some nasty stuff gets said on here.

Anyway, so now can we all laugh at Lee Jasper?

Billy Bragg is backing Ken Livingstone (as a man of progressive politics). Livingstone says that he will reinstate Jasper at a later date. Apparently the problem has been the ''racist nature of a relentless media campaign"
That he was due today, to sit before the London Asembly and answer questions about money handed over to community projects is just incidental I suppose.

This raising of eyebrows (at the very least) is part of that racist campaign I presume.

That sounds like quite a serious allegation to me. He handed over £100,000 to a group, headed by a woman he was texting like this:
Sounds like more than a professional relationship.

There is some more detail here on Harry's Place.
And according to Nick Cohen (in the Evening Standard) Ken has no right to take the Black vote for granted.
I think he makes some good points. Especially the last one. Is this someones idea of progressive politics?

But if you want to hear some real Londoners have their say about it, have a listen to a bit of the Vanessa Feltz show on BBC London radio this morning. Just click on listen again, and then Vanessa Feltz's wednesday show.

She also talks about the story of Labour MP Margaret Hodge saying that the Last Night of the Proms was jingoistic and not suitable for a multi-curltural society.
(A place only for cross burning pillow case wearers in Jon's opinion I'm sure).

Go on you guys in the States and Australia. Billy is backing this guy (Ken) all the way.

Log on to the show, listen to her opening spiel after the news, which is always good, and then fast foreward to a few sections of the three hour programme.
She has Lib Dem candidate Brian Paddik in the studio for the whole of the third hour.

I want to wisk you -- until nice white peaks form and then fold you into the yolk batter, add the flour mixture with just the proper amount of baking powder, salt and sugar. I will stir you softly. And then I will form you into a nice patty and deep fry you in a deep fryer of canola oil brought to the temperature of 375 degrees for five minutes until you are firm but not crispy and slightly brown. In a sperate double broiler, I will have melted a 12 oz semi-sweet milk chocolate bar over medium low heat. At the same time, I will finely chop peanuts (which are, of course, a legume and not a nut at all). I will remove you from the oil and let you drip dry on a newspaper until you are cool to the touch. Then I will dip you into the melted chocolate and roll you in the nuts. I will place you in the freezer for 2 to 4 hours until you are frozen solid. I will remove you from the freezer prior to serving the main course to allow you to soften slightly. After I finish the main course, I will sit you on a serving plate next to a ramekin filled with fresh rasberries. I will clear the dishes from the main course, prepare an espresso and place you, the rasberries and the espresso on the table along with a dessert fork. Then I will passionately embrace you, because if I said I would eat you, that would be so crude and un-English.

I havent said Ken's words equate to the death of 6 million in the Shoah. I only spoke about a lack of empathy.

But altho I disagree with you on this issue Sarah - Im not throwing that lack of empathy accusation at you.

I just disagree that you can put all the blame on the standard.

I dislike that paper - but they were correct to report this story. (Altho You could argue with the way it was covered - as with their coverage of so many other things.)
I mean someone could say Boris is only in trouble for his 'piccaninies' comment because the press keep repeating the story. But it is a story. We need to know if a potential mayor has written these things. And Johnson needs to be made accountable for the stupid things he wrote.

Ken's being paid a good whack up there - and part of the gig is dealing with the right wing press.

Why bring the Holocaust into it Sarah? What was wrong with calling the reporter an "arsehole" - if thats how he was behaving.(Id personally advise him not to use the C word - although you seem to like it plenty.) - Id have had no problem with Ken calling him an a/hole or something. Or he could try - "no comment. Im on private time here mate."

But yeah hed had a few bevvs - and he came out with this bizarre comment.
Weve all said daft things when we're drunk.
Fine. - He finds out the guy's Jewish. - Ken still persists.
- Fine. Ok - I mean its late, and he's tired and emotional.

