Tuesday, 13 March 2012
COMMENT: How much longer can a civilised society tolerate horse racing?
Today the annual blood bath begins - grandly called the Cheltenham Festival as if there is something about animal abuse that should be celebrated.
Horse racing is wrong.
It is abuse.
It is cruelty.
It has little to do with a love for animals and all to do with gambling.
In recent years the Cheltenham Festival has witnessed the killings of so many horses that even the organisers have taken action to try to minimise the problem but this doesn't mean that horse racing is a caring, loving, animal friendly sport.
Far from it.
For every Kauto Star that becomes a celebrity there are many, many horses who are killed by their owners because they're not fast enough, haven't win enough money or are too old to race any more. Few race horses have long retirements, too many are sent to the abattoir, discarded like a pair of old jeans.
Sadly, because so many in the British establishment gave an interest and involvement in horse racing, it has an air of respectability. Quite why I will never understand. And the broadcast media goes overboard at regular intervals throughout the year: Cheltenham, the Grand National, the Derby...
Horse racing is cruel. The jockeys have made much if the new whip which, they claim, is more about sound and less about pain. That is irrelevant. We should not be whipping horses purely for entertainment and to support the corrupt, global betting markets.
Sure, flat racing is safer than jumps. Well, it's safer on race day. The owners and trainers kill just as many flat racers as National Hunt horses away from the courses.
And it is no argument that horses naturally run and jump. No animal should be used for entertainment. Crufts, the dog show that finished last weekend, is an atrocity of dangerous selective breeding and making animals do things just for human entertainment, and the selective breeding of race horses has made them into very fragile beasts, most unlike their natural cousins.
The government has recently announced they will ban the use of "wild animals" in circuses. This is to be applauded as it is a situation that should have been stopped decades ago. But while elephants, tigers, zebras, etc. will be protected from any further abuse by new legislation race horses will continue to be misused and abused, injured, drugged and killed so that people can "have a flutter".
Let's not be naive. The use of the term "have a flutter" is deliberately used to make it all seem innocent fun, but alongside every once or twice a year punter there are countless gambling addicts whose life, and the lives of their families, are destroyed by gambling. And beyond them are the international betting syndicates that have destroyed the credibility of cricket and who are without scruple or moral code.
I'm often surprised that bookmakers don't seem to offer odds on the number of horses that will be killed during a race meeting.
If we were a civilised society we would treat all animals with care and respect. Sadly, while horse racing is seen as an acceptable pastime, we are still a society of barbarians.
Horse racing is wrong.
It is abuse.
It is cruelty.
It has little to do with a love for animals and all to do with gambling.
In recent years the Cheltenham Festival has witnessed the killings of so many horses that even the organisers have taken action to try to minimise the problem but this doesn't mean that horse racing is a caring, loving, animal friendly sport.
Far from it.
For every Kauto Star that becomes a celebrity there are many, many horses who are killed by their owners because they're not fast enough, haven't win enough money or are too old to race any more. Few race horses have long retirements, too many are sent to the abattoir, discarded like a pair of old jeans.
Sadly, because so many in the British establishment gave an interest and involvement in horse racing, it has an air of respectability. Quite why I will never understand. And the broadcast media goes overboard at regular intervals throughout the year: Cheltenham, the Grand National, the Derby...
Horse racing is cruel. The jockeys have made much if the new whip which, they claim, is more about sound and less about pain. That is irrelevant. We should not be whipping horses purely for entertainment and to support the corrupt, global betting markets.
Sure, flat racing is safer than jumps. Well, it's safer on race day. The owners and trainers kill just as many flat racers as National Hunt horses away from the courses.
And it is no argument that horses naturally run and jump. No animal should be used for entertainment. Crufts, the dog show that finished last weekend, is an atrocity of dangerous selective breeding and making animals do things just for human entertainment, and the selective breeding of race horses has made them into very fragile beasts, most unlike their natural cousins.
The government has recently announced they will ban the use of "wild animals" in circuses. This is to be applauded as it is a situation that should have been stopped decades ago. But while elephants, tigers, zebras, etc. will be protected from any further abuse by new legislation race horses will continue to be misused and abused, injured, drugged and killed so that people can "have a flutter".
Let's not be naive. The use of the term "have a flutter" is deliberately used to make it all seem innocent fun, but alongside every once or twice a year punter there are countless gambling addicts whose life, and the lives of their families, are destroyed by gambling. And beyond them are the international betting syndicates that have destroyed the credibility of cricket and who are without scruple or moral code.
