Reinventing Narcissism

I listened to an interesting podcast this evening. The podcast itself is called ‘Four Thought’ and it’s available on iTunes. The episode I listened to was released on October 10^th. The speaker was Mark Vernon and the description of the talk was thus:

“Mark Vernon, writer and former priest, says we should rehabilitate the concept of narcissism as a valuable form of self-love.”

Firstly let me begin this post by defining ‘narcissism’.

narcissism |ˈnärsəˌsizəm|

noun

excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.

• Psychology extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.

That is pretty harsh modern take in my view!

In my thesaurus ‘narcissism’ has the following associated with it: vanity, self-love, self-admiration, self-absorption, self-obsession, conceit, self-centeredness, self-regard, egotism, egoism.

Now if we took aside the most self-centered definitions that may have been added over the years, by my reckoning we’d be left with the following positives:

·      self-love

·      self-admiration

·      self-regard

We may also have the following slightly negative traits:

·      self-centeredness

·      self-absorption

·      egotism

I ask you to look at the positives and read them. What in all honesty is wrong with those? In my humble view – nothing is wrong with those and nothing is wrong with any person showing these traits. The following blog post will talk a bit about an institution I believe has a vested interest in keeping humanity suppressed for its own selfish gain. Engaging in ‘positive narcissism’ in my view, could help free us from this institution.

The reason Mr. Vernon’s talk caught my attention is because he spoke about an issue that has been in my thoughts since I wrote my thesis. Now my disclaimer here is that my arguments are against the institution of religion itself, namely the Roman Catholic Church whom I consider to be one of the most corrupt, evil institutions the world has seen. My arguments are not so much about religious beliefs – more the teachings of this criminal institution. Now part of my thesis involved me researching and writing about the control the institution of the Roman Catholic Church was able to place over society right from the Church’s very beginnings. A lot of the Church’s teachings have been about controlling the individual. Part of my first chapter centered on the French philosopher Michael Foucault. In lectures given in the 1970’s, Foucault spoke about certain Christian practices which firstly began with “the emergence of a very strange phenomenon in Graeco–Roman civilization, that is the organisation of a link between total obedience, knowledge of oneself, and confession to someone else.” (Foucault in Holland, 2002: 86) Foucault argued that the goal of these Christian practices was the same: Their goal was “to get individuals to work at their own ‘mortification’ in this world.” In my thesis my argument was that this phenomenon taught people to feel shame if they ever had a notion that the Church was committing wrongs and that this inbuilt shame in people caused silence rather than outspokenness in times of wrong doing for fear of offending a god and/or shaming those purportedly doing his work here on earth. I argued that this was and still is powerful and destructive control to have.

I mention this to give you the reader a very brief introduction to my theory of institutional Church control. Mr. Vernon when speaking about the criticism associated with self-love made the following point in his talk. He asks why narcissism carries such automatically negative connotations today? He says “it may have something to do with religious injunctions around the notion that its better to give than to receive, though I suspect its too easy just to blame religion.” (08.11 – 08.24) I have no such qualms! It is very easy to blame institutional religion and I have part of my argument laid out above. The institution of the Church has taught people over many, many centuries to feel ashamed of their bodies. It has taught society to feel ashamed of the natural act of sex. That any form of self-love is wrong. Only their definition of love is acceptable. This societal indoctrination of course had an impact on the psyche of people. This indoctrination led to the ‘crime’ of narcissism and the negative associations that my thesaurus listed alongside the word. My thesis aimed to prove that if society had different teachings, we would be different people. I personally turn to philosophy in my attempts to find answers and in this instance I turn to Aristotle.

While the word ‘narcissism’ was not around in Aristotle’s day, the concept of self-love was and Aristotle spoke of the need to love oneself for he believed that you are closer to yourself than to anyone else. Aristotle argued that those who denigrate self-love are thinking of people who seek the greatest honors and pleasures only for themselves. A good person who is self-loving will seek only what is best for himself or herself, which will be consistent with what is best for all. A good person will do seemingly unselfish acts, such as taking risks for friends or giving away money, but will do these things because they are noble and are motivated by self-love. 

Now I do not believe the institution of the Catholic Church fully understand or believe the message taught by their supposed saviour Jesus Christ because using Aristotle’s logic from this point, Jesus could be described as a ‘positive narcissist’.

