Tuesday, 10 May 2011

Religious in-discrimination

I always thought this was a BBC interlude. Turns out, it's a call to prayer.
Mark Steyn wades into the morass of a recent British court rulings that declares support for public broadcasting and belief in global warming to be religions deserving of more protection than Christianity gets in Britain.
Mr. Blair’s ministry introduced the “religious discrimination” law in 2003. Given that, with the exception of its many firebreathing imams, post-Christian Britain is a land without faith, it was entirely predictable that the law would wind up protecting the anything they do believe in.
If you look at these decisions in toto — from “climate change” to “public service broadcasting” — we are about two judges away from having the entire program of leftist conventional wisdom ruled a state church. 
I'd call this the law of unexpected consequences except that this is exactly what anyone with a grasp of logic and the left-wing mindset would see happen.

I recall back in the '80s watching a comedy programme where they had a sight gag showing a clutch of BBC executives kneeling in worship before a candle-lit shrine to Terry Woggin.  It now look as though that wasn't so much a joke as a prediction.

Update: Cranmer neatly sums up the situation.


eon said...

Well, at least they've now admitted that "Global Climate Change Warming Chaos" is a religious cult, as opposed to actual science. And that the Beeb is more about pushing belief systems than actual "public service".

In a similar vein, yesterday I watched an old History Channel show on the "Bible Code". And was struck by the way that its believers claim it's real, because they used high-powered computers to find the "words" concealed in the Torah, sort of like doing an acrostic in the newspaper.

Their argument was that it was only found now because we finally have computers that can do the number crunching to find the cipher hidden in the text by the rabbis and scribes all those centuries ago. (So, without computers, how did they do it?)

I wonder how many of those computers were using the same algorithms that East Anglia, etc., used to "prove" AGW?

"It must be real- our computer simulations prove it is!"



jayessell said...

Doesn't this mean that anti-AGW views would have to receive equal protection?

Or would that be 'Hate Speech'?

(An earlier post said it was heresy punishable by death.)

PS: Today's word: proctory.

(That's the room where proctololgists perform the examination.)

Sergej said...

So what constitutes a religion these days, anyway? Just some thing that one believes really hard? Like, what if I really believed that I could totally go for a grilled chicken sandwich for lunch? Do my food choice and I get protected status? Or if I were 120% confident that I am a particularly strident shade of purple? Would that qualify me for tax exempt status? An idle man with a law degree could amuse himself with this, methinks.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the current definition of "religion" is

"Delusion of choice shared by at least 5 right thinking (liberal) people"

eon said...


"An idle man with a law degree could amuse himself with this, methinks."

You do realize you've just described the ACLU, don't you? ;-)



Wesley said...

Global Warming
Global Cooling
Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change
Back to nature
Industrialism is Evil
Capitalists are Evil
Liberals love everyone
Liberals want everyone to live in a pre-agrarian society (except for them; somehow, they'll still have comfortable homes, cars, jets, shopping malls, designer clothing, grocery stores (that their servants go to to purchase their stuff), computers, iPhones, and Twitter)
Liberals/statists know better than you what you want/need, and they'll make sure that's all you get

-Yet we let these people run amok and lord it over us? What is our problem? Why do we (rational human beings) let them get away with everything they accuse us of doing?

Ironmistress said...

-Yet we let these people run amok and lord it over us? What is our problem? Why do we (rational human beings) let them get away with everything they accuse us of doing?

Because people in general are completely clueless and don't have a slightest idea on what really is going on.

Never accuse anyone from malice which can be explained on stupidity. Unfortunately, well-meaning stupidity (like that of Liberals) can prove in the end far more destructive than intentional malice (like that of the Conservatives).

We humies are not rational. We are emotional and we make all our great decisions in the life on basis of emotions, not rational thinking. If the very essence of humankind could be condensed in four words, it would be stupidity, laziness, greed and lechery.