A long meandering rant and a light-hearted look at the origins of Christianity

Why is it that whenever someone comes up with a way of looking at religion that no-one has thought of before, it immediately becomes labelled as a cult? And why do we attach a negative connotation to the word cult? I mean, cults have a long and illustrious history. Christianity, which is a death cult (if youre about to argue, check whether youre wearing a sigil of a dead man around your neck) has persisted, despite all attempts to get rid of it, for nearly two thousand years. If one were feeling really nasty, one could point out that the alleged persecution of the Christians occurred so long ago that its now impossible to prove one way or another and wouldnt retroactively rewriting Christian history to include centuries of persecution be a really good way of claiming the moral high ground for the rest of eternity? Am even I that cynical? Make up your own mind.

Coming back to the original subject, is banning cults from existing a good idea? Well, maybe but define cult because any even partway workable definition includes most mainstream religions and more than a few parental oppression groups. A little while ago, there was a bill brought before the house to attempt to outlaw cult brainwashing. Now how the hell do you enforce that? No, cults shouldnt be attempting to control the minds of the vulnerable and disenfranchised but nor should Christianity (yes, you do, dont even try it, the only difference between you and them is that youre older, bigger and nastier) or the PTA. I dont know if schools still do this but when I was at school we used to have something called P.S.M.E. which meant Personal, Social and Moral Education [my emphasis]. Hello? Moral education? Like your generation did such a spectacular job of that? Since when did our country decide that they werent going to bother teaching people to be reasonable citizens, they were just going to brainwash them before they had a chance to recognise the fact that they were being brainwashed (nave question, I know)? And while were on the subject, who the hell decides whats moral and what isnt? I mean, not that long ago oral sex would have been considered intensely immoral, so would a woman openly enjoying sex, so would bisexuality (I know Im not the only one here).

And on the subject of someone deciding things for the rest of us, am I the only person who feels not just intellectually but personally insulted by a government which seems to feel that we arent intelligent enough to make our own decisions. Make a list: Pornography, firearms, paracetamol, tobacco (Ill come back to that one). Time and again, our government (and not just Herr Blair, all our governments have done this) has effectively told us that we cannot be trusted. If a man sees hardcore pornography, hell instantly become a rapist (any feminists who want to debate that one, please, just give me the opportunity, Im begging you). If a man picks up a firearm, hell instantly be turned into a serial killer wholl go out and kill small children. You can now only buy paracetamol in 16 tablet tubs because the lethal dose is 24 and our government considers you, yes, you drinking your coffee, to be so weak-willed that youll give up the idea rather than go and buy a second tub. Tobacco, our government constantly complains that tobacco smuggling is a huge business run by organised crime syndicates. Well, stop charging such fracking ridiculous taxes on it then! If the taxes werent so high, people wouldnt deal with the smugglers! I mean, cmon, its not rocket science is it? Same thing goes for video piracy. You know those messages you get that say most money from pirate video goes to organised crime? Cobblers, most money from pirate video goes to some sad-act down the market. This is what makes the whole Napster situation so ludicrous (bear with me, Ill explain the connection). In the mid 1980s, the US created a law which effectively did away with the clause in law which said that duplicating music was a criminal offence. It allowed for a reasonable number of back-up copies which amounted to his, hers and one for the car. It was generally agreed at the time that this was a sensible compromise. Now if taping something to make a back up copy isnt illegal then by extension, neither is ripping a track to mp3 format. Makes sense, right? Well, then, how do Napster get shut down? They do not rip tracks, trade them or sell them. In fact, Napster dont deal with tracks at all, they just provide a program. What people do with it is their responsibility. Marlboro dont get sued when somebody burns somebody else with one of their cigarettes, Smith & Wesson dont get sued when some sub-human moron shoots a guy without provocation, so how the hell are Napster responsible for what other people do with their product? The connection with video piracy? Right, when this bill was before the US senate, the US music industry commissioned a study into what would happen if the bill became law. What they found was that far from diminishing their returns (like they couldnt take losing a little money), music piracy actually stimulated sales of the original track (dont ask me why, Im just giving you results here). So that was good. On top of that, the music industry convinced the US senate to impose a tax on duplicating materials (blank tapes and other media) to cover the losses they wouldnt be making (*waves at US senate* Hello! Anyone awake here?). The connection is that sometime in the early nineties, the logical follow-up study was done and Lo! There came a voice that said exactly the same thing applied to the video industry (and fifty times more so for software but lets not get into that). Whatever happened to the idea that art should be free? I mean, I can understand someone being annoyed for not being credited with their own work. If youve poured your heart and soul into the thing then youre gonna get annoyed when you dont get the credit but beyond thatIm sorry, but if youre writing, you should be writing because you like to write or you feel you have something to say or you just like telling people a good story. If youre in it for the money, if youre writing purely for the money (hello, Mr. Archer) or acting purely for the money (hello to almost everything Keanu Reeves [spelling, anyone?] has ever done) or if youre singing or playing in a band just for the money (Oasis! How nice to see you, now shove off again. Same thing applies to the Spice Girls), YOU SHOULD NOT BE DOING IT! Youre in the business for the wrong reasons and most of the time, your work is gonna suck (for proof, see Be Here Now [Oasis]). Same comments apply to almost every celebrity chief (especially Ainsley Harriot, walking proof of the non-existence of god), are you doing this because you like to cook or because you like those six-figure cheques? Yeah, thats what I thought.

