It appears that the judge known as Cherie Booth, aka Mrs Tony Blair, has some pretty dodgy ideas when it comes to sentencing religious people. To summarise, she gave a violent offender who happened to be a theist a suspended sentence because (as she said), “You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour”. Does this mean she would give an atheist a prison sentence in the same circumstances on the grounds that non-believers have no guiding principles that tell them that smashing people in the face for no good reason is not the right thing to do? Being lenient on religious people seems the first step on a slippery slope which will result in people being treated differently by the law just because they have different beliefs. That would be terrible.

When the BBC reports stories with a religious angle, no matter how trivial it is, the theists usually get an easy, uncritical ride. Consequently, in this BBC News piece about why god allows natural disasters to happen it is good to see holes being picked, albeit in a fairly gentle manner, in the drivelly arguments religious people are wont to spew to anyone unfortunate enough to be in earshot.

Employees of the church of England, that domain of mild, incoherent and woolly thinking, have given some typically vague responses when asked why their god would allow the earthquake in Haiti to occur. I quote from the BBC article:

Faced with this question, Archbishop of York John Sentamu said he had "nothing to say to make sense of this horror", while another senior clergyman Canon Giles Fraser preferred to respond "not with clever argument but with prayer".

These responses avoid answering the question in a really base and duplicitous manner. What else could one expect expect from senior members of the drivelly and confused waffle-mongering Anglican church?

There are plenty of other examples of theists’ bonkers reasoning and avoidance of giving straight and meaningful arguments. How about this laughable attempt by some theists to define their frankly pathetic beliefs in a manner which avoids saying anything definitive or concrete about them: Others say their talk of God is supposed to acknowledge … a thread of meaning or value running through the world, or perhaps something ineffable. Utter crap, obviously, but then so is the whole idea of religious belief. If people are fool enough to to subscribe to the preposterous idea of there being any form of god, I suppose one cannot really expect consistent and articulate arguments from them about their theism.

The final paragraph in the article clearly encapsulates one of the many problems theists still have:

But, as for those who believe in an all-good, all-powerful agent-God, we've seen that they face a question that remains pressing after all these centuries, and which is now horribly underscored by the horrors in Haiti. If a deity exists, why didn't he prevent this?

Edit: I’ve recently heard from theists that all religions share a common thread of compassion. This news article really demonstrates that such a thing either does not exist or if it does it is routinely ignored. Might religious people be somewhat hypocritical? “Do as I say not as I do.”

The nutcase theist Pat Robertson blamed his particular god for the earthquake in Haiti; apparently his flavour of god was angry with the Haitians for rejecting Jesus. Obvious bollocks, of course. If he really wanted to be taken seriously he should have gone with the currently fashionable idea that we get punished with natural disasters because we are evil, consumerist, free-market swine who fail to treat the world with the delicate touch it needs. This is also manifest bollocks. Whenever there is a natural disaster, or even something as minor as the recent cold weather in the UK, the environmentalist nutcases all get terribly worked up about how they are warnings from nature that our shameful ways will lead to the end of civilisation at best and the total annihilation of the world at worst. They get a cheap thrill lecturing us that they know best whilst the rest of us cannot be trusted to live on the planet like responsible people (ie. living in yurts made from cow dung and only eating grass clippings. Sorry, organic grass clippings).

Some appalling examples of this hat-stand thinking* can be found in this excellent article on Spiked.

*A good example that is shows how misanthropic the environmental extremists can be are the Australian bush fires of 2009, which killed 173 people and destroyed 2,000 homes; they were started by arsonists and so are not really linked to any bogus environmental problems. However, these fires  were characterised by Jonathon Porritt, a green who has advised both the UK government and the royal family, as being linked to Australia’s pursuit of ‘unbridled affluence, California-style’. So Australians burned for their sins; how dare they to try to generate wealth! He went on to say that the problem with the Australian bushfires is that they clearly weren’t ‘bad enough’, because Aussies straight away went back to pursuing their ‘dreams of unbridled affluence’. Too many people spout petty, vindictive, sanctimonious drivel like this.

I’ve been vaguely following the stories about non-Muslims in Malaysia using the word ‘Allah’; here is the latest piece. This started when a Catholic newspaper there used the word Allah to refer to their Christian version of God. This has resulted in some of the Muslims majority in Malaysia getting a bit excited and throwing petrol bombs at Christian churches, schools and the like. The Muslims claim that Christians are using the word Allah to try and convert Muslims to Christianity; the logic behind that being so opaque and risible that it must be one of the crappest excuses for violence the world has ever seen.

