Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

30Mar/094

St George’s Day approaches

...so that means the number of St George's Day lies will be ratcheted up by the scream sheets in the coming few days.

The story they want to tell is this: People are AFRAID of celebrating St George's Day because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and for FEAR OF UPSETTING MINORITIES but more particularly MUSLIMS who HATE US. They don't always need to come out and say this explicitly, because readers are pretty savvy creatures and know exactly how to join the dots.

Do you ever think they sit around the table in the Mail editorial conference and say: "Well, we appear to have accidentally misled a lot of people again. We haven't come out and said that Muslims have been attacking St George's Day, but somehow our readers appear to have gained that impression somehow. We need to be much more careful in future, lest we cause similar confusion in the future". I'm guessing not. I'm guessing it's not seen as a bad thing at all if readers get that impression, although I could be wrong of course. If the Mail and its friends really didn't want to give that impression, I think they would try a little harder not to; they could even try not to print a billion billion stories every bloody year about how St George's Day is the victim of political correctness when it isn't in the slightest. But no. It's quick, it's simple, it's cheap and you only need to change a few words from one year to the next; so here we go!

Over the coming weeks we'll hear from people who say they want to fly the flag of St George from some building somewhere but who can't FOR FEAR OF UPSETTING THE ETHNICS. We'll hear from columnists who decry the lack of English patriotism and national pride when England is compared to Scotland, Ireland or Wales, asking us to wonder why - perhaps with a handy picture of Muslim women in burkas (or as that bastion of satire Private Eye hilariously called them last week "Daleks" shouting "exterminate". Yes, I had to wipe away the tears of laughter as well as they poured down my face.) We'll hear about some survey somewhere that shows English people don't really give a flying one about St George's Day (the classical type being that they don't even know what day it is) and that this is somehow evidence of MULTICULTURALISM and its evil having pervaded our lovely white people.

Here's a good example in today's Mail, which has the bonus of being not only drivel from start to finish but also lumping Christianity in with St George's Day - not entirely unconnected things, of course, but on the other hand St George isn't in the Bible at all, which is kind of an important thing where that religion is concerned.

Bishops fear a backlash over St George's Day bell-ringing

yells the headline. It's actually an update of an earlier story, which you can find here, and which had a slightly more sober headline:

Only five of England's 44 bishops want the bells to ring out on St George's Day

Now, if you live near a church, you'll know that they aren't shy about using the bells. Oh no. Every ruddy Sunday. Random times during the week. Der-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding, repeat until brain vibrates into mush. Which is fine, and quite pleasant at a distance. My point is this: you do need bellringers to ring bells. They have to take time out to do it. They might not want to. They might be working. They might not want to ask the boss for time off work in a credit crunch to go bonging the bells on a random weekday because someone wrote a letter to the bishop. It's just a thought.

The second article is pretty much a copy-and-paste job from the earlier one, so we'll look at the first one first:

The lack of interest among senior clerics in England's patron saint stands in sharp contrast to London Mayor Boris Johnson's plan to hold a week-long celebration of St George in London, with traditional English music and poetry readings.

How nice of Boris to bravely do something which had existed for several years already, and which he was merely continuing rather than setting up, as he liked to give the impression he was, and which his fans in the tabloids blithely repeated because they couldn't give a shit to make a fucking phone to call to check a fact or anything like that. But yes. Good on you, Boris! You stick it to the PC dogooder leftie bastards, not like that England-hating cunt Ken!

Among those who supported Mr Johnson's initiative was Mail on Sunday reader and regular churchgoer Libby Alexander. In fact, she is so keen to celebrate St George's Day that she wrote to all Church of England bishops in February, urging them to take a lead by issuing a decree to churches to ring their bells on April 23.
One of the reasons church attendances had fallen, she told them, was 'the lack of assertiveness or confidence emanating from the top' and the 'strangulations of political correctness'.

Hooray! That's banged a big dinner gong for Mail readers. They know they're on the right side of this one now. And it's a nice, neat ready-packaged story for the Mail on Sunday which didn't require any original research from a journalist - citizen journalism at its cheapest finest. But what of this claim?

