Re: Jerry Springer - The Opera (blasphemy accusations). Firstly blasphemy can surely only be "committed" by a "believer"? Secondly surely blasphemy can only be outlawed in a theocracy. I have no intention of ever seeing JS - Opera as niether it nor the JS show float my boat, so to speak, however religious fundamentalism (hey isn't it against the law to threaten people with violence in this country?) is becoming rather scary in England when it is openly justifying it's dubious methods by stating that 'if it's ok for foreign religions to be 'up-in-arms' (lol) then it's our duty to be christian soldiers'. STOP - PRESS - christian fundmentalists cause a cancer charity to turn down a donation by threatening a 'donation boycott' and smear campaign by christians. I find this scary and even more so that these folk are not being prosecuted in the same way as pro-lifers are not persecuted as the terrorists they are (see attacks and threats in US and probably UK). IMHO if animal rights extremists are legislated against (recently in UK) and Islamic extremists (couple of years back and again this week) then surely the common denominator is threat of/actual violence to person/persons justified by extreme views. Surely it then follows that all extreme groups should be subject to the same sanctions rather than piecemeal legislation based (biased) on the respective ideology's current social acceptability and political expedience?
On a similar tack, there exist countless divisions, subdivisions ad-infinitum of christianity and other religions, therefore I find it offensive that extremists 'tar with the same brush' the majority of 'adherents/believers' with differing views/moral codes beneath the broad umbrella of a major, organised religion.
(Re: comedy. All comedy is offensive, probably every point of view is offensive... to someone. Look at political correctness. Thank goodness it's dying a death cuz coloured was the vogue once, then it was black; and what about loony, nutter, psycho, mad etc.)

To me, organised religion is summed up by the fact that it is the most narrow minded, contradictory belief system, period (as the US types say). For instance, on a radio4 show there was a debate on evil and whether it exists. Some christian guy in one breath stated that god created everything, then later that god created all the good stuff. Well I seem to recall that he created everything (according to that book they venerate), which therefore includes the "serpent" and ipso facto the temptation. Surely this god character is abdigating his responsibility for an imperfect creation?

Following this train of thought it would appear that christians are "apologetics" (to use the current parlance of GW Bush). While we are on that tack, surely what we are seeing are modern day "crusades", slaughtering the heathen hoards. The US appears to be heading towards theocracy, or maybe a new term should be coined (you heard it here first!) a democratic theocracy, if that isn't an oxymoron. In any case, a reductionist could argue that one theocracy is judging (bible tells us that man cannot/should not judge a fellow human) another theocracy. Come to think of it, there is a whole lot of smiting taking place in the torah which I kinda thought went against those commandment thingummies... anyhow, the "evil" thing: as a secular guy proffered on radio4 the existence of evil is dependent upon whether you see it as a noun or an adjective. Succinct I think. Ok, enough of the rant.

I remain a useless lump, existing with suicidal ideation and keeping myself alive with that "guilt trip" thing regarding effect on others. i know that sounds rough, but it's the way I see it. One comforting thing remains the research and provisional planning of my exit. Having made one serious attempt in the early 90's I am aware of the uncertainties, pain and likelihood of recovery with a degree of physical and mental impairment.

Anyhow, thanks to everyone for keeping in touch despite my reclusive tendencies. I do appreciate you all.

2005 snogs

posted by Andy 12:21