But then once the dust had settled,and many people are saying - apologise.Why not? I just dont get it. Theres no principle involved. Its just a ridiculous comparison to have made.

Seems wilfully perverse to me.

He could have said "I detest that newspaper group and its politics - but I issue an apology to the journalist concerned and anyone else in the city or elsewhere who was offended."

Honestly Id have though more of Livingstone if hed done that. Takes a big man to apologise as they say.

Because he works for a newspaper I and you do not like the journo does not give up his human rights at work.
JBoyd's comparison to a black journo - behaving in a similar way - being called a klansman by Livingstone isnt bad I think.
Of course hed have deserved an apology - at the very least.
/////////////////////////////////
Barmy Rob; - Sweet talker aint ya?
I dont take it back.
The lack of empathy is in not thinking how a Jewish person might feel in being called a concentration camp guard.
Your response to people offended is "grow up."
That doesnt suggest great sensitivity to the issue pal.
//////////////////////////

But this discussion is like Groundhog day.It goes round and round in circles.
We'll never agree,I remember when I first joined the forum this thing with Ken was actually happening, and Mata and Maria were slugging it out on this one. I remember that because Mata accused KL of "Jew baiting."

And I thought - yeah thats how his refusal to apologise feels to me.

I also think - ever the whiley politican - he made a calculation - Jewish votes in the capital are minimal - he calculated there were more votes in being seen to be somehow standing up against the Jews.

(Im not accusing anyone here of being motivated like that. I think you're motivated by hatred of the standard.
But I thought Ken's behaviour somewhat sinister.

///////////////
Thank heavens though to read Lee Jasper's text messages - which lightened it up.
Loves her more than the brazilian team eh? Surely not the 1970 one!

Sensitivity to what?

I think you are the one with the sensitivity issues.

Attempting to bring the Shoah into this is, i'll say it again, disgusting politics.

They didn't just report the story though, did they? I mean, if they hadn't started hounding Ken at a private function in the first place, there wouldn't have even been a story.

I'm with Barmy on this one (as ever) - how come its acceptable for you to be offended by some stupid comment by a drunk politician that wasn't even said to you, but its not acceptable for Barmy to ask you to retract what you said where you essentially called him an anti-semite?

I was going to comment on that one, but I couldn't get over the where he treated her like food and then embraced rather than ate her. How sexy is that? I mean who wants to hug a peach rather than eat it?

I'm sure you're not insensitive to the holocaust; however, at the risk of stating the obvious (and much as I admire him in many ways) it was actually Ken himself who introduced the subject quite gratuitously.

And it was his belief that it was an appropriate description of an Associated Newspapers journalist - being paid to do evil work.

And frankly he is right. And it has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

It was an absolute disgrace that the Jewish Board of Deputies felt there was any affront to Jewish people in general - and an even bigger disgrace that Ken was suspended as a result. A complete mockery of both democracy and freedom of speech.

As I said - they should grow up. It is an affront to those who actually lived through the Holocaust.

Ken doesn't do himself any favours at times. But you have to be aware that he has the mass of the UK's media against him. In London terms, that's the Evening Standard (rabidly right-wing) and the "free" papers.

I look forward to Gordon Brown coming out to endorse Ken, but I don't see it coming. The Labour Party establishment hates him, too. He's far too left.

I will campaign for Ken, for sure, and I hope Bill will gig for him, as he did in the days of the GLC.

I think that there are degrees of evil; I have no time for journalists of that kind, but to suggest that the morality of what they do is anywhere near to that of concentration camp guards is absurd.
And given that the generally accepted principle is now that victims of any kind of racism are entitled to define discrimination or abuse on the basis of whether or not they are offended, I think that the Board of Deputies have the right to decide for themselves whether they regard it as offensive. In fact, they described the comments as 'inappropriate' and called only for an apology and not for Ken's suspension.

