ThunderDragon Blog

This is an example of what is wrong about religion - or at least how it can go so very very wrong:

Israeli police have had to restore order at one of Christianity’s holiest sites after a mass brawl broke out between monks in Jerusalem’s Old City…

Two monks from each side were detained as dozens of worshippers traded kicks and punches at the shrine…

Dressed in the vestments of the Greek Orthodox and Armenian denominations, rival monks threw punches and anything they could lay their hands on. (BBC)

How exactly can either side reconcile this in any way with their religious teachings? When religions claim that they are the only way to god/heaven/paradise/nirvana/whatever, these sort of confrontations are inevitable.

These religious sects need to act what they teach. Because they undermine all other religions and religious people.

Video via the Guardian News Blog:

Not only is it one of the longest words the dictionary, it also describes precisely what Phil Woolas is saying. A definition of disestablishmentarianism:

–noun
1. a person who favors the separation of church and state, esp. the withdrawal of special rights, status, and support granted an established church by a state; an advocate of disestablishing a state church.

–adjective
2. of, pertaining to, or favoring the disestablishment of a state church.

I fully support this aim. It is precisely what we need. The State and religion - all forms of religion - should be separate. No religion should possess a favoured link to the government, since we are not a mono-faith society. We exist surrounded by many faiths and many claims of truth. Who is the State to proclaim which is the truth?

However, neither should the State be athiest or anti-religion, but entirely agnostic and make no claims to religious authority.

Within fifty years, the Church of England should have lost its privileged position. It has no right to it. As with other religions, the CoE should have complete control over its internal organisation. The Prime Minister should not have any decision-making authority over the Anglican church, up to and including who the Archbishop of Canterbury is.

As for the “consequences for the monarchy”, they are minor. The only differences are that the titles “Defender of the Faith” and the “Supreme Governor” would become within the rights of the Church of England to offer to the monarch - essential if the rights of succession are reformed.

Separation is the only way forward. When the House of Lords is reformed, either all Bishops must be removed from the Lords in the reformation or representatives of all religions must be included, with no voting rights. There is no alternative.

We do not live in a religious country any more. Secular is the order of the age. No longer does the Church of England mean anything to most peoples everyday life. And so disestablishment is inevitable.

Phil Woolas is correct to raise this, even as politically inexpedient as it may be. Because it is an issue that does need to be resolved before too long.

A Church of England clergyman has been ordered to remove comments about gay people from his blog, remarks described by his diocese as “highly offensive”.

The Rev Peter Mullen, who ministers in the City of London, said he had gay friends and the words were “satirical”.

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

Yes, tattoo the gays. Just like the Nazis*. What a forward-looking, modern church the C of E is!

What is almost as bad is his comments afterwards:

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

Oh yes, the old “some of my best friends are *insert minority group you just attacked*” claim. Followed by:

What I have got against them is the militant preaching of homosexuality.

What, pray, is that? Is wanting equality “militant preaching”?! No, it’s not. Even if it is, it certainly doesn’t warrant any sort of supposedly “satirical” [what definition of satire does he subscribe to?] call for tattooing their asses with the words “sodomy can seriously damage your health”.

I don’t particularly like religious preachers, but I don’t call for the the slogan “Relgion can seriously damage your thought processes” to be tattoed on their forehead. Because that would be disgusting and intolerant - I just choose to ignore them.

The Church of England should sack this homophobe.

* I know, it’s Godwin’s Law

I’m not making it up.

The similarities between the two are startling:

• Both are leaders of large organisations with a penchant for telling people what is right and wrong and what they should do.
• Both are failing to provide any sort of clear leadership to their respective organisations.
• Both are ditherers, who just can’t make their mind up over important issues.
• And last but not least, both are being told by senior people within their own ranks that their position is “untenable“.

For the Archbishop of Canterbury, the issues all boil down to how progressive the Church of England should be: should they have women bishops or gay bishops? The more they argue and dither over an issue that the general public just can’t see any reason for an argument over. The Church used to be/claim to be the nations moral compass. But now, it is the nation which is way ahead of the Church. We believe in equality. Too many of them appear to be blinded by a few words in a book.

For the Prime Minister, the man who claimed to have a moral compass, the issues are instead based on competence - or, rather, lack thereof. He has failed to manage the economy and has refused to take any non-required opportunity to go to the people. You know you’re scewed when John Major is offering you sympathy…

Despite the differing issues, when it comes to taking decisions on them, Rowan Williams and Gordon Brown have taken precisely the same response: dither. And this is why they are both under fire from both outside their own organisations and from within.

The only question I now ask is: has anyone ever seen them together…?

The man who first didn’t “do God”, said that those who talk about religion are regarded by the public as “nutters“, and then made a massive hoohah over converting to Catholicism is now going to devote his life to faith.

Yes, Tony Blair has proclaimed that he is going to “spend the rest of my life” uniting the world’s religions.

Yes, he’s precisely the man we want claiming to be our global moral conscience. Not.

Whilst the aim is a noble one, religion is not something that can be united like that. Ever. If you are seriously religious then you believe that what your religion [or even religious sub-set] says is absolutely unequivocally correct - and that all the others are totally wrong, except where they believe with you, of course.

Religion and faith are personal and private things. And they should stay there.

Unintentionally, I’m continuing a theme from last week - words that might cause offence.

I’ve read a couple of posts over the past week (from Nickopotamus and GeekLawyer) highlighting the news that the police themselves have taken action over a member of the public allegedly offending a group of individuals. An unamed 15-year old has been served summons by the City of London police under s5 of the Public Order Act 1986 -“displaying any sign …which is threatening, abusive, or insulting … likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”.

What did the sign say then?

Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult

Continue reading ‘What’s the difference?rgb’

The Pope has declared that he is “profoundly ashamed” by sexual abuse performed by priests, saying:

Well I should think so too. He certainly couldn’t be proud of or even accept them. And neither can he ignore this huge issue, as evidenced by his U-turn over discussing an issue previously declared to be “closed”.

But that the Catholic Church have sexual abuse insurance seems to show that they know and accept that it could - or maybe even will - happen.

You also have to wonder who thought that the light-switch in the image on the right [via FAIL Blog] was a good idea, and whether or not they were a Catholic priest.

And now I’m just waiting for the next announcement from the Church of England in the continuation of the Battle of the Churches…

The Church of Google