| |
« Back to FormerlyKermit's Profile
|
STORY: Video - Muslim law 'coming to Britain'
THEY SHOUTED: There are already religious establishments that settle things for people that want to go to them. As long as they're not ignoring or breaching British law, not a problem imho. However, it's only not a problem as long as both or all parties concerned freely choose to go that way. Take a look at "honour killings", forced marriages and the like, and ask yourselves how likely it is that people, particularly women, would be free to choose without coercion and without threat of reprisal.
We've got however many million law-abiding, decent Muslims, Jews, Christians, Deists, Hindus, Wiccans, Sikhs, Pagans of various sorts, Buddhists, Taoists and so on here, plus a few real head-cases. If a decent, law-abiding Muslim wants to go to another decent, law-abiding Muslim for a decision on a traditional Islamic fixed-fee, interest-free loan or some such, that's no big deal to me. Fine. Then we have the psychosis showing up in ... probably some tiny fraction of one percent of each population, but still enough to be a problem.
Maybe the ones who kill their own teenaged daughters and neices for not wanting to marry some dirty old git they've never met ought to be in with Myra Hindley.
Williams was quoted elsewhere saying this: "It would be a pity if the immense advances in the recognition of human rights led, because of a misconception about legal universality, to a situation where a person was defined primarily as the possessor of a set of abstract liberties and the law’s function was accordingly seen as nothing but the securing of those liberties irrespective of the custom and conscience of those groups which concretely compose a plural modern society."
It would be a pity if all those liberal human rights and things stopped some people from forcing their "custom and conscience" on individuals against the law of Britain, would it, Williams? Go and start shooting at fertility clinics in the USA for your "custom and conscience", why not? Just let me know which ones in advance so I can be there to protect some individual's right to get a routine check-up. Don't worry.
What was this Williams bloke's position on reuniting with the Catholics now that they've got a leader who says it's okay for Catholic priests to bugger their fellow males as long as the fellow males in question are underage, anyway? Does anyone remember? He's probably HOPING to see some homosexual and bisexual "aberrations" stoned to death. Before any men cheer, ask yourselves: do you like watching two women kiss?
Ibrahimic monotheists are a pain in the arse.
09 Feb 2008 at 18:51
|
|
|
STORY: End of prison for robbers
THEY SHOUTED: Well, why it's a bad idea is right there in the article: "More serious offenders will have their progress monitored by a judge." In other words, they're not bothering to lock up "more serious" offenders and not even monitoring "ordinarily serious" or "sort of serious really" offenders. I wonder whether crushing someone under your wheels while p____d out of your skull counts as violent assault. Oh well, it says they'll stay out of jail on that charge too.
Beat someone up, build a bird-box, steal someone's mobile phone, build another bird-box, turn someone's flat over, build another bird box, bash some pretty child's face out of shape with a scaffolding pole, build another bird-box, get drunk, steal a car, cripple five people for life, build another bird-box ...
I see I'm paying for Maxine Carr to have a TV in her room, and a TV licence too. I don't have one myself, as there's not enough on to justify it, but I'm paying for hers. I think the room the government gave me was smaller than the one they've given her, and they didn't give me a TV or licence. Then again, I was a Kermit, not a convict, so human rights didn't apply to me. I wonder whether she's rented Lolita ... or just borrowed it free, funded by taxpayers again.
02 Feb 2008 at 22:05
|
|
|
STORY: Is Jordan the ultimate glamour girl?
THEY SHOUTED: Well, she has apparently used her position to publicly lay into that b_____d who mistreated all those horses and similar at his farm, so she's got something going for her after all ... assuming she wasn't spoon-fed the whole thing.
22 Jan 2008 at 21:35
|
|
|
STORY: Here we snow
THEY SHOUTED: Second thing: there's a lot of talk about where to put new houses.
When it rains on woodland, the water soaks into the ground. Some of it is absorbed by trees and evaporates from them. Some seeps through the ground and eventually finds its way into streams, then rivers. When it rains on farmland, is soaks into the ground and most of it seeps slowly through into streams and rivers. When it rains on a rooftop, it runs into the gutter, the downspout, the drain and the stream in seconds.
When a river running through the countryside rises, it gets wider, so every inch it rises takes more water than the previous one. When a river running between walls rises, it stays the same width, so it rises higher for the same extra water.
