Friday, 28 March 2008

What are the Tibetans for?

I am still unclear about the Tibetan contribution towards world civilisation. So: they pray, whinge about oppression by the Chinese (though previously they must have been complaining about their previous colonial masters - the British), make a tourist industry out of their religion and rituals and last but not least, take the toddler son off any Tibetan if they think he is Dalai Lama material.

Nice, that. The cleverer and more promising your son is, the more likely he is to be taken into "care" when the priests come round, disguised, for their, er, milk round. (The present Dalai Lama was "recruited" when he was two.) Bear in mind that if that were to happen, you won't be having any grandchildren if he is your only son. Dalai Lamas are like Catholic priests - condemned to a life of celibacy, and possibly paedophilia or at the very least homosexuality, when normal sexuality is forbidden expression .... Are the Tibetans now to be regarded as some sort of protected species, like Aborigines in Australia, the Red Indians, Eskimoes and the Pitcairn people?

Why don't we leave them alone and let them fade away, if their culture no longer equips them to deal with modern life? It might really be kindest thing to do.

Thursday, 20 March 2008

An Atheist's Theory of Prophets and Religion

Jews regard themselves as the Chosen People of God and Judaism is basically tribal. Jesus, a Rabbi, saw that it would benefit mankind to spread the benefits of monotheism to gentiles. Understandably, many Jews objected to this, probably because they felt it diluted or cheapened their religion.

To make his message more persuasive, Jesus claimed divinity. For this blasphemy he was crucified. But it was not that unusual to claim divinity. After all, Roman and Chinese emperors were worshipped as deities and so were Egyptian Pharoahs. A modified form of this was the divine right of kings, practised in more recent history by European monarchs.

[It has been said that if you can explain it you are a heretic.]

Christians have never convincingly explained the mystery of Holy Trinity. The only way it could be convincingly explained is through a non-religious context of psychology, mythology and propaganda. It is the device through which Christ's message is made more appealing and more powerful. It also serves as his vehicle to divinity. (You see, it is not enough to portray Christ as a man who just died for his principles. People need more than this to want to accept his message. A man who died for all our sins is infinitely more appealing than one who has died for just his own principles.)

The mystery of the Holy Trinity is this: it "explains" and "proves" that Christ is divine. To enquire further is to commit heresy. In the olden days, you could be burnt at the stake for this.

Muhammad's lighter and more powerful version of monotheism consisted of claiming divinity only for the Koran which Muhammad "revealed" or "recited" in his liftime when his followers needed the guidance of God in difficult and confusing times.

The fact that it was taken down from one source and later standardised would at least make lawyers of those who could read and had to interpret the Koran. In the meantime it encouraged literacy, for that was necessary to receive the full benefit of the Koran - to read it for oneself. Islam does not require you to believe in the impossible and improbable, ie that Jesus is Son of God.

Through the Koran, fairly common-sensical teachings had the stamp of divinity. Conversion to Islam was easier, because it has lower "entry requirements" than Judaism and is not caught up in incoherent and mysterious trinitarianism - a theoretical device which "explains" the divnity of Christ. Disputes on interpretation could be resolved by referring to a form of words in a particular chapter and verse that is at least undisputed.

Not perfect, but better than before. Not perfect, but still progress!

While Jesus emphasised Faith (as he must necessarily have done to move it away from the then wholly ethnic basis of Judaism), Muhammad emphasised Reason, and the Tools of Reason: reading, writing, reference, authority and jurisprudence.

Muhammad could not have developed Islam without first examining the life of Jesus and the form Christianity was taking in Muhammaden times.

Schism was and is the most noticeable characteristic of Christianity. Muhammad must have seen the effect of the disputes amongst Christians over the Holy Trinity - an incoherent theory that would have us accept that One is Three and Three is One (or "one for all, and all for one", like the Three Musketeers!). He cut the Gordian knot by denying its validity in the Koran, saying that Christ was just another mortal prophet with no divine attributes, just like Abraham, Moses, and himself of course!

Christ certainly would not have been able to spread the benefits of a monotheist God, if Abraham had not conceived of it first. If not for Abraham, Moses would have had no single god to which to ascribe moral attributes with his Ten Commandments.

It can be seen therefore that there is a progressive nature to the monotheist religions. Islam was built on the foundations of Christianity and Christianity built on that of Judaism.

Subsequent prophets sought to improve and add to the teachings of previous ones, and this theory can only be grasped in a non-religious context. The same analogy applies to Hinduism and Buddhism.

Indeed, I would go so far as to claim that none of the prophets in fact believed in God. They merely had the wisdom to use this innate desire of all those who wished to believe in a loving and omnipotent God to make the world a better place. Ascribing to it moral attributes to the most powerful entity Man could imagine and describe - All-Powerful and All-Wise, Benovelent and Merciful - could perhaps indirectly encourage some of us to understand and indeed take on the attributes of God, ie to become stronger, wiser, kinder and be more forgiving.

