THEN AND NOW

As I watched the original chat show discussion about the controversy surrounding the making of the Monty Python film The Life of Brian last night, it struck me how familiar the debate was between the "believers and followers" of yesterday and the "non-believers and skeptics" of today.

The only thing that has changed is what people believe in - or what they are encouraged to believe in. Now we are more multi-cultural and multi-religious than we were in the 1970s, it seems the common ground that can unite all spiritual faiths is a belief in health - the body as a temple, the air as divine right, the environment as holy ground.

The Bishop and Muggeridge, in the youtube video above of the debate, defend their beliefs. They are the same as those who pump out the propaganda on smoking and climate change today. Both share the same fear and insecurity that anyone should question their deeply held beliefs and find them factually or scientifically inadequate. Both seem worried that people might choose to disbelieve their religion if they researched it a bit more.

What John Cleese says about the teaching of religion at school, (about 21 - 22 mins in) the people who blindly follow anything without question, and the need for critical thought in everything we are told to ensure we remain a free thinking free society is as true today as it was then.

Unfortunately too many believers in the Church of the Smoke/Eat/Alcohol Free has led to out and out witch hunts and the scourge of heretics who would rather think for themselves and see for themselves where the truth lies.

More and more I am becoming dishearted to see these so called "progressives" are taking us further socially backwards in time. I guess it won't be long before I'm lighting my cig on top of the bonfire - except a last cigarette before execution would probably be refused on Pious grounds from the Book of Good Health.

* The debate between the committed Christian and the Pythons brought me echoes of the debate I had with a Smokerphobic "believer" recently who would have pregnant smokers bullied in the street for their heresy.

Judge for yourselves between what was said then and what is said now. There isn't much difference but for the subject matter. Then God's word was law and now it is the "scientists" - both suffer little children to come unto them...

AMEN TO THAT BROTHER

I've noticed recently that Frank Davis and I think very much alike. We both appear to be typical of a more than significant minority of people who are both confused and angry at this NuWorld that is being enforced upon us without allowing us a stake or a say in it.

Twice in about a week, for example, we have said much the same sort of thing on the false allegations from the Anti-Smoker zealots that dismissed we ordinary pissed off people as somehow paid, professional lobbyists of the evil child catcher and this subject raised for intellectual debate

Frank's also put into words something that has been on my mind a lot lately - Healthism and Environmentalism as the Religion of the 21st Century.

The thought followed a conversation I had with a smoker a few weeks ago about all this NuHealism that doesn't allow contradictory opinions and dismisses any disagreement as a blasphemous sin - "heresy" as Frank puts it.

You should hear the abuse I get when debating a pregnant woman's right to choose to smoke, for example, and challenging that Healthist belief that only the pure will be perfect despite the ample evidence to the contrary.

I get called "irresponsible" and they are always "very concerned" at what I have said and then "aghast" in case my view influences anyone else to actually think for themselves and question the Healthist logic based on dodgy science by manipulation and not biology.

People don't believe in God and The Church as much as they did two generations ago and now worship at the temple of Good Health and Environmentalism. Maybe it gives them something else they believe can give them Everlasting Life and some form of Spiritual Harmony and Absolution for being less than physically perfect.

Certainly anti-smokerism has it's roots in religious Zealotry as the image above put up by a religious lunatic shows. He also believed the world was flat by the way.

As Frank says :

The old religious authorities wore cassocks, and the new ones wear lab coats. And that’s really the only difference.

Modern science was begun by people like Galileo who were prepared to throw out religious and philosophical orthodoxy, and think and experiment for themselves. It’s ironic, therefore, that this science has itself now become a new religion, with its own priesthood, and its own congregations of the faithful, who are expected to believe everything they are told, or else be accused of ‘denialism’ (which is the modern name of heresy).

For questionnaire-driven antismoking science, and its attendant statistical sleight of hand, is very arguably not science at all. Nothing is measured accurately. And the conclusions have usually been drawn before any ‘research’ is undertaken. It is research which is a parody of science.

I must admit that I do find it very odd that technology and science have progressively improved much in life and taken huge leaps and bounds in making new and beneficial discoveries. The only thing that remains as stale and true to the antiquated anti-smoker religious zealotry of the early 1930s is the anti-smoker healthist zealotry of this supposed new age.

HATE CRIME

From Smoking out The Truth

"I will successfully kill someone who
smokes. I encourage any non-smokers who are reading this to go out and
kick the shit out of smokers.”


Didn't they just find and fine someone for posting a joke on Twitter about bombing an airport?

And yet they encourage the sort of people above to commit hate crime by inciting violence against smokers.

It's about hate not health.

I did have plenty to say about the Muslim group that showed such disrespect on Armistice Day but I'll keep the rant short as I'm struggling with a cold, it's Friday and I'm fooked.

The burning of the Poppy was done with no knowledge or sympathy for our culture at this time of year.

If we insulted Islamic traditions we would be thrown in jail as racists. I believe in free speech and I do actually understand the anger of these Islamic young men because of the loss of innocents in their country. But they should have stood with us on Remembrance Day. They should have directed their anger at those who deserve it not at the young men and women who do their duty when called upon for low wages and little respect.

Anger directed at our troops, who would fight for their freedom too if called upon, is misplaced. Had the Muslims Against Crusaders directed that anger at the British war criminal Blair and his hench men and women who took our country into an illegal war, we would have given them more support.

Their behaviour only showed them up to be religious zealots and thugs who quite frankly should be deported.

Why does this spineless Govt fail to act against hate crime when it's directed at us as a nation or as individuals?

I think it's time this country started to get it's priorities right.