I'm often surprised that bookmakers don't seem to offer odds on the number of horses that will be killed during a race meeting.
If we were a civilised society we would treat all animals with care and respect. Sadly, while horse racing is seen as an acceptable pastime, we are still a society of barbarians.
Monday, 12 March 2012
OPINION: Banning religious symbols in the workplace
It all started in 2006 with Nadia Eweida, the fundamentalist Christian, who wanted to be allowed to flaunt and advertise her religion at work, even though it broke BA's uniform policies.
Naturally, the dullards and religious extremists of the right wing press were up in arms and Christians up and down the country, including the then prime minister Tony Blair, weighed in saying that they were being victimised and that it was their right to display their faith. Even Boris Johnson supported Mrs. Eweida, and he ought to know better.
Similarly, a nurse who offered prayers for patients, as if superstition could intervene where medicine struggled, was rightly disciplined for imposing her faith.
More recently the same numbskulls have defended the right of a council to have prayers as part of their meeting and claimed that this didn't prejudice or favour anyone or any group! There has been a lot of whining and whinging about "militant atheism" and "creeping secularism" as if atheism and secularism are bad things.
Surely, if there is any sense, it is time for parliament to drop its prayers and for courts to abandon the nonsense of witnesses swearing on the Bible, a book so full of lies it throws into doubt every word sworn on it!
Although, through extreme pressure from religious groups, supported by the government, BA were forced to initially back down and allow employees to advertise their religion on their work uniforms, it is pleasing to hear that the case is not yet over and that the current Tory government, which many would have thought would have been on the side of the religious nut jobs, is supporting BA's original decision and saying that there is no right to wear religious symbols in the workplace.
Mrs. Eweida has continued to fight to be allowed to advertise her faith at work and, with financial help from a number of Christian fundamentalist sources, she has now taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The British government, in a rare moment of common sense, will oppose her petition - and rightly so.
Sadly, though, Ministers will only be opposing "optional" religious symbols such as the Christian cross, and not all religious symbols, some of which have a compulsory element, like headscarves, bangles, etc.
This is a shame. There has already been a hearing in which Justice Stephen Sedley threw out Mrs Eweida’s case for discrimination, accusing her of following a “sectarian agenda”. Given that, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Mrs Eweida will probably argue, in Strasbourg, that her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a cross in the same way that another female employee may well argue her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a burka. But that is simply a nonsensical argument.
BA have acted both reasonably and proportionately in the way it dealt with Mrs. Eweida and its time that all religions were prevented from flaunting their beliefs in public. It is time that religious faith, a clear mental illness and a display of ignorance and stupidity, was forced to be a private matter at worst, and educated out of society at best.
As a society we mustn't fall into the trap of thinking the only fundamentalists are Muslims and they're all suicide bombers. To adhere to a religious faith in the 21st Century, denying science, reason and all rational thought, is a ridiculous position to hold and good governments must act to prevent the cancer of religious faith spreading any further.
The banning of religious symbols in the workplace is the act of a courageous company standing against the would-be oppressors of the Church. The government and the European Court of Human Rights now need to stand up for sanity.
Naturally, the dullards and religious extremists of the right wing press were up in arms and Christians up and down the country, including the then prime minister Tony Blair, weighed in saying that they were being victimised and that it was their right to display their faith. Even Boris Johnson supported Mrs. Eweida, and he ought to know better.
Similarly, a nurse who offered prayers for patients, as if superstition could intervene where medicine struggled, was rightly disciplined for imposing her faith.
More recently the same numbskulls have defended the right of a council to have prayers as part of their meeting and claimed that this didn't prejudice or favour anyone or any group! There has been a lot of whining and whinging about "militant atheism" and "creeping secularism" as if atheism and secularism are bad things.
Surely, if there is any sense, it is time for parliament to drop its prayers and for courts to abandon the nonsense of witnesses swearing on the Bible, a book so full of lies it throws into doubt every word sworn on it!
Although, through extreme pressure from religious groups, supported by the government, BA were forced to initially back down and allow employees to advertise their religion on their work uniforms, it is pleasing to hear that the case is not yet over and that the current Tory government, which many would have thought would have been on the side of the religious nut jobs, is supporting BA's original decision and saying that there is no right to wear religious symbols in the workplace.
