h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Personally I think that girl should have abstained from associating with bats. . .


az

Personally I think that girl should have abstained from associating with Christians...

H.

Anyone catch this yesterday?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4056915.stm

"A school which wants teachers to be allowed to smack unruly pupils was taking its case to the House of Lords on Wednesday.
The Christian Fellowship School, in Edge Hill, Liverpool, says its stance is backed by passages in the Bible."

It is almost certain to be refused...

So, Christians are violent throwbacks. Is this news to anyone?

H.

Hmm.
Leaving aside the smack/don't smack argument, it seems to be setting a dangerous precedent to allow people to do things otherwise frowned upon just because (or even partly because) they are in a religious text.

Next thing you know, UK religions will be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of gender or sexuality.

I think we should return to traditional biblical values, because one wife just isn't enough. And while I'm looking for another suitable candidate, a slave or two would come in handy.

Here's a little something about the immoral minority's influence: http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656

"Rescuers have pulled at least four survivors from a building which collapsed in floods that hit the Philippines 10 days ago, officials say."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4080927.stm

"Miracle"

"Philippine President Gloria Arroyo hailed the discovery of the survivors as a "miracle".
"I'd like to thank God for that miracle and they [the rescuers] are continuing to dig deeper to see if they can rescue any more," she said. "




I can't remember if it was on this thread where someone mentioned something about this sort of thing. How religious people are so ready to 'thank God' when something good comes out of something horrible that 'He has done'. In this case, causing the storms and floods in the first place.


az

I mean, honestly . . .

"The parents of a 13-year-old girl are suing US supermarket giant Wal-Mart over a CD by rock group Evanescence that contains swear words."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4088757.stm



. . . of *all* the reasons to sue Walmart this is the best they could come up with?


az

$74,000? I hope the court awards them the price of the cd back and orders them to pay Wallmart's legal expenses.

Does anyone else get that feeling that the only people who will come out of this smiling re the lawyers?

Noggin

"Waxworks of Victoria and David Beckham dressed as Mary and Joseph in a nativity scene at Madame Tussauds have been damaged in an attack.
The London tourist attraction has removed them from display and closed off the controversial scene."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4090831.stm

"Church leaders and some members of the public have criticised the scene, which also has Kylie Minogue as the Angel.
The nativity also features Tony Blair, the Duke of Edinburgh and President George Bush as the three wise men.
Actors Samuel L Jackson and Hugh Grant and comedian Graham Norton play the shepherds."

"Head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has called the modern-day nativity "disrespectful"."




az

THEY were the three wise men? Madame T's certainly have a sense of humour...

Mm, one assumes that's to be filed under 'sarcasm-public display of'.

who does the church think all the artists models down the years were?
seems to me that Tussauds were quite clever here
they get lots of free publicity and the cardinal looks a pompous ass

Here's the thing:

If I call myself a Christian and I make a sculpture of a woman crucified and call it "Christ on the Cross" or if I paint a picture of an Australian Aborigine laughing and call it "Christ", does anyone have a right to try to have my devotional work hidden? To try to knock it down?

I'm not saying the silly nativity scene was a devotional work (and I'm not saying it wasn't). I don't think it's great art. But I also don't get the feeling that it was intended to offend. And it certainly is not promolgating hatred. It is an artistic expression, for what that is worth. What is that worth?


I wonder what Salman Rushdie thinks of the reaction to this little display. Did anybody here apart from me take part in the world-wide readings of the Satanic Verses after the fatwa? Why did we defend Salman Rushdie?

<>

Yes, why did you? I don't see the relevance to Madame Tussaud's
silliness.

How about the relevance in this one?

"Sack Moore, angry Muslims tell Telegraph"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1373075,00.html

"The Daily Telegraph columnist Charles Moore was criticised by Muslim organisations yesterday for an article which began by asking if the prophet Muhammad was a paedophile."


az

Typically of the Gruinad, the point of Moore's article is totally lost in the smug lefty 'we're not saying they're right, but gosh isn't this fun' glow.

'The Muslim Association of Britain called for his sacking and said the paper should have known better, in the light of the Salman Rushdie affair. '

I find that rather sinister. It seems to carry the undertone 'Rushdie should've taught you a lesson:don't fxck with us'.

'Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said Mr Moore's opening line was "breathtakingly provocative". It was "shocking to see the name of the prophet appearing in conjunction with the world paedophile".'

Well Duh! No shxt. You don't think that might have been the whole point?