I happened upon this story on the BBC Web site today. First, let me make it clear that I've never been a big fan of South Park for the simple reason that I find it distinctly unfunny. I know what I like when it comes to comedy - Stewart Lee, Richard Herring, Chris Morris, Kevin Eldon, the Office, the Simpsons, Flight of the Conchords, the Fast Show, Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson all spring instantly to mind. South Park can't hold a candle to any of those.
That said, I do know that the raison d'etre of the program is to mercilessly rip the piss out of anything and everything no matter how taboo the subject matter. This I do understand - either everything is fair game to be lampooned, or nothing is. Case in point was Morris's outstanding Brass Eye special about paedophilia, or more specifically the UK media's peculiar fixation with child sex offenders and (subliminal, this) the brainwashed British public's allowance to be swept along on the tide of media hysteria. It was superb - and it upset a lot of people.
Anyway, the point is that if a subject as sensitive as paedophilia can be the subject of humour then anything can, surely? There are sick jokes about everything under the Sun, and some of them are brilliant:-
Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett die in the same week - what's the difference between them: "One fucked Majors, the other fucked minors."
What do you call the world's smallest pub? The Thalidomide Arms.
The Pope wants to scrap Christmas - or at least he said he wants to put an end to men in robes going into kids' bedrooms at night and emptying their sacks.
This is just a sampling, and I appreciate those are not going to be to everyone's taste but I find them amusing. I don't like racist jokes, but I realise they appeal to a certain mindset.
Now, if you can make quips about child rape, the deceased who aren't even cold yet or the deformed without Thalidomide victims being up in arms (sorry!) then why must religion be given special deference? I am specifically referring to Islam, as the most high-profile instances of religious groups taking offence has involved that religion (The Satanic Verses, The Danish cartoons and now South Park), but certainly the other Abrahamic faiths have their moments too.
You can mock the afflicted, the dead, politicans, nations, races - but religion is off limits. Why? Organised religion deserves to be the subject of satire more than all of those other groups combined. It never ceases to amaze me how religion causes people to lose all sense of perspective as it even trumps basic human decency. The violent reaction to the Danish cartoons caused many innocent deaths, an immeasurably greater crime than the one it purported to avenge.
So, yes, let's torment the unfortunate - they can take a joke can't they? But not the almighty, just because he's omnipotent doesn't mean he hasn't got major self-esteem issues. If God, any God, actually existed then perhaps we wouldn't have to treat him/them with kid gloves.
The real reason why religion is considered literally beyond a joke is that people are scared and usually not without good reason. Islam comes with an edge, a sharp one at that. Christianity is scarcely better. They know the evidence for the basis of their faith is spectacularly weak, so they resort to bullying and intimidation. Religion has thrived on this culture of fear for centuries.
Next week, I'll be dressing up as Jesus for Hallowe'en. I do not expect it to go down well, but nor do I care. He's just another fictional character.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
A Different Angle
The Commonwealth Games has come and gone, and despite the disturbing reports coming out of New Delhi of filth, depravity and condoms clogging up U-bends (Just wait until the athletes get to Glasgow in four years' time;)) and the fact that it is small beer compared to the Olympics, it is an event I much prefer to the more famous spectacle. Here's why; because my country actually gets to compete as a country, not as part of an artificial state which I have precious little affinity.
England gets to be England again, and the athletes again put in an excellent showing as they were narrowly edged into third place in the medals table by the host nation (albeit they won 41 more medals than India overall) and improved on their 2006 tally. However, even if they had finished with not even a single bronze I wouldn't have particularly cared - the fact that they are able to compete as England instead of Great Britain is worth its weight in gold for me.
Sadly, 2012 will be another story and the Union Jacks will be ubiquitous as politicians push their agenda and the dim general public allow themselves to be led by the nose. In addition, there will be a football team comprised entirely of English players that will be competing under the GB banner. While I can't bring myself to cheer on their opponents, to say I'm not chock-full of enthusiasm for this uniquely ridiculous situation would be an understatement akin to saying I wouldn't trust agenda-driven creation science as far as Heather Mills could hoof a battleship.