Now, please excuse me while I paraphrase sparknotes but the following paragraph succinctly returns us to my control theory. They write that Aristotle’s discussion of self-love marks him as one of the early proponents of ethical egoism, a controversial issue in the modern world. Ethical egoism is the idea that self-love is the most important virtue and that if we all sought what was best for ourselves, the world would naturally work its way into a desirable shape without the need for selflessness. This idea is unpopular in the modern world because its most ardent proponents tend to be selfish conservatives (the emphasis is mine) who have no interest in the needs of others. Unlike us, however, Aristotle lived in a world where there was common agreement on what was good for all and where the community mattered more than the individual. In such a world, successful people measured their success in part by the success of their fellow citizens. Selfishness seems like a vice only in a world driven by individualism, where there is no evident benefit for oneself in helping others. 

Some of the most selfish conservatives that come to my mind today are the ones in the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church. A close second are some of the conservatives in the United States of whom a majority would recognise the Christian god as their almighty. Don’t believe me? Look at Church responses to the worldwide scandal of child rape and sexual abuse. A lot of Republican conservatives in the US argue for the right to life right up to the point of birth. Once born, you can face the death penalty at some point in your life, crippling poverty – basically neither have much interest in the needs of others. Their main priorities are maintenance of power and control over their flocks.

I believe that by reinventing the notion of self-love and thus ‘narcissism’, by removing the stigma that the institution of the Church has put on the notions of love, I believe a freer, more confident and vibrant people could emerge. My basic argument here is that in nearly everyone’s life, you are one of your own first loves. As a child, loving yourself helps to foster your belief in yourself that for example, your decision-making skills are good. Obviously the love of a parent or parents, guardian or guardians helps to foster these beliefs and they guide us back to the right path when our inexperience in life leads us off in the wrong direction. Loving yourself helps you feel grounded in your own body. It gives you confidence to face the world as an individual person; warts and all. The institution of the Church does not want this. It wants you to acknowledge that you are weakness ‘humanified’. It requires you to pray for strength to overcome your weakness. Self-love is no weakness.

I believe humanity needs to have more belief in itself and love for itself. The love starts within you. Please remember that no form of love is perfect. If we could only remove the stigma associated with narcissism I think we could persuade people to be a lot happier and a lot more confident. Not only would this removal of stigma facilitate this, I believe that it would begin to free society of the yoke that religion has placed around its existence. By accepting that we have faults and that we must live with them, only then can we can more easily accept the faults in others and become a more tolerant society. It is beliefs put in our heads by the Institution of the Church that cause us to question any theories or notions of love. When presented with thoughts, it is most important to remember the following:

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~ Aristotle

My open letter

As promised in my previous blog post, this is the letter that I have sent to the following Members of the European Parliament from Ireland:

Emer Costello, Gay Mitchell, Paul Murphy, Liam Aylward, Nessa Childers, Mairead McGuinness, Brian Crowley, Seán Kelly, Phil Prendergast, Pat the Cope Gallagher, Marian Harkin, Jim Higgins - their profiles can be found here

Dear MEP,

I write to you today as a very concerned citizen of the European Union. You probably have heard of a lady called Catherine Ashton – she’s the European Union’s Foreign Affairs minister. A few weeks back she issued a joint statement with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League, on the “importance of respecting all prophets”. The joint statement came about due to the violent reactions caused by the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’. I, like many others, worry greatly that the statement included only a passing reference to freedom of expression and that its main focus was on the point that we should be expressing respect for all religions and all prophets. I wish to briefly highlight some very worrying points which I hope as a Member of the European Parliament you can bring to Ms. Ashton’s attention and help persuade her to think otherwise for the sake of the freedom of expression, speech and thought for Europe’s citizens.

My first concern is regarding one of the organisations she issued the joint statement with – the OIC. This is an organisation that has, along with others, been attempting to introduce an amendment to the UN charter that would make defamation of religion a crime. If they succeed (which thankfully at this moment in time they have not) they would be criminalising my right as a European Citizen to question anything to do with religion. Why does Ms. Ashton wish to associate Europe with this organisation? Now please, do not misunderstand me – I am all for respecting the beliefs of people that are religious; but why then are my beliefs as an atheist being targeted? Why are my rights to question the messages, rules and contradictions in the teachings of ‘prophets’ being eroded? The old saying ‘history repeats itself’ is never more accurate than it is now and I will use the example of the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages to highlight the importance of freedom of thought when it comes to religion.