I like Ken; I also think that he has been a genuine success, and agree with almost everything in the letter that Billy Bragg, Polly Toynbee et al sent to the Guardian in his support (although the assertion that the mayoral election matters to the whole country is a bit patronising). I don't think that the Lee Jasper case suggests corruption, though I do think it suggests a degree of carelessness.

However, I think that he made a mistake in this case and should have made prompt apology; the big problem for him is going to be that he is in danger of beginning to look arrogant and a bit paranoid. Which in turn will make the Lee Jasper allegations more damaging. And Boris Johnson has an advantage over almost anyone else the Tories could have picked in that he is well known.

I have tried to argue that that outlook is part of the problem. And it's one that Ken and his like first introduced into the GLC all those years ago. It's aim is good - and it can even bring about results on the ground. But it also hardens the opinion of racists, the likes of Melanie Phillips and the Daily Express.
It is PC in action. And as I have said, I am willing to admit it can work. But it feeds ''victim culture'' politics.
Don't know what that is. Have a listen to Dotun Adebayo on BBC London radio last night, (on listen again), where a point of discussion was ''would black children thrive better in all black schools?''
And the head of (in practice) one such school, a 'Seventh Day Adventist' school in Tottenham north London was in the studio. If they say that white society is so racist towards black people, that black children don't stand a chance, then who am I (as a white guy) to say anything different? If it's felt that white teachers are racists, then they must be. (I think that's how the logic goes).

I can't really see much of Ken being a sucess. I think his brand of politics (in the social sphere) is divicive.

Have I convinced anyone that Deborah is a fine political and social commentator? Well remember she has come out and said ''Anyone but ken, and hang the consequences'' - and I am inclined to agree. Not that I want to see a Tory as mayor, but I'm sick of Livingstone. He's not a leftist. He's a 'stalinist' (with a small s).

And frankly - that is a huge problem for our society.

If you are offended by a political figure it's simple - don't vote for them. If you are offended by an individual - tell them to fuck off and don't speak to them. If you are offended by the actions of a company - don't buy their product.

The right to be offended and demand an apology and be able to have an elected official suspended- that's the first step to fascism.

See how he's immatating me?
It's a bit uncanny as he has me on ignore -
......although I try not to go in for this degree of melodrama:

Still it's better than anything by the twins or: 'Shh... you know who'.

That's a perfectly reasonable position (though I disagree with it) apart from the suggestion that it is the first step to fascism, which I think is slightly over the top.
My problem with it is that it clearly doesn't defend the weak and that the individual is pretty powerless on the whole. I'm offended by John Hutton's comments today, but I doubt my choosing not to vote for his party (if I opt to go that far) will lead him to reconsider his statement. And despite my boycott of Tescos (because they sell live amphibians in the Far Eastern outlets), they still seem to be in business.
The real problem though is that such a position would actually rule out almost all of the legislation designed to prohibit incitement to racial hatred (and other forms of discrimination), becuase they rely just as much on subjectivity and because 'offence' is, in many cases, part of its basis in law.
And you do know that's pretty much the 'Spiked!' position, don't you?

I disagree. It's not over the top - it is positively Orwellian.



Well I have to say I'm not convinced by that legislation. It's already made a martyr out of Nick Griffin - and then allowed the BNP to make a mockery of the law.

You can't legislate away peoples racist thoughts and feelings.

I believe strongly in legislation that prohibits discrimination in schools, workplaces etc - no-one should be discriminated against.

And I detest the BNP. But they have every right to exist. Just as I have every right to expose them for the pathetic little racist pricks that they are.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. You don't defeat racists by telling them they can't think racist thoughts - they don't go away because it is illegal.


And I couldn't give a flying monkey's what Spiked! think.

