BLOG POSTS

Regular readers of Sparrow Chat will be well aware of the opinion of this writer on matters of organized religion. There are two distinct ways to control and manipulate the human species. Both have been practiced and perfected over millennia. One is via the political process, and the other is through religion.

Quite what it is that draws thousands of otherwise normal human beings to assemble en masse before a gray-haired old geezer in a frock coat and silly hat, while he spouts a load of mumbo-jumbo in the guise of producing a saint out of a long-dead monk unknown to 99% of humanity, is beyond normal comprehension. Nevertheless, that is what happened in Sao Paulo, Brazil this very day.

Years ago, as a young boy, I remember watching on TV, black and white film shot by explorers in Africa. The quaint rituals of witch-doctors were fascinating to a child experiencing such strange wonders for the first time, so different from the mundanity of everyday British life. The antics of Pope Benedict the whatever, share a startling similarity with those voodoo witchdoctor’s rituals that held me spellbound fifty years ago.

Part of the ritual involved this Catholic Pontiff embracing a women and her son. The woman had a uterine malformation that should have prevented her from bearing children, but after swallowing paper with a Latin prayer inscribed on it, the lady became pregnant. Friar Galvao, the Church of Rome’s latest No 1 hit in the Top Ten of Catholic Saints, is credited with inventing the idea, though how the good lady managed to swallow one of his Latin prayers for lunch is a mystery, given that Friar Galvao lived in the eighteenth century.

The more serious aspect of Benedict’s visit to Brazil has to to do with his biased opinions regarding abortion, and the state’s intention to legalize the operation. Benedict doesn’t approve, and is attempting to dissuade the government from its actions. Today, during the canonization of long-rotted Friar Galvao, the hypocrite Pope encouraged his flock to help the needy “in an age so full of hedonism”

“Hedonism” is the pursuit of happiness or pleasure as the chief good in life. Pope Benedict the whatever doesn’t want us to be happy. He believes pleasure is a sin. He wants us all to be miserable, just as he isn’t. He has all the trappings of luxury: fine food, beautiful villas, magnificent works of art, everything his heart desires, but he expects his flock to seek misery, poverty, unhappiness.

Never mind if an unwanted pregnancy ruins the life of a young woman; it’s God’s will that she should die from a back-street abortion rather than be granted modern medical care. Never mind that it’s the dogma of a bigoted old fool that caused her pregnancy, by denying her the contraception that would have prevented it. Never mind that it’s the dogma of a bigoted old fool who says she should deny her natural desires and instincts, and not have sex unless she is married according to the dictates of the old fool.

The old fool will tell you it’s God’s will.

How does he know it’s God’s will, when the rest of us haven’t a clue what God’s will is, or even if “God” exists at all?

If there is one person on this planet that can answer that question satisfactorily, then I personally will ordain that person a saint.

I defy anyone to answer it, because the old fool is just an old fool, and those who flock to hear his rantings are even greater fools than he.

Filed under: Manipulations

So much has been written and spoken in the British press over the previous three years, with regard to Tony Blair’s departure from No 10, Downing Street, that it seems to have come as more of a surprise here in the U.S. than to Brits, who are sick to the back teeth with all the speculation and find today’s announcement something of a damp squib.

Contrary to NBC News and Brian William’s suggestion Blair has fallen victim to his policies over Iraq, the British prime minister announced almost three years ago – on October 1st, 2004 – he would be retiring from office well before the 2009 general election, allowing time for his successor to settle in before fighting a major political campaign. While Iraq considerably dented Blair’s popularity in the nation, it has nothing whatever to do with his decision to retire on June 27th.

Tony Blair was probably the most honest prime minister Britain has ever known. In no way is that statement meant to imply he was scrupulously ethical, simply that he was less dishonest than his predecessors. He always believed in his heart he was right, even when some of his decisions were so obviously wrong.

Unfortunately, like his transatlantic compatriot, George W Bush, Tony Blair relied too heavily on Christian ideals and moralistic codes when decision-making. This may be fine for Popes and Archbishops, but has no place in either the Houses of Parliament of the Halls of Congress. It was just such weaknesses that led Blair into (what history will almost certainly declare to be) his greatest blunder.

In the aftermath of 9/11, it was right for the British prime minister to cross the Atlantic and pledge support for the American people. Blair’s mistake was to blindly follow George Bush into Iraq. Had Blair backed off at the last minute, knowing the intelligence was doubtful, aware of the concerns expressed by U.N. weapons inspectors, he may well have raised doubts in the minds of U.S. congressmen and senators that could possibly have stayed the war in Iraq long enough for the truth about Saddam’s weapons program to have been established, once and for all. How different the world may have been today had that been the case.

Sadly, both for Blair and the world, that didn’t happen. The British prime minister acted as the press labeled him – George Bush’s poodle – and allowed the American president to lead him off to war by the hand.

That action will blur the one great triumph of Tony Blair’s premiership. It is sadly ironic that the man who sat down and talked with Irish terrorists – a controversial move that has led only this week to full power-sharing in Northern Ireland, and hopefully a final end to bitter wrangling and bloodshed – should adopt such an intransigent stance towards terrorists in other areas of the world. Indeed, his own wife was heavily criticized in political circles when she told reporters:

“As long as young [Palestinian] people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress.”

To this writer, that always seemed a remarkably courageous and sensible statement, one her husband should have applauded. Instead, it was left to others, like former British Foreign Office adviser David Clark, to defend her in the Guardian newspaper while Tony Blair chose to reinforce the Atlantic alliance at a terrible cost to Iraqis, British servicemen and women, and his own reputation.

A high price to pay for the dubious friendship of a failed alcoholic businessman from Texas and his bevy of disreputable associates.

Filed under: Fallen heroes

Yesterday, a US military commander in Afghanistan, Col John Nicholson, apologized for the deaths of nineteen Afghan civilians in early March 2007. He told reporters in Washington, via a video link:

“”I stand before you today, deeply, deeply ashamed and terribly sorry that Americans have killed and wounded innocent Afghan people. The deaths and wounding of innocent Afghans at the hands of Americans is a stain on our honor and on the memory of the many Americans who have died defending Afghanistan and the Afghan people. We made official apologies on the part of the US government and payments of about $2,000 for each death.”

$2,000 per death? Well, that won’t exactly break the bank, will it?

Today, the US military managed to splatter what’s left of its honor with an even larger stain, outdoing its previous best by a count of two, when it killed at least twenty-one Afghan civilians in the Sangin district to the south of the country.

Not to be outdone by their trigger-happy colleagues in Afghanistan, the US military in Iraq yesterday managed to slaughter six young children, when one of its helicopters opened fire on a primary school in Diyala province north-east of Baghdad.

Of course, being so young, they are probably only worth about $1,000 each.

Does the US military have any honor left? Or has it ebbed away completely, leaving just one very large and ugly stain?

Filed under: Illusions