I ask you, where would women be if no one was ever allowed question the religion taught by the Roman Catholic Church? Take the views of one of the Church’s most revered saints:

"The woman is subject to man on account of the weakness of her nature . . . Man is the beginning of woman and her end, just as God is the beginning and end of every creature. Children ought to love their Father more than they love their mother." – Thomas Aquinas

Do we still respect this view? I should hope no one does.

Would we still have to respect this view if we were not allowed question, challenge and criticise the Catholic religion? I imagine the answer to be “yes”.

Another of the Church’s fanstastic modern views relates to homosexuality.

They are of the view that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. The church believes these acts close the sexual act to the gift of life; that they do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Do we as citizens of the European Union respect this stance of the Catholic religion?

Again I should hope not. But if Ms. Ashton’s statement is allowed to stand, our ability to question archaic beliefs like the two examples I’ve given becomes all the more difficult. Where would we be as a society if we were never allowed question the Church’s belief that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the sun orbited around us?

Where would we be as a race of people if we never questioned anything that the Roman Catholic Church deemed to be blasphemous? 

It is only by questioning the religious that we the people help to make it freer. By challenging Saudi Arabia this summer, the Olympic Council persuaded them to allow women to participate in the games. If Europe aligns itself with an organisation such as the OIC it is entering dangerous territory. Should they ever get their defamation of religion law passed, it means we lose our right to question their interpretation of their prophets’ teachings. Look at Malala Yousafzai, this week shot by extremists because she wishes to be educated. We lose the right to question the extremist’s motives if we respect their interpretation of their prophets’ teachings. They are after all merely carrying out their interpretation of Islam and punishing those who counter the teachings of their prophet.

My second concern is that by issuing statements with the aforementioned organisations, Europe gives increasing credence to some of these Islamic states and their use of the blasphemy laws currently on their statute books. Here are five examples that Atheist Ireland’s Michael Nugent gave when writing on his blog:

·      In Indonesia, Alexander Aan, a 31-year-old atheist civil servant, has been jailed for two and a half years for sharing material on Facebook about the Prophet Mohammad and writing that god does not exist.

·      In Pakistan, Asia Noreen Bibi, a 41-year-old Christian mother, has spent three years in prison and faces execution by hanging after a farcical blasphemy conviction. And last year two Pakistani politicians who questioned her sentence were murdered.

·      Also in Pakistan, Rimsha Masih, a 14-year-old Christian girl, was recently arrested for allegedly burning pages from the Quran. An islamic cleric was later arrested for planting the Quran pages as evidence.

·      In Saudi Arabia, Hamza Kashgari, a 23-year-old Muslim poet, has been jailed for blasphemy for publishing tweets saying that he would shake Muhammad’s hand as an equal if he met him.

·      And in Iran, Youcef Nadarkhani, a 35-year-old Christian Pastor, has just recently been released after spending nearly three years in prison facing execution on charges of apostasy and evangelising Muslims.

The European Union’s focus should be on getting these people released from prison and forcing these countries to repeal their ridiculous blasphemy laws. I say again that by aligning ourselves with oppressive organisations, it makes it very difficult to speak out against their crimes when Europe is a partner in their statements on what they interpret to be crimes against their beliefs.

Lastly, I ask where is Catherine Ashton’s voice, or indeed any high-ranking EU politician’s voice, condemning the following hate speech coming from the institution of the Roman Catholic Church? Again I quote from Michael Nugent’s blog because he puts it far more succinctly than I could hope to: 

 

“Pope Benedict recently said that to truly live up to our being we must recognise that we are dependent on God. And Pope John Paul II said that a culture which rejects God cannot be considered fully human; that spiritual values are ultimately what make us fully human; and that Jesus came to teach us what it means to be fully human.

