History and mindless cock-waving; never the twain shall meet...

Schools continue to teach what seem like completely random and sudden occurrences that have no basis; this provides some people with a slightly askew perspective. Attacks on the U.K are a shining example of this; if you are in school then the Vikings, the Spanish Armada and the Normans all attacked simply on the basis that they are a bunch of pricks. As if the Vikings just went waaarrrg at some point, sailed over here and started twatting people on a whim, the Spanish were just here because good and evil are real and the Spanish are not to be trusted, not in anyway due to the cult of Protestantism intrinsically clashing with the cult of Catholicism.

Vikings: They'll bum you because that's what they do.

The Independent article by Patrick Cockburn is definitely a victim of this mode of thought; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-vikings-were-feared-for-a-reason-9241032.html the article is under the impression that raids were what Vikings did as part of their basic existence. The concept of the Vikings being directly comparable to the SS is one point made in this article that I don’t think has not been made before; I would suggest that there is a reason for this, in fact there might be more than one.

This is an example of isolationist history; taking historical events and placing them without past, cause or future, this has been used in recent months on The Great War which was portrayed as a clear battle of good and evil that lacked any real origin other than the misdeeds of the cruel.

Let us stride fourth and cast off these trousers of naivety and be gently caressed by the warm summer wind of knowledge; people act and react to environment and circumstance, so what were the circumstances of the Vikings?

Who was in the U.K at the time? The Anglo Saxons, an icon of Englishness that crawled from the ocean onto Brighton pier as a long distant ancestor of the millipede they were not; like everybody else here they came from somewhere else, in fact the same as everybody everywhere they came from somewhere else. People were from somewhere else before the imaginary lines that indicated where they were actually from had been imagined.

English people: Always been here mate, always. 

 This of course does provide us with a comparison between the SS and the Vikings; they were both the owners of legs.  

The occurrences around a certain people depend upon the people around them and their actions; the Christian Francs were on the move, and had attacked areas of Germany and Scandinavia; this is why Vikings had a great number of boats, because everyone else had lots of boats. Take into account the method used was a form of raid and the raiders pillaged. There was a Christian raid on Friesland, north-west Denmark in 734 ad; where as the Viking raid on Lindisfarne was in 793 ad, this provides a context for behaviour and a history for the occurrences.

In 768 Charlemagne took his position as the Francish king; he proved to be very pious and less than patient when others were not quite so fervent, this meant that the expansion of the empire brought compulsory Christianity. This was demonstrated in the massacre of Verden, near contemporary Bremen; 4500 people were forcibly baptized and, once the holy water had rolled off their purified heads, the heads were removed. Saxon refuges fled to nearby Denmark and the Vikings were aware of the massacres and rapes that were taking place during what had become a guerilla war.

Charlemagne: Proper shifty. 

 King Widukind of Saxony visited the Danes for moral and, he hoped, practicable assistance; this was news in Norway as once an area was absorbed into the Franco Empire all power was taken from the resident leaders and Charlemagne applied new laws, leaders and faith. The threat of abolishment spread across Europe and Denmark allied with Norway; it was not feasible that one of the two countries could separately succeed in defeating the Franco army.

Another alliance formed in 793; that between the Christian Francs and the English, in 793, which rings a bell as it was the same year as the raid on Lindisfarne. What was Lindisfarne after all? Not simply a Christian structure, but a Franco Christian structure.

The eleven monks that were killed was an atrocity, but compared to the four thousand five hundred at Verden and the associated power grab in Saxony it was minuscule; and the previous massacres had given the Vikings a good idea what Christian conquerors had the capacity to be like.

I now refer directly to the essay by Patrick Cockburn: Before I refer to what it contains I shall refer to what it does not, any history of history or to use another term, context. The fact that the Vikings attacked due to being violent and, for want of a better word, rapey, is puerile and mindless. The fact that they killed monks because they were barbarians and this is simply what barbarians are prone to doing is as foolish as labeling the outbreak of The Great War was the result of Germans doing what Germans do.

 I shall now refer to what is in Patrick Cockburn’s essay in regard to Viking atrocities: The pro-Viking lobby claim this is exaggerated stuff and there is no proof of such Viking atrocities. But the absence of evidence is scarcely surprising. The invaders, themselves illiterate, were so destructive that almost no writings survive from the conquered Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

What exactly is the pro Viking lobby? I doubt very much they have meetings or a news letter; This echoes more of the corralling of contradictory opinions into one subconscious happy place where disagreeing parties have a set agenda and one conspicuous eyebrow.

