said that I said that they were saucer-like; I said that they flew in a saucer-like fashion.” Of late many UFOs have been of a triangular configuration, strongly reminiscent of real stealth aircraft - or Arnold's original sighting. (See Saucers Go Triangular) It is interesting to note that before heavier-than-aircraft people reported strange objects in the sky that looked like airships. Now the Daily Mail pictures bring us back to the "original" press-misconceived saucer shape. For more than you'll ever want to know about UFOs and how to photograph/fake them see here. Ian Ridpath's UFO skeptic pages are highly recommended especially his study of the Rendlesham Forest UFO case mentioned in the Mail article. Also look here for an painstakingly compiled database of UFO sightings from around the world. Update - see NASA Debunks Mysterious Triangular 'UFO'.

(Thanks to jesusandmo.net)

Islamist Fanatics Make The Case For Free Speech - "This week I was due to give a talk to students at Queen Mary College, London on sharia law and human rights. Rather fittingly – and as if to prove my point - my human rights were quashed by a person demonstrating one of the effects of sharia law; the threat of violence for criticising religion." Ann Marie Waters, of the One Law For All campaign in a piece posted on the National Secular Society (NSS) web site.

The NSS informs us "The talk was due to take place on 16 January but before it started, a man entered the lecture theatre, stood at the front with a camera and filmed the audience. He then said that he knew who everyone was, where they lived and if he heard anything negative about the Prophet, he would track them down. The man also filmed students in the foyer and threatened to murder them and their families. On leaving the building, he joined a large group of men, apparently there to support him. Students were told by security to stay in the lecture theatre for their own safety." (One hopes everyone one else was filming right back - for his police mugshot)

These Islamofascists have one response to criticism and that is violence or threats of violence - this alone displays the utter poverty of their arguments. In Britain we do not need and should not countenance such disgusting behavior - behavior often endorsed by universities themselves however indirectly, by hosting talks given by extremists whose main aim is to promote violence. It seems enough for the university authorities that these people hate the USA - something that always goes down so well with the useful idiots of the left. Hey, lefties, your enemy's enemy is not your brother you are being used like the gullible fools you are.

This is not some game - these people are despicable, dangerous, misogynist, racist, homophobic throwbacks who want the world to return to the middle ages - they have no place in a modern secular culture. They use the principle of free speech that they are so keen suppress in others to spread their primitive poison, often condoned by spineless authorities. The police need to be all over them like a rash. These religious fanatics are just as much fascists as any gang of neo-Nazis and need dealing with accordingly. The Telegraph carried this in June of last year "Theresa May told The Daily Telegraph that universities were not taking the issue of radicalisation seriously enough and that it was too easy for Muslim extremists to form groups on campuses “without anyone knowing”. Are things any better six months later?

"The attempted intimidation that this society has experienced is shocking. Free expression, the free exchange of ideas and free debate are hallmarks of an open society; violence and the threat of violence should never be allowed to compromise that, especially in our universities. We will work to support our affiliate society at Queen Mary’s and look forward to a speedy police investigation and resolution of this case." Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association (BHA)

Update - curiously the Independent is the only mainstream newspaper to cover the incident. We learn "Enquiries by Tower Hamlets police are ongoing. A Scotland Yard spokesperson said: “Police were called at approximately 19:00 on Monday 16 January to a building on Mile End Road following a report of a man being threatened by another man. Officers attended and the victim was spoken to.” This would be the same cops that dealt with the Tower Hamlets gay-free zone Islamist crap. They dealt with it by covering it up. It hardly instills confidence.

Sharia, Neither Needed Or Wanted - should you need a barrister it would be unwise to engage Sadakat Kadri. This gentleman seems to have a reality problem - the Guardian informs us "A leading barrister has called for the UK to become more sharia-literate, while arguing that Islamic law can be compatible with the toughest human rights legislation." A capricious, patriarchal, religious legal system that values women less than men is not only incompatible with human rights but also incompatible with democracy. How Kadri can say otherwise is a mystery. A civilized country should have one secular legal system which applies equally to all. He told the Guardian "...that so-called "sharia courts", such as the Muslim arbitration tribunal, could serve "the community as a whole" by putting Sharia on a transparent, public footing and should be more widely accessible to those who want to use them. It's very important that they be acknowledged and allowed to exist. So long as they're voluntary, which is crucial, it's in everyone's interests these things be transparent and publicly accessible. If you don't have open tribunals, they're going to happen anyway, but behind closed doors."