Quick note on modern feminism. Why are you still here? You won, we lost, please let us get up off the floor now.
On the same subject. Youve heard the saying that there is just enough religion in the world to make men hate but not enough to make them love? Well, I reckon that goes double for feminism. When feminism started it had some laudable goals, equal rights, equal pay for equal work, that sort of thing. One of the underlying messages as it went on became that my feelings are important. Fine, fair enough. However, wouldnt it have been a good idea to stress that other peoples feelings are important too? For example, we have an epidemic level of casual violence in our society and to my (admittedly twisted) mind, at least part of that is down to the idea that todays youth has been brought up with the idea that their feelings are sacrosanct but werent taught that hitting that guy because he wont give you a chip isnt playing fair (note for those whove managed to avoid street brawls: if someone says are you calling me/her/him a liar?, hit them as hard as you can and run. Theyre determined to have a fight and you wont talk them out of it). And chat shows? If there was ever a good argument against feminism, there it is right there. Dont even try telling me that they arent feminist shows, Oprah is pure gushy femi-nazism from start to finish. Tricia even more so. The shows are all about conditioning viewers to give a conditioned response to a conditioned stimuli. Pavlovian almost. For the record, Im not in favour of womens rights. Im in favour of equal rights. Big difference.

I see that Bush won the US election. Oh, lor, here we go. Another Baptist southern pillock who thinks hes gods chosen and somehow has the intellect to dictate the morality of a nation. Has anyone here actually thought about how the Bush administration will affect us? Because it will you know. Britain has become in recent history, just another outpost of the American empire. America has established a global empire that Alexander the Great would envy and Genghis Khan would give his enlarged eye teeth for. Regardless of how well America is doing internally, the rest of the world still takes its lead from the US. Hitler couldnt take Russia but McDonalds walked in without a fight (France, thankfully, is holding out for a rematch). Pretty much every society in the world has become a smaller copy of the Americans. Almost everyone knows about Coca-Cola and McDonalds (lets save the world! For truth and mom and the safety of puppies~ James Marsters as Spike in Buffy [cant remember the episode]). Like it or not, American fashions become British fashions, American trends become British trends. Bad thing? Well, yes, because Britain manages to take the various American good points (from a selfish point of view: Reasonable tobacco taxes, social tolerance [at least in the large cities], sensible gun laws and loose immigration laws, in that order) and carefully remove them. Here you get Herr Blair and Hague debating the morality of abolishing Section 28, regardless of the fact that it would be purely symbolic as no one has ever been prosecuted under it. What do they think is going to happen? School teachers are going to start teaching their charges how to be gay? You cant teach someone to be gay, you cant change someones sexuality, otherwise straight parents couldnt have gay kids. If it was as simple as monkey see, monkey do (and remember that this is how the government sees each and every one of you) then any kid who even thought about being gay would take one look at the overwhelming homophobia of the British public, take one look at the guy who got knifed for daring to be openly gay in my hometown recently, take one look at the attitude of the British press, take one look at me having to run from a fight because there are eight of them whove taken terminal offence to the fact that Ive kissed my boyfriend in public. That kid would take one look and promptly give up the idea there and then. I know some people love to play the outsider but cmon, there are limits. You dont paint a target on your chest unless youre damn sure its worth it. All that Section 28 is doing currently is allowing homophobia to continue unchecked. While Im talking about homophobia, hands up anyone whos a blood donor. Yeah, me too. Have you read the plastic card? Right, what it says is that a man whos had sex with another man cannot give blood ever whereas a woman whos had sex with a man whos had sex with another man cannot give for a certain length of time (a year, if memory serves). Now why the hell does this clause exist? Its not a health thing because donated blood is tested for everything on the planet and there are more hetero AIDS sufferers in England (true, at least as far as my research went) than there are gay ones. So why does this happen? Blatant and undisguised homophobia. Do what I do, ignore it.

