Nadine Dorries' criticism of her own party leader, David Cameron, as being an "over-educated posh boy" takes politics to a new low.
Nadine Dorries is, of course, well known for regularly saying stupid, badly thought through and, often, objectionable things, but to criticise someone for being well-educated seems particularly ridiculous. Would she prefer that there was a limit of, say, 5 GCSEs to be an MP. If you get more, or higher, qualifications you can't stand? Truly idiotic and, surely, a further example that Dorries' mouth works separate from her brain.
Then she called him a "posh boy". Would she criticise John Prescott for his working class background? Would she criticise you and me because of decisions our patents and grandparents made? Doesn't this show that Nadine Dorries' is out of touch with society?
What next? Her comments aren't that far from criticising the disabled for being disabled or black people for the colour of their skin.
Dorries needs to spend some more time thinking about what she says or, hopefully, the electorate will remove this two-faced bigot from Westminster at the earliest possible opportunity.
Showing posts with label bigotry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bigotry. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
Sunday, 8 April 2012
"I bet you daren't criticise any religion that isn't Christianity..."
Yesterday evening, while I quietly watched some television, tweeted and wrote some blog posts about the UK's archaic Sunday trading laws and the fact that there is nothing about the Christian festival of Easter that holds up to any scrutiny, someone sent me a message:
"I bet you daren't criticise any religion that isn't Christianity..."
It struck me as a rather perverse observation on my frequent anti-faith and anti-religion comments, and all I can assume is that they only live those which are aimed directly at Christianity and haven't noticed, or choose not to notice,those which have a much broader target.
After all, there is just as little factual basis and archaelogical reord for Islam as there is for Christianity - i.e. there is none. There is absolutely nothing to support any of the stories in the Holy books of Seikhs or Hindus, in the same way that there is hardly a single word in the Bible that can be substantiated by cold, hard fact. Nd as for Buddhists, well, from what I understand, there may well have been a man who was known as the Buddha but his stories and teachings are fanciful and whimsical fairy stories in much the same way as anything about gods and heavens and an after life are.
Nobody today believes in the Norse gods of Thor and Odin, they are accepted as nothing more than an ancient mythology, and, of course, the same is true of the numerous gods worshipped in Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt. And yet so many of those who are happy to see these ancient gods as just mythologies, hold that THEIR god is true - even when they share so many basic facts (if you have spare time, do google Horus, Mithras and Jesus and revel in the number of simarities shared by all three).
And my same criticism applies to the umpteen smaller religions that exist around the world. All have been invented by primitive societies to try to understand the world and their existence, and all should have been superseded by science and reason, if it were not for the manipulaters and controllers, the abuses of the vulnerable and ignorant, who readily take on the mantle of church leadership.
No, I am more than happy to criticise evil lies whenever or wherever they come from.
I guess, though, that the person passing judgement on me has a tiny point in that I do, probably, criticise Christianity slightly more than the other superstitions. The reasons for that are simple: the UK has an established church, the Head of state is also the Head of one sect of the Christian church and that religion still holds considerable sway and power over parliament, with more than 70 unelected bishops in the House of Lords, able to impose their will and their bigotry on the whole of society, whether the rest of society believes in the same god,a different god, or has worked out that no gods exist.
And, sadly, in the UK our calendar is still dominated by Christian festivals: Christmas, Easter, Whitsun - despite the fact that few people actively take part in regular church ceremonies and fewer and fewer people now accept the lies that the church puts out.
Yes, I criticise Christianity because it is divisive and evil, some of its core tenets are blatantly bigoted, and, historically, the church has done much more to harm others than any good it has achieved. How many wars have been fought in the name of atheism compared to those fought to defend an imaginary friend?
I criticise all faiths and all religions, because they are all untrue and we, as a society,should be educating people away from such dangerous nonsense.
"I bet you daren't criticise any religion that isn't Christianity..."
It struck me as a rather perverse observation on my frequent anti-faith and anti-religion comments, and all I can assume is that they only live those which are aimed directly at Christianity and haven't noticed, or choose not to notice,those which have a much broader target.
After all, there is just as little factual basis and archaelogical reord for Islam as there is for Christianity - i.e. there is none. There is absolutely nothing to support any of the stories in the Holy books of Seikhs or Hindus, in the same way that there is hardly a single word in the Bible that can be substantiated by cold, hard fact. Nd as for Buddhists, well, from what I understand, there may well have been a man who was known as the Buddha but his stories and teachings are fanciful and whimsical fairy stories in much the same way as anything about gods and heavens and an after life are.
Nobody today believes in the Norse gods of Thor and Odin, they are accepted as nothing more than an ancient mythology, and, of course, the same is true of the numerous gods worshipped in Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt. And yet so many of those who are happy to see these ancient gods as just mythologies, hold that THEIR god is true - even when they share so many basic facts (if you have spare time, do google Horus, Mithras and Jesus and revel in the number of simarities shared by all three).
