Blair’s biographer Anthony Seldon has written tenderly of ‘Blair’s innate Catholicism‘.

Now forgive me, and it’s just possible that I’m unique amongst Catholics on this, but I have never ever regarded my Catholicism as an inherent quality. Rather, the faith was forced into me by various teachers and priests via the good offices of fear and intimidation. Catholics are the foie gras geese of world religion.

As to the question of Blair’s faith, they say God moves in mysterious ways but in the matter of Tony Blair and the application of his ‘innate Catholicism’ to geopolitics, Our Lord was dancing the Watusi to Rachmaninov while wearing a purple tutu and howling like a gibbon.

I’ve said before that our erstwhile prime minister kept his Christianity almost miraculously well hidden during his time in office. It’s a wonder the military aren’t now begging Blair to consult on the design of the next generation of battlefield camouflage.

Imagine if you could shield a stealth bomber using his ‘innate Catholicism’. A fleet of these invisible aircraft could make our nation great once more. The application and implications of this technology are beyond the dreams of us all.

Britain, let us harness Blair’s Catholicism for the greater good of our country!

It’s official: Tony Blair has converted to Catholicism in time for Christmas. It’s a timely move - I took my Mum to midnight mass last year and we all got a bar of chocolate at the end. I’m sure Tony with his love for a freebie had that in mind.

Apparently Blair, when giving his first confession as a Catholic, took with him a crib sheet of his sins to help him remember them. It took six Hercules military transport planes to deliver it.

And you have to say that the Catholic Church is taking a big risk in welcoming Blair into the faith. Look what happened to the last organisation having Blair as a prominent member - there was a stampede for the door.

As collection plate donations dry up at grass root level, will the Vatican be forced to turn to shady practices in order to shore up its finances? I’m sure Tony could suggest some candidates for the job now that Paul Marcinkus has joined the Choir Invisible.

‘You can’t run the Church on Hail Marys,’ as the late Archbishop said. Who’d pay for all the chocolate?

Maybe there is a reason to be cheerful at this time of year. We’ve been given a huge reason to celebrate this very week:

Planning an effective flood management strategy is as important as planning for terrorism or even preventing bird flu, an independent review by Sir Michael Pitt, who is the chairman of the South West Strategic Health Authority, has said.

“We’re all facing up to climate change and there are all sorts of implications for the country in terms of having to adapt to that change,” Sir Michael said.

Climate change and flooding are only as bad as terrorism and bird flu? Well, thank God for that. Maybe He exists after all. I mean, think of the rather small numbers of people who have been killed by terrorism or bird flu in the past few years.

If Sir Michael had likened the damage caused by climate change and flooding to the carnage wreaked by, say, cars, alcohol, botched invasions of Middle Eastern countries or those cancers that leave you screaming for death, I think we’d all have all been running round like Chicken Little this week.

But no, it’s all going to be all right. We can all relax this festive season and for many festive seasons to come. Hardly anybody is going to be killed by climate change. Except maybe quite a lot of brown people and most of those don’t celebrate Christmas anyway. Isn’t it always the way?

So, chin up. Happy Christmas!

…so I’ve laid in a crate of import-strength lager and my shortest temper, as is traditional at this time of year. I’ve been out and done the obligatory ’spend money you haven’t got on stuff people don’t need’ so I’ve discharged my responsibility to the economy. Gordon Brown shouldn’t refer to us as voters or tax payers. No, we should be his army of little economic Atlases. All wearing Santa hats if that makes you feel any better.

Anyway, I’m off now to bitch incessantly about how the telly is shit again this year. Happy whatever to you and yours. Back in a bit.

Here’s your pressie:

(Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.)

On this post here, there’s been some small discussion of what might happen to Tony Blair in the afterlife and how he might avoid spending eternity having a special relationship with a red hot poker.

No doubt he’ll find this useful:

Pope Benedict XVI has authorised special indulgences to mark the 150th anniversary of the Virgin Mary’s reputed appearance at Lourdes.

Catholics visiting the site within a year of 8 December will be able to receive an indulgence, which the Church teaches can reduce time in purgatory.

I wonder how many years off your sentence a visit to Lourdes gives you. If Tony visits every day he might only have to spend a couple of hundred million years in Purgatory.

How did Benedict decide to grant indulgences based on visits to Lourdes? Did God appear to him and say, ‘Ben, tell them to get their arses to Lourdes in the next 12 months and I’ll put a little bonus in their heavenly bank accounts’? I’d genuinely like to know how these things work.

As a Catholic (I’d say ex- but I don’t think you ever truly escape) whose religious education had that extra-special Augustinian twist, I’ve always regarded the faith as arbitrary, unjust and, to be frank, made up on the hoof (you can see why it would appeal to Tony Blair).