To say such a system would be voluntary assumes informed consent. A women, for example, who comes to the UK in an arranged marriage, lives in a close-knit Muslim community and has no command of the English language may not even be aware of the British legal system. If her father, husband, uncles and imam tell her to seek arbitration in a sharia court she effectively has no choice. Also note the implied threat in the last sentence regarding sharia tribunals "...they're going to happen anyway, but behind closed doors." It is up to all of us to make sure this does not happen.

The basis of sharia is purely religious, thereby making it inherently unfair. Laws are made by parliament and precedent not revealed by gods. Kadri claims that sharia is capable of change and adaptation but then gives the game away when he offers an apologetic preface to his interpretation of sharia and its history "I'm not a theologian". Change is anathema to revealed religion Theology has absolutely nothing to do with a real and fair legal system. A medieval revealed religion has no relevance whatsoever to a modern secular legal system. Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, had this to say about sharia "There can be no convincing case made for it to have even a toe-hold in western societies that have developed a mature and far superior legal system. I regard any legal system based on a theocratic model as being dangerous and innately unjust. There is no escaping the fact – whatever interpretation you put on it — that sharia treats women differently from men"

Kadri's claim that "...that Islamic law can be compatible with the toughest human rights legislation." and "...that so-called "sharia courts", such as the Muslim arbitration tribunal, could serve "the community as a whole" by putting Sharia on a transparent, public footing and should be more widely accessible to those who want to use them." is laughable and should be greeted with the derision it so richly deserves. The current religious courts should be shut down - and that applies to any religion, not just Islam. It is already unacceptable that "...under the Arbitration Act 1996, the rulings of religious bodies, including the Muslim arbitration tribunal, already have legal force in disputes involving matters such as inheritance and divorce." Those two areas in particular are ones where women can be particularly vulnerable and under sharia they are not guaranteed equal treatment with men. This is a scandal, an affront to modern, secular society and is certainly contrary to human rights. No amount of self-serving waffle can obscure this fact. See Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights. and Telling Sharia From Shinola. Update - the BBC tells us "The use of Sharia, or Islamic religious law, is growing in Britain, with thousands of Muslims using it to settle disputes each year, but women's groups and some others are objecting." Too bloody right they are.

"Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. They could offend only those actively seeking to be offended – which says it all." Richard Dawkins commenting on the ridiculous attempt to censor a Jesus and Mo image. Update - see New Humanist for the latest. "While debate raged online, however, both the UCL union and the atheist society have been working to resolve the matter, and the ASHS have this morning announced that progress has been made, with the union agreeing that they can not ask the society to take down the image."

(courtesy Jesus and Mo)

The Naked Truth - it is a standard article of belief for many Muslims and virtually all of the Arab world that events worldwide are manipulated by the tentacles of evil Jewry as part of its goal of planetary hegemony. This tired old conspiracy theory trundles on and on, recycling debunked crap like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, blood rituals and the like. It is therefore amusing that when those who really lust to have dominion over the planet clearly state their nefarious goal the Western media take no notice. A recent example is a speech by Mohammed el-Badi, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was reported not in the New York Times or the Guardian, but on the Coptic Solidarity web site.

The speech was in Arabic which may explain why it passed the mainstream media by. It is a typical example of the practise of saying one thing to the home audience and something completely different to the infidels. There is no reason that this ploy should work, as the press must have translators available. Perhaps it is at odds with the spin applied by much of the media to the so-called Arab Spring. Next time you hear or read about how moderate the Muslim Brotherhood have become, remember the following.

“The Brotherhood is getting closer to achieving its greatest goal as envisioned by its founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna. This will be accomplished by establishing a righteous and fair ruling system, with all its institutions and associations, including a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and mastership of the world....The Imam [Banna] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world.”

Anyone not chilled by this statement of naked ambition has their head either in the sand or up their ass. To the Muslim Brotherhood democracy is merely a stepping stone towards a world caliphate.

Race To The Bottom - just when you think the depressing spectacle of the sorry bunch of clods in the Republican presidential race could not be any more pathetic along comes this. "Newt Gingrich has launched a new political attack advertisement against his Republican rival Mitt Romney – accusing him of speaking French. The advertisement by Mr Gingrich tries to draw an unflattering parallel with another Massachusetts politician, John Kerry, the Democrat who lost to George W Bush in 2004. "The French Connection" paints Mr Romney as another tax-raising, moderate, elitist who will "say anything" to get elected – "anything". Over Parisian accordion music, it continues: "And just like John Kerry he speaks French too." Newt, actually not a contraction of Newton but an indication of brain size, somewhere between that of a salamander and an axolotl. (Talking of Republicans, see this for the depth of hatred for Obama from Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal. He "...had forwarded to House Republicans (an email) that referred to President Obama and a Bible verse that says “Let his days be few” and calls for his children to be without a father and his wife to be widowed.") Update - John Huntsman withdraws from race for Republican presidential nomination. He was severely handicapped compared with the other contenders by the possession of a functioning brain.