Only five out of the church's 44 bishops enthusiastically back the plan - and several are hostile, claiming it could be 'dangerous' and cause a backlash from other religious groups.

I'd like to see evidence of that.

The Bishop of Chester, the Rt Rev Dr Peter Foster, said: 'I agree the modern Church has a lack of confidence, but there would be dangers in reacting by putting on "public displays" of confidence.'

I don't quite see his point. What dangers? But that's left hanging in the air. Did he say more, that might qualify what he's just said? We'll never know because the Mail haven't found space for context.

The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Rev Michael Perham, said: 'I would find it difficult to make April 23 the principal day of the year in which church bells should ring out peals of joy. Getting together teams of ringers at midday would be challenging.'

So that's a purely practical point of view, there. Nothing about a backlash.

The Bishop of Portsmouth, the Rt Rev Dr Kenneth Stevenson, warned that if church bells were rung on April 23 'some secularists would claim the Church was imposing its beliefs and practices on the whole population' - though he was careful to add they would be wrong to do so.

Some people might well, and he'd be well within his rights to say they were wrong. But again, no 'backlash' from 'other religious groups'. Unless you call secularists a religious group, which they aren't. Come on, where's the bit about Muslims? Where is it? It must be in here somewhere.

The Bishop of Newcastle, the Rt Rev Martin Wharton, declared: 'It is not possible to arrange a peal of bells whenever we like.'

Another bishop explains the practicalities.

There was a haughty tone to the reply from the Bishop of Bradford, the Rt Rev David James, who rejected Mrs Alexander's call to issue a decree, saying: 'Let me enlighten you as to why I disagree. First, I would not be able to issue this decree with any authority. Second, I doubt there are enough ringers available. Third, some towers are not in a suitable condition.'

Ooh! Haughty!

But those are the only bishops quoted who were against the idea. No-one mentioned other religious groups, yet you could have sworn from the intro that they would have done. I love these conjuring tricks from the Mail. They make you think that something's there, even when it isn't. It's pretty clever.

The Bishop of London even says the following, which goes against the 'We hate St George's Day because of political correctness nowadays' narrative:

While I suspect it would be difficult to decree that bells should be rung in every one of our 16,300 churches, I have noted a gradual increase in the attention given to our patron saint in recent years.

An increase then, and not a decrease. At least according to a bishop. So that's something to shout about, isn't it? Er, no, because it's not the story the Mail want us to read.

Remember, not a single mention of Muslims in the article. And yet:

This country has been crippled by political corectness which seems to have spread to the church. It is St George's day, our day and we should be proud of it and celebrate it like the Irish and the Scottish do on their respetive days.
But in England you get called a racist and a xenophobe by your own government, while hate preachers are being paid benefoits and staying here even though they incite people to murder our own troops!
This country makes me sick to the core more often than not nowadays.

and

What about the Bishop of Oxford? He's keen on calls to prayer, no?

Yes! I bet he is! I bet he actually secretly prefers Islam to Christianity. I... oh hang on a minute, he's in favour of the idea. Shit.

Stuff the bishops. I want them to ring.

Shall we break into the churches and do it ourselves then?

These bishops really should stop worrying that religious 'minorities' do not want to hear the bells ringing on St Georges Day - most of them are quite happy for our customs to be celebrated alongside theirs. They really need to grow a backbone - nobody assumes a religion is being foisted upon them simply because it differs from their own.

I love the idea of the word 'minorities' being in inverted commas. To signify what - that minorities aren't really minorities? Or that by saying 'minorities' we're actually giving a nudge and a wink to what we really want to say?

And finally, a rather chilling comment:

The Church of England leadership is weak and becoming irrelevant. A pride is rising again for England; if anybody living in England doesn't like it then go and live somewhere else. The UK, especially England, is an oasis of cultural success in a sea of barbaric countries where life is still very very cheap. Many people come from those countries in search of safety; I am proud that we give them safety but have zero tolerance for them if they want to bring their broken way of life to my homeland. Integrate or emigrate.

Mm, lovely. Thank goodness for people like that, as opposed to those evil bastard bishops.