I agree that you can't legislate about the way people think; and I support freedom of expression within reasonable limits. Those limits should be about incitement to commit illegal acts, but also about protection from offense. That is a fundamental principle that extends well beyond anti-racist legislation, if you take the view that 'causing offense' can include a range of acts that disturb the lives of individuals or groups. If I were to set up a powerful sound system and played the same record again and again outside your house at a deafening volume, you would have recourse in law based on the fact that my freedom to do so does not take precedence over your right to a degree of freedom from disturbance; and essentially, the same principle of the right to a degree of freedom from disturbance and distress underpins those laws that target the expression of offensive views. I really don't see that as a first step towards fascism.
And of course, the Griffin case turned on the fact that whilst ethnic groups are protected, religious groups aren't.



I didn't think you would, but I thought you might appreciate the irony....

How do you define offence?

It is entirely subjective. I find Michael Bolton offensive*.

The sound system analogy is a spurious one - you are talking about competing rights to public space. I am talking about the right of people to be able to speak and think freely without the thought police turning up. That is fascism in my book - the determination by government of what is and isn't correct thinking.

Where do you stop. Are fundamentalist Christians not entitled to think that gay marriage is the work of the devil?

You say Ken Livingstone was racist - I do not - who determines what is and isn't permissible. Fascism lies down that route.

* Actually banning Michael Bolton would be a good thing in my book

I didnt call anyone antisemitic - I said lacking in empathy - which is different.

Rob - there's a wider point here - Id agree that often people bring the Holocaust into discussions and arguments where it does not belong. Its used emotively to try and win arguments - and its not right.
The Palestinians and Israelis - on both sides would be the most obvious example. They are always bringing it up to justify or prove a point and theyd both be better not mentioning it.

But in this case - If someone mentions a concentration camp guard - it inevitably brings the Holocaust to mind. Thats why when Livingstone was trying to justify himself, he mentioned several times his abhorrence of the Holocaust - the worst crimes in human history - as he said.

No I don't - I was very careful to avoid saying or implying that, because I don't believe he is



As I said, I don't think that thoughts or opinion can be policed, nor should they be; people are entitled to believe what they want.
However, freedom of speech is curtailed in lots of ways, and rightly so, providing it is done sensibly and fairly; you can say that I talk nonsense, or that I own all of Michael Bolton's LPs with impunity, but if you go on TV and claim that I'm a leading member of a Columbian Drugs Cartel, I can sue you for libel.
The sound system analogy is (in a legal sense) about freedom from disturbance; again, I think that people are entitled to a degree of protection from offence - protection of their 'peace of mind' if you like, within reason (the mild involuntary shudder caused by your reminding me of Michael Bolton's 'music' would not count, for example).
And I also think that it is reasonable to expect higher standards from politicians than from the rest of us, given their positions of power and access to the media.
One or two other politicians have been called to account by the Standards boards for much more blatant (in some cases overtly racist) remarks, and I think that's a good thing.
As I said, I actually quite like Ken, but I think he was wrong about this - and I find his failure to accept as much disappointing.

I am a Pastafarian, and a true believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If anybody says bad things about meatballs and tomato sauce I will take them to court.

Oh, and the image of spaghetti is sacred. Any of you use straight lines, messy lines, or big scribbles, there will be a riot. I'll burn your embassy.

In fact, your beliefs offend my beliefs in every possible way, and I demand that you cease offending me.

I hate tomato sauce .... so sue me

Only if you can afford a libel lawyer. Sorry, but the libel laws are the preserve of the rich!





that really is a hope too far.....





Stick that up your Jackson Pollock!

Well, yes, and that is entirely wrong, though it's a different point.



However, if I did denigrate Pastafarianism, and you took me to court, you wouldn't as far as an initial hearing....
If I was offending you by doing so, then obviously you have the right to point this out, and basic good manners would probably lead me to stop doing so.
If however, you genuinely believed this then you might be regarded as suffering from clinical delusions, in which case, for a public figure to mock you might be considered a breach of the basic standards of political life in the same way as it would if you suffered from any other disability.
And if Pastafarians were invariably members of a particular ethnic group, attacking Pastafarianism might be seen as a means of expressing racist views with legal impunity....

How about spag quinnels?

