Blogs
There are no religions, only cults of different sizes
- 09 Feb 2007 22:00
Before I start I would like to point out that I have "religious" friends and I do not wish harm upon people who believe that their religion is a private thing. I accept that there is a possibility that I might be wrong (something that a true "religious" person does not) and I accept that there are exceptions for every rule (except this one).
For thousands of years religion has plagued the world with violence, ignorance and arbitrary 'moral' standards. The idea that we should even accept something called religion and shower its odious views with respect and legal exemptions I find ridiculous. If you use a dictionary you'll find that the word 'cult' is a much more accurate to description what most people would define as religion.
Religion is simply an idea; it is something that people choose to believe. As far as I'm concerned, people are entitled to their own opinion and they are allowed to believe what they like, but if their opinion is out of step with progressive modern values or it has the potential to harm others, especially the more vulnerable members of our society, then they should not be allowed certain roles within society.
Until the religious (cult members) provide some proof for their crack pot theories I don't think that it is appropriate for them to be entitled to apply for jobs in the following areas: - teaching children or vulnerable people, politics, law or law enforcement, public relations or media. If somebody believed in goblins, unicorns, elves or a flat earth and kept on trying to persuade other people that they were absolutely right and everyone else would be tortured for eternity if they did not agree with them would they be allowed these jobs?
The Nuremburg principals were international laws made to make what the Nazis leaders did illegal. Therefore anyone who agrees that the Nazis were justly punished should also agree with the Nuremburg principals. I will now list the crimes against humanity that the leaders of each religion are responsible for and explain the punishment its leaders would receive if the world wasn't full of ignorant hypocrites. The following were the crimes investigated at Nuremburg..
- Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
- Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
- War crimes
- Crimes against humanity
A comparable case in Nuremburg was Julius Streicher who was convicted for much smaller crimes against humanity and was sentenced to death. I'm not in favour of the death penalty so I think the pope should be given the much more lenient sentence of life imprisonment. The same is true of influential church leaders and Christian politicians across the world guilty of the above.
Leaders of Islam are guilty under Nuremburg principals under the Nuremburg principals 1, 2 and 4. They are guilty for their treatment of women and homosexuals and for the murder of adulterous women and homosexuals. Also they are guilty, for the continued use of slaves in Saudi Arabia until the year of 1962. These are just crimes off the top of my head; a thorough investigation would no doubt find more crimes.
A comparable Nuremburg case was Baldur Benedikt von Schirach who was found guilty on principals 1 and 4 but not 2. (He was the closest I could find and I thought I'd give Islamic leaders the benefit of the doubt). He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment but only because he repented. If the Islamic leaders are prepared to apologise and offer reparations to the families they ruined then I think they should be given similar sentences. If not then the rest of their lives should be spent in prison.
Since 1967, the leaders of the Jewish cult have a long and well documented history of war crimes and crimes against humanity that have been committed in the middle east. In fact, looking at it purely from a legal perspective, Jewish leaders are the guiltiest under Nuremberg, being guilty of charges 1, 2, 3, and 4. They are guilty of illegal occupation in the Palestinian territory since the six day war of 1967, which constitutes crime the crimes of 3, 2 and 1 since it was a war of aggression and a continued occupation.
They are also guilty of failing to bring to trial members of their armed forced implicated in vandalising Palestinian schools and hospitals and others who are seen to shot unarmed civilians at the slightest provocation. This constitutes crimes against humanity. Their Nazi equivalent is Herman Goering who was sentenced to death but committed suicide before reaching the gallows. Again, I think life sentences would be appropriate here.
I consider Buddhism and Taoism as philosophies and not cults and thus find no beef with them. They don't cause wars, don't mentally bully children and cause no significant problems in the world. Members of the cults mentioned above would do well to learn from them and anyone else that puts people before dogma.
Steal your music
- 29 Jan 2007 08:45
There are a few exceptions when downloading a CD or a DVD is not justified. For example, if it is unusually cheap or it is a struggling or a local band. However if it is at all possible you should download all your films and music. There are many reasons for this not least the facts that if everyone downloaded the only people making films and music would be the people who do it because they enjoyed it and that the vast majority of the money from CDs goes to the music industry which simply ensures that censorship and mediocrity is recycled within the modern music scene. However, I think it is reason enough to download simply to spite the anti-piracy adverts.
The anti-piracy adverts (much like the Coke Zero adverts) are an insult to your intelligence. This one of those terms of phrases that have lost some of its meaning through over usage, but I really should emphasise that the people that made these adverts are taking the piss out of you.