The air over there must be thick with hypocrisy. Is it really alright to say that one group of people cannot use a particular word, whilst it is fine for an arbitrarily different group to be able to say? Religious people think there is something special about their brand of lunacy which allows them to say what they like about whatever they like. Of course, people who don’t belong to their nutter cults (be they atheists or other flavours of religion) are not allowed to comment on anything, certainly not violate the ‘theologically-correct’ religious-person’s right to say whatever the fuck they like.

Some weirdos have the strange idea that people have a right not to be offended, especially when it comes to religious beliefs (see this utterly appalling article for a weaselling defence of this). This is of course complete toss (as this extremely good article points out). There is nothing special about religious beliefs that means they must automatically be protected and respected; respect always has to be earned. If someone offends you then that is your problem, not theirs; it is you who chose to be offended by them for whatever personal reasons you have and your reasons will never be universally held. If you do not like a newspaper using a particular word do not buy the bloody newspaper, it is quite easy. Free speech is the safeguard that protects all of our other rights. The right to say only the ‘right’ things is a sad, shallow idea not worth defending as there is clearly no objective list of acceptable things we can say and the objectionable things we cannot say.

Of course, some things people say do have to be taken a bit more seriously. If the Malaysian newspaper published an article saying that all Muslims were evil molesters of little children and it is every Christian’s duty to kill as many of them as possible then this would be incitement to commit violence and you can legitimately think such things should not be given uncritical coverage. When it is incitement it is not a case of offending people, it is a case of people having their lives threatened. I don’t think people should be in fear of their lives because the hard of thinking disagree with them. Extremists demonstrating in the streets carrying signs saying “Behead people who insult our religion” (whatever religion it is) are inciting violence and they should be watched carefully in case they go on to commit it.

Freedom of speech must be absolute. Once people start picking and choosing what can and cannot be said this list of proscribed words and ideas will only ever grow as more and more partisan and un-representative organisations start petitioning governments and courts to protect them from offence in their much-vaunted victim-status. This does not mean you cannot protest and demonstrate against outrageous peoples’ behaviour, but not by violence or seeking to restrict their rights.

"Let the idiots and bullies speak openly and they will be revealed for what they are!"

---

*I am happy to admit it is not just the religious people who do this. A few months back Nick Griffin, the odious leader of the odious British National Party, was invited to appear in a serious political discussion program on television. I was scandalised by the number of people who said he should not appear on television and not be allowed to expound the racist views of his party. Of course he should, he and his voters have a particular world-view and, even if we disagree with it, they are allowed to talk about it. By all means demonstrate against these views and try to propagate more civilised ideas, but you cannot gag or infringe someone’s civil liberties just because you do not like their ideas.

There is a news story on the BBC News website about books that people have tried to get banned from libraries in the US. Of course, it is more than a little dodgy to dictate to people what they can and cannot read, but I was still vaguely amused that the book that received most requests to be banned was a true story about gay penguins in New York’s Central Park Zoo. You’ve got to be pretty petty and small-minded if you want to ban that. Philip Pullman’s excellent ‘His Dark Materials’ trilogy also received lots of requests to be banned; this does make me worry when top children’s literature is viewed so negatively by religious nut-jobs simply because it points out they are talking tripe.

I used to be an epidemiologist, I felt that pathogen/host interactions were the cutting edge of evolutionary biology and so totally fascinating. Then I went mad. However, I still retain the interest, especially when I read stories like this one about brain-eating zombie fungus. Diseases: they’ll get us in the end.

Some people think they won’t get us in the end if we take the right steps. The steps taken by these Jewish nut-jobs to avoid swine flu, which involved flying in an aircraft whilst praying and blowing horns, would probably be the funniest thing I’ve ever read if I wasn’t so appalled by the rancid stupidity of it. The quote "We are certain that, thanks to the prayer, the danger is already behind us," was particularly hilarious/deranged.

This story makes me want to point out, that actually having read it, the Koran is a fascist book.

It also makes me want to point out the incredible erosion of civil liberties that have happened in this country, largely under the Labour government. We used to be a freedom-loving country who valued things like free speech, now it seems we all have to cow-tow to the evil religious extremists and we are not allowed to point out they are bastards because it might offend their oh so valuable religious beliefs. I'm appalled.