Where was I? Oh yeah, Bush. Now a lot of you may think I have a problem with religion. Youd be right, with the proviso that I dont have a problem with the kind of religion that makes you be a better person and live a better life or even the kind of religion that makes you put on a suit and knock on peoples doors at half past eight on a fracking Sunday (irritating but not a major problem). I do have a very serious, shouting, screaming, sniper-on-the-roof problem with the kind of religion that tells you that yours is the only god that real, no one elses god really exists or its the devil. The kind that tells you that only you are uniquely qualified to decide whats best for everybody else because it was written in a book that was written two thousand years and was very likely altered over the years to fit the standard of the time. Even if were (very) charitable and assume that the people translating these works are immune to political considerations, human error creeps in. Anybody whos ever played Chinese whispers knows what happens when something passes through numerous mouths and thats in the same language. Now imagine what happens if youre translating something that was written hundreds or thousands of years ago by someone in a language which may very well obey different laws of grammar, spelling and punctuation. The writers are long dead so you cant ask them for advice and is that a flaw in the paper or a comma? Can you take all that into account (and Im assuming that the translators are good men) and still tell me that the scripture hasnt changed one iota since its original inception? I dont believe it can be done. Remember also that the holy texts werent written by the gods, they were written by men, filtered through mens perceptions and ways of thinking. For example, the Sin of Onan (I was raised in a religious family) tells you not to shed your seed on barren ground. Now, the Catholic church has always interpreted that as an indictment of contraception. But it was so long ago that it might well have just been a piece of practical advice for farmers. You see my point? Language has changed so much over the years that its impossible to say with any degree of certainty, what the writers were trying to say. Ill go further. I dont believe there is one word, certainly in the Christian Bible which has retained its original meaning. Its been analysed, translated and edited (yes it has) so many times, its not worth the paper its printed on. By the way, what happened to the twenty-three gospels deleted for the English edition? Can we have them back now please? I reckon the Bible needs a complete overhaul and total rewriting (I know thats blasphemous, I care?). Its a pretty story and as an illustration of a philosophy, it works fine, but historical fact? Pur-lease. You know what really irritates me about religious believers, Christians especially? Their assumption that if you dont believe, they dont have to take any of your arguments seriously. Well, actually I can prove categorically, with evidence, that your entire religion was invented by Caesar Octavias. *pause* Ah but you can prove anything with facts and besides, you dont believe. Arrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the proof denies faith argument? No, it doesnt. Proof is the confirmation of faith not its denial. Besides which, if your god showed himself to everybody then what the hell does he care about faith anyway? Why not just show up and ask everybody to behave themselves? If youre that insistent on it, then fine. I am the Anti-Christ but Im not going to prove it to you. Annoying isnt it? Patently absurd and yet impossible to disprove. If god exists then why are there wars, murder etc. No, free will is not an answer. If your god is all powerful then he (or she, for all the goddess worshippers) would be able to create man with free will but still make them so violence would be repugnant and if he cant, then hes not all powerful and therefore not a god. As for the vow of saving sex until marriage or being sent to hell for eternity (and always remember, the basis of Christianity is believe or burn), what kind of loving god creates a creature with sexual impulses and then condemns them to eternal torment for indulging those impulses? Thats not the act of a loving god, thats the act of a sadist. Thats the kind of mentality that likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them. Ive actually come up with this whole theory on Christianity, Ill deal with the Bush thing first.