To love God is to know God, to know God is to become one with Him.

The supreme irony of this is of course that most of what humanity worships was and is in fact man-made!

The story of Pygmalion illustrates this beautifully. Pgymalion was a sculptor of extraordinary talent. He sculpted a woman so beautiful he fell in love with her/it. He loved it/her so much that it/she became real, for when he behaved as if she was real, she was real. That is precisely what Man has done with God throughout the ages.

The power of imagination, eh?

Sunday, 16 March 2008

Judaism Explained before Easter

A recent decision by Orthodox Jews to bar a child of a mother who is a convert to Judaism from attending a Jewish school because the child was insufficiently Jewish explains exactly why Christ had such a problem with Judaism.

Unfortunately, he paid for his audacity with his life. His followers invented the story of his Resurrection and the "theory" of the Holy Trinity to make Christ's ignominious death less upsetting for those disposed to become Christians.

The Koran explicitly acknowledges Christ for extending monotheism to gentiles. Christ's crime, as seen by the Jewish priests, was in wishing to spread the benefits of monotheism to those not members of the Jewish tribes. It was Christ acting to end the Jewish monopoly on monotheism that resulted in his execution.

Muhammad developed on Christ's theme, ie that faith alone - not race - is sufficient to avail oneself of the benefits of monotheism. Christ must have concluded that, in order for a better world to be created, monotheism must not remain the exclusive preserve of the Jewish tribes. The Islamic concept of "ummah" - a community of Muslims united by a common belief that does not exclude anyone on grounds of race - is an excellent expression of this ideal. This is far more powerful, in the opinion of this atheist, than the racial exclusivity of the Jews and the Trinitarian incoherence of the Christians.

It would seem that Christianity and Islam share the same aim, that of making monotheism more accessible to others not born into the faith, while Orthodox Judaism has a tendency to be exclusive and restrictive. While Judaism requires a typical male convert to undergo circumcision - an eye-wateringly painful operation in the apprehension of the average male - Islam does not require this.

It was really all a dispute about intellectual property and copyright, folks!

Slags and Slappers - Part 2

It seems that the sad truth is that most British parents allow their adolescent children to have under-aged sex, probably under the paternal roof, and consider themselves to be sufficiently good parents if their under-aged children are given an adequate supply of condoms and contraceptive pills with which to start their sex lives ...

I am now expected to congratulate friends, family and neighbours who are the pathetically grateful grandparents of illegitimate grandchildren. They understandably feel they must acknowledge these little bastards, or else have no grandchildren at all to acknowledge.

I am aware of that most grandchildren these days are illegitimate anyway, even amongst the "respectable" middle classes, and most grandparents are too afraid to express disapproval of illegitimate grandchildren for fear of losing contact with their children altogether.

Fear not, O Frightened Grandparents to-be of Potentially Illegitimate Grandchildren! Your children will expect to inherit from you when you depart this world so really, you do have the whip hand. The option of disinheriting your children who have extra-marital offspring exists, subject to the provisions of The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Perhaps if you told them before they became sexually active that you will have a problem with illegitimate grandchildren, you could have nipped the problem in the bud?

I suspect most parents never get round to this. The embarrassment of undergoing this process and seeming, God forbid, eek, judgmental and illiberal, is enough to send most parents scurrying away into silence and avoidance.

I have been called vindictive and vengeful for seeking to make an example of Fiona McKeown, by suggesting that she be prosecuted for aiding and abetting under-aged sex. It is not that hard to prove that this feckless mother “arranged and facilitated the commission “of a child sex offence. After all, under s 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Fiona McKeown "arranged and facilitated" something that another person will do "in any part of the world" (that constitutes a child sex offence as defined in section 9).

Even if she were not convicted, it would prove an uncomfortable time for her and those with similar parenting styles, would it not?

Fiona McKeown left her under-aged daughter in the care of her tourist guide boyfriend whom she knew was already committing statutory rape and would in all likelihood commit further similar offences while in his "care".

I am of course assuming that no self-respecting father would knowingly let some tourist guide he had just met on holiday have sex with his 15 year old daughter or would leave his daughter in the care of such a man. Or am I also deeply mistaken in this regard? It has been has suggested that my assumptions about what constitutes good parenting are rather “un-British” and out of line with current practice.

Unfortunately, it appears that my attempt to extract a moral from the tragic death of Scarlett Keeling, so that she did not die entirely in vain, has fallen on stony ground ...


Those of you who wish to show Fiona McKeown and people like her that better parenting styles exist in order to save her and other children from a similar fate, may wish to write to (1) the Chief Constable of the Devon and Cornwall Constabularly and (2) the Officer in Charge at Bideford Police Station along the following lines:

The Chief Constable
Stephen Otter
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Headquarters


The Officer in Charge
Bideford Police Station
New Road
EX39 2BW

Dear Sirs

Since there is a direct connection between promiscuity, unmarried motherhood, family breakdown, bad parenting and a higher crime rate, it is surely time something is done about these forces that are proving so destructive to British society and other societies who adopt similarly low standards.

