Religion - A British Columnist's Opinion

[Bardan the Slayer]

As you probably know, Britain is alot less religious as a country than the USA (Church on Sundays? Pfeh!), and I saw this column in today's Daily Mirror, a national newspaper, commenting on some of today's leaders. As GWB has no problems with a faith-based system of government (despite bombing the hell out of the faith-based system of government in Afghanistan), I thought I'd show you the perspective some British peple have.

By Matthew Norman - http://www.mirror.co.uk/columnists/mattnorman/

-----------------------------------------------------

MEN OF GOD HELL-BENT ON DESTRUCTION Oct 1 2003

THE latest insider account of the White House makes working for George W sound an absolute riot.

According to Bush fan David Frum's new book, drinking and smoking are banned, while late-night snacks are another no-no (given the President's near- death experience with the pretzel, this is probably wise).

And, perhaps inevitably, Cabinet meetings routinely begin with a prayer.

It all sounds a very long way from The West Wing and, apart from the puritanism (men in grey or blue suits, no bright colours for women), what's so depressing here is, of course, the presence of God.

Mr Frum reports that although attending Bible study classes isn't exactly compulsory, it "isn't quite uncompulsory" either.

There is, he adds, a culture of evangelism, quoting Mr Bush saying: "There is only one reason I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God. I'm here because of the power of prayer."

The Lord may move in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform, but seldom, surely, more mysteriously than that?

What lunacy possessed Him, in His infinite wisdom, to pluck some half-witted schmuck off a bar stool in the Oilwell And Firkin, Texas, where he was harmlessly knocking back Buds and Bourbon chasers with the good ol' boys like some slightly thicker version of Cliff from Cheers, and make him the planet's most powerful individual?

If you can judge a deity by his friends, the evidence against the Supreme Being begins to look overwhelming.

There are four key players dragging the world towards catastrophe today, and every one them is - or claims to be - deeply religious.

Lined up with Bush in the camp of Jesus is our own ultra-Jesusy leader Mr Tony "I say unto you" Blair.

This devout believer in Christ, if not Christ's pacifist teaching, appears to have lost not one wink of sleep over the death, via sanctions, of 500,000 drug-starved Iraqi children; and seems equally blithe about the carnage likely to be inflicted on many more innocent Iraqis before the spring is with us.

In the other camp, meanwhile, we have Saddam Hussein, who invokes the name of Allah more often than Mike Tyson on fight night; and Osama Bin Laden, who so adroitly uses Koranic references to incite murderous intolerance of the infidel.

Meanwhile, in Israel, the oldest of our top-ranked Gods, Jehovah, packs the Knesset with ultra-right-wing Rabbis who think it is holy to throw stones at women in trousers; and continues to preach, via the Torah, the Old Testament message that the cute way to deal with enemies is to smite them down.

Each Passover to this day, Jewish people sing in celebration of the slaughter, by their God, of every first-born Egyptian male, new-born babies included.

It's hardly original to observe that religion is the greatest force for horror the world has ever known, but never in human history have we seen in such crystal clarity the mortal danger of letting men of God get their pious hands on destructive power. I've been rereading Kalki, an excellent novel by the American wit Gore Vidal.

Set in the early 70s, it's about a Vietnam veteran from New Orleans who decides he's the reincarnation of another leading deity, the Hindu God Vishnu, and destroys humanity by dropping lotus leaves soaked in a biological agent - not unlike ricin - from a 747 all over the globe.

VIDAL meant the novel more as satire than prophecy, but reading it today the laughter is a little weak and wintry.

The elimination of the entire human race remains unlikely, no thanks to the Lord, but one thing is certain.

This would be a much less terrifying world if the occupants of the White House, Downing Street, the Presidential Palace (all of them) in Baghdad and whichever cave or mountain village is currently home to Osama were miraculously freed from the nauseating moral certainties their various Gods supply them.

-----------------------------------------------------

The Bozo is a nut job, he doesnt even know that smoking has been banned in public offices for years here, and drinking on the job has not been in vogue for several decades sheesh. I love these "insider" expose's by people who have never been "inside"

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: As you probably know, Britain is alot less religious as a country than the USA --

Really?

So then why does the USA have seperation of church and state enshrined in their constitution, while Britain has their head of state, and head of their national church as one and the same person?

Hmmmm?

[Larry_OHF]

~Applauding MagiK and Yorick~

[ElricMorlockin]

~Applauding MagiK and Yorick~

I second that! [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

:Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: As GWB has no problems with a faith-based system of government (despite bombing the hell out of the faith-based system of government in Afghanistan), I thought I'd show you the perspective some British peple have.

WHAT? C'moffit Bardan! You now want to compare, private education in the United States to the brainwashing of terrorist activists/operatives? Jesus H Christ, that beats all.... [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

[Epona]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: As you probably know, Britain is alot less religious as a country than the USA --

Really?

So then why does the USA have seperation of church and state enshrined in their constitution, while Britain has their head of state, and head of their national church as one and the same person?

Hmmmm?[/QUOTE]Because it's a ****** up system here, IMO state and church should be seperate. Alas we have not yet been able to rid ourselves of unelected heads of state.

However, that doesn't mean that we are not less religious than the USA - there are relatively few Christians here.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Epona: Because it's a ****** up system here, IMO state and church should be seperate. Alas we have not yet been able to rid ourselves of unelected heads of state. However, that doesn't mean that we are not less religious than the USA - there are relatively few Christians here.

Ah but Bardan didn't say that England had less Christians, he didn't mention the people, only the country. He said "Britain is a lot less religious as a country than the USA".

My point is Britain is more "religious", because the head of the national church is the head of state.

[ 01-10-2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Attalus]

Ah, well, everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion. You don't have to like GWB. He is not responsible to you, but to the people that elected him, and so far we are quite happy with him and the job he is doing. He was not elected to lead the USA into religion, or to promote world peace, but to "Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That Europeans don't like him is unfortunate, but not germane. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Epona: Because it's a ****** up system here, IMO state and church should be seperate. Alas we have not yet been able to rid ourselves of unelected heads of state. However, that doesn't mean that we are not less religious than the USA - there are relatively few Christians here.

Ah but Bardan didn't say that England had less Christians, he didn't mention the people, only the country. He said "Britain is a lot less religious as a country than the USA".

My point is Britain is more "religious", because the head of the national church is the head of state. [/QUOTE]Seems to be a little bit too much of a constitutional definition of what it is to be religious there than I would have credited you for Yorick. You are saying that Britain as a country is more religious because the constitution says so? Nope, I don't think that really qualifies as a good definition of "religious" as far as I'm concerned. I think being religious has a lot more to do with what you believe than who your head of state is. Britain is no more than the sum of its parts - and those parts are less religious on the whole than the parts of the US, if you catch my drift.

We may have a religious state but we are not a very religious country, thats all I'm trying to say.

[antryg]

I think that Matthew Norman is right in views and the article and I completely agree with him. The United States would be a much better place and more respected and liked if we could get "Comrade Kim" from North Korea to trade jobs with GWB. I think the non-religious and reasoned leadership of Kim is exactly what the United States, nay the world, needs. Will you believe this whole post is sarcastic if I wait until the end to specifically state the fact?