Mrs. Eweida has continued to fight to be allowed to advertise her faith at work and, with financial help from a number of Christian fundamentalist sources, she has now taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The British government, in a rare moment of common sense, will oppose her petition - and rightly so.
Sadly, though, Ministers will only be opposing "optional" religious symbols such as the Christian cross, and not all religious symbols, some of which have a compulsory element, like headscarves, bangles, etc.
This is a shame. There has already been a hearing in which Justice Stephen Sedley threw out Mrs Eweida’s case for discrimination, accusing her of following a “sectarian agenda”. Given that, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Mrs Eweida will probably argue, in Strasbourg, that her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a cross in the same way that another female employee may well argue her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a burka. But that is simply a nonsensical argument.
BA have acted both reasonably and proportionately in the way it dealt with Mrs. Eweida and its time that all religions were prevented from flaunting their beliefs in public. It is time that religious faith, a clear mental illness and a display of ignorance and stupidity, was forced to be a private matter at worst, and educated out of society at best.
As a society we mustn't fall into the trap of thinking the only fundamentalists are Muslims and they're all suicide bombers. To adhere to a religious faith in the 21st Century, denying science, reason and all rational thought, is a ridiculous position to hold and good governments must act to prevent the cancer of religious faith spreading any further.
The banning of religious symbols in the workplace is the act of a courageous company standing against the would-be oppressors of the Church. The government and the European Court of Human Rights now need to stand up for sanity.
Sunday, 11 March 2012
OPINION: Football finances
Football (soccer) finances in the UK have been a mess for decades now. Clubs overspending on players who receive gargantuan salaries, underwritten by sugar daddies as hobbies, few clubs, in their current state, are sustainable.
Television money, instead of helping the situation, has made things worse with the bulk going to hyper-inflate the greed of players and their agents and most times, it seems, a club gets into financial difficulty there's an outcry and everything is done to keep the club going. New owners, new money (often temporary and with no guarantees) and just a few years until the same problems happen.
Other clubs, like Manchester United, are in so much debt that if they were any other business they would have been buried long ago.
The troubles at Rangers, probably the biggest UK team to go into administration, have, surely, given a number of clubs a wake up call. It is only a matter of time before a major club, or two, ceases to exist.
Yes, it would be sad if some clubs go to the wall but if they are not sustainable then that should happen. A few clubs going out of business would be a good thing for football because it might mean that the rest get their Ccounts in order and learn to live within their means, or, at least, within reasonable overdraft facilities.
But is the current system sustainable in the long term? I don't think so.
I maintain that the UK, not just England, can only really sustain 16 top flight teams. Too many at the bottom half of the Premier League spend heir time going up and down between the Championship and the Premier League. It could probably be argued that there are only 10 or 12 genuinely Premier League teams. This is a nonsense and, added to the financial chaos that is found at man clubs, it is not a sensible way to continue.
I think it's time that the F.A. took a look over the Atlantic and seriously considered a franchise system.
A franchise system would require financial certainty and propriety, and would be a positive way to ensure no more Rangers or Portsmouthhs happen.
Yes, those teams who don't make the cut will be upset but, hey, that's life. the clubs could continue as semi-professional or amateur teams and, consequently, have a much stronger and safer future.
As part of the franchise system, I think it's important that we move to a UK league. Having separate leagues and FAs for each constituent part of the UK is just a nonsense.
So I'd suggest a Franchise Premier League would have 3 London clubs, geographically spread around capital and neighbouring counties, a Welsh team, a Northern Irish team, possibly 2 Scottish teams, a team in North East of England, 2 or 3 North West teams, a southern team and a south west team. One team in East Midlands and 2 in the West Midlands.
And that's it.
If a club develops financial problems they lose their franchise, simple.
A franchise system would demand greater financial openness.
And, to help the clubs, I'd suggest an "average salary" cap for the first team squad.After all, it is the greed of the players that has caused many, if not quite all, the financial woes of clubs.
Television money, instead of helping the situation, has made things worse with the bulk going to hyper-inflate the greed of players and their agents and most times, it seems, a club gets into financial difficulty there's an outcry and everything is done to keep the club going. New owners, new money (often temporary and with no guarantees) and just a few years until the same problems happen.
Other clubs, like Manchester United, are in so much debt that if they were any other business they would have been buried long ago.
The troubles at Rangers, probably the biggest UK team to go into administration, have, surely, given a number of clubs a wake up call. It is only a matter of time before a major club, or two, ceases to exist.
Yes, it would be sad if some clubs go to the wall but if they are not sustainable then that should happen. A few clubs going out of business would be a good thing for football because it might mean that the rest get their Ccounts in order and learn to live within their means, or, at least, within reasonable overdraft facilities.
But is the current system sustainable in the long term? I don't think so.
I maintain that the UK, not just England, can only really sustain 16 top flight teams. Too many at the bottom half of the Premier League spend heir time going up and down between the Championship and the Premier League. It could probably be argued that there are only 10 or 12 genuinely Premier League teams. This is a nonsense and, added to the financial chaos that is found at man clubs, it is not a sensible way to continue.
I think it's time that the F.A. took a look over the Atlantic and seriously considered a franchise system.
A franchise system would require financial certainty and propriety, and would be a positive way to ensure no more Rangers or Portsmouthhs happen.
Yes, those teams who don't make the cut will be upset but, hey, that's life. the clubs could continue as semi-professional or amateur teams and, consequently, have a much stronger and safer future.
As part of the franchise system, I think it's important that we move to a UK league. Having separate leagues and FAs for each constituent part of the UK is just a nonsense.
So I'd suggest a Franchise Premier League would have 3 London clubs, geographically spread around capital and neighbouring counties, a Welsh team, a Northern Irish team, possibly 2 Scottish teams, a team in North East of England, 2 or 3 North West teams, a southern team and a south west team. One team in East Midlands and 2 in the West Midlands.
And that's it.
If a club develops financial problems they lose their franchise, simple.
A franchise system would demand greater financial openness.
And, to help the clubs, I'd suggest an "average salary" cap for the first team squad.After all, it is the greed of the players that has caused many, if not quite all, the financial woes of clubs.
OPINION: The Tyranny of Tolerance
Over the past couple of years the religious faiths, particularly the Christians, have become more and more shrill in the defence of and support for their "beliefs" and if, or more often when, they look like losing the debate they scream that those who oppose them are being intolerant.
Tolerance is, to an extent, a good thing. Of course it is. But the way that the faiths use it as a club with which to batter opponents is nothing more than a Tyranny of Tolerance.
Tolerance isn't a right. Just because someone says or believes something doesn't give them the right to say it and have it defended by the law. Look at the racism of extreme far right parties. Their racism should never be tolerated in a modern society and while they have a right to say their views (as long as they stay within the race hate laws that protect minorities), and they have a right to stand for public office and see if others support their views, but they do not have the right to have their views uncontested, and they do not have the right o impose their beliefs on others.
This is, or at least should be, the case with religious faith too. Just because somehow has a religious faith doesn't mean it should be protected or tolerated. Far from it.
When religions display bigotry they must, of course, be challenged and their bigotry highlighted. Currently many oppose the Christian stance against gay marriage and feel it is an affront to civilised society. Some of us think it comes quite close to breaking the law.
There is no way that Christian bigotry should be tolerated and yet, because it's their "faith" that's what many Christians want and demand.
Ultimately, why should ANY faith that has, at its core, an imaginary superbeing and all sorts of unproven, unprovable "facts" that are used as mind control on its adherents?
Religious faith, the denial of science, reason and logic, is, at best, stupidity and ignorance and, at worst, a form of mental illness and madness. If I suddenly announced that invisible superbeings were talking to me I'd, quite rightly, be licked up for my own safety and the safety of others but Christians think that such nonsense should be tolerated if it's their lunacy - because that's faith and should be beyond normal society.
What utter nonsense.
Religious faith should not be tolerated as a matter of course. It should be challenged at every turn. It should be shown to be a nonsense. It should, when appropriate, be ridiculed. It should, when it breaks the laws that the rest of use have to follow, be prosecuted. It should be brought to book in every way possible so that people know the facts about religion.
Tolerance of religion is a bad thing for society - it allows churches to abuse and control the vulnerable and leads to a society divided by superstition, which has to be a bad thing.
Should horoscopes be tolerated and not mocked for their blatant nonsense? Of course not.
Should all who speak out homophobic ally, as Christian leaders have on the issue if fat marriage, be tolerated? No of course not, and the churches must not be above the law and treated differently.
Religious faith is a bad thing. It is a nonsense in modern society and yet Liz Windsor sits as Head of the established church being praised for her leadership for 60 years over ridiculous superstitions, and Rowan Willuams, the Archbishop of Bigotry, fuels the fires being intolerant of reason and fact whilst demanding tolerance for his own nonsense.
The Tyranny of Tolerance, the last line of defence for the abusive religions, must be smashed.
Tolerance is, to an extent, a good thing. Of course it is. But the way that the faiths use it as a club with which to batter opponents is nothing more than a Tyranny of Tolerance.
Tolerance isn't a right. Just because someone says or believes something doesn't give them the right to say it and have it defended by the law. Look at the racism of extreme far right parties. Their racism should never be tolerated in a modern society and while they have a right to say their views (as long as they stay within the race hate laws that protect minorities), and they have a right to stand for public office and see if others support their views, but they do not have the right to have their views uncontested, and they do not have the right o impose their beliefs on others.
This is, or at least should be, the case with religious faith too. Just because somehow has a religious faith doesn't mean it should be protected or tolerated. Far from it.
When religions display bigotry they must, of course, be challenged and their bigotry highlighted. Currently many oppose the Christian stance against gay marriage and feel it is an affront to civilised society. Some of us think it comes quite close to breaking the law.
There is no way that Christian bigotry should be tolerated and yet, because it's their "faith" that's what many Christians want and demand.
Ultimately, why should ANY faith that has, at its core, an imaginary superbeing and all sorts of unproven, unprovable "facts" that are used as mind control on its adherents?
Religious faith, the denial of science, reason and logic, is, at best, stupidity and ignorance and, at worst, a form of mental illness and madness. If I suddenly announced that invisible superbeings were talking to me I'd, quite rightly, be licked up for my own safety and the safety of others but Christians think that such nonsense should be tolerated if it's their lunacy - because that's faith and should be beyond normal society.
What utter nonsense.
Religious faith should not be tolerated as a matter of course. It should be challenged at every turn. It should be shown to be a nonsense. It should, when appropriate, be ridiculed. It should, when it breaks the laws that the rest of use have to follow, be prosecuted. It should be brought to book in every way possible so that people know the facts about religion.
Tolerance of religion is a bad thing for society - it allows churches to abuse and control the vulnerable and leads to a society divided by superstition, which has to be a bad thing.
Should horoscopes be tolerated and not mocked for their blatant nonsense? Of course not.
Should all who speak out homophobic ally, as Christian leaders have on the issue if fat marriage, be tolerated? No of course not, and the churches must not be above the law and treated differently.
Religious faith is a bad thing. It is a nonsense in modern society and yet Liz Windsor sits as Head of the established church being praised for her leadership for 60 years over ridiculous superstitions, and Rowan Willuams, the Archbishop of Bigotry, fuels the fires being intolerant of reason and fact whilst demanding tolerance for his own nonsense.
The Tyranny of Tolerance, the last line of defence for the abusive religions, must be smashed.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
Friday, 9 March 2012
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Lento - a new piece for string orchestra
Lento is a piece for 9-part string orchestra and piano written on 7th and 8th March 2012.
It's in 3 sections, all slow, and lasts about 25 minutes
-The opening is sad but somehow optimistic
-The middle section is rather intense and emotional
-The final section is a release from the trauma that has gone before and a resolution
This is a demo of the piece played through Sibelius notation software.
For more information:
www.robertsteadman.com
It's in 3 sections, all slow, and lasts about 25 minutes
-The opening is sad but somehow optimistic
-The middle section is rather intense and emotional
-The final section is a release from the trauma that has gone before and a resolution
This is a demo of the piece played through Sibelius notation software.
For more information:
www.robertsteadman.com
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
OPINION: What's the problem with Mitt Romney being a Mormon?
Despite his Super Tuesday wins edging him ever closer to becoming the Republican Party candidate to stand against Barrack Obama in November's Presidential election, there are still many who have a problem with him because of his faith. He is a Mormon, and the USA has never had a Mormon President.
Mitt Romney
Why though, in the "land of the free" should bring a Mormon be a problem? How is it any different from being a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or a Christian?
The Mormon church, or to give it its proper name, The Church of Latter Day Saints, was founded by Joseph Smith in upstate New York in the 1820s. According to Smith, he was visited by an angel who directed him to a buried book inscribed in a language only he could translate on gold plates. He published a version of this book in 1830. (Surprise, surprise, the plates have only ever been seen by a dozen of Smith's inner circle and theit whereabouts are not known). Mormons believe in the Bible but also the Book of Mormon and they believe that after his resurrection Jesus visited the Americas.
Joseph Smith
Mormons have many unusual beliefs that don't sit well with modern society. They have compulsory tithing of a percentage of income to the church. They ban drugs, alcohol and caffeine. They say any adult male can become a priest but ban females and o ky allowed black men to become priests in 1976. They believe there are multiple heavens and multiple worlds, each with its own God. And the list goes on and on.
But hang on a minute....
While rational people will find Mormon beliefs and practises peculiar, if not outright bizarre, but why are they any more odd than the beliefs of all the other religions?
Why is Mitt Romney's Mormon belief any more lunatic than Barrack Obama's Christianity?
The answer, of course, that it isn't.
Both Mormonism and Christianity, and all the other faiths, rely on a good story, lack of evidence, gullible and stupid people, and a "priesthood" happy to abuse the stupid, feckless and at risk.
What we should be asking, instead of attacking Romney's Mormonism, is why anyone with religious faith should be elected to a responsible office?
Does it make any more sense to give power to a man who believes a person came back to life after their death, or that the world was created in six days, or believes our souls will be judged and some will go to heaven and others to hell?
And how does it make any sense to have a President who holds dear to his heart blatant bigotry?
These are, of course, the beliefs of lunatics and the mentally ill. People who believe in imaginary super beings should not be trusted to run local councils, let alone superpower nations.
Sadly,however, through the all-pervading cancer that is religious indoctrination, there has never been an atheist President of the USA and, in all likelihood, there want be for many generations to come. All of the Republican candidates for the Presidency are extremist fundamental believers and they will be standing against another extremist fundamental believer to try to depose him of the White House in November.
It is time for the skeptical, rational, logical and sane to stand up against the monster of religion and snatch power away from the churches because,ultimately, it is the churches who will be President. It's just their face that changes.
Why though, in the "land of the free" should bring a Mormon be a problem? How is it any different from being a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or a Christian?
The Mormon church, or to give it its proper name, The Church of Latter Day Saints, was founded by Joseph Smith in upstate New York in the 1820s. According to Smith, he was visited by an angel who directed him to a buried book inscribed in a language only he could translate on gold plates. He published a version of this book in 1830. (Surprise, surprise, the plates have only ever been seen by a dozen of Smith's inner circle and theit whereabouts are not known). Mormons believe in the Bible but also the Book of Mormon and they believe that after his resurrection Jesus visited the Americas.
Mormons have many unusual beliefs that don't sit well with modern society. They have compulsory tithing of a percentage of income to the church. They ban drugs, alcohol and caffeine. They say any adult male can become a priest but ban females and o ky allowed black men to become priests in 1976. They believe there are multiple heavens and multiple worlds, each with its own God. And the list goes on and on.
But hang on a minute....
While rational people will find Mormon beliefs and practises peculiar, if not outright bizarre, but why are they any more odd than the beliefs of all the other religions?
Why is Mitt Romney's Mormon belief any more lunatic than Barrack Obama's Christianity?
The answer, of course, that it isn't.
Both Mormonism and Christianity, and all the other faiths, rely on a good story, lack of evidence, gullible and stupid people, and a "priesthood" happy to abuse the stupid, feckless and at risk.
What we should be asking, instead of attacking Romney's Mormonism, is why anyone with religious faith should be elected to a responsible office?
Does it make any more sense to give power to a man who believes a person came back to life after their death, or that the world was created in six days, or believes our souls will be judged and some will go to heaven and others to hell?
And how does it make any sense to have a President who holds dear to his heart blatant bigotry?
These are, of course, the beliefs of lunatics and the mentally ill. People who believe in imaginary super beings should not be trusted to run local councils, let alone superpower nations.
Sadly,however, through the all-pervading cancer that is religious indoctrination, there has never been an atheist President of the USA and, in all likelihood, there want be for many generations to come. All of the Republican candidates for the Presidency are extremist fundamental believers and they will be standing against another extremist fundamental believer to try to depose him of the White House in November.
It is time for the skeptical, rational, logical and sane to stand up against the monster of religion and snatch power away from the churches because,ultimately, it is the churches who will be President. It's just their face that changes.
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Monday, 5 March 2012
Sunday, 4 March 2012
Saturday, 3 March 2012
Friday, 2 March 2012
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)