It is not that hard to prove that Fiona McKeown of Bideford “arranged and facilitated” the commission of a child sex offence. After all, under s 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Fiona McKeown could be said to have "arranged and facilitated" something that another person will do "in any part of the world" (that constituted a child sex offence as defined in section 9).

Fiona McKeown left her under-aged daughter in the care of her tourist guide boyfriend whom she knew was already committing statutory rape and would in all likelihood commit further offences while in his "care".
Not only can a case be made out, it would be very much in the public interest to prosecute her to show the repugnance all decent right-minded folk ought to feel about this kind of “parenting”.

Yours etc
Vote: Should Scarlett Keeling's mother be prosecuted for aiding and abetting under-aged sex?

Friday, 14 March 2008

Why Slags and Slappers are Bad for Britain

What passes for sex "education" nowadays consists of giving school children access to contraception. They will of course interpret this as licence to have sex and end up with the clap or knocked up. The children of these never-married teenage mums who produce litters by their different male partners will be more likely to under-achieve at school, stab each other and generally live a life of crime, degeneracy and welfare dependency at the expense of the taxpayer.

The solution?

1) Pass a law that child benefit and council homes for families is only restricted to the married.

2) Compel every under-aged pregnant girl to reveal who her impregnator was and fine him (or his parents if he is under 18). If she refuses to divulge his identity her parent(s) will be fined £1000. This should discourage the practice of the many British parents (quite often middle class and who ought to know better), who do nothing to stop their adolescent daughters from having sex, quite often in the parental home while under-age.

3) Pass a law that any child born of an underaged mother will be removed from her and put up for adoption.

Vote: Should Scarlett Keeling's mother be prosecuted for aiding and abetting under-aged sex?

It would seem a little vindictive to propose such a thing, but isn't it time we did something about single motherhood, irresponsible parenting and the societal consequences of condoning illegitimacy and promiscuity?

What is the point of having an age of consent if it is hardly ever enforced?

Either repeal it or enforce it! If it is a criminal offence then it should be perfectly possible to be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a criminal offence.

Should Fiona McKeown, who took her variously-fathered children to Goa, who took Scarlett from school during term time when she must have been preparing for her GCSEs, who thought it was OK for her 15 year old daughter to have a sexual relationship with someone they just met on holiday, be made an example of?

Would it be in the public interest for the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute a mother so shamelessly negligent that she even now denies that she has been negligent?

Is the world perception that British women are sluts and slappers deserved?

Why should taxpayers be indirectly sponsoring female promiscuity and the societal consequences of this? Wouldn't opportunities for male promiscuity decrease if female promiscuity were discouraged through the withdrawal of child benefit and council housing from single mothers?

Does it need a woman to say this?

You may wish to ask

Stephen Otter
The Chief Constable
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Headquarters


The Officer in Charge
Bideford Police Station
New Road
EX39 2BW

08452 777444

if a prosecution might not be in order when all the facts are already made out below:

Scarlett smoked cannabis in Britain, and not, it would seem, the just "once or twice" her mother claimed.

"Scaz - always ravin, goin out, getting stoned and bein off her face," reads one of several similar badly spelt internet tributes to the dead girl.

Her relationship with Scarlett was "trusting and honest" - more like a friend than a parent. And therein, perhaps, lay the root of many of Scarlett's problems.

For there was a similarly "matey" approach to the subject of sex. Scarlett had a boyfriend in Britain and was sexually active. But her mother only found out about this after Scarlett told her she had been to the family planning clinic.

"We had talked about it and I was aware she was having a relationship and I was OK about that," was Fiona's rather laid-back view.

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Section 9
(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual, and
(c) either—
(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or (ii) B is under 13.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—
(a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,
(b) penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,
(c) penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or
(d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis, is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(3) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

Section 14

(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally arranges or facilitates something that he intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in any part of the world, and
(b) doing it will involve the commission of an offence under any of sections 9 to 13
(2) A person does not commit an offence under this section if—
(a) he arranges or facilitates something that he believes another person will do, but that he does not intend to do or intend another person to do, and (b) any offence within subsection (1)
(b) would be an offence against a child for whose protection he acts.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person acts for the protection of a child if he acts for the purpose of—
(a) protecting the child from sexually transmitted infection,
(b) protecting the physical safety of the child,
(c) preventing the child from becoming pregnant, or
(d) promoting the child’s emotional well-being by the giving of advice, and not for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or for the purpose of causing or encouraging the activity constituting the offence within subsection (1)(b) or the child’s participation in it.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.