27Dec/082

The Daily Mail: Cunts

Every now and then, someone will turn up here, have a sniff around, take a dislike at what I've written and send me an invective. Which I don't mind at all, if truth be told. But what I do mind is that these folk invariably attempt to claim that the Mail isn't a stinking turdgarden full of racism and cuntery. Which it undoubtedly is.

It's not as if they're even shy about it, either; it's not as if it's in skilful codes lurking beneath the surface that only clever people can see. No, it's really rather obvious. Often there's a plausible deniability built in, as you often see with Littletalent, whose meandering nonsenses are quite artfully constructed so that he can distance himself from any claims of racism or homophobia, for example, and simply point the finger back at the spectral Left, who are in his mind the real cause of all world problems.

If you think that the Mail isn't racist, then what are we to make of this fragrant jobby of an entry in the Ephraim Hardcastle column?

"Tommy is a champion of the religious genre and brings a fresh expertise to the department and Songs of Praise". I'll say! Nagra has directed and/or produced for TV The Sikhs, All Black, Hindi Millionaires, Pakistani Actually, Who Wants To Be A Mullah?, India's Ladyboys, Paki And Proud and The Joy Of Curry. Will Songs of Praise ever be the same again?

Snorting fuckwit. What's the implication here other than that, by bringing in a dirty wog who's done programmes about brown bastards, the Beeb will turn Songs of Praise into some kind of - spit - multicultural event?

But if it is, so fucking what? Guess what, not all Christians are white anyway.

So what's Hardcastle's problem? Why does he see the need to snort away like the chippy little cunt he is? Look, if you've got a problem with people who aren't white having anything to do with religious broadcasting, then just come out and say it. Don't go hiding behind your "Will it ever be the same again?" wankery - if you don't like it, come out and say why, you hackneyed old bullshitter. Then at least we can have an idea as to why you might think it might be a bad idea for the BBC to bring in an experienced and talented TV producer to be part of one of its flagship programmes.

But no, sooner or later someone will write to me and claim somehow that the Mail isn't racist, that I've got it all wrong, that I'm somehow the extremist, that the Mail is a force for good and never does anything wrong, and that there's never anything even slightly wrong with anything it ever does. Well when the fuckers do I'll just point them in the direction of this piece of shit from Hardcastle and see what they make of it. Presumably the classical "ooh, it's just harmless, silly, you're the one with the problem, not them, they're just being playful and lovely like furry kittens in a big pink bundle of cotton wool, you're the one who is hateful and bad" - because there's never any way of making those motherfuckers see sense. But at least it'll make me feel better.

25Mar/080

Re: RE

RE at my school was a haphazard affair. My teacher - a bubble-permed Australian with yellow-tinted glasses, perhaps the campest man in the world, yet surprisingly married (albeit to a decrepit old bat about 40 years older than him) - liked to concentrate on Christianity above all else. Which is fair enough, I suppose, given that you could only go to Christian schools round my way - you had the option of Proddy or RC, but that was about it; one way or another, you'd be schooled in the Great British religion before your time was up.

Looking back, learning about Jesus was quite instructive and there certainly wasn't much negative about it. We skipped over the more gory and difficult-to-justify fire-n-brimstone bits of the Bible in favour of the New Testament, all the more palatable stuff about loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, the good Samaritan, doing unto others and so forth. And that's perfectly fine - but it did leave me with a bit of a gulf of knowledge when I found myself in the adult world, living as I did in West London near Southall, with a bustling population of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus nearby. What were the differences in culture? I couldn't have told you. It might have helped to have known.

I think it helps to learn about other cultures, particularly when there are more and more people of different backgrounds and faiths in this country. I think it helps with understanding and trying to work out where others are coming from; it gives you a broader, more catholic (with a small C) perspective on the world - certainly, it would be very instructive for kids, whether their parents care about that kind of thing or not, just to be exposed to other cultures and to know why some classmates go to temple, some don't eat ham sandwiches, some fast in winter and so on. That can't hurt - can it?