This dangerous arrogance is spread by Cardinals and Bishops and theologians. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor has said that atheists are not fully human because we leave out the search for transcendent meaning that he calls God. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo has said that we will be fully human when we see the shining face of God. Cardinal Paul Poupard has said that there does not exist a fully human culture that is not open to the dimension of faith;. Bishop Patrick O’Donogue has said that the fundamental needs of the human person can only be truly fulfilled through encounter with the deepest truths about God and the human person.

More disturbingly, this dangerous arrogance is embedded in the principles of Catholic education of children. The Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario says its Fully Alive program was created to help Catholic parents teach their children to be fully human. An Archdiocesan Board of Education in Iowa says that a Catholic school’s program must concern itself with the whole child in development that is fully human and thoroughly Catholic. Roncalli Catholic High School in Nebraska says its students become more fully human by becoming more deeply aware of God, self and others. Pope John Paul II Catholic School in Chicago says that it fulfills a person’s right to be fully human. Holy Cross Catholic College in Bury says a Catholic College strives to be fully human. These are only some examples.”

This is a far more serious matter than people wish to acknowledge. In Europe’s recent history, can you remember back to the teachings of a particular political party telling its citizens that a certain part of society were less than human? What were the consequences of those teachings? What was Europe built for if not to counteract intolerance and bullcrap like that?

Words have massive influence on people’s thoughts and it is for this reason that I await Catherine Ashton’s joint declaration with leading secularists, atheists social and religious leaders on the need to respect all people from the threat of religious institutional and interpretive man made intolerance. All people are important and should be respected.

I thank you for taking the time to read this.

Yours sincerely,

(Me)

I should point out that when I emailed an MEP of whom I am not a constituent, I added the following:

'I write to you today, not as a constituent, but as a......'

And I signed off with my name! Not (me)!

Please feel free to use this letter as a template if you wish to email the MEP's. The more that do, the more they realise this is how we the people feel.

Blamphemer!

Brian: No, no. Please, please please listen. I've got one or two things to say.
The Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
Man in crowd: Shhh!
Brian: You've all got to work it out for yourselves.
The Crowd: Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
Brian: Exactly!
The Crowd: Tell us more!
Brian: No! That's the point! Don't let anyone tell you what to do!

 - Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' (quotes sourced from IMDB)

There has been a lot of who-ha around lately surrounding the issue of religious beliefs, blasphemy and freedom of speech. I’d like to add my own personal thoughts to this very matter. The first part of this blog will be my own ramblings, using a variety of sources to back up or support or highlight my points. You know – a normal blog! I’ll ramble and roam and hopefully hit on a few valid points!

The second part of this blog coming in the next day or two will include a more structured and possibly civilised open letter/email to all of Ireland’s MEP’s regarding the recent declaration by Catherine Ashton. My letter will be inspired by this blog post.

Let us begin exactly with what she said and with whom she said it. That will lead into my main argument.

The aforementioned Catherine Ashton is the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs. A few weeks back she issued a joint statement with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League, on the “importance of respecting all prophets”.  This is the same OIC that has for years been seeking to adopt a legally binding prohibition against blasphemy most recently in the UN. As Michael Nugent pointed out, “Respecting all prophets would mean respecting not only the prophets of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but also respecting David Koresh at Waco, and David Icke who believes that George Bush is a space lizard. This is clearly absurd. We can respect your right to believe, while not respecting the content of your beliefs. You have rights. Your beliefs do not. That is the essence of freedom of conscience.”

What I find most astonishing is these prophets and gods that our politicians aim to protect, need us mortals to fight their battles for them here on earth. If they actually existed and heard our ‘blasphemies’ and were truly so concerned about our cruel, hurtful words – why not do the old god thing and smite some poor suckers? You know? Show yourself to be angry, then speak from a cloud and apologise for the smiting saying, it was an incident that shouldn’t have happened…. and won’t happen again….. words to the effect of something like… oh I don’t know…… this:

 

'My smitings have brought deep shame. But shame is not enough. The smiting of said suckers is a grievous sin against god…. I mean me. Therefore we focus not on shame but on my sorrow for your sins. This terrible crime, and the inadequate response by some Church leaders, to my smitings grieve us all. Afterall…. You started it with your name calling.’

Hmmmm, no that won’t work. That’s too much of a ‘pass the buck’ attitude. We need more zazz.