More worryingly, the idea the lack of evidence indicating in no way indicates the lack of occurrence. The Saxon refuges spread the word of atrocity quickly enough through Denmark and Norway, despite, as Mr. Cockburn maliciously points out, the populace being illiterate. The lack of evidence does not mean the necessary lack of occurrence, but it most certainly does not mean the opposite. It sounds like some sort of anti Viking lobbying, which would exist for no reason whatsoever.

Magical sky picture: If England and Germany are the holy Roman Empire
then you can see why others would be nervous. 

Unless of course one of the institutions of the time were still in existence and felt that Christians should not be seen to be behaving in a barbaric fashion.

Historical isolationism is a wobbly misleading strut of unnecessary contemporary patriotism; the idea that we were fighting a just war is absurd in the era of conquest within which the Viking raids took place.

 The direct comparison between the Vikings and the SS is a peculiar one that is not in anyway substantiated; especially if you one looks closely at the comparisons of religious genocide; if one were to make a comparison between the SS and one of the involved parties of the Viking raids whom would it be between?

There are some comparisons between the time periods; Charlemagne was reimaged under the Third Reich as a German hero.

In closing; the idea that the Scandinavians should apologies for the behaviour of the Vikings, which was over 1300 years ago, is bizarre. It certainly wasn't any contemporary residents of Norway that killed any monks.

I am very certain that there are far more recent events that need to be apologized for, preferably ones of which the perpetrators, victims, or both are still alive and there is in fact some evidence of wrongdoing.

History should be taught as what it is; a series of connected and motivated actions by people as capable of conceptual thought as any modern day resident; history is very prone to the biased elements of its own sources, but without context it is open to contemporary bias and can easily be used as mindless cock-waving patriotism that it very rarely genuinely supports.

In response to Mr. Gove.

Michael Gove has stated that we need to learn about the history of the Great War in the right way; but from the perspective of whom?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532923/Michael-Gove-blasts-Blackadder-myths-First-World-War-spread-television-sit-coms-left-wing-academics.html

The idea that Britain before the Great War was an icon of liberty is a bizarre one, only someone without any level of rationality and the tiniest concept of the history of the country could possibly entertain it.

If you observe the traditional version that the war began due to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which was a catalyst and is reasonable place to start, but once a modicum of thought has been applied to it, it was clearly not the sole reason for global conflict. 

Control of the Middle East played a large part; the new warships both England and Germany were building in a race against each other were in great need of oil. Germany desired a train line into what is now modern day Iraq and the British would not allow such a project. 

The tensions between key members of the house of Saxa Coberg were also key to the conflict; Is Michael Gove under the impression that the people ruling Germany and the people ruling England were actually differing families?  That the British were good and Germany bad? This puerile thought process does not apply to any historical conflict; if reviewing the battle of Hastings one does not say that the noble king Harold was cruelly defeated by William the bastard. This is because we are fully aware with the benefit of hindsight that they only fighting over power, with elements of ego, and were both Scandinavian anyway.    

Gove refers to the ‘ruthless social Darwinism of the German elite’ who, as previously mentioned, are the same family as the German elite; what with Kaiser Wilhelm being the grandson son of queen Victoria, the first cousin of King George and the second cousin of Tsar Nicholas who was temporarily in charge of Russia. This in itself disables the goodies and baddies argument, but it is not the only indication that this was not the case.

You do not need to study history or Machiavellian thought to know that empires generally are not good at fighting for truth, liberty and honor, but none the less quite good at fighting; the 19^th century was just as war-some as any other period. We were still fighting the French at the start of it, which ended with the largest ever turnout of British troops at that point, they fought on the Somme. We moved on to fight the Russians in the Crimea, which was a notably murderous affair even for a war. We fought the Boer because of a shitload of gold, simultaneously inventing the concentration camp and committing genocide. A young Winston Churchill was a war reporter there at the time.

Churchill: A firm believer in
Eugenics, which is what Gove
is accusing the Germans of. 

The late 1800’s saw the British invade Afghanistan, only it was not called an invasion, we were freeing the people and we were there to install a friendly government. The motive behind this was because Russia might try and invade India through it, which would be rude as it clearly belonged to us. The British lost a lot of men and failed completely due to an insurgency of anti British troops and a memorial was put up in Reading.

