When we started this blog we agreed there was no point in criticising individual religions and religious individuals however…
It has to be said the Catholic Church has outdone itself. Famous throughout the ages for inspiring the genocide of natives in South America and torturing anyone with an opinion in Europe now a new generation of merciless bastards has managed to represent this international stain on civilisation and incredibly bring it to a new low. I cannot say I am a disinterested party; I was baptised, I went to Catholic school {and survived no thanks to God} and my name, Dominic, was given to me in honour of a saint, specifically a man who tried his best to kill every heathen in the South of France.
The Catholic Church is the state religion of the banana republic called the Vatican City, one of the few countries where known paedophiles can find sanctuary. Its dictator in chief is elected in a smoke filled room by a cartel, safe in the knowledge they are protected by a hired militia of Swiss Guards { is there anyone the Swiss wont do business with} and two millennia of powerful patronage. Their most recent case to answer: an international conspiracy that attempted to cover up the rape and torture of children by their Priests and Bishops.
One of the men responsible for this is none other than his Holiness himself. The Pope. Once Joseph Ratzinger.
Little Joey Ratzinger, who was once a member of the Nazi Youth, distinguishes himself by being part of not one but two of the most evil groups ever to exist. While he may have been innocent of being a Nazi, he went out of his way to make sure the same cannot be said of his being a Catholic and his part in Catholicism.
Hat Tip Christopher Hitchens at Slate:
“ In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing "abuse"?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for "therapy" by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger's deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to "pastoral" work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault.”
Not enough for you. How about this. Arch Bishop Ratzinger was placed in charge of the department formally known as the Inquisition. In May 2001 he issued a confidential letter to every bishop.
I quote Hitchens again:
“He reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime, that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication." Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offence could get you into serious trouble…. (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)”
It makes me sick to my stomach to think my family ever put a penny in a collection plate to fund this monster's comfort, security and thoroughly debased institution.
The question ‘how do you sleep at night’ is a cliché but in this case it has literal and concrete meaning. Seriously how? I learnt from a pathetic Guardian G2 feature on him he doesn’t even drink, much. The same feature asked euphemistically if he was the most ‘controversial pope’. Controversial, no, taking baths with your socks on is controversial. This man is pure evil. No matter how much cats might like him. Cats do like him apparently. As Saki pointed they are one of the few animals that, like humans, enjoy torturing other animals. So you can understand what they might see in him.
This article is still awaiting approval from Sharon Dean and does not represent her opinion. Although she may well agree.
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Patriotism
"My country, right or wrong" is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying "My mother, drunk or sober."
G.K. Chesterton
I will always say "My mother drunk or sober", but I will never say it to her.
Patriotism is an interesting problem. Capitalism is a functioning system of wealth creation that simply needs democracy, the rule of law and a bit of common sense to work well. It also helps to have competing markets to really get going. This is why I think nation states, apart from any ethnic parochialism, work well. They ensure a common competitive ground and protective structure for the pursuit of wealth.
Of course pursuing wealth is not the same as pursuing happiness. Happiness is helped by a sense of community and culture, {although this also creates a lot of unhappiness}. This again suggests that countries, and national identities, are a positive institution designed to protect us from poverty and simultaneously enrich our soul.
Being proud of a country helps foster happiness rather than cynicism, less crime, less pollution, less corruption and better sports teams.
So why do countries and patriotism cause so much war, aggression, and hatred. Is it because patriotism leads to nationalism and then to racism. I don’t think it's that simple. But I must say I prefer the British sense of national cynicism to the more American sense of national pride. Partly because it helps progress.
My policy is you should never let people know just how much you need them. It's not good for you and it's not good for them. Same goes with a country. By all means defend it from any attacks but don’t go buying it flowers for no reason, writing it soppy poetry and telling it how much better it is than all the other countries. Pretty soon it will take advantage of your pathetic neediness.
I think Americans find it hard to change anything about their country because they feel the need to demonstrably love it so much. Just like no one wants to tell their lover they really need to lose a bit of weight.
But remember America; the best parts of the constitution are the amendments. So please US, for your own sake, pass universal healthcare legislation.
And don’t be angry at Obama, the truth is, someone had to tell you to lose a few pounds.
G.K. Chesterton
I will always say "My mother drunk or sober", but I will never say it to her.
Patriotism is an interesting problem. Capitalism is a functioning system of wealth creation that simply needs democracy, the rule of law and a bit of common sense to work well. It also helps to have competing markets to really get going. This is why I think nation states, apart from any ethnic parochialism, work well. They ensure a common competitive ground and protective structure for the pursuit of wealth.
Of course pursuing wealth is not the same as pursuing happiness. Happiness is helped by a sense of community and culture, {although this also creates a lot of unhappiness}. This again suggests that countries, and national identities, are a positive institution designed to protect us from poverty and simultaneously enrich our soul.
Being proud of a country helps foster happiness rather than cynicism, less crime, less pollution, less corruption and better sports teams.
So why do countries and patriotism cause so much war, aggression, and hatred. Is it because patriotism leads to nationalism and then to racism. I don’t think it's that simple. But I must say I prefer the British sense of national cynicism to the more American sense of national pride. Partly because it helps progress.