How about:

"The suffering and trauma endured by some suckers who have been smited while refusing to respect my authoritah, and the effect on their family members, is a matter of continuing shame and dismay to all gods. Let us be very clear. The smiting of the suckers was, is and always will be a crime, and is contrary to all I believe in. But seriously. Just believe in the prophets, don’t question and I won’t need to do this again.”

Yes……that’s more from the heart. We’ll stick with that one for the time being. But rest assured oh prophet Space Lizard Bush – I know of an institution whose recent existence has been all about learning different ways to apologise for the same thing. If you need to call them their number is 1-800-GENERICOLGY – they’re also online at www.genericclericapology.abuse or www.institutionalcriminals.vatican In fact – your two apologetic examples above are paraphrasing some of their members worldwide apologies! They know how to apologise to so many different cultures and nationalities in the same meaningless fashion – if they can’t help you no one can.

So while EU citizens of all beliefs are being told to respect all prophets by the EU’s highest foreign policy prophet, here in what I like to call ‘reality’ or ‘everyday life’ we the people have an Institution full of prophets that blasphemes against my belief system: humanity. And it has done it since the first days of its formation. It has blasphemed against women, gay people, scientists, Muslim’s, Protestants, children…. everyone that isn’t deemed ‘Christian’. That institution is the Catholic Church. I have questions regarding their blasphemy aimed at our politicians.

When are we going to have a senior politician stand up and call out this criminal institution for the wrongs it has actually committed and worse still – covered up. The very Pope that ‘apologises’ for the abuse of children, is the same man that wrote the laws that damned the victims.

When will we have a senior politician who will stand up and tell this institution that their views on gay marriage are not even worthy of being associated with the stone age? Their views are so, so wrong. Plain and simple.

When will we have a senior politician come out and chastise the religious for having those whose interpretation of what their religion, religious book and prophet teaches, leads to crimes against humanity like this? 

What big men they’ve proved themselves to be shooting a 14 year old girl . I am not implying that all take their beliefs as literally as the above – but that is where the danger of Catherine Ashton’s statement becomes very apparent: the interpretation of ‘prophets’ and whose prophet says what to them. Some have a prophet or god who teaches them crap like this and some feel they have the right to say this. In fact, there are the beginnings of a few cracks starting to appear in one religious institution. One hopes more feel duty bound to speak out like Fr Hans Küng.

Lastly, I ask where are the voices in our political elite when the aforementioned authoritarian, criminal institution, the Roman Catholic Church, deems me and other people to be less than human? Where is Catherine Ashton’s voice condemning the following hate speech of one Benedict XVI? This Pope believes that gays and lesbians are, ‘less-than’. They are "incomplete".

I quote the following passage from a blog post by Michael Nugent because I believe what he says is so true and overall it is such a serious matter.

“Pope Benedict recently said that to truly live up to our being we must recognise that we are dependent on God. And Pope John Paul II said that a culture which rejects God cannot be considered fully human; that spiritual values are ultimately what make us fully human; and that Jesus came to teach us what it means to be fully human.

This dangerous arrogance is spread by Cardinals and Bishops and theologians. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor has said that atheists are not fully human because we leave out the search for transcendent meaning that he calls God. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo has said that we will be fully human when we see the shining face of God. Cardinal Paul Poupard has said that there does not exist a fully human culture that is not open to the dimension of faith;. Bishop Patrick O’Donogue has said that the fundamental needs of the human person can only be truly fulfilled through encounter with the deepest truths about God and the human person.

More disturbingly, this dangerous arrogance is embedded in the principles of Catholic education of children. The Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario says its Fully Alive program was created to help Catholic parents teach their children to be fully human. An Archdiocesan Board of Education in Iowa says that a Catholic school’s program must concern itself with the whole child in development that is fully human and thoroughly Catholic. Roncalli Catholic High School in Nebraska says its students become more fully human by becoming more deeply aware of God, self and others. Pope John Paul II Catholic School in Chicago says that it fulfills a person’s right to be fully human. Holy Cross Catholic College in Bury says a Catholic College strives to be fully human. These are only some examples.”

This is a far more serious matter than people wish to acknowledge. In humanities recent history, can you remember back to the teachings of a particular political party telling its people that a certain part of society were less than human? What were the consequences of those teachings?

