Hey, Anybody In The UK Looking For An Altarboy?
Because I'd like to recommend the horse's ass also known as the Archbishop of Canterbury for the position. He recently called for new laws against "thoughtless or cruel" words against religion, just as the government is planning to repeal the old ones. Ruth Gledhill writes for The Times/UK:
The Archbishop, delivering the James Callaghan Memorial Lecture in London this afternoon, said it should not just be a few forms of extreme behaviour that were deemed unacceptable, leaving everything else as fair game.“The legal provision should keep before our eyes the general risks of debasing public controversy by thoughtless and, even if unintentionally, cruel styles of speaking and acting,” he said.
...Dr Williams said: “It is clear that the old blasphemy law is unworkable and that its assumptions are not those of contemporary lawmakers and citizens overall. But as we think about the adequacy of what is coming to replace it, we should not, I believe, miss the opportunity of asking the larger questions about what is just and good for individuals and groups in our society who hold religious beliefs.”
What is good and healthy is freedom of speech. Without it, dangers to the society don't go away, they're just allowed to fester underground.
A quote from his speech (full text at this link):
The fact is that 'in the real political world which we all perforce inhabit, words do wound, insults do hurt, and abuse – especially extreme and obscene abuse – does provoke both anger and violence' (Webster, p.129).
Uh, not amongst the civilized. When I was 13, Nazi groups planned to march in Skokie, Illinois. The Jews in Skokie merely planned a counter-demonstration, and ACLU attorney David Goldberger found himself in the weird position of being a Jew defending the civil rights of the Nazis.
And no, there were no Jews rioting, throwing burning trash cans through building windows, or the like in response. That's what Muslims do when their tender sensibilities are offended by mere drawings. For making a film that criticizes the reprehensible treatment of Muslim women by Muslim men, you're liable to be gunned down, then knifed. For writing a book critical of Islam, an international death threat...now in rerun!
Clearly, the answer isn't curtailing speech and imperiling democracy, but curtailing the violent and undercivilized.
This clown reminds me of someone in an abusive relationship. They constantly apologize and make plans to change themselves, never realizing that the abuse itself is what fuels the partner.
doombuggy at February 10, 2008 3:57 AM
Limbaugh was commenting about this asshole. He made a slip of the tongue when saying the name: "The archbury of canterbishop".
I think that has a certain ring to it.
brian at February 10, 2008 7:38 AM
All religious figures want to supress discussion of anykind about religion. The sad fact is they consider truth, reason, and logic to be hate speech because they all invalidate every religion.
lujlp at February 10, 2008 8:34 AM
How about we just outlaw any belief system based on the unprovable?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 10, 2008 1:56 PM
I'm for allowing people to believe whatever crap they want as long as it doesn't incite them to maim or kill those of us who don't believe in it. Astrology and numerology believers, for example, have Fluffernutter-for-brains, but they don't want to kill you if you tell them, as I often do, that you don't have an astrological sign.
Amy Alkon at February 10, 2008 3:05 PM
What the fuck is it with this guy? Has he always made really insane comments like this and just not been noticed, or is this a recent thing for him?
DuWayne at February 10, 2008 9:38 PM
It is not worth getting exercised over this twit. Although he has a fancy title, he has absolutely no real power whatever, except perhaps to embarrass those poor unfortunates who belong to the Anglican Communion.
Kirk at February 10, 2008 10:20 PM
How exactly do you embarss someone who claims to belive in the divine providce of a serial killer?
Seriously? Suppose CHarles Manson or John Wayne Gacey were to start a church would you ever take the leader of that church seriously? Whould you ever take any member of that church seriously?
Given the foundations of this particular 'religion' I fail to see how the comments of its leader could possibly be more embarassing than admiting to being a member
lujlp at February 11, 2008 12:11 AM
Lujlp,
I agree with your general statement. However, Henry VIII would not be considered a serial killer. Murderer and complete asshole, yes, but serial killer, no. He did execute Anne Boleyn on made up charges. His next wife died in childbirth. The next marriage was annulled because she was too ugly. He executed his 5th wife (Anne Boleyn's cousin) for cheating on him. (This was not unexpected as Kathryn Howard was young and beautiful, whereas Henry was disgustingly obese and stank from a festering sore on his leg.) He widowed his last wife. Sorry to be all history nerd, but I wrote my thesis on the Tudors and just couldn't not respond.
I do agree with Amy and most people here on their views of organized religion. I live in the "Bible Belt" (yay for me!) and my state went for Huckabee and Hillary. It was an embarrassing day for me. This (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/feb/11/anti-defamation-league-condemns-flyers-message-abo/) was in our local paper today. We finally get a decent congressperson who is actually accomplishing things, and his religion is used against him.
Also, the Archbishop is echoing the Muslims. Could that be where he got this idea?
Amy K. at February 12, 2008 11:49 AM
Amy, his obsession with an heir is what sends his murders twords the psycosis that marks a serial killer.
According to the definitons of a serial killer there must be a minimum of three victims.
While I will concede the point he only killed two of his wives, given his obsession, I would bet there were a few more bodies lying around somewhere - most likely a mistress or two
lujlp at February 12, 2008 1:39 PM
Leave a comment