And how many people have to be adherents to a particular flavor of religion for it to not automatically qualify for "clinical delusion"?

A truer thing has yet to be said in this thread.

.

This wasn't actually anything to do with religion initially.
However, since you mention it......

Barmy brought that article up, here. I commented, here.

So now you're smug and a god botherer... deep joy!

God botherer - guilty as charged.
Smug - possibly, though I hope not and apologies if so.

I've never understood this about the left. Thinking it was OK to be rude to people about their beliefs. For example, as muslims in particular can get upset about someone even being an athiest, I have always tried not to upset them. That means for example in an Arab country, when asked if I was a christian I said yes.
And JBoyd to me seems to be one of the least smug people on the forum.

Lol. Please please please tell me that's sarcasm? You're defending other people's right to be offended by your existence? You think that it's a reasonable position which deserves respect? Just as JBoyd respects me for burning down his embassy and dynamiting the Museum of Modern Art, because of my deeply held beliefs, and just like the respect that the archbish thinks we need more of for the belief that we must hang gay teenagers?

Has nobody ever told you, damon, that respect needs to be earned? It's something I've never understood about some on the left. The defence of arbitrary illiberal reactionary "beliefs" above free speech, liberalism, progress and human rights on the grounds that every "belief" deserves respect.

Some ideas don't deserve respect, and no idea should be out of bounds from questioning or ridicule. Go ahead and question my ideas. If I think they need defending, I will argue their case, or solve the problem empirically. I think my ideas can take what you throw at them, and if they can't, I'll be happy to reconsider them in light of your arguments. But if you seek to make your ideas beyond question, you clearly have very little confidence in their ability to stand up to scrutiny. If you get offended by such questions, you need to grow a thicker skin and learn not to take things personally. A good idea will earn respect by itself.

Freedom of speech is simply not compatable with the idea that

Under these rules, I can be offended by anything I want. Sorry for turning this thread into a discussion about religion. It's just that arbitrary beliefs are the perfect example of why this is so.

-----

Oh, and since racism was mentioned: I believe that it's racist to believe that campaigning for freedom, democracy, progress, enlightenment and universal human rights should obey racial barriers. Ending racism is about ending racial divides, not propping them up.

wot he said

I don't fully get the context in the first paragraph, but Joe appears to be spot on.

Sorry, I was responding to half a dozen people in the first paragraph, not all of whom were even on the BBF. It was mainly a reply to damon's post above mine, but also with a swipe at JBoyd's reply to my first post (MoMA being home to loads of Pollocks, though I've no idea if it houses the blasphemous FSM piece). The archbish ref was to Rowan William's similar comments on respecting beliefs and not offending people.

With all due respect, Joe, you've missed a couple of significant points here: first, the point about 'offence' was not necessarily anything to do with 'belief' let alone religious beliefs - it referred to a specific comment (and I am not trying to reopen the debate) which was considered offensive by some because it related to a particular historic crime that caused immense suffering and countless deaths.

Second, I don't think that, in general, the situation is one in which


In the Livingstone case, as is true generally, the ultimate arbiter of what is 'offensive' is a legally constituted judicial process. If I was rude about 'Pastafarianism', the chances are that even if you said you were deeply offended, you would have no legal recourse. If I made an offensive comment about your ethnicity, the legal process would judge whether it justified prosecution and sanction (and I'm not saying that the system is perfect, just that it isn't purely driven by subjective and individual definitions of offensiveness).




Of course I don't 'respect' anyone's right to do any of those things; and I don't think that Rowan Williams calling for respect for Islam implies acceptance of those actions.
I respect your right to hold and express atheist views; insofar as you can respect a philosophy that you don't agree with, I respect atheism and humanism. I abhor the fact that the atheist regime of the PRC is currently brutalising and possibly murdering Buddhist monks in Tibet, but that doesn't mean that I am going to condemn atheism generally, because I don't think that it is inevitable that atheists commit such crimes.