Anyway, Bush. Bush is one of those people I was ranting about a moment ago. He believes that his religion makes him qualified to dictate the morality of the nation. Bush is anti-abortion and right wing in general as was his father (remember Reagan and Bushs anti-everything campaigns). Now, if that was his private opinion, then thats fine. I dont agree with it but its his opinion and the thought police arent active yet (Im still walking the streets). It wont stay as his opinion though. As President, Bush has the final word on appointing supreme court justices. Now those justices can overturn previous decisions of other courts, overrule themselves and even overturn the constitution and bill of rights. Now, a womens right to abortion (more or less) on demand was enshrined in the US court decision Roe Vs. Wade. At present, the supreme court of nine judges stands at five Democrats to four Republicans. Bush is expected to appoint at least two judges during his term and he will appoint Republican judges and whats more, Republican judges who share his opinions. That gives six Republicans to three Democrats. Bye-bye abortion. A case will be brought, probably on behalf of the church or a right-to-life organisation and the Christian Coalition will pay the legal costs to take it supreme court level at which point, abortion will be rescinded. Abortion is effectively non-existent in the US anyway. So many clinics have been bombed and doctors killed (heres a great idea, lets save the life of a foetus which may well have a crummy quality of life anyway. In fact, lets save those lives by killing people DO WHAT?!?) that the vast majority of clinics will no longer perform abortions. Bush is said to be a very moral man. Moral by whose standards? Lets face it, a Baptist preachers ideas of morality are going to be very different to yours and mine. Im willing to bet that Bush is actually just as dodgy as Clinton, hes just better at covering it up. While were on the subject of Clinton, does anybody believe that he didnt have sex (not counting the oral and cigar) with Monica Whats-her-name? Show of hands please for those who dont think oral sex counts as sex (one, two..). Yeah, thats what I thought. Not too many. Oh, and Hillary? Dont get too cocky. If your surname wasnt Clinton, not one person would have voted for you. No, its not because youre not a native New Yawker, its because you havent got a clue. Thank you for calling. Mind you, if anything, our own Prime Minister is even more self-serving than Hillary. Does anybody remember that leaked memo from about six months ago? Does anybody remember the fact that lots of the items said we need a high-profile initiative on this and I should be featured as prominently as possible. Herr Blair finally announces yes, I am an egomaniac whos in politics purely to serve my personal agenda. I dont care about doing good as long as I get voted in again. Shock-horror! British Prime Minister is self-serving egomaniac woodlouse! Film at eleven! You shouldnt get too confidant either William. Your lot made such a mess of it last time that they wont be voted in for the next hundred years. Here have a coconut instead. Seriously (or as serious as I ever get), what the hell can Hague do now? Hes been embarrassed by Ann Widdicombes zero tolerance on cannabis campaign. Is it just me or was Ann one of those people who always got stuck in kitchens at parties? One of those people who couldnt relate to others in their social group so when she gets older she decides to try and outlaw them. Actually, what Anns proposing is de-criminalisation. I doubt she realises it but follow me on this. She originally proposed that if you were caught, you got a 100 fine and a criminal record. Then she had it pointed out to her that that meant a good portion of the youth generation getting a criminal record. So she proposed that if you were caught you got the fine but not a record. So if smoking dope doesnt get you a criminal record, its not a criminal offence, its just a civil offence. Thats decriminalisation. Anyway, Ann, ask any casualty nurse about whos more likely to do damage to themselves and those around them. Johnny Dopehead, who smokes a couple of joints, then lies around giggling and munching fifteen Mars bars and twenty-three packets of Monster Munch, or William 14 pints, who gets pissed, gets a kebab and then decides to kick some poor sod to death because hes looked at the clock just behind your girlfriend? (and our survey said: Seventy-three percent of casualty nurses said: you havent got any dope have you, love? Ive been on the go for 106 million hours now, my feet are killing me). So, William, what else do you have to worry about? Well, the fact that youre actually taking a stand on the issues instead of just saying anything to get votes. Thatll cost you. Theres the fact that you look like the illegitimate offspring of Winston Churchill and Thora Hird. In a baseball cap. Baseball caps look ridiculous on anyone over thirty, you pillock. Your second in command is Michael Portillo (otherwise known as Portaloo), a man who comes across like hes been extruded out of fresh polyunsaturated fat and then deep fried to give him that extra greasy look. Oh, and when he keeps patting you on the back? Hes working out where to stick the knife.