When a river floods open country, it washes away soil and topples a few trees, and soaks everything, and that slowly drains back in. The flood gets stretched out along the river's length and therefore shallower mile by mile downstream. When a river floods a town it's sitting on the surfaces that dump rain straight into the river, so it arrives at the next town down just as high or even higher.
You can spot the MPs' homes. They're the ones with no new homes built anywhere near the river upstream from them.
22 Jan 2008 at 21:32
|
|
|
|
STORY: Here we snow
THEY SHOUTED: Here's a project for the Star to put on the front page:
Timeline 1800 or so to present day, with every year that set a record for hottest, coolest, mildest, coldest, wettest, driest, windiest or sunniest day, week, month or year marked on it. The first few will set lots of records before there's enough data to establish a "normal range" but that should taper off. I'm predicting that the frequency of record-setting weather will be shown generally increasing for the last several years.
22 Jan 2008 at 21:26
|
|
|
STORY: Potter 'driving kids to Satanism'
THEY SHOUTED: It pays to read around.
Pope ... pope ... that'd be that ex-Hitler Youth bod, yes?
==> Start quote one <==
Pope 'ignored sex abuse claim against John Paul's friend'
Pope Benedict XVI has been accused of ignoring for seven years charges that Fr Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, had sexually abused nine teenagers in his organisation - because Fr Maciel was a close friend of Pope John Paul II.
...
When Cardinal Ratzinger was asked about the accusations he brushed the questions aside. On one occasion he literally slapped the wrist of an American television reporter, Brian Ross, who had the temerity to raise the issue. On another occasion Cardinal Ratzinger said: "One can't put on trial such a close friend of the Pope's as Marcial Maciel."
Such an indulgent attitude to the alleged homosexual crimes of a senior priest - who had been appointed grand chancellor of Regina Apostolorum, a new, richly endowed pontifical college on the outskirts of Rome - contrasts with Pope Benedict's attitude to the Church's admitted homosexuals. Cardinal Ratzinger was relentless in his condemnation of liberal clerics who offered outreach to Catholic homosexuals or tried to moderate the harshness of the Church's view of a sexual proclivity that Cardinal Ratzinger defined as "an intrinsic moral evil". He banned practising homosexuals from receiving Mass and halted stealthy efforts by gays within the Church to change church teaching.
...
==> End quote one <==
So, apparently it's okay for Roman Catholic priests to be buggering their fellow males as long as the fellow males in question are underage, or is it just the pontiff's royal prerogative to issue licences to ignore heathen trivia like consent and the age thereof?
==> Start quote two (quoting Mark Steel) <==
For example, there can be no reversal of the ban on celibacy for priests. Except that this rule wasn't introduced until the 11th century, so for the first thousand years of the church the heathen bastards were ignoring their traditional values , until they got a grip and invented them.
...
Then there's the tradition introduced by Pope John XXII. Various movements had been set up in opposition to the church heirarchy, which had become grotesquely and publicly decadent. The new churches insisted the priesthood should live humble lives among the poor, in accordance with the methods of Jesus. So the Pope declared it was heresy to suggest Jesus was poor.
...
Leonardo da Vinci worked for one ... Eventually Leonardo fled when the Pope had his best friend strangled. I wonder how the Vatican squared that with "Thou Shalt Not Kill". They must have answered it like a politician: "Look, at the time that commandment was written we had no intention of killing, but then it became clear that, in order to fulfil our other commitments, and recover from the mess left by the previous government, there would have to be a small rise in strangling. ..."
Perhaps the ceaseless tradition the new Pope will adhere to includes that of Pope Gregory XVI, who declared in 1832 that democracy was sinful, and freedom of the press was "heretical vomit", and decreed that and Jew who insulted Catholicism should be killed. Or maybe the rules of Pope Urban II, who had priests' wives sold into slavery.
... So if the new Pope's going to stick to papal traditions, he could manage to be the one person in history of whom it could be said as a child he was in the Hitler Youth, but once he grew up he went further to the right.
...
It seems the one thing that never changes is their involvement in child abuse. It must be worth them formalising this by writing it into a cononical doctrine, so a priest comes out and reads: "kiddius fiddlus our little secretum," and makes the sign of the cross.
...
==> End quote two <==
I have a suggestion for the pope, involving a large firework, a source of ignition and his own rectum.
16 Jan 2008 at 23:01
|
|
|
Your own profile, post pics, BLOG