(Victor Stenger, suggested new slogan for atheist bus campaign)

This article was utterly hilarious. What a loon!

We are told that the British Humanist Association has raised money to put signs on buses in London saying there is no god. This is a good thing. Religious nutters get a free ride on this kind of thing all the time.

It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians, jihadist Muslims and settlement-building Jews are causing more than their share of trouble in the world. World events are being driven by people with apocalyptic delusions, while here in Britain a paralysing liberal guilt allows religious bigots to use intimidation and violence to stamp out free speech. If you can't get laughs out of all that, you can't get them out of anything. - Pat Condell, Time Out

I'd much rather have Butter, Stew and Zoo than this teddy bear. I am sure he is being faithful to his beliefs, but sadly his beliefs are thoroughly evil. Religions are terrorist organisations; they use threats to coerce. They are also perfectly happy to re-write history to suit themselves. If any nutcase American theists  are reading this you might be interested in this song on YouTube which says a lot about the founding fathers of the USA. It is also quite funny.

An excellent article on the Register details a comprehensive report into average IQ and the likeliness in believing in god. Apparently, the more stupid you are the more likely to believe in god. What next? The pope shits in the woods?

I've just read the weekly National Secular Society email; they are a great organisation and I hope you click on the link and join up. I don't always read the email as it usually leaves me steaming with rage; it did this week.

The first thing that got on my tits was that three catholic ministers are planning to vote against government legislation because the head of the catholic church in England is against it. Why should an unelected, unrepresentative, anachronistic loon be able to de-rail government flagship legislation? Bugger all people attend the catholic church in the UK, and the church is usually viewed as a bunch of over-privileged time wasters. Their hypocrisy was recently confirmed when they recently said that excessive wealth should be a sin. Pretty rich coming from as organisation with so much money it would make Croesus weep. The undue influence that these opinionated nutters* have is quite appalling and I hope if those ministers do vote against the government they lose their jobs.

The second thing that really pissed me off was another example of undue influence. Apparently the ex-archbishop of Canterbury used to be able to see the Prime Minister or any minister of his choosing within twenty-four hours if he wished to raise an issue. Once again, with the laudably poor church attendance in this country the archbish only speaks for a vanishing minority and so getting to see ministers so easily is pernicious. I hope this access has not been continued with the current waffle-merchant and drivel-monger Rowan Williams, who is quite rightly seen by all as a gaffe-prone dunderhead who not only fails to engage his brain before opening his mouth but puts his foot in it once he can negotiate its way past his facial fuzz. These people are anachronisms, and the fact that they think they should be shaping policy in a democracy is testament to the evils that are their religions and the perversions of thinking that religion causes.

Of course, there was plenty more in there to raise my ire. The weekly Newsline email is a great source of information on how those corrupters of little children are trying to pervert the world to follow their twisted ideologies. If people want to be god botherers then that is fine, but they should not have a privileged position for influencing the lives of those of us who do not wish our minds to be polluted by their dodgy thinking. Cheers, cheers for secularism!

*Speaking as an opinionated nutter I would venture that there is nothing wrong with being one, but using unfair and unreasonable influence over the hard of thinking and the misguided** to get your way, especially when your way is against the good of society, is deeply wrong.

**Obviously, most religious people are misguided because they were taught to be religious when they were children and we tend to believe things we are told when we are children. It is our fault they are misguided for letting them be corrupted by the perversity in the first place and not having mechanisms in place to resurrect their thinking from the philosophical shit-hole it was dumped in when they were young. As far as people go who have grown up with the benefit of an enlightened and decent education only to convert to religions when they were adults go, well, they are clearly hard of thinking.

Whilst I can see that this story might not be providing the best view of builders, how in the name of all that is evil is it possible to offend people just by having a children's story that features pigs? To quote one of my least-favourite phrases, it is political correctness gone mad! Oh I feel all sullied after typing that...

I just had a bath and whilst in it read one of the best books I've read in a while:

It is only 64 pages long, short enough to read in the bath and succinctly answers many points raised in religious debate: such as do religions have an inherent right to be respected (no), and isn't atheism a religion itself (no). The final chapter on the kindness of humans and humanism in particular is most uplifting. It is concise, well-argued and very well written. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

The best part was that I slept seven hours. This is really pretty good.