 The chances of all these wars being just, or indeed noble, are very slim, in fact in a historical context we know that they were not. The chance that they all led up to a great war which was just does not follow logic or common sense. Gove actually said something clever recently; that history is not taught in a way that allows for a comprehension of consecutive events, which is a problem, because that is what it is. One fucking thing after another was a particularly good answer to the question; what is history? But as any one who is allowed to go to the shops by them-self is fully aware; one fucking thing happens because of the fucking thing that happened before it.

 Gove puts forward the idea that the well informed populace went on to defend King and country, and attack his cousin; they were committed to defending the western liberal order. The volunteers that joined up in 1914 were all around or under five foot tall; this was due to malnutrition which indicates how the working class lived. Many joined because there was food and many surviving private letters confirm this was the case.

Part of the English literature curriculum goes cross curricular with history in the tenth or eleventh year of secondary school, this involves the contemporary poetry of the great war. This clearly demonstrates the existence of anti war feeling at the time; Wilfred Owen would be a key example of this. We know that the British authorities kept public opinion and that of the soldier’s on the front separate for the reason that they were very similar. King George was concerned that things might go the way of the Romanovs; he didn’t want what happened to his cousin to happen to him.   

Looking at the battles that have taken place on the Somme River; if a peasant archer at Agincourt had not attended, would victory or loss affect his circumstances at home? It is hard to see how it would. This can just as easily apply to an infantry man not at Waterloo or a Tommy who decided that Kitchener probably didn’t need him all that much. The British troops in Afghanistan in the 1800’s certainly would have benefitted from not being there, but would victory matter to them if they were not?  which raises the question of the ones still there.

 

Waterloo: Another battle of the Somme. 

The assumption that we won being the best possible outcome is bizarre from a historical standpoint; obviously it may have been as we cannot predict what may have happened. However the Second World War is direct result of the first; the treaty of Versailles caused the Weimar hyper inflation, in turn leading to poverty and suffering on a massive scale. We lied to the Arabs, did not return their land as it was also promised to the Jews, causing a major conflict which is still very active in the present day. After world war two we divided India and those two countries have fought bloody wars ever since.

 We are very aware in the 21^st century that good people don’t come from one country and bad people another, yet this is the history that Gove appears to want to us to teach and exactly the kind thing more commonly believed by the poorer elements of society at the turn of the twentieth century. It is precisely this false knowledge that makes it so easy to send them to fight in a war that would not affect them in its absence. It is the propaganda that allows a person to change their name to Windsor and pretend they are not related to the person they are sending everyone to fight because they have fallen out with their fucking cousin.

Taking British students to the Somme and informing them it is where brave and noble Tommies beat the nasty Germans will benefit no-one. Michael Gove says he sees patriotism as a virtue, and we know who that is normally a virtue of, but is he vicious or simply completely unaware of what he is talking about?      

The concept of history having goodies and baddies has no place in modern culture or thought; that a grown man in charge of education can miss the point of learning history by such an extensive margin, while in the process of telling everyone how he thinks people should learn it is startling.

The reason we should not teach Gove’s happy flag waving version of the Great War is because it isn’t true; I think it might be the only reason we need.

Sex, Scientology and God as the history of racism.

My girlfriend has her own chair in our flat and there is a perfectly valid reason for it; she is unclean. I have never sat in the said chair, my girlfriend and I have lived together for many years and I am certain that she has sat there by the window, watching the birds at the feeder, while menstruating. What annoys me is she will continue to innocently read or play games as though there is nothing wrong with what she is doing; why does she have no sense of guilt?

Women having their legs shrink-wrapped: This avoids the
contamination of the air around them.

The news that Nelson Mandela has passed on has not escaped anyone; obviously God would be aware of it, but would he be impressed by the work that the mortal carried out? The entire different races living together section of the Old Testament is scattered throughout the delightful work, but nonetheless firmly implanted into its pages and incorporates some of the most memorable and well loved mass deaths.

In the U.K this week scientologists have been allowed to marry in their own mad way bless them; the religion has numerous overpaid and undereducated members but is widely labeled as a cult. The difference between cult and religion is a fine and meandering murky soup which is in no way helped by what the differing variations of what the word actually means. 

Are these three concepts connected?

The U.K has been having a few disagreements between the various island dwellers on the topic of segregated university lectures for the benefit of those who, for their own reasons, might not want to sit next to somebody with a different set of genitals to them. The reasons given for this are religiously motivated; obviously, this unfortunately means that women will not be seen in a context of equality, because in any religion connected to the Old Testament, they never are. 