At the World Cup, England was the only "nation" competing that wasn't a country in the true sense of the word...something i find deeply disquieting. We only have ourselves to blame though, and I'm realistic enough to admit that English nationalism has a hell of a long way to go before it can think about troubling the political mainstream. It is beginning to make inroads though and fortunately there are intelligent people who can see that "English nationalism" is not a euphemism for white supremacy and far-right fuckwittery. Most irritatingly, there are many intelligent people who know perfectly well that this isn't the case but choose to peddle this myth anyway as means to strangle the germinating English nationalism at birth.
Unfortunately any type of nationalism (and to be honest, I'm distinctly uncomfortable with that word in any context) is going to attract nogginses and any allusions to preserving indigenous English culture immediately bring forth accusations of Nazism. Let's be clear, being pro-English does not mean excluding British Asians, blacks, Catholics or any other minority group. Yes, in a historical sense, the 'English' are a related group of Germanic tribes that first came to Britain in 449 AD. But many cultures have contributed to what it is to be English today - Romano-British, Scandinavian, Norman and more recently Irish, Indian, Chinese and Afro-Caribbean.
The challenge is two-fold: assimilating different ethnic groups into a shared English identity and educating the indigenous English that by definition it does not mean white Anglo-Saxon protestant. Clearly England is nowhere near as united as it could be, or indeed as we'd like it to be; but it isn't a unique situation: France, Germany and the Netherlands all face similar difficulties in weaving the many non-European minorities into their national fabric. The one advantage England has over those nations though is that we have the opportunity to re-invent ourselves. Shedding the baggage of the British state can, and should, go hand in hand with expunging the image of the Union Jack subjugating the former colonies and its inhabitants.
We can start from scratch under a new flag which doesn't exclude anybody. Leave the white supremacist nonsense to the BNP. It irritates me when English patriots are condescendingly applauded for 'finally claiming the St George's Cross back from the racists'. Apparently we've finally been doing that for over 15 years now. Perhaps those who are still committed to the Union should concentrate on snatching the UJ back from the far right and Northern Ireland Loyalists and their mainland sympathisers!
It was equally refreshing not to have to endure God Save the Queen at the Commonwealths, because as an atheist who believes in a secular English republic, it sticks in my craw on many levels. Jerusalem is preferable, although as it talks about the visit to Somerset of a man for whose existence there is not a jot of historical evidence, I wouldn't be satisfied with that as the new national anthem either. A new nation deserves a new stirring anthem, although that's a debate that can clearly wait.
The English won't pro-actively seek independence any time soon - there are too many passive Brits. By that I mean those who think Britain and England are interchangeable terms, who are too asinine or lazy to look at it any other way. It'd the lazy ones I find hardest to forgive, but take heart from the fact that the apathetic are easier to convince than zealous pro-Brits. The majority of passionate British nationalists, I would say, are found in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Yes, Scotland has a far more evolved and sophisticated nationalist movement than England, but it also has a far more vocal Unionist element. As it stands, the latter are in the box seat, unfortunately.
Growing Scottish desire for independence, it can be argued, is the best chance England has of becoming a nation in its own right. True, contrary to what some mistaken people appear to think, if Scotland was to go her own way then the Union would be defunct. Those who think it would now be a union of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are mistaken. If one constituent country leaves the Union, then the Union is kaput. Thing is, although it is certainly a question of when rather than if, I'm not convinced Scottish independence is quite as imminent as some seem to think.
Devolution has opened a serious can of worms. Basically, the other home nations are on lengthy extendable leads and are permitted to wander much further from the Westminster dog trainer before they get hauled back. England is not given this freedom because as the largest piece of the GB jigsaw, it has to be kept at heel because if England starts to shake off the British yoke then the whole thing falls apart. So far, the much tighter leash is having the desired effect but the tide is turning.
The English public's complete disillusionment with the three main parties of british politics is inevitable, and this can only be a boon to the cause of English self-determination. Labour brazenly showed its complete contempt for the English as evidenced by that odious coldsore Jack Straw's comment that we "are not worth saving as a race". The electorate will soon remember why they booted the Conservatives out (how the hell could they forget?) when the Tories come back to pick up where they left off in '97, and as the LibDems have whored themselves out to finally get a slice of government action, they'll never be trusted again.