However, the religious loony who has been bursting into my room and incoherently going on about flying devils came into my room at around eleven last night whilst I was asleep. She helped herself to my books. I didn't realise this until she returned at midnight to throw them at me screaminng that I was evil and the devil. I suppose she didn't approve of 'Against all gods' and 'The atheist manifesto' (excellent book, by the way, very funny).

After I complained about her yet again I was told that I was now allowed to lock my door. A solution, I suppose, but keeping the god-bothering headcase from stealing, harassing people and waking them up might have been a better solution. When she roams the ward at night shouting incoherent prayers one might have thought the staff would do something as we need our sleep. But no, they'd rather drink coffee and gossip in the nurses office.

I was really distressed to have my stuff taken and my personal space invaded, let alone being woken up when sleep has been such a challenge for me.

I see the senior psychiatrist today and I am going to try and bust out of the loony bin. I hope the next blog entry comes from home (at least then I can spell check it).

Once again I find myself awake before three in the morning. I really need to get off the all-awakening aripiprazole as soon as possible. Yesterday my dose was reduced from 15mg to 10mg, but it soon needs to be zero. I don't give a tinker's cuss that it helps with the psychotic symptoms, I need sleep. It is being replaced by another anti-psychotic that is supposedlymore sedating.

I was so pleased to see my friends yesterday. I managed perkiness, smiles and jokes. However, due to the restrictive visiting hours they could only stay for less than an hour. I was so upset when they had to leave with me left stuck in the bin. I know it is not supposed to be nice here, otherwise everyone would want in, but I find it a really stressful and intimidating environment.

The tranquilisers I have been prescribed have taken the edge off my anxiety about being here, but done nothing for my intense unhappiness. I hope no one from the bin is reading this otherwise I'll never get out. I don't think I am quite so suicidal now so I'll see if II can be transferred to the Home Treatment Team by the end of the week,

Last night one of the other nutters burst into my room incoherently insisting that I get the flying devils out of her room. Apart from the weirdness I found the invasion of my personal space most distressing.

I must try to seem co-operative and not cry all of the time. I want out.

I was quite amused by this cartoon in this week's edition of the excellent periodical Private Eye:

I understand there are people out there who might think that Sharia Law isn't bigoted, but they are wrong.

The weekly National Secular Society email included a link to an amusing cartoon. Here it is.

There are new laws coming into force here that will prevent discrimination against people on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services. All very well and good, you might think. However, a twisted alliance of religious nutters is protesting against these perfectly reasonable laws today. They claim the change in law violates their human rights.

The example of this given on the news earlier was of a bed and breakfast owner who refused to rent a room to a gay couple because he is a Christian. So his position, and that of the people protesting today, is basically that it is OK to discriminate against people as long as one can claim a religious reason to do so. The protesters claim it is a human right to be an unreasonable bigot if some ancient book says it is fine to be an unreasonable bigot. This is obviously quite scandalous. Would these people be happy to allow people to deny services to black people if a religious reason was claimed for it?

I have to say that I find all religions to be a load of mumbo-jumbo that are hardly suitable guides for living in the modern world. Basing your opinions on a book like the bible, which says such great things as slavery being admirable, doesn't seem like a wonderful way of getting on in these far more enlightened times. Yet, for some unaccountable reason, religious belief is often given a privileged status. This disgusts me, which is why I am a member of the National Secular Society. Join today and fight against people ramming their contradictory and illogical nonsense down your throats!

If you were baptised as a Catholic before you were old enough to refuse I've a handy tip. It is possible to renounce your baptism.

All you have to do is send a letter to the Chancellor of the diocese saying you never beleived in that drivel. You provide the name of your local church, (approximate) date of baptism and place of baptism. You'll receive a letter telling you once your name has been struck from the book.

I hope you find this useful.

My weekly email from the National Secular Society had a good quote in it from one of my favourite authors, Salman Rushdie:

In Darfur you’ve got a Muslim massacre of other Muslims. Why aren’t there demonstrations about that in the Muslim world? That seems to me to be a much bigger thing than the Pope saying a 15-century quote.

I have no time for religion, any religion; they use threats to coerce and that stinks of terrorism to me.