Take the concept of limbo for instance. It used to be that if a child died before it had its original sin expunged by baptism it couldn’t go to heaven. Instead, it suffered ‘lesser punishments’ in limbo. This injustice was certainly one of the (smaller) nails in the coffin of my Catholicism.

I say ‘it used to be’ that unbaptised babies went to limbo because Benedict XVI effectively abolished the place in April this year. I’d like to know why God told St Augustine one thing and the current pope another. It makes Gus look a bit of a heartless chump really. Whereas Benedict seems to understand the power of public relations in a kiddie-centric world.

Why he hasn’t also declared that ickle puppies have spiritual souls and all go to heaven, God only knows.

SUMMARY

You don’t need police permission to sing carols in support of Christmas near Parliament, but you do need police permission to sing carols against it.

WEBSITE

http://www.bloggerheads.com/carols/

DETAILS

Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 makes it illegal to demonstrate anywhere near Parliament without official police permission. Under this act, it is an offence to organise or take part in a demonstration within the ‘designated area’ (up to 1 km around Parliament) if authorisation has not been applied for and granted by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Unless of course you believe in Santa Claus, in which case an exception will probably be made.

In 2005, Tim Ireland organised and staged a pro-Christmas demonstration in the form of a carol service in Parliament Square.

Traditional songs were sung in support of varying aspects of Christmas, a minute’s silence was held, and money was collected for Medical Aid for Iraqi Children.

No singers were arrested. In fact, Police said they treated it as a carol service, not a demonstration:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4545704.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article334675.ece

The event was repeated in 2006 and again the Police chose not to classify the event as a demonstration.

It also needs to be noted that - in cases where permission is applied for and Police do not regard a proposed event to be a demonstration - they will issue a statement to the applicant saying so instead of approving the application.

Following an epiphany inside the main lobby of Parliament, Tim Ireland decided that the time had come to take a stand against Christmas.

On 12 December 2007, he submitted an application to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for a carol service that would be exactly the same as previous events, with one primary difference; carols would be sung condemning varying aspects of Christmas, instead of supporting them.

On 17 December 2007, notice was given that this application was approved.

In other words, staging an event in support of Christmas is legal within a designated area without police permission, and staging an event against Christmas is not.

This is a clear case of discrimination, likely to be in contravention of the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act.

Tim Ireland said; “Speaking as one of many who have seen the argument from both sides of the pole, I find it appalling that someone who does believe in Santa Claus should be given preferential treatment over someone who does not. In fact, I’d like to take this opportunity to ask Gordon Brown what the official government policy is on Santa Claus; is it their position that he exists, that he doesn’t exist, or that this is a matter that should be the business of the individual and not the state?”

Sadly, Santa Claus is only the tip of the iceberg. Some people who reject Christmas do so because they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and see no reason to celebrate that birthday. Others will object to Christmas because they reject the notion of an all-powerful deity altogether.

There are also many devout Christians who reject Christmas on the basis of commercial, secular or pagan influences:
http://tinyurl.com/yvab7h

There are even some pagans who object to Christmas on the grounds that many aspects of their winter festivities have been ‘hijacked’ by the Christian church:
http://tinyurl.com/scgqu

All of these people suffer from discrimination, not only at the hands of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, but also from certain tabloid newspapers that are positively rabid in their defence of Christmas.

Someone should probably stage a demonstration about that… but they’ll need police permission first.

EVENT SPECIFICS

The anti-Christmas carol service will take place at the base of the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square at 6:30pm on Thursday 20 December 2007

Song sheets and candles will be made available, with donations going to Medical Aid for Iraqi Children

Those attending should dress warm, and bring a bell, whistle, or other form of non-electronic noisemaker for the minute of noise (which will replace the traditional minute of silence).

CAROL EXCERPTS

The following are excerpts from our song-sheet, a full version of which is available for download until the afternoon of 19 Dec in exchange for a £2 donation (again, with all proceeds going to Medical Aid for Iraqi Children):
http://www.bloggerheads.com/carols/

Bah, Humbug!
(to the tune of ‘Jingle Bells’)

Ebenezer Scrooge
Wasn’t all that dumb
Until he met the Ghost
Of Christmas Yet to Come
Then he lost the plot, and woke up with a scream
Then foolishly made life decisions based upon a dream!

Oh, bah-humbug, bah-humbug
Bah-humbug, I say
We are demonstrating here
Protesting Christmas Day

-

God Rest Ye, Jobsworth Gentlemen

A Santa Claus who asks a child
To sit upon his knee
Might likely be a paedophile
Or threat to elf safety
So issue now the order
That he cease and leave them be

O warnings of health and safety
Health and safety
O warnings of health and safety

-

The Twelve Days of *Hic*-mas

On the first day of Christmas,
My true love gave to me
Four shots of gin
Three cigarettes
Two pints of beer
And a breath test on the M3

-

Santa Claus is Coming to Town!