Finally, my Christianity idea. I reckon its backward. Look at it this way. God creates Adam and Eve and the garden. Then says you can eat anything you want, except the fruit of this tree, no, its not poisonous, it just lets you know the difference between good and evil. Now Eve because she had free will (see previous point about free will) and had been created purely for the purpose of serving Adam as best she could, eats the apple and gets Adam to as well. God emerges from behind the nearest cloud and says Naughty! I told you not to eat that apple. But, boss protests Adam you didnt exactly make it difficult did you? You could have put it high up or a long way off and if youre so powerful, why does it have to be here anyway. Dont you cheek me, young man says God Youre not staying here with an attitude like that. So off go Adam and Eve into the outside world. A little later, God is drawing up Christianity advised by Lucifer Morningstar. Right says God First point, Thou shalt worship no god but Me. Hang on a sec says Lucifer I thought you said they could have free will and do what they like? Well, yes says God but theyve got to know that Im in charge. Lucifer thinks about this for a second and says but if theyre scared of you coming down on them like a ton of thunderbolts, thats not free will, is it?. Ah retorts God It is but its ineffable. Lucifer thinks this is a cop-out but lets it pass. Right, they mustnt mis-use my name postulates God. Youre going to punish them just for using your name in the wrong way says Lucifer in alarm. Its ineffable says God and then adds The Sabbath must be respected as a holy day. That one doesnt even make sense says Lucifer either all days are holy or none of them are. Everyone needs a day off rumbles God. Fair enough thinks Lucifer its not like its set in stone. You must honour your parents says God. But what if their parents are mass murderers says Lucifer. Ah says God but if they are then they will go to hell and be punished enough without their children hating them. Yes chimes in Lucifer Ive been meaning to talk to you about that. You told that lot that you were a loving all-forgiving God. I am thunders God. Well, if youll forgive anything, why does there have to be a hell at all. Still ineffable, Morningstar. Ah, right thinks Lucifer. Thou shalt not kill says God Surely even you cant find fault with that. Lucifer ponders this for a moment and then say but what if theyre trying to kill you?. then you must let them barks God turn the other cheek, thats the ticket. Thou shalt not steal. but says Lucifer, cursing himself all the while what if youre stealing bread because your family will starve otherwise. No, no, no says God nobody steals from need, they steal from want, Lucifer is by now beginning to doubt his bosss sanity. Thou shalt not give false witness against others what in heavens name does that mean asks Lucifer. Ive no idea says God but itll keep them arguing and re-reading it for years. And finally says God my two masterstrokes, first that thou shalt not covet thy neighbours possessions. Does that mean envy them? asks Lucifer. God answers in the positive. Now, thats just unfair says Lucifer you designed envy into them. but they have to rise above that says God. They cant rise above it, you made it one of the fundamental aspects of human nature. Now, Lucifer, Im trying to be patient but really, Im running the show here and Im ineffable so dont try and understand me but says Lucifer you designed me to understand you. Morningstar, if you challenge my authority again, I will really lose my temper. Lucifer shuts up. My final commandment says God Thou shalt not commit adultery. Didnt you have that other aspect of you say that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart then he has committed adultery with her? asks Lucifer, who is by now convinced that his boss really has lost his mind. Yes responds God I did. But says Lucifer that means that in order to ensure the survival of their race, they have to act on the impulses which you designed into them but youve made acting on that a sin so theyll go to hell. Yes says God Its the most important part. I want to see just how obedient they are. but boss protests Lucifer you made these things part of them that they cant get rid of or ignore. Its ineffable, Morningstar, its not meant to make sense, but what do you think of the whole thing?. I think says Lucifer that its horrific. You said youd give them free will but youve handed down this set of rules that they cant help but break because youve designed it into them that they will have the urge to break them either out of necessity or instinct. They must be tested bellows God. Not to destruction screams the Morningstar you have to give them a chance. Its not free will if youre waiting to drop on them the second they make a mistake. Freedom means the freedom to make mistakes. It means the freedom to worship other gods They have to rise above it shrieks God. They cant, you designed them so that they couldnt. You told me that theyd have free will but its not free will if youve given them this huge set of rules. Do you want them to go to hell? Do you want them to suffer? At this, Lucifer pauses, realisation dawning in his eyes, you do, dont you he says quietly You want to see if you can push them to the point of destruction, condemn them to an eternity of torment and still force them to love you for it. Lucifer Morningstar says God I have been more than patient with you but if the next words out of your mouth dont congratulate me on this, you will no longer be welcome in My halls. I cant congratulate you says the Morningstar sadly I can see what these laws will do to the world and is that your final word asks God Think carefully before you answer. It is says Lucifer sadly. Then says God in a voice dripping with venom You are expelled from my house, your name is forfeit, no longer are you Lucifer Morningstar, I name you Satan, accuser and then, as an afterthought, He adds and if youre so concerned with hell, go and look. And Lucifers final words as hes hurled from the heavens are There will be a reckoning, there will be freedom. There is freedom, live free within my laws says God and then He hurls Lucifer down.

When Lucifer finally arrives in hell, he thinks and realises that He must have been planning this all along and screams. Then Lucifer realises that the laws God has passed down are so exacting that there will be a stream of recruits to hell. Recruits that he can train. Lucifer is patient. He knows that there will be a reckoning. One day he will storm the gates of heaven and bring true freedom.

Well, anyone whos managed to read this far, thanks for bearing with me.

*Sits back and waits for the hate mail to come in*