Pope Benedict the Anglicans the Guardian and married Priests

I was in a conversation the other evening about Pope BendyDick's recent repeated offer to the Anglican communions that should get get all annoyed, cross and fuming over the fact that someone who naturally has a uterus and no willy be made a bishop can come and be Catholics. Now the offer is open not only to Anglicans one at a time but aslo for full congregations including the priests, now this poses somewhat of a problem for those priests that are Anglican and are married.

Now the Guardian is a paper I seldom readm but it usually is reasonably up to speed on the idea of research however one of the people I was in conversation with made the comment when I brought up the problems of being married and a priest retorted that "Well I read it in the Guardian they could be married", She would not be swayed in her belief, something that is in the Guardian is to be believed more that the internal rules that govern the Catholic Church .. aka "Canon Law".

For all you Guardian readers out there who may have read that and are now defending the idea that the Catholic Church has done a U-Turn on this policy .. here are some facts the Guardian missed.

Up until 1139 all the clery could be married (Infact 39 popes where offically married). The Second Lateran council changed the rules. All existing priest marriages were declared invalid and future priests were required to maintain celibacy.

Celibacy as defined by the 2nd Lateran council is quite rigidly defined (in Latin) Priest are not allowed to be married or have sex with females, males, self, animals, etc... it makes an interesting and funny if it were not the document that sentenced the priesthood to centuries of misery really for no good reason other than they didnt like sex getting in the way.

The Church resists to this day married priests. For a priest to legally get married under canon law he must be granted a special dispensation to release him from the rule of celibacy, (in fact if a priest wants to have an offical period of "self love" he needs to have this permisson as well)

However the process to grant the dispensation and the actual wording of the dispensation are problematic. When applying for the dispensation a priest must put together a lot of paperwork. Part of the paperwork almost requires him to say that he never should have been ordained a priest in the first place.

The document that grants dispensation from celibacy is called "a rescript", and it includes wording that says the priest loses rights to
1. the clerical state
2. loses his office of priest
3. is no longer bound by the duties of the clerical state.

The priest is then allowed to marry under Church rules.

However, the rescript wording also includes a prohibition of exercising any sacred ministry. Thus the priest may not participate in a parish as a lector/reader, eucharistic minister, or any functions of a deacon or priest.

So, when Anglian priests decide to jump ship and are all ready married will all of them have to apply for and get the dispensation? Yes if they want to stay offically married then yes they do.

The canon law that applies is number 1394 which is

"Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 194, ß1, n. 3, a cleric who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae suspension. If, after warning, he has not reformed and continues to give scandal, he can be progressively punished by deprivations, or even by dismissal from the clerical state"

However there is a "get out" rule in Canon law 1335

"Provided it is not reserved to the Apostolic See (the Vatican), a penalty which is established by law and has been imposed or declared, can be remitted by the following:

Provided it is not reserved to the Apostolic See, a latae sententiae penalty established by law but not yet declared, can be remitted by the Ordinary in respect of his subjects and of those actually in his territory or of those who committed the offence in his territory. Moreover, any Bishop can do this, but only in the course of sacramental confession."

So basically as long as no-body says anything and the priest do not apply for permission to be married and the See does not declare or impose a "latae senentiae" then everything is fine, the priest remains as he was before, cept he is no longer lonely in bed.

Aint it grand to see the high-heejin-god-bothers being clever?

So in answer to the the lady who queried me on why i believed Anglican priests cannot remain married, No they can't if they want to follow the rules of the organisation they belong to, they will become "latae senentiae" if they do.
But if they want to just keep on going and ignore that particular rule then they can, but you do have to then question any stand they make on Abortion, Divorce etc etc etc, which are also against canon law.

Another case of "Do as I Say not as I do" from the men in the funny frocks!

Some thoughts on Tradition

I have recently returned from a business trip to the far east and arrived back just in time for the annual tradition of the 12th of July. The "Glorious Twelfth" as it is known in some circles is the traditional celebration of the The Battle of Boyne in 1690 when the Protestant King William of Orange gave the Catholic King James a bloody nose. Now it was far from the simple matter of two denominations of Christianity being belligerent, it was more about the power of the royal families in Europe at the time. In fact Pope Alexander VIII lent King William troops for the war against King James. King William and the Pope and several other countries were in the League of Ausburg which was set up to defend the Palatinate of the Rhine from the French. A fact sadly lacking from the history expounded by organisations like the Orange Order who much prefer the world view that the Battle of the Boyne was a "Protestant Victory for a Protestant People" which is in fact a load of revisionist knob cheese, but what is a bit of revisionism when it is the absolute right given by God and justified by Luther, Calvin, Knox and the tooth fairy to be a raving bigot at the drop of a bowler hat each July.

I overheard a conversation at the airport where a grandmother was telling her grandchildren of the "good old days" when her grandfather paid her 1 old penny each time she sat on his knee and shouted "To hell and the flames with the pope and all Catholics". Ah yes the good old days of vitriol and hatred ... such a fine gift to pass on to one's children!

When I was a teenager if you travelled outside the streets where you were known it was inevitable that you would be asked "What are you?". Now for other traditional forms of hatred like racism it is easy to pick your targets by visual cues alone. Picking which person to abuse is harder when based on religion hence the blunt interrogative method. It became second nature for most to quickly work out who was doing the asking and switch sides accordingly, this whilst being ethically suspect was a sure fire way to avoid getting a black eye or worse. Needless to say one had to learn the responses to the follow up questions of "Well sing the Sash" or "Say the hail Mary" but that was a small price to pay.

You could not answer "neither", that was not an option, you could not sit on the fence. You had to plant yourself firmly on one side or the other and be prepared to defend that position from all comers, needless to say expressions of distrust or outright hatred of the "other" side were mandatory if you were to be believed.

As a callow youth the painful experience of having to fight off both sides soon lead to the my questionable position of variable allegiance, although in hindsight I was put in the position of having to repeat parrot like the vitriol of one side or the other, something I could not and hopefully would not allow myself to do now.

Now do not get me wrong, tradition can be a wonderful thing. The traditions of openness, friendship, philanthropy and generosity of spirit are fine things to pass on to the next generation. Such traditions are the glue that holds societies together and makes them work. However on the other side of the coin are the traditions that are divisive, that are driven by the sure and certain knowledge that your tradition is the ONLY one that is right, the only one that is useful and in this case that it is the only one that is God Given to you and your side only.

Traditions are dangerous when they are the only thing that defines who you are. I do not define myself by the country that I live in, nor do I wrap myself in the dubious comfort of a flag, as this only succeeds in hiding me from others. If I was holding that tightly onto a flag how could I hug a stranger or extend them the hand of friendship?.. and there is the rub ... i do not think that is part of the traditions I see unfolding each July. There are no hands of friendship, no hugs expect for those in your tribe. It is all inward looking, incestuous, foetid reinforcement of generationally transmitted regligious hatred and distrust.

Tomorrow, tens of thousands of bowler hatted, white gloved men will march behind banners that display their commitment to the British monarch (but ONLY with the strict condition that the monarch is Protestant, or more exactly, not Catholic) and commitment to the Bible (the protestant one not the catholic one). The banners they march behind will be flanked by men carrying swords and pikestaffs in rememberance of those that were killed and the fact that they needed to be killed to protect the faith. There will be marching bands playing military marching tunes mixed with sectarian anthems, some of which will have words that call the listener to arms to defend with violence the God given right to be Protestant. There will be acts of worship in which ministers will pillory the "church of rome" and declaimed it as the worst evil in the world. There will be speeches where the leaders of the Orange tribes will extole their members to stick together for God and Country at all and any cost.

This is not a tradition I want any part of.

Irish Government, The Catholic Church and abuse

There are paragraphs and links in this post that are not easy to read ...

In Ireland for decades children were systematically abused, physically , sexually and psychologically by agents of the Catholic Church in Ireland. When they did report the abuse the children were ignored, when the complaints got to great to ignore the church simply moved the nuns, priests and brothers to other parts of the world out of the jurisdiction of the state ... not that they would have done a whole hell of a lot about it if they had got their hands on the abusers.

Justice Ryan a senior Irish Judge was tasked with investigating the 1000's of claims of abuse and his report was published this week all 5 volumes of it. The Christian Brothers went to court and won an injunction which means that Justice Ryan's report could not name the abusers in his report even when evidence exists that abuse did take place.

The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland Cardinal Brady, a mealy mouthed useless stream of piss is "saddened and sorry" by the report. SADDENED BY THIS?

from the Ryan Report ...
Physical abuse
More than 90% of all witnesses who gave evidence to the Confidential Committee reported being physically abused while in schools or out-of-home care. Physical abuse was a component of the vast majority of abuse reported in all decades and institutions and witnesses described pervasive abuse as part of their daily lives. They frequently described casual, random physical abuse but many wished to report only the times when the frequency and severity were such that they were injured or in fear for their lives. In addition to being hit and beaten, witnesses described other
forms of abuse such as being flogged, kicked and otherwise physically assaulted, scalded, burned and held under water. Witnesses reported being beaten in front of other staff, residents, patients and pupils as well as in private. Physical abuse was reported to have been perpetrated by religious and lay staff, older residents and others who were associated with the schools and institutions. There were many reports of injuries as a result of physical abuse, including broken bones, lacerations and bruising.

Sexual abuse
Sexual abuse was reported by approximately half of all the Confidential Committee witnesses. Acute and chronic contact and non-contact sexual abuse was reported, including vaginal and analrape, molestation and voyeurism in both isolated assaults and on a regular basis over long periods of time. The secret nature of sexual abuse was repeatedly emphasised as facilitating its occurrence. Witnesses reported being sexually abused by religious and lay staff in the schools and institutions and by co-residents and others, including professionals, both within and external to the institutions. They also reported being sexually abused by members of the general public, including volunteer workers, visitors, work placement employers, foster parents, and others who had unsupervised contact with residents in the course of everyday activities. Witnesses reported being sexually abused when they were taken away for excursions, holidays or to work for others. Some witnesses who disclosed sexual abuse were subjected to severe reproach by those who had responsibility for their care and protection. Female witnesses in particular described, at times, being told they were responsible for the sexual abuse they experienced, by both their abuser and those to whom they disclosed abuse.

The Irish Tax payer is fronting up a billion euros in compensation for their part in the conspiracy of silence over decades of abuse. The prime offenders, the catholic church has managed to find a paltry 128 million euro, obviously the shame of allowing the systematic abuse of children and then covering it up is worth 128 million.

The perfidious devils in the church that allowed this to happen and covered it up after discovered are still doing it today! Bishop John Magee supported by three of the senior members of the church refused to resign when an inquiry found his child protection policy inadequate and dangerous after complaints of abuse where investigated. The Bishop "stood aside" from the running of the diocese of Cloyne, although he STILL retains his title and is fully supported by the Vatican in his stand, although it does appear he has his head up his arse if he can't see what is happening around him.

There is shame enough for everyone in this report, for the state for ignoring it under church pressure, the public for thinking "it couldnt be true they are religious" .Both state and public are talking openly of their shame and trying to find ways to make some difference to lives of the survivors (and yes there were many who did not survive) and yet so far the Catholic Churtch through its senior representativea is "saddened" ... well Pope Benedict, Ireland is looking to you as God Botherer in Chief to be WAY more than saddened or "unable to comment at this time" .... get off your fecking arse and do something about it! The buck stops with you!

Have a read at the summary report here the full report runs to 5 volumes... 5 fecking volumes of documented misery all done by the agents of "The Catholic Jesus"

Have a listen to the discussion on Everyday Ethics

The Irish Times take on Justice Ryan's report.

Interesting Survey from the Pew Group on support for torture

The PEW group recently released the results of a survey done in the USA where they asked this question:

Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"

Looking at the figures the of the White Evangelical Protestants 62% said torture was OFTEN or SOMETIMES justified with 5% saying NEVER.

At the other end of the scale are "Those that seldom or never attend services" where 42% said torture was OFTEN or SOMETIMES justified.

The sample size for each group was nearly the same and those questioned were questioned within a few days of each other.

So it would seem that the more you go to church the more likely you are to accept that torture is OK particularly if you are a White Evangelical Protestant.

Links:
On CNN
On PEW

Draw your own conclusions, I know I did.

Pope and Rabid Free Presbyterian Pastor find common ground!

To none Northern Ireland readers this will probably come as a surprise but the rest of the world it may need some explaining.. The Free Presbyterian Church is (or was) run by Rev. Ian Paisley and twas he that in a protest when the last pope spoke to EU called him an Antichrist so no great love lost there. The odious Rev David McIlveen whom I mentioned in a previous post here and the dried up auld bitch Iris "I know someone that can cure homosexuality" Robinson whom I was less than pleasant about here have a new supporter all be it not directly...Both Iris and David are members of the same coven as the aforemention ayatollal of twonk, the arch bishop of WooWoo "Big Ian".

So the antichrist himself Pope Bendy Dick the whatever has aligned himeself with the Norn Iron Twonk squad ... see here ... Since Iris got in early with "it is up there murder and child molestation" El Papa and the papal possee had to box clever and have joined in with " ....saving humanity from homosexual behaviour is more important than saving rainforests from destruction."

WTF?

Stop your priests fiddling with altar children and stop whisking the ones that do to the other side of the world when they are caught, until then do the world a favour and shut the fuck up unless you have something sensible to say!

The Advertising Standards Authority's response to the offical complaint about "The word of god against Sodomy"

Belfast has an annual Gay Pride March which this year attracted 5-8,000 marchers from all over the province and Ireland. Nothing odd about that many cities have similar marches.

However this year Rev David Mcilveen and his church the Sandown Free Presbyterian felt they were "obliged under God to publicly challenge the vices of this generation" so they took out a full page ad in a local newspaper "The Newsletter". The 540 word advert was exactly the sort of intolerant bollox that you would expect .. it described homosexuality as an abomination, defined homosexuals as perverts and called on all religious followers to maintain a very public stance against the gay community. The church, led by the Rev David McIlveen, justifies its hostility towards the gay community by ‘quoting’ from the Bible and lambasting the need for a parade which celebrates a “profitable lifestyle”, (I think he may mean "profligate" rather than "profitable")

The ASA and The News Letter received complaints about the advert and it was then legally bound to investigate and report on the complaints which came in 2 parts

1. The ad's content was homophobic and, therefore, offensive
and
2. was likely to provoke hatred and violence against the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

The ASA reported on the 3rd of December (full text here) but basically upheld complaint (1) and rejected complaint (2) . The Sandown Church's advert WAS homophobic and, therefore, offensive. Good for the ASA! Common sense at last!

Let us not forget the other "powerful" moral message the bible teaches in the whole Sodom affair. Just before God destroyed Sodom (from whence the act of Sodomy gets it's name) he sent two angels down to recce the lay of the land prior to sending the fire and brimstone. Lot puts them up for the night in his house... Genesis 19 takes up the story

4 But before they [the angels] lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

(emphasis mine)
Lot's daughters survived unmolested however in Judges 19:24-29 almost exactly the same thing happens to a different set of people. The ladies involved on that occasion were gang raped and unfortunately died after a long night of abuse, not that anyone god included (and he stuck his nose into human affairs a lot more back then) seemed to mind that much certainly it would appear that no-one was brought to account for gang rape and murder by human or divine entity.

The Rev McIlveen and his congregation are odious people with odious minds peddling an odious message which sadly is listened to more often than not.

The British Humanist Society take a stand .. probably.

Well this a start I suppose :-)

It is almost definitely maybe making a stand what what we probably are sure about sort of.

I love the quote frm Christian Voice's spokestwonk Steve Green

"Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large

Hey if that is the level of my danger to the public I feel a lot better! I have always been told that I am a "servant of Satan" but it seems I may be a "Servant of Volvo"

A bit of a rant - Faith Healing

It has been at least a couple of months since I have had a rant and today I will rectify that as I am monumentally pissed off and I have a feeling I may really "go off on one", so consider this a warning and if rants about religion are not your thing don't read the bit in the box below!.

Here we go..
If you are a regular reader of my blog you will know that I sometimes get a bit cross about not so much "religion" but "religious people". My last rant was about a certain MLA (like an MP but a Northern Irish version) who believes that being Gay in the eyes of God and humanity is comparable to Child Molestation and Murder. This MP is the chairperson of the Health Committee and remains uncensored and unpunished for such dreadful utterances. This rant is not about her this time, another group of "happy smiley people" have raised my ire.

Every Saturday for the last year or so a local church group have set up chairs, speakers and a big banner in the centre of town. This is a large blue banner claiming "HEALING" in large white letters, soothing music plays in the background and lots and lots of leaflets like the one opposite are handed out by "Happy Smiley People"

There are usually only a few HSP leafleting but today there were dozens of them! Some of which would not take a polite "no thank you" as a reply. But it is not my discomfort at their antics that I am ranting about today.

You can click on the image above .. but for those not bothered the leaflet says ...
"Need Healing? God can heal you today!
Do you suffer from Back pain, Arthritis, MS, Addiction,Cancer, Ulcers, Depression,Allergies, Fribomyalgia,Asthma, Paralysis, Crippling Disease, Phobias, or other sickness? We'd love to pray for your healing right now!"
... It continues ...
"God loves you and can heal you from any sickness today"
... and concludes ...
"You have nothing to lose, except your sickness!"

Quite frankly this is appalling! Where I to set up in a similar way and give away "Purple Pixie Dust" making the claim that "Purple Pixie Dust can heal you form any sickness today". I would be taken away by the local constabulary and told in no uncertain manner to cease and desist. Yet Saturday after Saturday there they are under their HEALING banner extolling something that has the same efficacy as my imaginary Pixie dust.

J'accuse - Reeling in the sick with well chosen words.

Now lets be clear here, they specifically ask if you have "Back pain, Arthritis, MS, Addiction,Cancer," etc , and then claim "... can heal you from any sickness today". This is not a claim that God MIGHT heal you. This is a claim that God CAN heal you and not tomorrow or the next daty.. but today! As there is a time frame mentioned this adds to the implication that it will happen today. For example "I can fix your computer today" would be taken by 99% of people to mean "I will fix your computer today". There are very very few people, if any at all , that would believe I meant "I might fix your computer today"

To most people the verb "to heal" means to make healthy or restore to health and to be free from ailment. Their claim is "to heal" so the public is more than justified in expecting that they will be made free from illness and returned to health.

For misleading the sick - HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME

J'accuse - Peddling the fantasy of efficacy to the sick

Now before I am accused of being "anti-god" I am not! The published claim on the leaflet ".. can heal you from any sickness today" I am not disputing at this time the existence of God what I am disputing is the claim that by whatever method actual measurable things will happen today. There is zero supporting evidence on the leaflet and only anecdotal "Oh I saw [someone] cured of [something] " evidence.
Which is fine but when I inquired about the "Morbidity and Mortality" figures which any orthodox treatment or medical practice would have, I was met with blank looks. M&M statistics record the details of both the successes and the failures. These are very important for the continued development of treatments and ability of a Doctor to give an accurate prognosis but sadly missing from this group's mindset.
Would you feel safe if a doctor treated you on the basis of his cleaning lady telling him"Oh I saw another doctor in a different practice do this and it works".

Were there even the slightest shred of truth in this claim or any noticeable efficacy on the ill why is the NHS not rushing people to the prayer ward rather than ICU? Why do the legions of oncologists not prescribe prayer as the cure for cancer before starting chemotherapy or radiotherapy? The answer to both these questions is because "prayer therapy" to whatever supernatural entity has never had any demonstrable effect! It is simple market forces.

People want to be well
When they are ill they want to get better
They go to the place most likely to make them better

If prayer therapy had any demonstrable, reliable, repeatable effect people would go "Oh that works really well" and all of a sudden we wouldnt need the hospitals we have now.

People have voted with their feet with the option that works most of the time.

For peddling this fantasy of efficacy as truth - HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME!

J'accuse - Gross Medical Ignorance and Misconduct

Before I am accused of ignorance of my chosen subject I was a nurse for many years before becoming a geek and I come from a family of Doctors, Nurses and Therapists so I am very familiar with medicine. Should this group ever have taken an interest in the ethics of orthodox medicine they might have come across the medical bon mot, primum nil nocere (First do no harm) or the more recent addition "and to avoid attempting to do things that other specialists can do better"

They do not do a review of your medical history, they do no diagnostic tests, they sit you down, accept what you are telling them at face value and then ask an invisible supernatural being to make the illness go away. That is all there is, no more no less.
And this in my opinion is dangerous.

For example a man approaches the group one Saturday and presents himself to be cured of Asthma. Unknown to the people praying he is suffering from a psychotic disorder, one of the symptoms of which is very low self image. The prayers don't work. The patient is then left wondering why the treatment did not work or worked with less than a total cure. Since he has low self image he naturally blame themselves rather than God or the people praying for the failure, thus reinforcing his own pathology and making him worse! How does this fit in with primum nil nocere. Do these agents of a supernatural healing entity even care that this might be the case? Do they do even a rudimentary medical check of who they are treating? Are they treating someone with Münchhausen's syndrome? Are they aware that when treating a person with sore shin for pain they in fact may need to be treating for cancer as the pain is caused by a spinal tumour in the sacral area?

It certainly appears they do not!

Do they wash their hands between patients as anyone with half a notion of basic hygiene would do?

It certainly appears from my observation that they do not. I do hope none of the patients has MRSA or C.Difficile!

HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME!

J'accuse - willfully making a spectacle of the sick in their time of need.

Do they treat the person with the respect and dignity they deserve by treating them in private out of the public gaze. You would expect a doctor, nurse or even an agent of "WooWoo" magic like a homeopathic practitioner to do?

No they do not!

You are perhaps desperate for relief so you sit down on a chair in the center of town on a crowed Saturday morning and allow yourself to be surrounded by people who lay hands on you and pray. In doing so you become the focus of the attention of not only the people praying, but of the passing public who can if they so desire watch as the patients sit clutching their handout hoping that they will be the case that proves the claim for a cure today just like the handout implies.

Like some awful form of "Big Brother" or "X Factor" the town center has for 3 hours on a Saturday become "Coleraine's Got Diseases!" I half expect a preacher with a microphone to declaim "Debbie with the Arthritis in your knees COOOMEEEE ON DOWN!"

For treating the people in need of help with less decency and dignity than a carnival show man. HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME!
If you have not realised that the people who come to you for help are regarded as objects of public spectacle. HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME!
If you are doing it deliberately you are without doubt loathsome attention seeking whores who use the sick for your own proselytizing purposes - HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME!

Is it just me? Am I the only one that finds this horribly wrong and a ghastly abuse of those in need of real help and medical support?

I think that you (the group) should

a) WASH YOUR HANDS BETWEEN PATIENTS if not for their sake for your own!

b) At least pay lip service to the fact that you could potentially be causing harm and offer proper non-religious medical counseling for the cases that God chooses not to cure

c) Take the process of praying inside NOW and allow their "patients" the dignity of privacy afforded by every orthodox medical practice and the lion's share of the alternate ones too.

d) Be considerably more honest about the prognosis in your leaflet.

"We will pray for your healing, however while we believe that God can cure you, this claim has not be substantiated by the same rigorous methods and standards you demand from other medical practitioners. These methods and standards are enshrined in law for your protection - we do not offer these standards as part of our service.

Indeed it would be dishonest of us to say that God Will Cure You. Likelwise we do not mean to suggest in any way that a cure will happen today or in fact any time soon. God may or may not help you or he may help you in a way that you don't expect, (this may include death - we just can't say at this time). In short we just don't know if this will work for you.

If you do get better we reserve the right to claim that our prayers cause it but should you not be healed or get worse ... well we are sorry but God moves in mysterious ways. These ways may seem entirely arbitrary but we just don't know the mind of God. Please don't ask for the number of people who were NOT cured today as we don't appear to know that either. We don't keep medical records like other more orthodox medical practitioners so we don't know which prayers work best if at all.

***PLEASE NOTE*** God at this time chooses not cure amputees or people afflicted with genetic disorders"

This would at least be a more honest approach! Oh and while I am on "honest approaches" One would hope that the earthly agents of a supreme being would at least aspire to honesty. But I now know this is not the case, I was approached by a group from the same church whilst out for a walk by the river not long ago. They approached me initially saying they were on a "treasure hunt" and needed my assistance in finding some of the stuff on their list. However after some beating around the bush what they REALLY wanted was to find out if I had any illnesses.
Yes one of the items on their list was
"DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THESE ILLNESSES..."
I was gob-smacked at the temerity of it!
The group consisted of 5 or 6 some of whom where young children, such a good example of "ethical" religion at work, but hey! it is lying for their buddy Jesus and that makes it fam-dabby-fecking dozy!

If I complain, which I have, there is an inertia inherent in the powers-that-be to get involved in something to do with "religion" the police believe it to be a council matter and the council believe it to be a police matter. So I am left with having to cope with a status quo that stinks of all that is wrong with religion.

Because I don't know about it therefore it doesnt exist

Gentle reader I was challenged the other day by a passing "person of faith". In the summer we have have a plethora of missions one of which "New Horizon" had as a guest speaker this year Dr John Lennox Oxford mathematician and Christian apologist. This has had the side effect that we now have "people of faith" who now have a scientist who can be waved at recalcitrant heathens like my self as proof that both god exists and there is a scientist that can prove it.