As God Said To Pat - The obnoxious Pat Robertson tells us that God has spoken to him, revealing the identity of the next president of the USA. Who is it? Robertson isn't saying. Then why mention it at all? He is in fact very coy in describing what he learned from his holy hotline. "I think He showed me about the next president, but I'm not supposed to talk about that so I'll leave you in the dark -- probably just as well -- but I think I know who it's gonna be." I think, I think - wasn't God very clear? Maybe he mumbles or Robertson's Hebrew is a might rusty. At this point it seems permissible to cry bullshit. Given his past abysmal record of prophesies his current reticence is understandable. One thing Robertson is sure of though and that is the solution to America's problems is prayer, or in 80's view, wishful thinking. He also said God told him "...the nation's downfall would be triggered by an economic collapse. He suggested that God told him this would come about if Obama was elected to another term." Oddly, this will not be the fault of the creator, the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God, who is apparently powerless to stop such a calamity "And God said, this is not my judgment, they are bringing it upon themselves." So much for the little people being crushed by economic forces beyond their control - God doesn't give a shit about them - and neither does multi-millionaire Robertson. Also see Pat Robertson: A Failed Prophet. Also see Why religion matters in US politics.

Holy Filesharing - on January 5th a new religion came into being in Sweden. "A "church" whose central tenet is the right to file-share has been formally recognised by the Swedish government. The Church of Kopimism claims that "kopyacting" - sharing information through copying - is akin to a religious service." says BBC news. Basically this is one way of protecting illegal activity by giving it the imprimatur absurdly accorded to religion the world over. This is reminiscent of groups that claim marijuana smoking is a sacrament and therefore untouchable. We further learn "The church, which holds CTRL+C and CTRL+V (shortcuts for copy and paste) as sacred symbols, does not directly promote illegal file sharing, focusing instead on the open distribution of knowledge to all." How very convenient.

A Leaf Out Of Joe's Book - the Telegraph has a story from Russia about what appears to be a return to old-fashioned values - those of Stalin. "Pro-Kremlin activists have tried to smear Alexei Navalny, one of Russia's most prominent opposition leaders, by publishing a crudely doctored photograph of him to suggest he is being illicitly funded by a controversial anti-Kremlin oligarch." By "Kremlin" the report means followers of Vladimir Putin, runner-up in the Dobby the House Elf lookalike competition. The winner was Dobby himself. Navalny's reaction to the faked photograph was to publish on his blog images of him meeting Napoleon, Hitler, Lord Voldemort and most scary of all, Chuck Norris. Expect to see Navalny hauled into court on trumped-up charges any time now.

Farewell To A Friend - Vanity Fair has a piece by Salman Rushdie on Christopher Hitchens. When the late, unlamented, theocratic dictator Ayatollah Khomeini put out the notorious fatwa offering a reward for Rushdie's death, Hitch was his doughty champion. Unlike a lot of spineless left-wing intellectuals who said Rushdie was guilty of provocation. "I have often been asked if Christopher defended me because he was my close friend. The truth is that he became my close friend because he wanted to defend me. The spectacle of a despotic cleric with antiquated ideas issuing a death warrant for a writer living in another country, and then sending death squads to carry out the edict, changed something in Christopher. It made him understand that a new danger had been unleashed upon the earth, that a new totalizing ideology had stepped into the down-at-the-heels shoes of Soviet Communism." Rushdie writes of Hitchens' apparent drift to the right by his support for the invasion of Iraq and the one factor in particular that meant he would never be a darling of the neo-cons. "Paradoxically, it was God who saved Christopher Hitchens from the right. Nobody who detested God as viscerally, intelligently, originally, and comically as C. Hitchens could stay in the pocket of god-bothered American conservatism for long." A good, and in 80's view, moving piece. See here for articles in Vanity Fair by and about Hitchens.

Petitions by iPetitions.com

Petition - Hands off Jesus and Mo! "In response to complaints from a number of students, the University College London Union has insisted that the UCLU Atheist, Secularist & Humanist Society remove the following image from a Facebook event advertising a pub social. It has done so on the grounds that it may cause offence to Muslim students." Surely not? For the full story see this from New Humanist.