Words have massive influence on people’s thoughts and it is for this reason that I await Catherine Ashton’s joint declaration with secularists and atheists on the need to respect all people from the threat of religious institutional and interpretive man made intolerance. Blaming ones personal beliefs on a figment of ones imagination is just a handy excuse for people that make known their prejudices. All people are important and should be respected no matter what their beliefs, but beliefs should not cost others their freedom. We the people exist. The proof? We pay the politicians salaries.

Gear Grinding

A famous cartoon personality once had a famous phrase “you know what really grinds my gears”?

Well, you know what grinds my gears? Religion. It is just something that the more I read about and try and learn about, the more ridiculous the whole thing becomes to me. I’m going to write about a few personal experiences that are leading me to a life of pure Atheistic bliss.

A few things recently (and one thing a few months back) have led me to write this non-too controversial blog. I have always been a quiet observer on religious issues and tried to keep out of any debates or discussions on religion and didn’t want a label of an atheist, agnostic or secularist. I didn’t feel the need to involve myself in learning more, or exploring more. No idea why – I just didn’t. That began to change when I attended a debate in UCC back in February where Michael Nugent spoke, and spoke very well, about the need for a secular state. Adnan Rashid was also in attendance speaking for Islam. What really got through to me at this debate, was Michael Nugent speaking without the need to force his beliefs on anyone in attendance. He spoke about the need to keep religious belief separate and private. No belief system should make or influence the making of rules in a society. Nothing at all wrong with that. What got through to me from Adnan was the need for RADICALISATION. DEATH TO THE INFADELS! Ha! I jest! …..hey it’s my blog – I’ll jest when I want. But seriously, he spoke eloquently and clearly, but the points were all stemming from the same belief. That good comes from his religion, that his religion helped create scientific advances. That you need religion for your morals. That Islam does this and it does that. Maybe it does for him – but what I’m asking today is:

‘Why can’t people give themselves the credit’?

Yes - we are a miracle; but of science! We are supposed to be rational beings. Why can’t we give ourselves the credit for what we do?! I went to hear Richard Dawkins speak in the National Concert Hall in June and his talk inspired me to join Atheist Ireland. I find it more important than ever to support causes that are societal driven. Fighting for a secular state merely means fighting for equality for all. You can have your beliefs, but in the private sphere.

Now here’s where I get controversial. Throughout history, different societies have had different gods. All as fake as the next. The only thing I do not doubt the existence of is a man, yes a MAN, named Jesus. There is evidence to suggest that a man named Jesus was around in the years he is said to have been. But he was not and is not a god. What is my reasoning? Well let’s look at how unique his story is:

Not very unique is it? As for the ‘god’ argument? I’ve always been amazed by the fact, the two ‘great’ religions of today, Christianity and Islam, began in the Middle East. It also amazes me that for an all knowing all powerful ‘being’ who wanted all of humanity to know about him, he didn’t do a great job of exporting his message to places like Asia….. Australia…… Europe……. The Americas. Especially as ‘he’ ‘created’ the first two people. I mean, that’s a really bad game of Chinese whispers if your message is passed on by the people you created and you end up with lots of different religions, and hundreds if not thousands of different churches a few thousand years down the line. Where’s ‘his’ voice to remind people of the right way?! Where was he during the Lutheran, Calvinist reformations? How about the major one of Henry VIII calling bullshit on the pope and his power? If the pope truly was and is this gods mouthpiece on earth – why no comeuppance for England as a nation? Why did this god not smite this heathenous nation?  There’s one simple reason – he doesn’t exist. Why would he have allowed the gigantic hunt for witches? Why would he not have given a simple hint as to the world’s position as a planet in a solar system orbiting the sun? Why not a quick whisper to the pope, or to any of the priests of whom so many hear his ‘calling’ but then don’t hear much else. So many questions – so much proof as to the stupidity of it all.

The above reasons are merely a slight peek into my thoughts on the ridiculousness of the Christian religion. There are obviously newer examples to use as to why this god doesn’t exist but that will be for another blog, another day. This little rambling will lead nicely into another blog on religion for a close date in the future. I’m writing my thesis on religion and law and I might condense some of my findings, writings on the matter into a short blog post here. It’s made for a fascinating research topic so sharing would be good! So remember: