BLOG POSTS

Despite the possibility of Sparrow Chat being labeled an anti-religious tome, the Pope’s visit to Africa cannot be allowed to pass without comment, given his deliberately false proclamation to journalists before he landed on the continent.

In fact, Sparrow Chat is in no way anti-religious. It just condemns the papery, pestilence, and perpetually lying proclamations of those charged with perpetrating a fraud for the purposes of enriching their purses and enforcing their power.

The present occupant of the Vatican is one of the worst for a long time. Were he to have been born six hundred years ago he would likely have rivaled the infamous Alexander VI, or Innocent VIII. Fortunately, popes today are no longer able to murder and fornicate at will – at least, not so easily.

It’s not generally known if, during the elaborate papal consecration ceremonies, the ‘sexual verification’ of the new pontiff is still practiced. Since the thirteenth century and the infamous case of Pope Joan ( a Pope John believed to have possibly been a woman) legend has it that new popes have had to prostrate themselves on a low seat while selected clergy examined the pontiff’s intimate parts to ascertain his credentials. Once verified to everyone’s satisfaction, it’s a short journey from the low seat of examination to the high throne of Saint Peter.

While the procedure is considered by some to be mere myth, one Adam of Usk – a Welsh cleric who spent time in Rome during the fifteenth century – recounts the procedure in his Chronicum of the period:

……and having arrived there, the pope dismounts and enters the church to be enthroned. Here he sits on a throne of porphery through which a hole has been cut for this purpose, and is examined by one of the younger cardinals to ensure that he has male genitalia; whereupon, while “Te Deum Laudamus” is sung, he is led to the high altar.” ^[1]

In fairness, no-one has truly ascertained the authenticity of this practice. Given that medieval popes generally sired umpteen illegitimate offspring prior to ascending to the highest spiritual office the church could bestow, the process would appear somewhat irrelevant. Adam of Usk, however, was in no doubt.

Pope Benedict XVI is unlikely to have needed such an examination. Membership of the Hitler Youth was confined to males and, unless he was really a member of its sister organization, the League of German Girls, he would have been ‘checked out’ on entering the organization.

His dictatorial manner, and love of those proclamations to which we must all conform or be damned to everlasting hellfire, were always apparent even before he touched down on African soil.

The condemnation of condoms as an instrument of the Devil; his insistence that they not only have no beneficial effect in preventing the spread of HIV, but actually contribute to it, are symptoms of a being well used to blindly accepting orders from on high, without stopping for a moment to question their wisdom.

Presumably, as he gave no explanation of his ‘condom proclamation’, he’s still sticking to the old and long-disproved Vatican theory that HIV viruses pass through condoms and infect people.

Pope Benedict XVI knows that isn’t true.

He is the holiest creation of the Roman Catholic church on earth, yet just like his medieval predecessors he blithely resorts to blatant lies and hypocrisy, knowing full well that many of his followers will believe him simply because he’s the Pope, and a pope’s word is sacrosanct.

It’s estimated that two million people have died from HIV/AIDS in Africa. No-one would suggest they all contracted the disease because of the Roman Catholic doctrine, but there are in excess of 150 million African Catholics on the continent. With an HIV/AIDS rate nationally of around 4%, possibly six million Catholics are presently infected.

Denying the faithful condoms, by condemning them to everlasting hellfire if they use them, is probably resulting in thousands more being infected and eventually dying.

Does that make Benedict XVI better, or worse, than medieval counterparts like Innocent VIII or Alexander VI, who simply used a more direct approach to slaughter many of their flock?

^{[1] “The Myth of Pope Joan” by Alain Boureau, Lydia G. Cochrane pp.13}

^{[2] “Vatican in HIV condom row” BBC, October 9th 2003}

Filed under: Papal bull

In May 2005, when the US/UK invasion of Iraq was going badly, the US government attempted to divert public opinion from the atrocities of the war by holding a series of Congressional hearings relating to the earlier Western sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, in particular the “Oil-for Food” program.

Certain companies and individuals were accused of sanction-busting over this program. Among them was the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and the British Member of Parliament, George Galloway.

Presumably Congress decided it could divert the bitter public opinion fomenting over the war by assuming the high moral ground regarding Iraq sanction-busting. To that end they held a series of Congressional hearings, perhaps better described as witch-hunts.

The preemptive invasion of Iraq, with all its accompanying horrors, is already drifting into the mists of history. The public memory is short, at least in the US, and matters of the domestic economy now dominate its media. Those responsible for committing international war crimes no longer serve in the government, having slipped away to more anonymous occupations.

There is still a reckoning to be made. No-one can be responsible for the decimation of a nation and walk away unpunished.

When the US Congress called on George Galloway to answer his accusers, they expected much fawning and grovelling before them. Let’s be honest, it’s what they’re used to from their own kind.

What they got was something entirely different.

The US Congressional hearing, chaired by Republican “Norm” Coleman, took on a British Bulldog – and lost.

^{While US congressmen and British politicians continue to whine over the plight of a world entirely of their making, George Galloway has been busy elsewhere. Check out “This Old Brit” for details, and my thanks to him for bringing it to Sparrow Chat’s attention.}

Filed under: There’s dogs and there’s curs

At the risk of appearing a doom-monger – we’re all doomed.

That disclosure is based on the opinion of the world’s leading climatologists, all 2,500 of them, who’ve been holding an emergency meeting in Copenhagen.

Condemning political leaders for their utter inability to grasp the inevitable effects of doing nothing, Nicholas Stern, the man commissioned by British prime minister Gordon Brown to analyze the impact of climate change and report back to the government, called for:

[a] shift from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society”.^[1]

Or, to put it more bluntly: over the last decade, governments throughout the world have done little, and achieved nothing, to control the carbon emissions driving climate change.

We all know George W Bush’s inactivity was not only lackadaisical, but criminal, given that he signed bills into law with no regard to their negative impact on the environment. Europe’s leaders have been less candid, but even Britain’s substantial decrease in emissions has only been achieved by outsourcing their pollution to other countries, particularly China.^[2]

In private, scientists are admitting the race to confine the Earth’s temperature increase to two degrees has already been lost. Publicly, their stance is to push politicians into acting, by the suggestion that radical measures – enforced now, rather than in 2020 or 2050 – may slow the increase and pin it at two or three degrees.

Behind the closed doors of Copenhagen, the mutterings are decidedly more ominous. Science has now moved away from assessing the effects of a two or three degree global rise, and is instead investigating our chances of survival following a mean increase of four to six degrees.

At such temperatures, large numbers of the human race will perish from starvation. Half the world’s food source will become unusable. Social unrest will likely be on a scale defying description.

To quote one of the world’s leading environmental journalists:

Yes, it might already be too late – even if we reduced emissions to zero tomorrow – to prevent more than two degrees of warming, but we cannot behave as if it is, for in doing so we make the prediction come true. Tough as this fight may be, improbable as success might seem, we cannot afford to surrender.”^[3]

Unfortunately, “to surrender” implies we’re fighting a battle. So far, our leaders have appeared content to restrict their actions to some minor diplomatic wrangling with God.

^{[3] “Stern attacks politicians over climate ‘devastation'” Guardian, March 13th 2009}

^{[2] “Too Good To Be True? The UK’s Climate Change Record” December 10th 2007}

^{[3] “A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy” Monbiot.com, March 17, 2009}