Oh! You better watch out,
You better not plot,
You better suppress bad thoughts that you’ve got
Santa Claus is coming to town!

He’s making a list,
Misplacing it twice,
And now you can buy that list at a price
Santa Claus is coming to town!

CONTACTS

Please contact Tim Ireland via tim@bloggerheads.com if you have any queries regarding this story.

ENDS

Click here for more information.

Specially written carols, a minute’s noise and The Airing of Grievances.

I’m going to be there, with bells on.

Dear Mr Sainsbury

IT’S. NOVEMBER. THE. NAFFING. 8TH.

Lots of love

Justin x

I’ve been showing the kids some Tom and Jerry cartoons. I watched them with my dad when I was a kid and even though they’re hyper violent, they never had any adverse effects on me. Apart from the time I killed that cat by dropping an anvil on it, obviously.

Anyway, YouTube has loads and loads of Tom and Jerry cartoons. While I was searching out my favourite ones, I found this. It’s an Iranian ’scholar’ explaining how Tom and Jerry are part of the the Jewish conspiracy.

It’s a convincing argument, I’m sure you’ll agree. I knew there was something about that bloody mouse.

Anyway, here’s one of my (and my dad’s) very favourite T & J cartoons. It’s the one where Jerry drinks the blood of Christian children at his Bar Mitzvah.

Now this is really something: Da Vinci’s Last Supper in 16 billion pixels.

You must go and have a look at Unity’s ring piece. It’s magnificent.

I don’t particularly like his books (I have one kicking around somewhere but I can’t remember which) and I find the man insufferable (he has what Bill Hicks would have described as a ‘fevered ego’).

That said, I like book-burners, beheaders and bigots even less. Hence…

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to accept our congratulations for recommending to the Queen that Salman Rushdie receive a knighthood.

Oh, and the honours system serves the same function in British society as a fluffer does on the set of a pornographic movie. But you already knew that.

‘There are far too many people attached to our government and our commentariat who are determined to attach important policies to more or less crude threats. Let’s get this out in the open; whenever we do a big deal about “our shared British values”, then the implicit message is “and if you don’t sign up to this list, we’re going to put you on a boat”.

‘Nobody would be so vulgar as to put it in quite exactly those words, but unless you are very careful with the mood music, that’s the message that the audience is going to hear. Now for a rhetorical question; precisely what is it about our experience with radical Islam since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that makes us think “yes, these people respond well to threats”?’

read the rest

What is it with religious fundamentalists and homosexuality? We all know why non-religious homophobes hate gays – they’re frightened of the wildly unlikely prospect that a gay person might find them irresistible and attempt to take them up the wrong ‘un. It’s rape anxiety, pure and simple.

But what is it about homosexuality that led hundreds of Christians to protest outside Parliament this week against the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which makes it illegal to discriminate against gay people?

Is it thanks to St Paul, the Norman Tebbit of his day, who in the New Testament told the Romans of men who ‘burned in their lust one toward another’, castigated the ‘unchaste, practicing homosexuals’ to Timothy, and warned the Corinthians that ‘sodomites’ will not ‘not inherit the kingdom of God’? Paul also railed against adulterers and ‘drunkards’ but we’ve yet to see Christians picketing John Prescott or Charlotte Church.

(Lesbians, both now and then, have been left out of the argument for some reason. I’d welcome thoughts on the matter – is, to reverse dear Oscar, the only thing worse than not being talked about being talked about in this instance?)

Lord Tebbit, as ever, brought it all back round to the mechanics of the issue in the debate in the House of Lords:

Black is about being. Sexual orientation is about being. [W]e would not wish to discriminate against people for being black nor on grounds of their sexual orientation. The concerns which are being expressed […] are primarily about sodomy rather than about sexual orientation - that is doing, not being.

Norman, like the Christians protesters, doesn’t mind you being gay, he just doesn’t want you doing all that business of pleasuring someone you quite like. He wants to legislate for where consenting menfolk stick their cocks, in other words. Being a prurient bigot with an obsession about bumming is also about ‘being’: there’s no problem with him and the rest being bigots, it’s them being practicing bigots that’s objectionable.

Just think of what these people could achieve if only they could divert their inexhaustible energies away from demonising people doing nice things to each other. Obviously fewer gay people means more procreation which means more people in the pews on Sunday and more cash in the collection plate but, really, where’s the harm in it all? After all, Jesus himself was known to ride an ass himself now and again.