I am not sure that religious protocol melds particularly well to all formats of further education; in the study of astrophysics or in the field of evolutionary science, it might seem slightly amiss to claim verbally that none of the things that you are studying are true because the world has a big dome over its flat surface and that nothing evolved. One would not have to declare verbally that the lecturer was lying as the option not to sit next to a woman because god said would infer the associated belief that whatever you were studying were false. 

Brian Cox concludes his lecture:
 'Why women are manky.'

The segregation of women only exists in the theology because women are dirty and inferior; this is the reason for gender segregation, this and no other. The reason not to pander to the beliefs of others is the fact that some of these beliefs are complete arse: Talking shrubs and animals are in the children’s section, the degradation of women and the keeping of slaves should be in the history department.    

Apartheid, now firmly recognized as a bulging sick bag of human idiocy has its corpulent arse roots clinging vehemently to mouth of the creator. The concept of Apartheid was drawn up and implemented in South Africa by the Dutch reformed church; if one believes in Big Sky Beardface then that would certainly be the only way to run the place. 

The skywanker indicates clearly at the destruction of Babel, when the silly humans look above their position and try and improve upon themselves, that they shouldn't. All are scattered and given differing languages because they are achieving without the assistance of God and he gets all shirty. In Genesis he observes that: ‘If as one people speaking the same language, they have begun to do this, nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.’ Presumably he made these comments in a big booming voice due to his ethereal sky testicles. 

God: Easily annoyed. 

None the less if people achieved then they would be proud of their own achievements and turn their back on God; so everyone gets a different language and some theologists believe this how we ended up with separate continents. Theologists do, geologists however are flipping a coin between that and tectonic plate movement.

So we are not to integrate; we did and God flooded the earth, the only sin for this massive crime, for murdering every air breathing beast on the land, is that there was the mixing of race on the surface of our flat planet. Indeed this made it clear to the founders of a new home in the South of Africa that people should live apart, and not mix the seeds all in one field. So they didn't and God did not flood South Africa, so they must have been right.

Unfortunately if you have been praying for Nelson Mandela you probably shouldn't; I don’t think God agrees with him about integration. Nelson Mandela lived until his mid nineties and didn't drown, so maybe god isn't real after all.

In conclusion if there is one; Scientology is a bizarre and oppressive cult with no basis in reality; the problem is that so are Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Can we judge Scientology until we judge the others? Scientologists may as well get married if they want; I for one will not be influenced by their evil ways; even as we speak I am rubbing a goat’s ovary onto a dream catcher which is also a powerful defense against interracial marriage. 

Remember people, use goose fat to lubricate the gimp suit this season, or it just isn't Christmas. Jesus is the saviour and the safety word is Jesus. 

Wogan, wanking and please read the end bit. Otherwise it looks bad.

Children in need was awful, the images of suffering children and half arsed dancing soap opera actors performing like dogs on Britain’s got talent was exactly comparable to being sick to the point when you can vomit no more and there is nothing left but the vile taste of bile clinging to your tonsils and making you retch further despite the futility of the abdominal heaving and the wanting to die.

I apologise for the lack of punctuation but it all sort of came out at once.

These facts aside; there was no attempt to discourage people from having things in need; which one would imagine would be a far better thing to promote. There are too many grown ups and far too many of their squealing offspring. If contraception were more widespread at an earlier stage then Terry Wogan might not be on the television at all and certainly would not be on for three solid days like an inconvenient stool. If contraception were more widespread at an earlier stage then Terry Wogan might not exist at all. Many women would not be sick every morning and I would not have been sick on Friday night. Actually I would, but I am unable to honestly suggest that the two things were connected.

The compilation of this and the news that Christianity is apparently on the verge of extinction came as a

It didn't have to come to this. 

shock. I began to imagine fleetingly that Warsi had an orifice toggle option as to the origin of her speech and her settings may be, ever so slightly, awry.

This is based around the fact that there are 2.13 billion Christians in the world, roughly, not including the ones that are unsure, which is more than there are ocelots. Which is a shame. Besides, Christians are only becoming extinct in ‘some places’; if you are extinct in some places then you are not extinct, you are merely absent. There are no crayfish in my pockets, and yet none the less, in the canal twenty yards away they continue to exist.