Ah. Yes. I see. The discussion by the National Union of Teachers to expose kids to more religious voices in class was always going to make the hate-filled spunkwits at the Express burst a few veins in their necks, wasn't it? What a shame that they hadn't been schooled in multi-faith RE; they might understand a little more about Islam than they appear to have been, given the reams of anti-Muslim bullshit littering their pages day after day. I wonder if Richard Desmond had members of the Muslim faith coming into his school to tell him all about their religion? I'm guessing not, somehow, but you never know, do you.

So here comes the tsunami of shite, anyway:

FURY OVER PLAN TO TEACH KORAN IN SCHOOLS

...as well as the Bible, the Torah, and other religious texts. But that doesn't matter when you only see one Abrahamic religion as being a problem, does it?

STATE schools should be forced to open their doors to Islamic preachers teaching the Koran, the largest classroom union demanded yesterday.

'Forced' - these militant nutters in the NUT, they're just trying to make us all face east and pray, aren't they? We'll be in Londonistan before you know it...

The National Union of Teachers’ conference also said existing religious schools – almost all of them Christian – should have to admit pupils from other faiths.

What would be wrong with that? What is so good about having a caucus, a closed shop, a ghetto? Is that a good thing?

The union’s general secretary Steve Sinnott said that allowing Muslim imams to preach in schools would be a way to reunite divided communities.

Quick! Ring up some Tory cunt to claim that all Muslims are rabid jihadists!

But the proposals prompted immediate outrage. Conservative Party backbencher Mark Pritchard said: “This is just further appeasement for Muslim militants.

“We should just follow the existing laws on religious education, which state that it should be of a predominantly Christian character. All this will do is further divide many communities that are already split on religious lines.”

How and why will it further divide communities? How? Explain yourself, man!

Speaking as delegates met at the hard-Left-dominated union’s annual conference, Mr Sinnott admitted that his plan would amount to religious indoctrination inside taxpayer-backed schools rather than simple teaching of what different religions believe.

He said: “This is more than simple religious education, it’s religious instruction.”

'Hard left'. Yes, trade unions = hard left = Muslim appeasement = they're coming to bomb us! This is written by the so-called 'political correspondent' Gabriel Milland. Mind you, political correspondent at the Express is a bit of a redundant title anyway. Slag off lefties, slag off Muslims: there, job done.

The Church of England also denounced the proposals. A spokesman said: “It is for religions to teach their faith to people, it is for schools to teach about religion.”

Yes. And that's exactly what this proposal does, you doughnut.

The Church was even joined by its long-time foe, the National Secular Society. A spokesman said: “If it is allowed, it will be the zealots imposing their will on everyone else.”

And that's world-class out-of-context misquoting there to create a two-pronged attack on the NUT.

Of course this does little more than set the hares running for the usual anti-Muslim fuckstick commenters, who let loose with some bog-standard tirades against the heathens. Depressingly familiar, depressingly dull - yes, it's the Express's anti-Muslim agenda exposed to the core. And what a dirty, nasty, vile thing it is to see.

23Mar/080

The embryo question

Top blogging by Chicken Yoghurt:

The fact that the science of hybrid human-animal embryos, if successful, could mean the end to suffering for thousands if not millions seems to have passed many people by. Lost, as they are, in febrile daydreams of Tonto the Elephant Boy lumbering through the land or all those tiny little bags of chemical chance winging their way to heaven, the application and potential benefits don’t get a look in.

It’s certainly a consideration missing from man of God Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s sermon. Jesus went around curing the sick. Under this management? Live with it.

So much hand-wringing over these embryos; so many tears shed over these collections of cells, most of which would never become humans, could never become humans, destined to be destroyed in a laboratory once an IVF cycle is completed. What's the answer - no IVF? Force couples to carry every single embryo created to term? But it's not about the practicalities of things or the logical conclusions of things; it's about bemoaning the fate of these cells in a lab rather than the people who could be helped to have such a better quality of life through experimentation. Which is fine if you think that way, although I don't happen to.

These [MPs who supported the Iraq war] want to be allowed to vote with their consciences. Where were their consciences on March 18 2003 when the vote was taken to kill real, walking, talking, breathing, laughing human beings? How does an imaginary half-woman half-penguin get more rights than Iraqi children? Would the scientists get more support if their declared their intentions to cluster bomb these embryos?

