Boris Johnson

This weeks storm in a tea cup was about Gay rights. Boris Johnson our dear mayor of London found it imperative that he should publicly stop the transport for London allowing a Christian group from running a series of adverts. These adverts were a retort to Stonewalls recent campaign of “some people are gay get over it” with “some people can stop being gay get over it”.

Johnson had the advert banned and phoned the Guardian to tell them that he was a good boy. The Christian group immediately reacted with surprise because they had gone through the process and their advert had passed the committee stage where it was judged lawful and decent. The surprising thing is that Mr Johnson himself had chaired the committee that had agreed the advert.

So why this apparent strangeness? Johnson is not a thick man. He knows what he knows and I think he knew that this would give him a platform in this election year to really sell himself to the gay electorate. This is not about London being a tolerant society or any other nonsense it is about politics.

The victims of this are Christians who are being further ostracised and told that in a society that is intolerant of intolerance their views will not be tolerated. We might not be saying what secular society want to hear but we have a right to our views and a right to have them respected as our views.

Johnson further diminishes the Englishmans right to free speech by making it into a political football a dragon for him to slay for the applause of minorities. But the serious damage of this silliness is our society and our culture.


Spot on

Whitehall Watch

“The Centre for Economics and Business Research says that if bank holidays were scrapped, Britain’s GDP would be £19bn higher every year.” (BBC website)

View original post 240 more words

If you had the attention of the entire world for two minutes, what would you say?

“Right you lot, now if you can’t play nice then I will take away all of your toys and nobody will be able to be naughty.  First we are all going to learn to share.  This will cure the obesity problem and the famine problem.  Everybody will have a little less so that nobody starves.

Now this one is going to be unpopular with the capitalists.  We are all going to have Sunday off.  One day a week nobody is going to work everybody will spend time with the family, their peers, their friends and their neighbours.  If they do not have friends then they will make some.  Of course if there is an emergency then you will be expected to go and help and if you are indespensible then you will be expected to perform your duty, but no more than your duty.

Next we are going to educate people differently.  We are going to return to a simpler time when a person is not valued for what he has but for what he does.  We will be encouraged to find our talents and use them.  A person will be judged a success for improving himself not for spending money.


Coming to money we will be abolishing credit.  A person will only spend money that he has not what he will achieve in the future.  Nobody will be spending their futures today.  We will enjoy our futures when we get to them.  Credit makes fools of us all and costs normal people stupid amounts of money.  But companies will still be allowed credit so they can continue to trade.

Next we are going to rationalise industry so that there are enough clothes and household equipment so that we can all live happily.  We will have all we NEED and will make a big bonfire for all the silly luxaries that we don’t need.  All the brands that sell 25p sneekers or trainers as the proper parts of the world call them will go into the fire.  Yes we can still do sports, yes we can ski but without the silly comercial stuff that has encrusted modern life in the West for the last fifty years.

Next we… damn out of time.”

What’s the worst injury you’ve ever sustained?

My pride suffered a near fatal injury once when in the middle of a heated discussion I realized, in horror, that I had got my thums stuck in the handle of a mug I was drinking from.

I had to scamper off into the kitchen to put soap onto my hands to get myself free.  Unfortunately people noticed and then we spent an hour trying to extrodite my thums from the mug, with which I developed a sense of identity

What is good?

Before considering how we should be good it is important to work out what we mean by good and of course bad.  Both of these words have been muddied by philosophy, athiesm, sociology, humanism etc until their meaning has been largely lost.  Is it a subjective word, is it objective, can it be objective and if so what are the implications of such a terrible thing.

First I want us to be primative about this.  This means shaving away all of the growth that has sprung up around the word and meaning.  What does it mean to say that is good.  When God said, “that is good” when he made heaven and earth what did he mean.  I think he meant that is wholesome, that is pleasant, that is something which is nourishing, that is something I want to look at and that is something I will make happen, allow to happen or encourage to happen again.  The opposite is true of bad.  We dispose of the bad banana, we resolve to never allow this bad situation happen again and we are respulsed by the bad condition of the car.  This is the most simple and important realisation.  And tomorrow I am going to complicate it.

What’s the funniest show on television these days?

I think that the Big Bang theory is the funniest show on television at the moment.  I find the characters well defined, developed and innovative.  It is very playful, cringable and titilating without being silly, cruel or vile.


Fallen Methodist Who does not ‘feel’ God

I was watching a ghastly bear pit of a programme with Nicky somebody a few months ago.  On it was an athiest who claimed to be a recovering Methodist.  She said that she stopped being a Methodist because she did not feel God.  She holds this up as evidence that there is no God.  Makes sense but if that is true then if someone does feel God then that is an equally valid as an argument that there is a God.

Neither are really very strong or convincing, unless you already agree with the person making the statement.  Any argument is strong, valid and virile when it says what you are already thinking.  The opposite is true if you disagree.  I found the ladies argument very silly because I am convinced of the existence of God.

I am convinced of Gods existence because of the effect he has had on human reality.  We do not see dark matter but we can discern its effects on the universe, the same with gravity.  God has provoked men to rise above their animal nature, to do terrible acts of forgiveness and awesome acts of self sacrifice.  Acts of love and kindness that go far beyond wanting to preserve your genetic inheritance, social good or cubbord love.  Dawkins might parade the vampire bat as the origins of social morality but if you are satisfied with cubbord love your not human.

When are you happiest?

I came home from work the other day.  I was tired and felt worked and sat down in the kitchen with my wife.  She was finishing off making dinner and we both had some tea.  We are deeply in love with each other and just enjoyed being there together.  Life does not get better than this.

Morality and the Volcano

If we are just the products of a material progression of evolution and natural forces and there is no outside interference in our values and standards then what is the difference between man and the volcano.

The volcano erupts because of the laws of physics, changes in its material environment and a whole host of natural things doing things for very good scientific reasons.  By erupting it is neither moral or immoral regardless of how many people die, what nations go to the wall or what damage is done to the environment.

If there is nothing else acting on the conscious of man then when he murders, when he rapes or when he steals, lies or cheats he must be doing so for good scientific reasons and therefore there is no difference between him and the volcano.  It is a pity that the defense council at Nuremberg did not recognize and use this argument, “My Lud, Mister Nazi can not even be judged because he was not acting under morality but only being buffeted by the unfolding forces of  history, psychology, drugs and political needs

Clearly this is unsatisfactory we have to recognize that there is more to man than scientific forces.

Truth or dare?

I find this a very difficult question because unfortunately  I am very aggressive.  I find it very hard to not do things and playing this game I want to do both!  I played this game called shocker once where you took turns to ask and answer questions and if the rest of the group believe that you are lying they do a lie detector test on you and if you are lying they shock you.  It is great.  Anyway I insisted on testing everyone… even myself because it was so much fun.

Truth or Dare is equally exciting because, I have nothing to hide, I am not ashamed of anything and I love dares.  But I do tend to pick a truth.