 My favorite bit, the tiny little hornet in the jockstrap, is the statement; ‘There isn’t an intrinsic clash between different faiths....’ I may have reason to question these sources; the Koran and the Bible, and the basis of both of them, the Torah, do imply a slight ambivalence towards those who suffer from a differing form of madness. As we are able to tell by current affairs, and an unimaginable amount of previous ones.

Obviously in Kosovo where 200, 000 Muslims were killed by Christians was over the album ‘Automatic for the people’ by REM; Muslims had flocked to buy ‘Waking up the neighbours’ by Bryan Adams the year before and felt it was the best album released in that financial year and that the song ‘Night swimming’, an

obvious filler track, was a load of pretentious shit. We all know the outcome.

Look at the happy elves dancing on my pointless head. 

In affiliation with this; Palestine is entirely orientated around a drunken brawl based on the sexuality of Cliff Richard and the crusades was an argument about jam.

Three days of television about the suffering of children without once mentioning the remedy and news that believers in the Old Testament do, in fact, like each other, and everyone else should help them get on. Despite the elementary fact that all of these believers are aiming at death as it is, in fact, a sort of promotion. All Christians, Muslims and Jews are going somewhere better, in this context genocide can be seen as being helpful and should be accepted with the good grace with which it was given.

 

There has been a long history of positive religious
interaction. 

Until contraception is realized as a solution to the global problems that we face then the only way we can possibly hope to feed the planet and maintain a consumable water supply is if these psychotic murdering idiots continue to murder each other for no apparent reason. We should give them all a hammer each and herd them into stadiums to get it out of their systems.    

The real problem is that last bit isn’t true; because they are not going somewhere better, they are merely being killed. All they become is a dead apes; until we realize this and control the amount of apes that need feeding then our problems as living apes are far from over.

If you are in danger of conceiving there are numerous helplines that will help you to masturbate. In the long term contraception can be acquired entirely for free from your G.P. Absolutely no religion sees this as a solution. 

Porn, popes and a loose grip on reality.

Madness has apparently become infectious; everyone has caught the whiff in recent weeks apart from the clergy; because they said so and they should know. Meanwhile in the wave of sexuality that hasn't existed in every single mammal that has ever lived apparently sweeps over the children of the U.K. turning them into rampant sex beasts.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/437543/Religious-people-not-mad-Welby

The archbishop of Canterbury has declared that he, and other people that believe in spiritual things, are in no way mental. A sign of mental illness is hearing voices in ones head; as a voice for the ultimate deity one can only assume that Justin Welby can not only hear voices but presumably he knows who is doing the speaking.

There is a fair amount of religious people, they seem to be all over the place at times; statistically, even if one assumes that the majority of them are sane, there will be a certain remaining demographic that has a more tenuous grasp of reality. It might be less of a leap if one believes, for example, that an ethereal being demands the removal of a body part that he created for the benefit of the owner, to step across the threshold into the realm of the genuinely crazed.    

People who think they are Jesus might be mad, presumably they are also religious; it would be going to far, possibly, not only to declare yourself as Christ but then pointing out that you don’t exist either. Or perhaps you do exist; you just aren't the son of God, how did you come back?

The Archbishop of Canterbury: 'If you say I'm mad I'll cut
you, I'm imagining it now.'

In 2011 Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hemandez declared himself as Jesus and fired an AK47 at the Whitehouse, the motivation for this is the fact that Barak Obama is the antichrist. Which is fair enough as far I’m concerned; religious freedom in a developed country means that people should have the right to act according to their beliefs and worship in their own special little way; even if it means rocking back and forth and shouting ‘I hate blacks’ at the top of their voice. 

 To emphasize the sanity that dwells deep in the mind of the spiritual; here is an article written by a person of sound mind indicating Dungeons and Dragons causes people to behave irrationally, which is true, usually by continuing to play it. The problem being it also encourages people to become genuine sorcerers, which is where the argument might fall down. I, however, think that the problem of the youth of today training to be mages and wizards and altering reality to achieve their own evil ends may have been solved for us in advance.   

http://www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp

At this point in the article it becomes apparent that no one has actually accused the Archbishop of Canterbury of being mad; he is just shouting ‘I’m not mad and neither are the others’ without any provocation. This is generally viewed as a bad sign.

Earlier a leader of an earlier religion observed that ‘society was losing the plot’ altogether and everyone was mad for not being Jewish. God is going to be very cross with one of these men as they both believe in very different hats; all being well he will make them fight.