Depending on which figures you choose to believe or not believe, Iraq casualties are between 100,000 and 650,000. Real human beings, not cells in a lab. Real human beings, with dreams, and families, children and parents, and hopes, and humanity. Real human beings snuffed out, not because of anything they've done other than the bad luck of being in the wrong place in the wrong time.

How can it be so easy to turn a blind eye to this human suffering one minute, then cry your eyes out over some cells in a lab because your medicine man from Rome tells you so?

11Mar/084

Fictional story re-written into fiction

If the Daily Mail was a pantomime - and who's to say it's not - it would be easy to spot the goodies and the baddies. If the BBC walked on stage, there'd be a puff of green smoke, a crash of drums and a dramatic jarring chord to make all the youngsters boo. No matter what the BBC does, it's wrong, according to the Mail - even if they can't really find people to say that, except extremists and numpties. I don't know whether the orders come from the top, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. The Mail's hatred of the Beeb seems almost pathological, almost an allergic reaction to the idea of state-funded media. A private company could do it much better! And wouldn't be as leftie-liberal either. I think that's the thinking behind it.

Anyway, the BBC are doing a Passion play this year. I'm sure it's nice for the Xtians to have one of their little fables played out on telly, especially at Easter-time, and I don't begrudge them that little pleasure at all. But that's not good enough for the Mail, because:

BBC accused of 'rewriting the Gospel' over Easter drama about the plot to kill Jesus

Boo! Hiss!

The BBC has been accused of "re-writing the Gospel" over a controversial new drama about the final days of Jesus Christ, starring James Nesbitt, which will be screened over Easter.

By whom? Oh, by Xtian Voice. Well they're clearly the arbiters of reasoned debate, aren't they.

The corporation is risking the wrath of traditionalists by portraying Judas and Pontius Pilate in a sympathetic light.

Well it's a new interpretation of a story that is fictional anyway. So why not push the boat out?

The national director of Christian Voice, Stephen Green, criticised the BBC, accusing writers of fictionalising the story behind the death of Jesus.

But it is fictional. It's a cracking yarn, but it's a legend.

If the Mail were hoping the commenters would stick the boot into the Beeb, they haven't been rewarded yet:

Considering the fact that the story of Jesus is based on the ancient Egyptian story of Horus (who was of virgin birth, performed miracles, was the son of god and death on the cross/descended into heaven after three days etc), it is hard to see what Christians have got to complain about. There is also a Gospel of Judas, which didn't make it into the Bible. I wonder why?
- J. Barry, Berlin, Germany

"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy".
- Jack Cee, Romford

This won't do! Where are the anti-BBC types to slag off the corporation for daring to tamper with the Gospel?! Outrageous...

8Feb/080

Get Beardy

Not since the latterly departed Jeremy Beadle was in his pranksterish pomp in the 1980s has a bearded man been on the receiving end of such undeserved opprobrium.

As I said some time ago in 'What fucking business is it of yours?' and 'Sunday bollocks', journalists are unlike most of the rest of the population in that they regard the opinions of churchmen and faith leaders as being unduly more important than those of laymen or ordinary folk. Where to turn when you don't know who to speak to about a moral issue? Some god-squad will do the trick for a quick turnaround when you're on deadline.

And, if you're really crafty, get someone on the bonkers looney nut-nut end of the scale rather than the woolly cup-of-tea-and-a-biscuit fraternity to make sure that opinion's as controversial as possible. Or alternatively, if someone is rather mild and woolly, conciliatory and inclusive like Williams, then well fuck it and just misquote him, take what he says out of context and pretend he's said something he hasn't.

Here's the dilemma. Il Papa, for example, can make a long and worthy speech that goes on for ages, but some wily bastard can take a sentence, or even a clause, out of context and make it sound like he's said something he hasn't. As was the case when Benedict XVI said something about climate change that the Mail decided was attacking the 'climate change prophets of doom', when in fact it was doing nothing of the sort, not that that stopped the cheeky lying fuckers from pretending he had.