"This is a gross infringement on its representatives' right to freedom of expression taken by members of the first secular university in England. All people are free to be offended by any image they view. This does not give them the right to impose their beliefs on others by censoring such images." To sign the petition click here or on the images above.

Hot To Trot

"No tongues, remember?"

Jet Fuel

(courtesy xkcd)

Right To Surcease - we learn "The Commission on Assisted Dying, chaired by the former lord chancellor Lord Falconer, says a choice to end their own lives could be safely offered to some people with terminal illnesses, provided stringent safeguards were observed." 80 has long supported the campaigning group Dignity In Dying. There is no reason why an adult facing painful terminal illness should not only be able legally to take their own life, but their relatives or friends who have helped bring peace not face prosecution for murder or manslaughter. With the aforementioned safeguards legislation permitting assisted suicide can only be a humane step. As for the opposition, while they do not explicitly say so, the main objectors to assisted dying do so on the grounds of their religious belief and nothing else. Concerns about safeguards and the danger of medical malpractice are nothing more than a smokescreen for their faith, which tells them only their god can end a life. Never mind the agony for the patient and his or her family, especially with conditions where palliative care is insufficient. The idea that a loved one should endure torment because of the irrational beliefs of others is little short of obscene.

Prominent among these is Roman Catholic author and journalist Cristina Odone, who is trying to cast the Dignity In Dying campaign as a plot by "two rich men" one being author Terry Pratchett, who is in the first stages of Alzheimer's, and is one of the commissioners of the report. The other is the aforementioned Lord Falconer. The Guardian tells us "...the former lord chancellor Lord Falconer, who led the 11-strong panel of medical, legal and ethical experts, said he had insisted on its independence; its conclusions, while vehemently opposed by many disability campaigners and pro-life lobbyists, will also disappoint some for not going far enough." and further points out "The report is careful to stop short of calling for legalisation, stressing that any such debate would be a matter for parliament, but it is clear that the current law "is inadequate, incoherent and should not continue".

Such a measured conclusion should be compared to Odone's near hysterical response "Let no vulnerable granny or disabled youngster stand in their way: this duo is fuelled by money, influence and determination. They know how the system works, and are exploiting that knowledge. Sir Terry has funded, and Lord Falconer headed, a commission to look into the legalisation of assisted suicide. That they call it "independent", and have managed to persuade some of the media to present it as such, simply shows how how much influence these insiders exercise." In fact such mischaracterization is little different from lying. Odone tries to paint the report's conclusions as a cynical exercise to do away with the underclass. "These two powerful and articulate men are trying their best to make it legal to snuff out the lives of the vulnerable and poor." Such utter nonsense reaches new depths even for Odone, who pretends her outrage is about a plot to kill the helpless when it is really all about her religion. No matter that people will suffer horribly until her loving god decides it's time for them to go. She is duplicitous in not mentioning the real reason for opposition but it is quite obvious from her track record (see The Whining Begins and A Curse On Secularism). Religion always first and foremost with real, humane compassion portrayed in this instance as a murderous plot. Odone is beneath contempt. (Also see the Church of England's objection to the report, which manages to witter on yet avoids mentioning the real basis of its position, that its god that should do the killing.)

What's That Smell? - the rank odor of anti-Semitism emanating from Revd Dr Stephen Sizer. See Harry's Place for the details of the clergyman who pals around with Islamists. His boss Bishop Christopher Hill should really do something about him - something other than just turning a blind eye to his unsavory connections and racism. "If Bishop Hill has seen nothing antisemitic in Sizer’s works, then he must have missed Sizer’s racist theory, that the US protects Gaddafi and lets him do evil, because of Gaddafi’s supposed Jewish blood. If indeed, Bishop Hill has seen nothing antisemitic in Sizer’s works, then he must have also missed Sizer’s racist theory, that US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s criticisms of Israel are based on her desire for revenge against Monica Lewinsky – the Jewish woman with whom Hilary’s husband Bill had an affair." So, not only racist but barking bloody mad to boot. Also see this damning article from Rev. Nick Howard, The Church of England must take action against Rev Stephen Sizer.

To send suggestions and comments please click the envelope below. Please note correspondence may be published on this site unless you stipulate otherwise. Should correspondence be deemed abusive or threatening, any such stipulation will be ignored.

“Ross W Sargent is a participant in the Amazon EU Associates Programme, an affiliate advertising programme designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.co.uk".