Whilst I am thinking of religion and getting slightly bristly, I've been extremely annoyed with the constant news stories about the pope apologising for quoting someone in a speech. This is yet more madness from the ever-growing lunatic fringe of Islam. Their message that you can only say what they approve of is an example of terrorism, they use threats to coerce. Free speech is an absolute in almost all instances, the safeguard of all other rights. The right to say only the right thing is not worth having, let alone fighting for.

The last blog entry was appalled by the Christian lunatic fringe in the video I linked to; this entry is about Islam. I am not really aiming for balance, I just hate all religions equally. So does Butter.

I am an atheist so have been slightly appalled that the government here is increasing the number of single faith schools around the country. Oddly, the government has just started a consultation exercise to try and find what can be done to ease divisions in society and yet the people writing the report have been forbidden to look at single faith schools. This seems odd because teaching children in single faith groups is hardly going to teach them to be more understanding of other ideologies.

So enthused with atheism am I that I am a member of the National Secular Society which has been campaigning to reduce religious privilege since the 1860s (if memory serves).

I doubt religious schools here have got this bad, but I was sickened to watch that video.

The chap who wrote this lexicon of lefty jargon got suspended by his employer. Apparently people complained about such definitions like an Islamophobe as 'anyone who objects to their transport being blown up on the way to work' and legitimate grievances as 'why we're all to blame for deranged Islamists murdering people in the developed world'. I am a bit of a lefty myself, but I was amused.

This week's National Secular Society email had a great quote in it:

It seems that the majority of countries have become hypersensitive to Islam and willing to limit, at least in part, the freedom of the press to appease Islamic beliefs. And maybe these newspapers and governments are doing this out of fear. Maybe they’re doing it in an effort to stop rioting and death threats. But if that is why they are doing it, they are bowing to terrorism. The very definition of terrorism is to use fear for coercion. We cannot be afraid to criticize any government or any religion. We cannot be afraid of what we print in our newspapers. To do so would negate the liberties that we enjoy in this country and in others. But if those governments truly wish to build a stronger relationship with the Muslim community, or have a deeper understanding for Islam, let them do so, but not at the expense of freedom of the press.

- Alicia Wotring, The Liberty Champion

I could not agree more. It has always struck me that religion uses threats to coerce, be it through violent protest, death threats, or even threatening people with eternal damnation.

Just a link, really, but it amused me. Here can be found the official god faq. I should point out that I am a proud member of the National Secular Society, so harass me not with your religious drivel.

Saturday night was Guy Fawkes night here in Blighty; the annual celebration of burning Catholics and saving Parliament from their incendiary intentions. The developers of the housing estate where I live put on a very impressive fireworks display, quite appropriate as this used to be the largest arms factory in Europe. I got a very good view from my balcony, but I am afraid to say taking pictures of it all appeared to be beyond my technical ability. I am only a toddler, what do you expect? Quite amazingly, given the large number of people who get hurt by fireworks each year on Guy Fawkes night, no one got hurt at this display.

With content such as this excellent piece I may well start reading a national daily newspaper again. With the recent events in London I am staggered that the political parties here are still pandering to any religion and setting up faith schools in order to perpetuate the indoctrination.

Understandably, I am quite perturbed that some scumbags have decided to organise a series of cowardly attacks in London this morning. Not attacks on a government, nor an army, but on people going to earn their day's wage. Not only an attack today, but clearly they've shafted the transport network for a long time. Erm.... Well done, chaps, you must feel really good about yourselves.

But, no scumbags beat Londoners! No one. Not the Nazis, not the IRA and certainly not these as-yet-unknown filth. As soon as transport is working and things have been cleaned up a bit I am off to Russell Square to a boozer I know just near the British Medical Association building. Currently that building is splattered with blood, presumably from the bomb that ruined a bus and probably some lives just outside it.

Earlier there was the joke. A joke, you'll note, about the importance of facts when it comes to making a judgement. So, having done really hard work and typed a joke using only the power of fingers I'll allow the BBC News website to relate a tale concerning how belief can influence people's judgements of what constitutes reasonable behaviour. The prosecutor pointed out how it was, "not unusual for the defendant to believe that [an eight year old girl] could shift her shape and visit people at night". Clearly these individuals were just corrupted in the "true" ndoki belief by their regular attendance at a Protestant church; otherwise, we are assured, "believers would never condone physically harming a child, even one they thought was possessed by an evil spirit".

Three geezers find themselves sitting together at the start of a joke whilst travelling on a train; they are a vicar, a monk and a biologist. In order to pass the time until the joke finishes with a woeful inevitability they start playing cards and quickly move on to playing for the pitifully small amounts of cash they posses. Within moments the Peelers, of the British Transport-variety, arrive, they are all whisked off and unceremoniously dumped in front of the local magistrate. The magistrate puts down his glass of Sherry and says to the vicar, "You are charged with gambling in a public, unlicensed place; how do you plead?"

The vicar looks up to the sky and whispers, "Just one white lie, Lord, just one", before replying, "Not guilty, sir."

"Case dismissed," bellows the beak. He then turns to the monk and says, "You are charged with gambling in a public, unlicensed place; how do you plead?"

The monk looks up to the sky and whispers, "Just one white lie, Lord, just one", before saying, "Not guilty, sir."

"Case dismissed," bellows the beak and turns to the biologist. "You are charged with gambling in a public, unlicensed place..."

The biologist interrupts, "Who with?"

So said Richard Feynman when being harassed by loonies; a theist scumbag had the cheek to try a similar line on me. I was subjected to a huge diatribe using some, if not many, of the moronic debating techniques used by Christians only to end with the suggestion that perhaps I should leave them too their poor, deluded lives and not harass them for being misguided in their harassment of others. I was more than happy to point this person in the direction of an excellent essay written by the author of two of the best English language books in recent decades, Salman Rushdie. The Satanic Verses and Midnight's Children are hilarious, intelligent and really fun; any lover of language and literature should devour them. He also wrote what is quite clearly the best children's book I have experienced, Haroun and the Sea of Stories.

So, without further ado let us mock some theists. We are told that a particular god favours a particular football team over another all thanks to the atypical behaviour of one member of its team and this is somehow newsworthy. Quite bonkers. I am quite prepared to understand that words are important, powerful and occasionally (hopefully) offensive but banning paper bags seems a poor method of stopping minute fractions of offensive words becoming physically covered in filth.

The recent election here has provided little in the way of anecdote-worthy tales, but with today's high blood-pressure fest that is the National Secular Society's weekly news email I was pleased to see a snippet of information that made the smallest of smiles flicker across my rancid visage. May I present, Mrs Trellis, the number of votes cast in the constituency of Northampton South:

Conservative Party- 23818
Labour Party- 19399
Liberal Democrat Party - 8327
UK Independence Party - 1032
Veritas - 508
Save Our Schools - 437
Monster Raving Looney Party - 354
Independent - 346
Christian People's Alliance - 260

Of course, one needs to get 5% of the vote in a constituency not to lose the five hundred pound deposit needed to register as a prospective MP. Shame the Monster Raving Loonies lost their money despite doing so well.

By a freak co-incidence that constituency covers part of the area once covered by the constituency of Charles Bradlaugh, the MP who founded the NSS; perhaps this might explain the disproportionate amount of support in the local media received by the CPA before the election.

This is the advertising slogan of my old college; I haven't visited there in years...

However, that this idea may have been swimming around in my psyche at some point might have something to do with my love for the now-defunct genre of films the Ealing comedies. Made at Ealing Studios in the middle of the last century these are very gentle comedies of manners. Invariably the plot runs something like this: Basically good pub-landlord/thief/textile-chemist/cinema-doorman/assassin/honest, normal-type-person tries to achieve something with the best possible intentions but ends up in a frightful pickle and gets terribly flustered. The occasionally-good Cohen brothers recently made a passable facsimile of the Ealing comedy The Ladykillers.

Perhaps it will be of no surprise that my favourite of the Ealing comedies is a charming little number called The School for Scoundrels, which is all about making sure other people end up in a frightful pickle and get terribly flustered. This film is based upon the book Potter on Lifemanship, a little book that purports filled with notes on Lifemanship-skills research; skills that allow one to exploit subtle weaknesses in the behaviour or desire to stick to social rules that others display, and so allowing one's self to be one up on them. It is quite amusing, in a more-than-fifty-years-old sort of way. I recently got a first edition, first impression of it for the princely sum of three English pounds from this fine source of second hand books. They are well worth checking out for all sorts of things.