Anyone remember the Train spotting piracy ad? The whole tone of it is that the pirates are out to get you and that piracy affects us all. I always found this a bit strange since I was always under the impression that the pirates were only out to get the big faceless corporations. And even if the pirates were just out to get us, as the advert implies, it seems a bit odd that the film industry would spend vast amounts off its money warning us of a problem that doesn't affect them. It would be a bit like McDonalds launching an advert, out of the kindness of their hearts, to warn us of the dangers of eating too much salt or sugar. With a couple of seconds thought it becomes obvious that the pirates are not out to get us, they are out to offer us a much cheaper (if not free) version of what the film and music industries have been overcharging us for the last ten years.
However, it gets worse; and this is where the piss is well and truly taken. They tell us that piracy funds organised crime and terrorism. So now not only is terrorism used to fight wars of dubious legality and to bring in draconian laws that tread all over civil liberties it is also now being used to keep us shopping. How exactly does downloading stuff off the internet fund terrorism? Do they explain that? Of course they don't, any elaboration in defense of their point would only lead to a lot of predictable and deserved ridicule. It is on the strength of and in spite of these obvious lies that we should all download music and films from large companies. Actually I use the term 'we' loosely, if you believe that Osama Bin Laden funded his September 11th attacks by selling replica CDs of Peter Andre or that FARC buy their automatic weapons with money made from flogging pirate Beyonce albums, then you should be paying something called 'mug tax'. This is the extra amount of money you pay for original CDs of big label bands when you don't agree with piracy because you believe the kind of nonsense they show on scaremongering adverts. The sooner those eligible for 'mug tax' realise they're being robbed the sooner they'll have more passionate musicians, more sincere actors, more colourful music tastes and more healthy bank balances.
Free drugs?
- 16 Jan 2007 19:08
Almost every one knows of someone who claims to of have their drink spiked. It is a worrying and disconcerting experience. But it is also one that begs all kinds of questions. Before I get started I should point out that I'm not saying that drink spiking doesn't happen, I'm just saying that when somebody claims to of had their drink spiked they are effectively asking for a moral blank cheque to be written for their actions the night before, which gives them a strong motive to delude themselves and other people.
My first and foremost questions are: Who in their right mind is going to; A: go to the effort of finding Rohypnol (correct spelling suggestions welcome), B: effectively declare themselves a rapist to the stranger who is selling them this very rare and probably expensive drug, C: go to a club to find an already drunk girl who they think that one night with is worth risking a life sentence for and a life time on the sex offenders register and then D: risk a severe and merciless beating from anyone who discovers them, in order to stealthily give away this drug for free?
A recent press release from the Police has confirmed that, according to a 12 month study, Rohypnol and GHB are almost never present drink spiking cases. This confirms what I have always suspected. But the Police seem to have come to an even more improbable and bizarre conclusion from their study; that Cocaine and Cannabis are the most common narcotics used for the purposes of drink spiking (accounting for 48% of recorded cases). I would like to know how 'drink spiking' of this nature is done. Do they have liquid THC that they pour into people's drinks? Or do they make pre rolled 'wacky' cigarettes before they enter the club and only target people who they know not to have any sense of smell? As for the Cocaine: how exactly does this work? Do they put it in the salt shaker before they get the Tequilas in, or do they put it the cuff of a white shirt before asking their victim to smell their new perfume?
There was criticism of the above police study but this too was made without plausible grounds. The critics of the police study claim that the majority of drink cases do not involve drugs abut alcohol. This is a step towards rationality but once again the most fundamental of questions are not answered. Last time I checked, strong alcoholic drinks have a strong taste. I would, for example, notice if a shot of vodka had been put in my pint of larger. I can also taste the difference between a double and a single.
Of all the drink spiking incidents I can recall hearing about anecdotally, I can think of maybe one or two, at a push, which I find convincing. In the vast majority of cases, the girl was very drunk already, the sort of person who would be unwilling to take responsibility for her actions on the night in question and unwilling to alert the proper authorities of the heinous act that she claimed had taken place on the day after.
A while back I thought I had been spiked in a pub in Plymouth. I was very drunk already and minesweeping. After downing something alcoholic in Coke that had been left by someone else, I became short of breath, my face burned painfully, I became incoherent and was violently sick. The next day, I did the same think that anyone would do if they genuinely believed their drink had been spiked; I went back to the establishment and told the manager. He assured me that the cameras would be checked and I changed my mind about the drink spiking issue believing my experience to have proved that drink spiking was happening on the scale that many professed.
However, a few weeks later after a few pints in another pub, the barman gave me a Brandy and Coke, which I drank immediately and watched him make. A few minutes later I was short of breath, my face was burning and I was suddenly felt dizzy and drunk. It turned out that I had an allergy to Brandy.
If you genuinely think that you have had your drink spiked, then you should go back to the pub or club the next day and ask them to check their security cameras. If you think an assault has taken place then you should go to the police immediately. But if you have gone out and drunk too much and made a fool of yourself then apologise where necessary or laugh it off, but please don't contribute to the drink spiking hysteria. Let the rest of us have a drink in peace. Cheers.
Pete Swan