Williams must know this by now, but what can he do? He can't zip his beardy gob shut; it's kind of important for a religious leader to talk about stuff about faith. So, unfortunately, even when he tries to look intelligently, inclusively and ecumenically at the idea of sharia law being applied to certain limited things on these islands, he faces a torrent of lies, bullshit, abuse and disgraceful misrepresentation. The nasty little cunts at the Telegraph, Mail, Express... all of them crept out of their shit-stained hack hovels and typed up utter stinking wank-rags of lies.

It went something like this. Williams: 'Sharia law when applied to certain things might be inevitable at some stage'. Hack: 'I want to crush children with rocks and make everyone wear a burkha, says bonkers beardy bastard'. An easy mistake to make, I'm sure you'll agree.

I do have sympathy for Williams, as you can tell. I just think religious figures are in a no-win situation unless they come out and say they're being lied about, which he clearly has been. It's no good going back into your shell and hoping it'll all blow over; it won't. I also wonder what people expect. Williams is leading a religion that teaches about Noah's Ark, miracles, water into wine, Lazarus being brought back to life, Jesus's resurrection, Lot's wife being turned into salt, a made-up Nativity story that didn't happen that way, the Pentecost, that mad acid-trip shit in Revelation... and then, at the same time, he's expected to be a voice of reason. Isn't there something a little bit odd about that? Yet - and here's the point that saddens me - it turns out Williams is actually rather intelligent and is trying to build bridges with other faiths at a time when religious and racial divisions are being whipped up by total lying bastards in the press. So, he's on a hiding to nothing.

I won't dwell too long on the reaction to Williams, but as usual I feel it necessary to read some of the citizen journalism on the subject to show you just what a meaningful, insightful and intelligent response has been garnered by asking the Great British Public what they think about this religious matter. Can you guess? Let's try the BBC's Have Your (Reactionary) Say first:

If muslims want to move to and live in our country perhaps they should "face up to the fact" that a part of being a citizen of this nation is that they are subject to our laws and practises just as we would be if visiting muslim countries

Imagine the reaction if you were to go to Saudi Arabia and suggest such an idea ?

Yet more PC madness steamrolling over our culture and traditions

The Guv'nor, Wirral

The Guv'nor is one of my favourite BBC HYS cuntsticks, if indeed 'favourite' is the right word. Every time any discussion comes along, you can guarantee this fuckwit will come along and jizz all over any reasoned debate. Who is saying that Muslims are trying to opt out of British justice? Is that what sharia law really is, particularly in the context of what Rowan Williams was discussing? No - but why do motherfucking shit-stains like The Guv'nor think it is? Because they're led to believe that sharia = Saudia Arabia, torture, executions in football stadia, hands chopped off, people being crushed under walls, etc etc. But what is this wanker saying, that Saudi Arabia is a good or bad example? Should we be more like it or not? I don't know, but more than a thousand utter cuntwads have recommended this comment on BBC HYS. As I argued in 'The BBC's Have Your Say messageboards are a crock of shit', very reactionary and hateful comments like this get jumped on immediately and given hundreds of 'approves'; anything more reasonable gets left alone or flamed immediately.

NO WAY, I am NOT a muslim and will not be held to muslim laws EVER.

[zen_reality]

Er, is anyone actually saying that? No. But never mind! It's anti-Muslim, so press the 'approve' button!

Actually the archbishop is right, muslims should not have to choose between cultural or state loyalty, if they don´t like the UK laws they can always go to one of the lovely and luxurious countries that does follow sharia law.

[gone4good], Spain

I'd like to hope that 995 people approved 'gone4good' because they approved of the fact that they approved of the fact he'd gone for good. No such luck. Another ex-pat who's fucked off to Spain but loves commenting on anything in the UK that pisses off their tiny shrivelled walnut-like brain.

The interesting thing is where this impression of sharia law comes from - that somehow, in total defiance of the Treaty of Rome (hated by the HYS regulars, by the way) among other things, Muslims will be able to opt out of British law as and when they see fit, and that everyone will be OK with that. Is that really what is being proposed? Is that really what's going to happen? Is it really criminal law that we're talking about rather than some civil matters? Is it really sharia law that allows people to be stoned, or a wicked interpretation of Islam using religion to justify cruelty?