My policy is you should never let people know just how much you need them. It's not good for you and it's not good for them. Same goes with a country. By all means defend it from any attacks but don’t go buying it flowers for no reason, writing it soppy poetry and telling it how much better it is than all the other countries. Pretty soon it will take advantage of your pathetic neediness.
I think Americans find it hard to change anything about their country because they feel the need to demonstrably love it so much. Just like no one wants to tell their lover they really need to lose a bit of weight.
But remember America; the best parts of the constitution are the amendments. So please US, for your own sake, pass universal healthcare legislation.
And don’t be angry at Obama, the truth is, someone had to tell you to lose a few pounds.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
The Brand Factor
The blogosphere is always full of amusing little in-fights that remind me of happier days spent in the playground having my close family insulted and of course responding in kind.
[For the record I would like to say to a certain K. that it is in fact you who are so ugly you give Freddie Kruger nightmares and consequently I imagine any girlfriend you now have, who is charitable enough to sleep with you, is so fat that when she goes camping the bears have to hide their food.
Some wounds never heal.]
Anyways,
Over on Comment Central, one of my favourite blogs, Danny Finkelstein is having an argument with Janet Daley about the Tory brand.
Mr Finkelstein believes the Tory brand was corrupted and consequently David Cameron's modernisation project was a necessity. He cites polling evidence that suggests people are more likely to support a policy on say immigration if it was not associated with the Tories.
Ms Daley seems to disagree with the idea the Tories needed to modernise and has headlined a response to these polls with the insinuation that they are misleading and thus 'New Tory' is a mistake.
I am sure Mr Finkelstein is right about this. I think he effectively wins the debate by citing those small public polls called the last three general elections. If you're out of power for so long it's probably because people don't like you. Any government given more than one term will probably do enough to be voted out given a half decent opposition.
The interesting aspect to this debate on how much people dislike the Tories, is the power of brands.
It reminded me of two things.
Firstly a conversation I had with a friend who works in P.R. who told me that 'Virgin' was an example of near perfect P.R. branding. Most people in Britian like Richard Branson. We like him because we think he is a boy 'done good'. We don't resent him for being rich and allegedly having his own Island with an outdoor toilet that faces the Pacific. Fair enough we say.
The result of the Virgin brand means the company doesn't actually have to provide any better service than its competitors as anyone who has travelled on, or waited for, Virgin rail may already know. Because people like Virgin they buy it regardless of whether it tastes any better, moves any faster, or provides a better deal.
The second thing I thought of was another point by Mr Finkelstein in a post about the Damien McBride/ Derek Draper scandal {link below} and Labour's reprehensible 'Red Flag' website.
Mr Finkelstein pointed out that sometimes people who feel morally superior often allow the ends to justify the means. And so perhaps Labour were behaving so badly because they were up against the 'nasty party'.
The moral of this story is don't believe your own or anyone elses P.R.. It ruins the proper competition we need as citizens and consumers to ensure we get the best service, value and representation.
[For the record I would like to say to a certain K. that it is in fact you who are so ugly you give Freddie Kruger nightmares and consequently I imagine any girlfriend you now have, who is charitable enough to sleep with you, is so fat that when she goes camping the bears have to hide their food.
Some wounds never heal.]
Anyways,
Over on Comment Central, one of my favourite blogs, Danny Finkelstein is having an argument with Janet Daley about the Tory brand.
Mr Finkelstein believes the Tory brand was corrupted and consequently David Cameron's modernisation project was a necessity. He cites polling evidence that suggests people are more likely to support a policy on say immigration if it was not associated with the Tories.
Ms Daley seems to disagree with the idea the Tories needed to modernise and has headlined a response to these polls with the insinuation that they are misleading and thus 'New Tory' is a mistake.
I am sure Mr Finkelstein is right about this. I think he effectively wins the debate by citing those small public polls called the last three general elections. If you're out of power for so long it's probably because people don't like you. Any government given more than one term will probably do enough to be voted out given a half decent opposition.
The interesting aspect to this debate on how much people dislike the Tories, is the power of brands.
It reminded me of two things.
Firstly a conversation I had with a friend who works in P.R. who told me that 'Virgin' was an example of near perfect P.R. branding. Most people in Britian like Richard Branson. We like him because we think he is a boy 'done good'. We don't resent him for being rich and allegedly having his own Island with an outdoor toilet that faces the Pacific. Fair enough we say.
The result of the Virgin brand means the company doesn't actually have to provide any better service than its competitors as anyone who has travelled on, or waited for, Virgin rail may already know. Because people like Virgin they buy it regardless of whether it tastes any better, moves any faster, or provides a better deal.
The second thing I thought of was another point by Mr Finkelstein in a post about the Damien McBride/ Derek Draper scandal {link below} and Labour's reprehensible 'Red Flag' website.
Mr Finkelstein pointed out that sometimes people who feel morally superior often allow the ends to justify the means. And so perhaps Labour were behaving so badly because they were up against the 'nasty party'.
The moral of this story is don't believe your own or anyone elses P.R.. It ruins the proper competition we need as citizens and consumers to ensure we get the best service, value and representation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