Of the many things that amused me (including passing your opponent in golf balls made from lead) the note by A. le Maitre on Homeric gamesmanship seemed like a fair observation of how and why certain groups of people have thought it reasonable to behave throughout history:
It is true that the Gamesman always sticks to the rules, but rules become unnecessary if the gods are on your side.

Sadly, many people still think this is justification for behaving terribly badly even though there have never been any gods to be on their side.

Many, many and perhaps a slight number of apologies. I get utterly bored, tired and generally pissed off with blog entries that are simply a link to another site; riding off the back of someone else's wit is perilously Wilde-esque. So here we go with two links to basically the same site, those lovely people at http://www.moderntoss.com/. The thing that caught my eye as being 'fair comment' was this. Should it be that you, Mrs Trellis, are of a lunatic Christian bent then please feel free to assume that I, and Mr Moderntoss as well, will burn in the fires of the the hell that you have just decided on a whim exist. Not if you are a member of the Church of England, of course. This is because matters of faith in the CofE are finally down to the Privy Council here in Blighty and, although the Archbishops of York and Canterbury complained at the time, an Act of Parliament finally decided that you do not have to believe in hell to be a member of this sect of backward, contemptible mad people. Eight sentences. No, no, I am not going to claim many bonds with Nietzsche, but that cartoon did amuse me (nine sentences).

I admit it, I am sick, diseased and generally ridden with corruption. To put it another way, I've got a bit of a cold. Strangely, I do not mind terribly much as diseases are uniquely fascinating.

I must admit some previous dealings with diseases for when I was an academic disease transmission dynamics were my field. Much fun I had mapping diseases in populations and watching them spread. In my enthusiasm I managed to catch one of the diseases I was studying and ended up spending a month in bed in screaming agony.

Epidemiology tickled my fancy because of my deep interest in evolution. It is a deeply simple yet powerful idea that explains the mechanism behind the wonderful diversity of life we see on on Earth. Parasites and disease causing agents have are powerful selective pressures; living things have to keep changing in order to keep up with the parasites that change at a very rapid rate. Since my irritation with theists has always been almost palpable, it struck me that being in a field where I would be at the cutting-edge of evolutionary biology would suit me very much. Furthermore, humanity's on-going (and incredibly successful) battle against the countless pathogens in this world has been a triumph of sensible thinking as opposed to ancient, out-moded world-views.

Now, I am sure there are people out there who are intellectually-stunted and downright rude enough to suggest that I am ill, or indeed that most people are ill some of the time and terribly large numbers of people have died from illness, because some small-minded chap in the clouds is punishing me/us for my/our badness. I cannot see what I've done, or indeed most other people have done, that would deserve such nastiness and anyone that suggests we have is probably not a terribly savoury person.

So, I shall cough, splutter and drip my way through these next few days, marvelling at how quickly this Rhinovirus has evolved to exploit my immune system (again) and as I feel better I shall marvel at how my jerry-built, lashed-together and highly effective immune system eats those virions for breakfast. Until next time.

When I trek out into my local high-street I am invariably harassed by people pushing unreadable religious tracts into my unwilling hands and screaming incoherent drivel in my face. My normal response is to point out that I am a member of the National Secular Society and so I would rather they kept their weird ideas to themselves.

In view of the ever-present menace of sloppy-thinking I am perfectly happy to give a bit of financial help a noble organisation such as the NSS, albeit a tiny bit of help on the grounds of my minuscule income. However, this does come with a cost. Having joined, I now receive their weekly media-watch newsletter by email. This reports all the latest shenanigans of those sanctimonious people of faith and so results in my Friday afternoons being times of explosive rage. To read such things such as how it is alright to break the law as long as it is connected with believing in arbitrary things makes me fume with anger.

So, should I ask the NSS to stop sending me their emails and spare my blood pressure? It seems to me that I should not. Whilst avoiding news and current affairs is a valid strategy with many historical precedents, I am afraid I have the perhaps unjustifiable view that the continued progress of humanity is helped not only by people being informed, but also by standing up against laughable ideas. Gillian Sathanandan of the Independent newspaper made the point very well:

We in Europe were once a stifled, theocratic, feudal, crusading society that not only burned books but people too, and it was blasphemy that set us free. The term "blasphemer" has been ennobled by the likes of Socrates, Galileo, Kazantzakis and Joyce. We should remember the great debt that society and democracy owe to heresy and blasphemy and implore our MPs to rid us at last from this long-outmoded blasphemy law.