Oh, but does it matter? Does it fuck. Anything to trot out the same anti-Muslim arguments, the same lies, the same bullshit drivel against anyone who might be slightly different in any way whatsoever.

5Dec/070

"Taking Christ out of Christmas…

...is like serving the Christmas turkey without the stuffing."

According to braindead reactionary Mark Pritchard, who spoke again today about his fears that the BNP are hijacking Christmas unless we all do something about it.

Actually, I prefer serving stuffing separately, cooking it in a baking tray with a bit of butter, rather than putting it in the turkey. You'll find it crisps up in the oven and has a lovely crunchy texture. Very nice. Why not do some sausagemeat in a similar-sized baking tray? It goes lovely and crispy on top as well. Superb. Obviously, don't forget the sausages wrapped in bacon, either. Or the cranberry sauce.

Anyway, just a small point for Mr Pritchard - turkey is a relatively recent Christmas tradition. As someone who wants to preserve our traditional ways, shouldn't he be asking us all to cook goose instead? (Try a rich plum and brandy sauce. Goose is very fatty but it's a lovely sweet meat and, I've found, is well worth the effort. So much more moist than turkey, isn't it? This year, though, we're going to have a leg of lamb. Bit of rosemary out of the garden, couple of wedges of garlic, salt and pepper to crisp it up, lovely. Home-made gravy, bit of mint, you can't go wrong.) But I guess that is the problem when you try to speak in clunky metaphors, hoping for a soundbite.

If the BNP want to celebrate Christmas, that's up to them. I can't see many people thinking: "Well, they're a bunch of fascist scum with pathetic views on race that went out years ago. A lot of them are criminals and thugs. And Nick Griffin is the one man responsible for making the far right even more vile than they already were. But hang on, they do like Jesus... Hmm."

Merry Winterval, everyone...

4Dec/071

Christianophobia bullshit

I've heard some drivel in my time. I've read some balls from idiots who should have known better. And then there's this, from Tory MP Mark Pritchard, demanding political parties to embrace and preserve Christian traditions in this country, as they're apparently under threat.

Ahead of the debate the MP for Wrekin, Shropshire, told the BBC: "The debate is not about doing God or theocracy. It's about ensuring that the Christian tradition of our nation is recognised.

"If mainstream political parties do not recognise and protect the Christian
tradition of this nation then other more extremist parties will. If that happens, we are in danger of Christianity being hijacked by these ambitions."

Mr Pritchard said the debate was particularly topical, as recent findings
suggested four fifths of schools were not staging Nativity plays this year.

Anyone who reads Five Chinese Crackers will know about the yearly nonsense the Mail, Sun and other liars drag up when it comes to Christmas. 'Our' identity is being washed away, lie the tabs, bringing up some toss about someone somewhere who supposedly banned Xmas decs because they might 'be an insult' to people of other faiths, except no-one ever did anywhere ever, not for 'Christianophobic' reasons anyway. When you look at the reality, nothing like that ever happens anywhere, except in the minds of numpties who write columns for reactionary tabloids. But once it's in the paper, it's accepted as fact, and twats like this Tory MP try to make some political capital out of it.

Now, I'm not the biggest student of theology in the world. But as I understand it (and as any good Jehovah's Witness will tell you as you're trying to ease the door slowly shut while nodding and smiling) the Nativity is, oh how shall I put this without wanting to upset anyone, complete garbage. There was no census that meant people had to return to the home of their ancestors. There was no Bethlehem - that was just a shoe-horning in by two of the apostles to try and fit in with a prophecy in Isiah. There was no inn. No stable. No manger. No donkeys. No bloody shepherds. None of that shit. I don't even think there's much dispute about this among serious students of the Christian faith. But here's a nice little take on it from some ex-Christians, who are a bit like ex-smokers if you know what I mean.