First, it is not just homosexuality that all the major religions label immoral. They also say that any sexual intercourse outside of marriage is immoral too. So, the adulterers who sneak away to a seaside hotel for the weekend are also offending religious beliefs of the owner, and could be denied service on this basis. For the sake of consistency, we would expect that the same hotel would also ban a couple with children who were not married.

read the rest

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]
[07] [08] [09] [10] [11] [12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

In musical terms, I had a peculiar summer: centred around four long interviews with the ex-members of Slade, the raw material for a feature in Mojo magazine. One-time guitarist and glam titan Dave Hill was like a one-man sub-plot in Saxondale; bassist and co-songwriter Jim Lea had required 20 years of therapy to get over the compromises involved in vast success but seemed to now be OK; and drummer Don Powell had moved to Denmark. Noddy Holder, meanwhile, met me at a London hotel and gave me three enlightening hours, which peaked with his explanation of their career-defining 1973 hit Merry Xmas Everybody. It was no work of yuletide hackery, he insisted; rather, it was intended to raise the country’s spirits in the midst of industrial meltdown, power outages and Ted Heath.

A week later, I pulled up at a set of Hereford traffic lights with Slade’s Greatest Hits on the car stereo, which duly reached the song whose chronic familiarity had long since bred indifference . But not this time: suddenly, I was about six years old, the 1970s were in full grim effect, and - even though it was mid-August - it was Christmas. “Look to the future now, it’s only just begun,” advised Noddy. And, in instinctive tribute to Slade’s shining genius, I actually - no, really - shed a tear.

John Harris

Happy whatever to you and yours.

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]
[07] [08] [09] [10] [11] [12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]
[07] [08] [09] [10] [11] [12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Sorry if you’ve missed the advent calendar but I suddenly remembered I bloody hate Christmas. However, the thought that calling Christmas ‘Winterval’ might annoy the small-minded cheered me up a bit, so the calendar’s back.

Today’s door (possibly Not Safe For Work) comes courtesy of Not Saussure, who you really should be reading if you aren’t already.

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]
[07] [08] [09] [10] [11] [12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]
[07] [08] [09] [10] [11] [12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

More festive cheer courtesy of Tim Ireland.

You are cordially invited to a public carol service in Parliament Square at 7pm on Wednesday the 20th of December 2006.

This inclusive service will contain both Christian and secular verse, and is expected to last no more than an hour.

Candles and song sheets will be made available, with donations going to Medical Aid for Iraqi Children.

Please note that if you attend this carol service, it will classify as a spontaneous demonstration (of faith, hope, joy and/or religious tolerance) and there is a possibility that you will be cautioned or arrested under Section 132 of the Serious and Organised Crimes and Police Act (2005).

Click here for more information.

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]
[07] [08] [09] [10] [11] [12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]
[07] [08] [09] [10] [11] [12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

This can’t be said enough when ‘embattled’ Christians/Jews/Muslims/A N Other Faith start banging on about how their religion is under threat/attack/a cloud: Isn’t your God supposed to be, like, omnipotent. If he’s as all powerful as you claim he is, won’t he be able to shrug off a few people calling Christmas ‘Winterval’ (if such persons exist)?

You know, if he’s the one true God and all that.

If you’re so sure of your facts, why worry? (’the facts are always more interesting,’ as religious rent-a-gob Ann Atkins said on Radio 4 this morning.)

Facts. If being a good Christian (in the current instance of ‘Christmas Under Attack’ faux-hysteria) is about being honest and truthful, why try to further your agenda via lies and right-wing demagoguery?

Or is this more about one’s personal vanity rather than God’s delicate sensibilities? ‘Oh, look at me ostentatiously defending my faith. Aren’t I a good Christian? Watch me spend money I haven’t got on crap I don’t need in order to honour the baby Jesus’. If that’s the case, somebody needs to go back to Sunday School.

And what the hell was Jack Straw, thinking about:

If I may speak on [the angel] Gabriel’s behalf, I’m very clear on his view for 2006. Put the tinsel in the office.

You know, I’ve looked everywhere and I can’t find tinsel mentioned anywhere in Nativity story. This guy used to be Foreign Secretary and now he’s claiming to speak on behalf of an angel. Did he ask Gabriel’s advice on the eve of the Iraq war, do you think? Let’s hope not because it would put the whole notion of divine omniscience into question. That’d shake your faith rather more than a bout of fictional political correctness gone mad, wouldn’t it?

What is wrong with this country?

(The always excellent Oliver Burkeman has yet more. The poor sod deserves a medal.)

Update: Jeff Randall, on the other hand, is hysterical. And I don’t mean synonymous with ‘hilarious’. Don’t forget, he got paid for what looks like an article inspired by urban myths he found on Google. Had he been a blogger he’d probably now be considering retirement after the deluge of abuse that he would have doubtlessly received (and indeed does receive, of a fashion, in the comments under his piece - the comments agreeing with him are another matter and yet further evidence of how squalid white middle-class people are when they try to fool themselves that they are oppressed).

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]
[07] [08] [09] [10] [11] [12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]