 As madness displays a strong absence amongst the religious fraternity it is clearly evident in school policy. An astonishing decision to combat the sexualization of children by telling them about it when they don’t need to know and aren't interested has taken place. By telling the children about porn, which they don’t know about, they will then be safe from what they haven’t seen and as a result not be influenced by it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24476860

The role of the parents in this is clearly underestimated as they should be casting a cursory glance on what their responsibility has access to; the chances of children having access to hardcore pornography in a primary school seems fairly limited. Or it was, until someone had this frankly stupid idea.

'Where do you put this at the point of orgasm?' U.K
students are put through their paces. 

There is a hypocritical element; presumably the parents of these children did become sexualized at some point on the premise that these children exist at all, unless all the children are Jesus. Perhaps if we can make sure that no-one becomes sexualized then we would not have to teach the children how to be a mammal, no-one would pictures on facebook of their wrinkled offspring or put a pram next to me in a restaurant, the latter being firmly in the top five arguments for contraception.   

Perhaps the best idea would be if people were only allowed to breed by Immaculate Conception; we would pay less tax, restaurants would be quieter and if Jesus did turn up we would know it was him.

Pope Francis spoke openly on the topic of child safety and faith on Thursday in an interview with Elrond Lord of Rivendell: ‘I don’t get why people keep connecting pedophilia and Christianity’, the pontiff stated, ‘Jesus hated bald pussy. Mary Magdalene had a thatch like a Boney M afro and he was up her inner thigh like a spider monkey. The apostle Paul used to tell an anecdote in which Jesus set fire to Mary’s pubic hair to see if it said anything.’  

Elfin trousers.

Any politician who uses the term ‘brave political decision’ to describe what ever it is the electorate really don’t want him to do but is going to do anyway is already very aware that he is part off the ruling class. (Google ‘badger cull’.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24309634  

The fact that the British public are being encouraged by the government to marry for their own good is astonishing, he fact that these people genuinely seem to think that they know what is for the benefit of the general public is in its own way deeply disturbing; I thought these people were supposed to organize infrastructure and deal with the bins.

Would someone please explain to me slowly
how this happened?

As a member of this joyful country if you happen to be married then you will be lucky enough to receive a tax break. What in the name of Odin’s interstellar trousers have those two things got to do with each other? You may well ask, and I swear on the cervix of Brittany Spears I have no cocking idea.

I don’t want to get married, neither does the person that I live with and I am sure that there are lots of people like us and plenty more who have simply not met the right person. There is a good chance that these people also claim no benefits, no childcare and generally receive nothing from the government at all.

David Cameron said: "I believe in marriage, alongside the birth of my children, my wedding was the happiest day of my life.” So, he quite likes being married and apparently feels I should try it which is awfully nice of him. The prime minister added: "The values of marriage are give and take, support and sacrifice - values that we need more of in this country." These basic elements of humanity clearly cannot exist prior to or without the utterance of a few words under a gazebo.

It can cost less than one hundred pounds to wed; all you need is a couple of down payments and a roof to carry out the act under, The happy couple will receive two hundred pounds per anum once joyfully joined, which at least means that there is a profit, albeit a rather shit one, to be had.

Is it possible that a deliberate saving could be made by some bad and uncooperative apples that are not overly phased by the sanctity of this pseudo Christian fart-arsery in the first place? Is it possible that this will convince people that they may as well be married as long as it is convenient? If so then it may well add to an already impressive divorce rate which was at 42% in 2010. (National Office of Statistics.) This statistic in itself might also imply that the sanctity of marriage turns out not to be overly sanct. 

The prime minister of the U.K claims to be religious; there is some evidence for this with the reintroduction of faith schools; which once again allows the legal and state supported indoctrination and abuse of children. 

Jeremy Hunt thought he would help out with this meaningless and bizarrely existent debate; for what ever reason. One could enquire what the secretary of state for health has got to do this; while you are doing this why not ponder why the secretary of state for health believes in homeopathic medicine, which is basically the same as a minister for transport who believes in levitation.

Jeremy pointed out that marriage was ‘special’, which is unhelpful: Although presumably he believes a relationship can be special outside of wedlock, as proven by his relationship with News Corp before and during their bid for BskyB in which his actions were entirely above board. Not to mention the ‘special adviser’, of whom Hunt had, that in no way provided a ‘back channel of influence’ for News Corp. If marriage is special and so are advisers do I receive a tax rebate for having one of the latter? 