Not that any of those troublesome matters of fact matters to this berk Pritchard, who twitters on with:

He added: "I'm not saying there shouldn't choice within theatrical provision on schools. But Christmas time would be a highly appropriate time to do
Nativity plays, with its message of hope and love and light.

So we should celebrate something, even though we know it didn't happen in the way the Bible says, at a completely inappropriate time of year? With Mary dressed in blue, and a donkey, and a star, and gold and frankincense and myrrh, even though it's not true... Just because...? Because we've done it since Christianity. Doesn't matter if it's wrong or right. It's about 'hope' and 'love' and 'light'. Eh? Hope from a story that no-one seriously thinks is true? I don't get it.

A lot of the rest of this well-meaning buffoon's ideas can be dismissed as playing to the gallery, but here comes some real fucking bullshit.

He added: "Some people seem to want to forget the Christian tradition going back to the first century and its contribution to arts, culture and science.

"It's gone far enough. If there are those who want to see the Christian church reduced to the margins in this nation they should have the courage to say so, rather than using the rights of other religions as an excuse."

Whoa now. Wait a minute. I appreciate he's tried pretty hard, this guy, to defend what he believes in, but I've had enough now. Who wants to forget about the christian tradition? No-one does. It's just as relevant as Father Christmas - and just as true. Can't we have them both? Must we always be plagued by bloody idiots writing into local papers asking for the 'true meaning of Christmas'? Must we? Why can't we have nativity stuff for people who have no idea about reason or facts, and Christmas trees, pantomimes, the Morecambe and Wise Christmas special and neon penguins for the rest of us? Why not? Why must children be forced to re-enact something that didn't happen? I'm not saying don't teach it, just tell it like Robin Hood or Beowulf and all those other legends that also form part of our tradition in this country.

And science. Oh dear. He might have something in the first two - I might not be a fan of the billions and billions of gold-leafed renaissance paintings you see all over the world in every sodding gallery you ever go into, especially in Catholic countries, but I'll admit there are many students of art and art-lovers who enjoy and appreciate them - but science. You what? Christianity contributing in terms of what? Trying to suppress it? How exactly did Christianity treat Galileo or Copernicus? And Darwin - how does he get treated by the Christian faith, not just extremists but moderates too?

There's another aspect to what this jumped-up little twerp is shitting out of his mouth. He claims that "If mainstream political parties do not recognise and protect the Christian tradition of this nation then other more extremist parties will."

What? We must do something reactionary and daft because otherwise the rabid bastards of the BNP or UKIP (BNP-lite, as I like to call them, because it upsets them) will be even more reactionary and daft? What sort of argument is that? Shouldn't we do things because they're the right thing to do in the first place? It's the classic Tory tactic of seeing themselves as the barrier of rectitude on the right, always worried that if they aren't quite unpleasant or cruel enough then the fascist scum will steal their votes.

It's nonsense of course but the MP isn't a complete idiot. He knows which buttons to press with his audience, so stirs in a fear of the far right with a worrying drift away from 'traditional' values and a swipe at the 'PC brigade', and bob's your uncle, he's smack-bang in the middle of Mail territory. It's an attempt to invent 'Christianophobia' and not only that, to place it on a par with Islamophobia. "We poor Christians are oppressed too in this country!" Disingenuous to say the least: while people might not make as many Christmas nativity plays as they used to, it doesn't mean they're attacking you in the street or running hate campaigns, as the Mail and Express, among others, are happy to do, all the time, by telling lies and spreading complete bullshit about people who come from a certain cultural tradition and who have a certain faith. Except there's not room in this MP's life to give a shit about that, is there? Much rather whip up some hostility against something that doesn't even exist.

Of course we must respect the traditions of this country, but what of the traditions of secularism and religious diversity? What of the pagan traditions at winter solstice time? Must we hammer home Christian traditions at the expense of all others? It reveals a lot about the bullying belligerence and inherent fear of monotheism when you get stories like this - not that Christianity is any better or worse than the other big guns, just that it shares the similar arrogance and aggression of Islam and Judaism.

Me, I'll be out wassailing in the garden and burning a giant wicker Mark Pritchard. It won't do much good but it might piss him off a bit, so it's worth trying.