Now I have no great problem with Dr Lennox he is a fine mathematician, he writes a good book, I may not agree with what he says but he is being horribly misrepresented by those that listened, well I assumed they listened but I feel very probably they didn't. (If you are interested there was a very good debate here between Dr Lennox and Professor Richard Dawkins)

According to the book waver who accosted me as an out an proud atheist, it was ALL explained by Dr Lennox. The world's beginning is explained by the bible Dr Lennox and he is a scientist says so. Evolution doesn't exist Dr Lennox and he is a scientist says so... are you seeing a pattern develope here? To cut a long story short what I was challenged to was "how could the universe be created out of nothing". Now I have no answer for that but I do like to keep my finger on the pulse of what is going on, but for some time there has been head scratching about virtual particles, quantum perturbation, Willis Lamb in 1955 proved the existence of virtual particles that appear out of "nothing" (He got the nobel prize for it) He was able to show that matter in the form of "virtual particles" pop in existence and whilst cannot be observed directly their effects can be seen and measured. These virtual particles appear because of quantum perturbation. Now there is a theory that posits the "big bang" was in fact a massive quantum perturbation where there was more virtual matter than virtual antimatter created so there was a "bang" of sorts and because there was more matter our Universe was the matter that was left behind. I am not pushing this as truth, the maths that promotes this is very hard and I don't pretend to understand all of it. However I have given it the time of day and as we as a species learn more and do more experiments the balance of probability will push one theory of what happened more than another and I will watch this with interest. But there is very little to gain in the static world of the supernatural explanation. I have no interest in a following a supernatural reason because it never changes.

But I was told this is totally wrong and instantly dismissable because "Dr Lennox didn't mention it at all and he is a scientist and nobody I know has heard about it but you" Now to me this means "because I don't know about it therefore it doesn't exist" and this is meant to convince me?

~sigh~

An embarrassing lapse into adolescent bad behavior

One of these days I will post about something Notes'y but apart from having just upgraded to V8.01 on two of our 15 server and a host of clients, which was remarkable in in unremarkabilty. I fear that is more a comment on the ease of upgrade than on any professionalism on my part.Not, I hasten to add that myself and my team are not professional at all times (just in case any management types are reading this).

To the topic in hand or at least in the title above ... I am a heathen, heretic and potential spawn of Satan to many up here in Northern Ireland. Which is odd, because were I the fruit of Beelzebub's loins I wouldn't believe in my father which could lead to certain Freudian problems in by psyche.

Psychiatrist: Well Mr McDonagh did you love your parents?
Me: Well no, my father was the first lord of Sheol, Guardian of Gehana and nemesis of Jesuits everywhere. But as there is no such thing as hell or demons my father is a logical impossibility and therefore so am I.

I can hear the little cash registers go KERCHING as I type this.

I digress ....

Needless to say I am not demon spawn even if the local pastor of the Free Presbyies may think that I am. I am merely an "Evangelical Agnostic" spreading the good word of being un-convinced of the benefits of bathing in blood of the lamb or the probity of a wrathful god, talking snakes, the occasional talking donkey and chatty if inflammatory shrubbery.

A conversation at lunch yesterday turned from EDI to things spiritual and I was asked was I saved ....Rather than answer yes or no, I made he mistake of pointing out to the "more-convinced-person-of-belief-than-me" person that he was, as a percentage, more of an atheist than I am. Since I am officially unconvinced I give the benefit for the doubt to Ahura Mazda, Brahma , Al'lah, Daanau, Odin and the plethora of other deities. Whereas he denies the existence all of them with the exception of his brand of celestial CEO. This basically makes him 99.9999% atheist and me 50%.

This was of course said with my tongue (both ends of the fork) jammed firmly in my cheek. However for some reason, his reply that I was destined to spend eternity in a lake of fire with tearing out of hair and gnashing of teeth (teeth will be provided for those dentally challenged - like me and most other rugby forwards). This reply, which normally follows such flippancy, for some reason rankled more than normal. I am sorry to say I got on my high horse and things got perhaps a little too heated. He was only a young chap and the sort of critical thought I was espousing was perhaps not something he had come across before certainly not at the speed and with the vehemence I used.

As a result last night I did feel rather bad about the grilling I gave him. T'was then I recognized that I had reverted just for 5 minutes back to the adolescent hot headed oaf I thought I had left behind in the early 70's .... I apologized privately this morning.

Hey ho ... I am adding be "more tolerant" to my list of new years resolutions even though it is nearly the end of Feb.