And my same criticism applies to the umpteen smaller religions that exist around the world. All have been invented by primitive societies to try to understand the world and their existence, and all should have been superseded by science and reason, if it were not for the manipulaters and controllers, the abuses of the vulnerable and ignorant, who readily take on the mantle of church leadership.
No, I am more than happy to criticise evil lies whenever or wherever they come from.
I guess, though, that the person passing judgement on me has a tiny point in that I do, probably, criticise Christianity slightly more than the other superstitions. The reasons for that are simple: the UK has an established church, the Head of state is also the Head of one sect of the Christian church and that religion still holds considerable sway and power over parliament, with more than 70 unelected bishops in the House of Lords, able to impose their will and their bigotry on the whole of society, whether the rest of society believes in the same god,a different god, or has worked out that no gods exist.
And, sadly, in the UK our calendar is still dominated by Christian festivals: Christmas, Easter, Whitsun - despite the fact that few people actively take part in regular church ceremonies and fewer and fewer people now accept the lies that the church puts out.
Yes, I criticise Christianity because it is divisive and evil, some of its core tenets are blatantly bigoted, and, historically, the church has done much more to harm others than any good it has achieved. How many wars have been fought in the name of atheism compared to those fought to defend an imaginary friend?
I criticise all faiths and all religions, because they are all untrue and we, as a society,should be educating people away from such dangerous nonsense.
Thursday, 10 November 2011
OPINION: Positive discrimination is just discrimination
Yesterday evening, I was accused of being a misogynist. This seemed particularly bizarre when, at the time, I was arguing in favour of equality!
Let me explain.
I strongly believe in equality, the equality of opportunity. Everyone should be given the same chance to succeed and everyone should be judged equally on their merits.
When a shortlist is being drawn up I don't care if it is 100% men, 100% women, 100% koalas (!)... what they are is irrelevant, what they can do is what matters. Any shortlist should have those most suitable for carrying out the task and not have less able candidates because they are part of a particular sub-group of society.
Why on earth would anyone argue that a shortlist should be 50/50 men and women if it is not the strongest set of candidates?
The situation gets worse when we look at politics and the nonsense that is the Labour Party. Not only do they insist on shortlists with ratios and not simply ability but there are times when they have all-women shortlists - instantly eliminating half the population!
Some bandy about the term "positive discrimination" to describe this and claim it redresses imbalances.
What rot.
Positive discrimination is just a different form of discrimination. It is bigotry and should to be tolerated in a modern society.
Do you really want a prospective MP selected by their genitalia first rather than their ability? That is what positive discrimination achieves. Wouldn't you rather have a prospective MP selected because they are the best candidate?
The Labour Party makes much of its claim that it fights for equality but it is currently the most bigoted political party in the UK. The likes of Harriet Harman regularly argue for inequality.
Of course, those accusing me of being a misogynist said I didn't understand because I'm male and have never been sidelined and discriminated against. They knew... because they are women!
They may be female (I didn't ask for proof) but they are bigoted.
There is nothing positive about positive discrimination; it is bigotry and should not be tolerated.
Let me explain.
I strongly believe in equality, the equality of opportunity. Everyone should be given the same chance to succeed and everyone should be judged equally on their merits.
When a shortlist is being drawn up I don't care if it is 100% men, 100% women, 100% koalas (!)... what they are is irrelevant, what they can do is what matters. Any shortlist should have those most suitable for carrying out the task and not have less able candidates because they are part of a particular sub-group of society.
Why on earth would anyone argue that a shortlist should be 50/50 men and women if it is not the strongest set of candidates?
The situation gets worse when we look at politics and the nonsense that is the Labour Party. Not only do they insist on shortlists with ratios and not simply ability but there are times when they have all-women shortlists - instantly eliminating half the population!
Some bandy about the term "positive discrimination" to describe this and claim it redresses imbalances.
What rot.
Positive discrimination is just a different form of discrimination. It is bigotry and should to be tolerated in a modern society.
Do you really want a prospective MP selected by their genitalia first rather than their ability? That is what positive discrimination achieves. Wouldn't you rather have a prospective MP selected because they are the best candidate?
The Labour Party makes much of its claim that it fights for equality but it is currently the most bigoted political party in the UK. The likes of Harriet Harman regularly argue for inequality.
Of course, those accusing me of being a misogynist said I didn't understand because I'm male and have never been sidelined and discriminated against. They knew... because they are women!
They may be female (I didn't ask for proof) but they are bigoted.
There is nothing positive about positive discrimination; it is bigotry and should not be tolerated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)