Look at his magical face: Elves are real, dream
catchers actually catch dreams, homeopathy works
 and the British government is in no way trying to
improve things by wildly wanking into a handbag
instead of doing their actual fucking job.

The concept of believing homeopathy is in any way functional is not a sound basis for rationality or government; no wonder Jeremy thinks that marriage is a little bit magical; he can probably see elves at the foot of his bed weaving fucking dream-catchers.

The only reason not to continue this is the fact that entire subject is based upon the inane gibberings of a coalition that should never have existed in the first place. All that this new development represents is the erasing of the Syria debacle from the long list of Cameron shaped mistakes; it is merely an additional grotesque fold on the corpulent sack of consistently evolving nonsense that is the over-sized seat of British politics.     

Blasphemy is for believers, I can make a pork collage of the prophets if I want.

Blasphemy is for other people; I cannot commit an impious act as I do not acknowledge the existence of piety. Other people are more than welcome to self apply the rules of an imaginary concept based on fuck all if they so wish; you might not eat pork because you read in a book that God disapproves; that is like me having a fondness for real ale and fireworks because Gandalf liked them.

 There is no difference between me placing a stuffed pig on a stuffed penguin or on the cover of the Quran; there is no religious significance to either item and neither is sacred. I am quite fond of penguins but I have no qualms about their contact with the porcine element, although I am sure it is a fairly rare occurrence

 This program by the BBC, entitled teen exorcists,although reasonably impartial and investigatory, none the less represents a concept of belief and attached actions that it inspires which makes the blurry lines between religious freedom and what is acceptable behavior.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03b3d4n/Teen_Exorcists/

 The fact that it seems acceptable to tell children that demons live in peoples heads; to take these children to Africa, where there has been a great deal of child abuse based on the fact that Christianity is at an earlier stage on that continent than it is in the west. As a result the horrific acts that were carried out in the Middle Ages in the name of this ridiculous, tainted and foul amalgamation of apocryphal untruths are being reenacted in the twenty-first century. There is no excuse for this.

If this penguin were a Quran, I would be in
a world of shit. 

Mormons are not allowed televisions; the thieving liars that make up the leadership of the L.D.S are fully aware that if one gains any knowledge on the actual formation of this warped religion they will shortly become fully aware that it is a massive pile of shit. All religions have always worked along this same premise.

The cruelty that is being carried out in the various differing countries of Africa motivated by religious zeal, which was embarrassing in medieval Europe, is now being encouraged by lunatics from the west who have to travel quite far to find someone who willing to believe this fucking nonsense any longer. The evangelical, fuck witted, self important denial of all logic makes up everything that is negative about all levels of faith.

Apologists may point out that you can be a Christian without the demon, angels and casting out element of the whole thing; in short you cannot. If anyone has the audacity to tell me that a book is true to the point that one should live ones entire life by the ethos contained within its hallowed pages then all of it has to be true. The bit with the demons, the bit where it is alright to have and to hit slaves, the victims of rape that choose not to marry their beloved rapist should be hit in the head with rocks until they are dead and all of the animals in the world fit on a boat.

Pretending these weird and frankly disgusting ideas are not part of attending church undermines the religion and deity that is being worshiped; if you are not willing to live by the full list of these rules then keep your leaflets far from my face, if you are willing to live life in this manner then you are a dangerous psychotic with no place in society.

The assumption that the rules of ones faith apply to everyone else is part of the assumption that everything belongs to you; Christians against marriage seem to be firmly under the misapprehension that Christians invented the concept. This is why it is felt that weddings should follow the values, using the word in the loosest possible terms, of their misguided and fictional doctrine. It is very clear that marriage existed, not just earlier than Jesus was written about one hundred and fifty years after his death, but clearly before Moses manages to narrate his funeral in the first person and declare himself as meek. The Greek gods were married to each other long before Abraham was convinced to stab his only son to death to prove a point and they weren't real either.

Three times bigger than the arc was supposed to be:
It still wouldn't work. 

Teaching children that demons and djinns exist, not to mention that they need to be fought takes away their childhood and possibly the rest of their lives. This is not composed to incite any kind of religious discord or hatred; it is an argument against the damage that religion causes to innocent individuals; and ends with the question: is it acceptable to hate that?

  I leave you with the words of a much wiser man.

One is often told that is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because it makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it.

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world.

Bertrand Russell.