I'm going to have to live this thrill vicariously, as I no longer live in England. I confess I have no plans to return there permanently either, so the reader could be forgiven for thinking that this is no concern of mine. I beg to differ - when England is a country again, I will no longer have to explain to my neighbours that the red and white flag I have outside my house does not mesn I am selling medical supplies and that the Union flag is not the flag of England.
Thanks for reading.
England gets to be England again, and the athletes again put in an excellent showing as they were narrowly edged into third place in the medals table by the host nation (albeit they won 41 more medals than India overall) and improved on their 2006 tally. However, even if they had finished with not even a single bronze I wouldn't have particularly cared - the fact that they are able to compete as England instead of Great Britain is worth its weight in gold for me.
Sadly, 2012 will be another story and the Union Jacks will be ubiquitous as politicians push their agenda and the dim general public allow themselves to be led by the nose. In addition, there will be a football team comprised entirely of English players that will be competing under the GB banner. While I can't bring myself to cheer on their opponents, to say I'm not chock-full of enthusiasm for this uniquely ridiculous situation would be an understatement akin to saying I wouldn't trust agenda-driven creation science as far as Heather Mills could hoof a battleship.
At the World Cup, England was the only "nation" competing that wasn't a country in the true sense of the word...something i find deeply disquieting. We only have ourselves to blame though, and I'm realistic enough to admit that English nationalism has a hell of a long way to go before it can think about troubling the political mainstream. It is beginning to make inroads though and fortunately there are intelligent people who can see that "English nationalism" is not a euphemism for white supremacy and far-right fuckwittery. Most irritatingly, there are many intelligent people who know perfectly well that this isn't the case but choose to peddle this myth anyway as means to strangle the germinating English nationalism at birth.
Unfortunately any type of nationalism (and to be honest, I'm distinctly uncomfortable with that word in any context) is going to attract nogginses and any allusions to preserving indigenous English culture immediately bring forth accusations of Nazism. Let's be clear, being pro-English does not mean excluding British Asians, blacks, Catholics or any other minority group. Yes, in a historical sense, the 'English' are a related group of Germanic tribes that first came to Britain in 449 AD. But many cultures have contributed to what it is to be English today - Romano-British, Scandinavian, Norman and more recently Irish, Indian, Chinese and Afro-Caribbean.
The challenge is two-fold: assimilating different ethnic groups into a shared English identity and educating the indigenous English that by definition it does not mean white Anglo-Saxon protestant. Clearly England is nowhere near as united as it could be, or indeed as we'd like it to be; but it isn't a unique situation: France, Germany and the Netherlands all face similar difficulties in weaving the many non-European minorities into their national fabric. The one advantage England has over those nations though is that we have the opportunity to re-invent ourselves. Shedding the baggage of the British state can, and should, go hand in hand with expunging the image of the Union Jack subjugating the former colonies and its inhabitants.
We can start from scratch under a new flag which doesn't exclude anybody. Leave the white supremacist nonsense to the BNP. It irritates me when English patriots are condescendingly applauded for 'finally claiming the St George's Cross back from the racists'. Apparently we've finally been doing that for over 15 years now. Perhaps those who are still committed to the Union should concentrate on snatching the UJ back from the far right and Northern Ireland Loyalists and their mainland sympathisers!
It was equally refreshing not to have to endure God Save the Queen at the Commonwealths, because as an atheist who believes in a secular English republic, it sticks in my craw on many levels. Jerusalem is preferable, although as it talks about the visit to Somerset of a man for whose existence there is not a jot of historical evidence, I wouldn't be satisfied with that as the new national anthem either. A new nation deserves a new stirring anthem, although that's a debate that can clearly wait.
The English won't pro-actively seek independence any time soon - there are too many passive Brits. By that I mean those who think Britain and England are interchangeable terms, who are too asinine or lazy to look at it any other way. It'd the lazy ones I find hardest to forgive, but take heart from the fact that the apathetic are easier to convince than zealous pro-Brits. The majority of passionate British nationalists, I would say, are found in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Yes, Scotland has a far more evolved and sophisticated nationalist movement than England, but it also has a far more vocal Unionist element. As it stands, the latter are in the box seat, unfortunately.
Growing Scottish desire for independence, it can be argued, is the best chance England has of becoming a nation in its own right. True, contrary to what some mistaken people appear to think, if Scotland was to go her own way then the Union would be defunct. Those who think it would now be a union of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are mistaken. If one constituent country leaves the Union, then the Union is kaput. Thing is, although it is certainly a question of when rather than if, I'm not convinced Scottish independence is quite as imminent as some seem to think.
Devolution has opened a serious can of worms. Basically, the other home nations are on lengthy extendable leads and are permitted to wander much further from the Westminster dog trainer before they get hauled back. England is not given this freedom because as the largest piece of the GB jigsaw, it has to be kept at heel because if England starts to shake off the British yoke then the whole thing falls apart. So far, the much tighter leash is having the desired effect but the tide is turning.
The English public's complete disillusionment with the three main parties of british politics is inevitable, and this can only be a boon to the cause of English self-determination. Labour brazenly showed its complete contempt for the English as evidenced by that odious coldsore Jack Straw's comment that we "are not worth saving as a race". The electorate will soon remember why they booted the Conservatives out (how the hell could they forget?) when the Tories come back to pick up where they left off in '97, and as the LibDems have whored themselves out to finally get a slice of government action, they'll never be trusted again.
I'm going to have to live this thrill vicariously, as I no longer live in England. I confess I have no plans to return there permanently either, so the reader could be forgiven for thinking that this is no concern of mine. I beg to differ - when England is a country again, I will no longer have to explain to my neighbours that the red and white flag I have outside my house does not mesn I am selling medical supplies and that the Union flag is not the flag of England.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Jesus H. Corbett, I mean Christ!
I wanted to kick off this blog by recounting a yarn from my childhood that has stuck with me and now when I recall it, thoroughly irks me.
When I was 10 years old, I had a teacher who I had a lot of time for. How much of this was down to her rather than the fact that the guy she replaced was a truculent so-and-so I'm not sure, but she was definitely amiable enough. (As an aside, I once bumped into her predecessor one night after school in the town library - my Dad came over and I didn't think to introduce him, leading my dad to the assumption as I later found out, that he was a nonce looking to pick up an unsuspecting youngster playing 'Granny's Garden on the BBC Micro).
For the sake of this post, I'll call her Mrs. Green. And I'll never forget what she said during a religious education lesson one afternoon. These were the exact words as I recall: "We know that Jesus existed, because of reports in newspapers that existed at the time." Pretty compelling to a class of 10-year-olds, yes?
It's only in retrospect you can see what a statement of abject idiocy that was. It's no exaggeration to say I feel cheated...if the people trusted with my education could come out with such risible nonsense on that occasion, what other gibberish did they feed us? However much you dislike teachers as a kid, you do tend to have a grudging respect for them on the basis that you think they are fountains of all knowledge. Then the great disillusionment!
Now, either Mrs Green was ill informed, or she was shamelessly teaching us utter fiction. I have to confess I have no idea which it was, but you would like to have think she would have checked her facts. Because there isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of Jesus as a genuine historical figure. Not an iota. Neither were there 'newspapers' as we understand them in a contemporary sense - and even if there were, they would long have disintegrated after two millennia. What did exist in the Roman Empire were 'bulletins' carved out of metal or stone, and you would think that the deeds attributed to Christ might have warranted a mention. Again, nothing. The one artifact that is consistent with the stories of Jesus's life - and death - has been exposed as an amateurish fraud by modern science.
There may have been a Jesus of course, but certainly not the one depicted in the New Testament (written well after his supposed death). Even if there was though, it is pure conjecture.
Anyway, the point of all this is that we were being brainwashed. Deep down, I knew the concept of Jesus and God was ludicrous when I was 10. I was passionate about astronomy and pre-history, clearly disciplines which did not square with the bible's version of events. Added to which, by age 10 we were being taught not to rely on hearsay, groundless assumption and wild conjecture.
We were encouraged to find evidence to back up our claims, to think logically and to shed puerile beliefs in fairies, Father Christmas, ghosts and the like. Yet the religious education we received (no opt-out in those days!) ran contrary to everything else we were being taught. A man could rise from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine. Our gut instincts were telling us it was nothing short of fantastic - but if our teachers were telling us that's what happened, then that's what happened. Besides, at that tender age you still want to believe that the impossible is possible - it is a bulwark against the dawning realisation that the world is a harsh place. That's comforting for a child.
It took a long time for the penny to drop with me at a conscious level that religion, in all its many forms, is contemptible nonsense. I don't lay all the blame for that at the door of Mrs Green, I just wasn't very quick on the uptake as my family certainly didn't force Christianity down my throat. Possibly I felt that to renounce Christianity was to be unpatriotic. Just think though, about how many times of magnitude greater the levels of indoctrination into outmoded dogma are in other parts of the world. Young, impressionable minds are being moulded with harmful lies at a critical time when humanity needs to lean on science and reason if we are to survive and thrive.
Religion no longer serves any useful purpose. It's a house of cards just waiting to be toppled. It can, must be done.
When I was 10 years old, I had a teacher who I had a lot of time for. How much of this was down to her rather than the fact that the guy she replaced was a truculent so-and-so I'm not sure, but she was definitely amiable enough. (As an aside, I once bumped into her predecessor one night after school in the town library - my Dad came over and I didn't think to introduce him, leading my dad to the assumption as I later found out, that he was a nonce looking to pick up an unsuspecting youngster playing 'Granny's Garden on the BBC Micro).
For the sake of this post, I'll call her Mrs. Green. And I'll never forget what she said during a religious education lesson one afternoon. These were the exact words as I recall: "We know that Jesus existed, because of reports in newspapers that existed at the time." Pretty compelling to a class of 10-year-olds, yes?
It's only in retrospect you can see what a statement of abject idiocy that was. It's no exaggeration to say I feel cheated...if the people trusted with my education could come out with such risible nonsense on that occasion, what other gibberish did they feed us? However much you dislike teachers as a kid, you do tend to have a grudging respect for them on the basis that you think they are fountains of all knowledge. Then the great disillusionment!
Now, either Mrs Green was ill informed, or she was shamelessly teaching us utter fiction. I have to confess I have no idea which it was, but you would like to have think she would have checked her facts. Because there isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of Jesus as a genuine historical figure. Not an iota. Neither were there 'newspapers' as we understand them in a contemporary sense - and even if there were, they would long have disintegrated after two millennia. What did exist in the Roman Empire were 'bulletins' carved out of metal or stone, and you would think that the deeds attributed to Christ might have warranted a mention. Again, nothing. The one artifact that is consistent with the stories of Jesus's life - and death - has been exposed as an amateurish fraud by modern science.
There may have been a Jesus of course, but certainly not the one depicted in the New Testament (written well after his supposed death). Even if there was though, it is pure conjecture.
Anyway, the point of all this is that we were being brainwashed. Deep down, I knew the concept of Jesus and God was ludicrous when I was 10. I was passionate about astronomy and pre-history, clearly disciplines which did not square with the bible's version of events. Added to which, by age 10 we were being taught not to rely on hearsay, groundless assumption and wild conjecture.
We were encouraged to find evidence to back up our claims, to think logically and to shed puerile beliefs in fairies, Father Christmas, ghosts and the like. Yet the religious education we received (no opt-out in those days!) ran contrary to everything else we were being taught. A man could rise from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine. Our gut instincts were telling us it was nothing short of fantastic - but if our teachers were telling us that's what happened, then that's what happened. Besides, at that tender age you still want to believe that the impossible is possible - it is a bulwark against the dawning realisation that the world is a harsh place. That's comforting for a child.
It took a long time for the penny to drop with me at a conscious level that religion, in all its many forms, is contemptible nonsense. I don't lay all the blame for that at the door of Mrs Green, I just wasn't very quick on the uptake as my family certainly didn't force Christianity down my throat. Possibly I felt that to renounce Christianity was to be unpatriotic. Just think though, about how many times of magnitude greater the levels of indoctrination into outmoded dogma are in other parts of the world. Young, impressionable minds are being moulded with harmful lies at a critical time when humanity needs to lean on science and reason if we are to survive and thrive.
Religion no longer serves any useful purpose. It's a house of cards just waiting to be toppled. It can, must be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)