Well, I certainly don't hold that view myself, and in fact, I don't know many on the Left who would articulate that view in absolute terms anyway. The problem though is that 'Left' and 'Liberal' are not necessarily synonymous. I don't really consider myself a liberal, because it implies acceptance of absolute rights to certain freedoms: the foxhunting ban was described in both the Independent and Guardian as 'thoroughly illiberal', and personally I think that it was absolutely right.




I entirely agree with that. Two of my favourite comedy films are 'Heavens Above!' and 'The Life of Brian', and on one level I actually quite enjoy reading Dawkins - but that's not quite the point.




If you are advocating absolute freedom of speech, then of course it can have no limits of any kind; however, I don't think that absolute freedom of speech is compatible with a reasonably harmonious society. For a start, it would imply an end to all legislation against expressions of racism, homophobia and other prejudices.



I'm not sure I agree with that; the problem is that everyone tends to cite 'freedom of speech' when it suits their own argument. If you are going to talk about 'freedom of speech' as an abstract, then I think you have to keep in mind its relevance to discussion about people such as Bernard Manning and David Irving as much as its application to questions of religion and culture.
If I made a crude and nasty joke about disability in the company of disabled people, I would be castigated; if I did it whilst holding public office, I'd be liable to sanction or even loss of my post. I think that's exactly how it should be. And that is as much an example of the limits to free speech as anything to do with religion.



Yes, I agree with that, too.
Incidentally, I did reply to the personal message you sent me a few weeks ago, but for some reason, I don't think it got through.

hey Joe, what exactly is the "blasphemous FSM piece"? I couldn't find any reference to Pollock on the venganza website.

As an athiest I also don't feel I really have to ''respect'' religious belief. But I would never call someone who had faith of some kind ''a god botherer.''
Why would someone say that? It's nothing to do with being servile to the religion, but being respectful to an individual.
Now that doesn't mean you can't call the head of the catholic church in Scotland an idiot for what he said the other day (about stem cell research that mixed human and animal DNA) - because his comments were reactionary IMO.
But (for example), I share a house with a Sikh bloke and Hindu woman. The guy is a doctor, the woman a nurse. I wouldn't dream of being rude about their beliefs. Any more than I would say something disparaging to a gay guy who led a very promiscuous 'camp' lifestyle.
Respecting the person is most important I think - unless they are particularly backward. Then by all means slag them off.
So when I ask my Sikh housemate about his faith, he talks to me in an open and relaxed manner about it.
He says prayers every morning, and he plays Sikh religious music in his car.
I told him about my visiting The Golden Temple in Amritsar India (his home town) when he was still at school, and how I found that the religious music that was played inside the temple, touched me in a spiritual way, even though I had no understanding of the beliefs of Sikhism.
He has told me that when he gets older, (and perhaps returns to India), he will start wearing the turban.
And I completely respect the bloke in his religious outlook on life.

I was walking past a church yesterday as people were coming out of a Good Friday service. I'd never been inside that particular church before, so walked in for a look. Everyone was smiling and giving off good vibes.
It cheered me somewhat, even though I don't share their faith.



Oh and one other thing. This maybe a somewaht teneous quote from this bloke Mathew Norman in the Independent yesterday, as it was all about Barak Obama's speech the other day, and really nothing much to do with Ken Livingstone. But in praising Obama's speech in the article titled: The audacity of treating voters like adults, he made this point that I thought was worthy of note:
''Or isn't irked and fatigued when Ken Livingstone's auto-response to apparently well-sourced attacks against a black adviser is to dismiss it as racially-motivated smear?''
A good obversavation I thought, and it's for that sort of reason I won't be voting for Livingstone.

See above

... and here was I thinking there was a scientific reason behind it. Silly me.

Thanks for the explanation Sarah. I suspect that the jigsaw of Blue Poles that hangs in my kitchen must mark me as a heretic of the highest order.

Blimey, who's Brendan O'Neill talking about?

That's a bit strong isn't it?

To be clinical, I think that a delusion has to be unique to that individual.

So, one guy convinced he's, say, the human son of the one true God is nuts, but if he can get, oh, I don't know, let's say twelve guys to believe his story, then he's sane?

even if one of those guys wasn't really a guy but his cross-dressing girlfriend?

Especially if!

God, you can spot a recovering Catholic a mile away!!!!

But my point is still true here. The law should not be determining what is offensive and what is not. Politeness should still not be something enforced by the police. You're welcome to call on Livingstone to resign, vow never to vote for him, and campaign vociferously for Boris. If everybody feels the same, you'll get your way without force, and if you're on your own, bow out and get over it. But what you appear to be advocating is a law against comparisons to unpleasant historical figures. It's equivalent to me saying that George Galloway should be legally excluded from parliament for being stupid. He shouldn't, but I'll do my best to explain to everybody why he's not worth voting for.



I'm not a fan of trying to make simple rules for complicated situations, so I'm with you to a large extent on liberalism (though I was apathetic about the fox hunting law, so I expect I'd take more convincing than you that the simple rule of liberalism needs to be broken in any particular case). And I'm open to arguments that the simple rule of free speech can be more harmful than helpful (but am yet to be convinced) -- after all, I'm always amused by the argument of certain Americans that "I'm allowed to act like a total asshole because the constitution protects that right." And of course, the cases of incitement to violence, the provision of services and employment, and bullying in the workplace are legitimate special cases. I cut the part about incitement to violence out of the quote because I'm not arguing against that, only against "protection from offense."

But still, all expressions of racism, homophobia and prejudices? What happened to "I entirely agree with that"? The BNP are hated and shunned by most people in this country because bad ideas earn such treatment by themselves, not because they're banned. Similarly, there has been a change in the British public's tolerance of homophobia in the past few decades, but it is down to individuals and the media -- and the inherent power of good ideas -- not thought legislation.

And those are the extreme cases of irrational hatred, which actually have potential consequences beyond offending the hysterical professional offended. Some poorly chosen words from Ken? Not really in this league.


David Irving is a fringe loony who few take seriously because his ideas are bad ideas, not because of anything the Austrian courts have done. I'd castigate you if you made seriously tasteless jokes, but I'd be out in Parliament Square with a placard if they proposed a bill outlawing tasteless jokes. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.


Oh, no it did. Sorry, I put it to one side until I had time to actually act on it and compose the BCSE piece, during which time the relevance of it started to fade and I forgot about it!

It wasn't sarcasm, (saying to locals in Tunisia and Eqypt that I was a Christian, - sometimes when asked.)
In the West Bank town of Hebron, a Jewish American woman I was with, denied both her religion and nationality. You do get asked by (friendly ) locals.
Anyway, so far I haven't been impressed with simple religion bashing. It's so easy. I think I agree with Berndan O'Neill when he said

In yesterdays Independent there was this article about relegion in Tibet, and how the Chinese just could not understand why the Tibetens persisted with their ''backward'' beliefs and not embrace materialism.

I have been greatly impressed by the religion in Thailand and Indo China. Seeing monks in early morning Vientiane, collecting alms from the local people is quite touching.

Maybe the Tibetens should just give it up.

Yes, but you wouldn't tell a Millwall supporter that you're a fan of Chelsea either. That's not about avoiding causing offense, it's about not deliberately putting yourself in an awkward or dangerous situation.


Marvelous. So you'll be happy to explain to me what the quoted paragraph means. What does it mean to "downgrade mankind"? How do you go about downgrading mankind? What is mankind being downgraded from, and what will mankind be when the downgrade is complete? Where exactly do the "New Atheists™" talk about downgrading mankind, why do they desire to downgrade mankind, and how does this mission fit in with that of bringing God crashing back down to earth? Will society be backwards compatible with the downgraded units?