williamonthehill

Despised and Rejected

In today's Independent newspaper is a front page story which claims that the Moslems of Europe feel as if they are the "modern Jews" - despised, hated, persecuted. First; what an irony then. The much mythologised and very vile "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" a true hate filled anti-semitic tract is in general circulation in the Arab states and is recommended reading on many Arab University campuses. I have myself seen this pamphlet in several Islamic bookshops in Newham. And every Arab state has as a legitimate political aim, indeed even placed in some state constitutions the elimination of the State of Israel. So called "Holocaust denial" is taught in many otherwise credible Arab universities as serious history.

But actually are moslems generally despised and persecuted? I don't think so. Indeed the reverse is more true. After all, what else can we make of the statement yesterday by one of our principle Law Lords (Lord Phillips) that as a nation we ought to give serious consideration to incorporating certain elements of Sharia law into our own legal system? Hardly a mark of a despised culture.

The liberal establishment, obsessed with "multiculturalism" has actively embraced moslems and other incomers and they are to be found in politics and community leadership. In local authorities such as Newham and Tower Hamlets the moslem voice is a very essential part of local governance and decision-making. That is as it should be.

Over the past few years, under the "New Labour Project" we have actually seen a situation develop where Moslem and other minority sections of our communities are now seen as more equal than the indigenious population. This is why the Labour vote in many inner city areas of England has fallen. Ask the voters of Barking & Dagenham why they voted BNP. This is not the fault of Moslems. The chattering classes of Barnesbury and Blair's cronies have encouraged this nonsense which does no favours to moslems. It leads to stupid announcements by the likes of Lord Justice Phillips and the Archbishop of Canterbury. As I say, this type of thinking does no one any good.

The United Nations Food & Wine Festival, Rome

The United Nations long ago lost any moral authority it may have had.The General Secretaryship of Bortras Bortras Gali was wholly a disaster. During his leadership very little leadership was to be spared. The most gross dictatorships were allowed to run amok completely unchallenged. So that it is now possible for the most crooked and brutal of African and Asian dictatorships to libel truly democratic powers as 'fascist dictatorships' and breakers of human rights.

The rantings and ravings of President Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the President of Iran at an supposed conference of the United Nations in Rome should not surprise us. This is exactly the legacy of Gali to which I referred above. It was sickening, it was hypocritical and it was tolerated, nay, encouraged by that body.

Is it not sick and hypocritical of Mugabe to point the finger of blame at the UK and to blame us for the starvation of his people. Isn't it now thirty years since Zimbawe was granted Independence? Get over it Bob.

And as for that clown, the President of Iran.... Words are inadequate and when can we expect the big stick which lands heavy blows, aka The Israeli Self Defence Airforce to eradicate the Tehran nuclear bomb project. Lets cheer them on when they do it.

When you see UN Bun fests like the one in Rome, with its attendant charlatans, fools and clowns you just have to wonder what value, if any that once august body now has in the world. 

I am not an Anti-Catholic Bigot... but then again...

You may remember a few posts back that I mentioned two Peers and the debate about the Catholic Church and Condoms in the fight against HIV.

Below is my letter to them,,,

Baroness Flather of Maidenhead

The House of Lords

Westminster

London SW

6 April 2008

My Lady,

I am aware of your many discourses on the subject of HIV/AIDS pandemic on the African continent in the Upper House and elsewhere. I am also aware that for a reason known only to yourself you are inclined to place the blame for this human tragedy on the Catholic Church.

You may wish to know what the Catholic Church teaches and believes on this matter. Firstly , that sexual intercourse may occur only within a marriage, between two spouses. Any sexual encounter outside of the marriage context is illicit and is commonly called fornication. For those who remain unmarried chastity (abstinence) is a valid state and is greatly to be desired. Therefore chastity without marriage, and continence within marriage are the sole guarantors against HIV infection or indeed against any STD infection. Abstinence is the key.

Condoms are absolutely not the answer to this situation. You will be aware one hopes of the failure rate of Condoms, which reaches near to 20 % in some studies (1-in-5). You will also be aware that the latex of the average condom does contain holes of microscopic proportions through which infection can and does travel.

To use a condom is said to be practising ‘safe’ sex. Well, actually no. Over twenty years ago as a counsellor in a street drugs agency the message I was told to give to our service users was not to use the word ‘safe’in this context. The preferred word was ‘safer’ but that the risks of condom sex were to be spelt out to the clients.

So, to return to the Catholic Church. The Church teaches the faithful that sex is something which may occur only within marriage. The spouses are to be loyal and faithful to each other and to practice continence within the marriage.

For those outside marriage sex is not allowed. Yes, I will put it as strongly as that. That means not just hetero, but homo, trans, bi and any other personal preference of sex with or to. This is fornication which is a mortal sin. Those Catholics who are faithful and serious followers of the faith will have no difficulty with this teaching since the church has taught it from the beginning and chastity has Biblical backing.

my Lady, I have some difficulty in following the logic of your argument with regard to the Catholic Church being the principle obstacle to the resolution of the HIV pandemic in Africa. Perhaps you can explain it to me? As I understand you, the Catholic Church refuses to support the use of condoms in Africa. This leads to the continued infection of Africans.

my Lady, I find this argument to be so absurd and illogical. You lack any statistical method by which you might assert this argument. Do you even know how many Catholics there might be on the Continent of Africa? And do you suppose that if Catholics were ignoring the major teaching of abstinence and chastity in this matter, that they would bother to heed the call of the church to use a condom?

I think you would agree with me that South Africa has possibly the highest rate of HIV infection in the Continent? Given that Catholics are fewer than 10% of that countries population I cannot see in what way or manner the Catholic Church can be seen to be blamed for the HIV situation in South Africa. Can you? I would not expect any non-Catholic to heed the voice of the Catholic Church on the issue of fornication or using condoms as protection against STD’s or on anything else for that matter. It is a fact, easily verified that the Catholic religion is actually the minority Christian faith on the African continent and that, overall Islam is better represented on that continent.

I believe, and common sense would appear to support me, that abstinence from any sexual activity is the safest way to avoid contamination from any form of sexually transmitted disease.

I am perfectly capable of controlling my sexual urges, passions and lusts. I am sure that you are too. That is human nature. We all have a conscience and we all understand right from wrong. This is a universal phenomenon. I think that what disturbs me the most about the call to deluge the African continent with Condoms as if this was the sole and only solution to this dreadful disease is, I feel, inherently racist. It seems to me that the message behind the Condoms to Africa movement is one of acute racism and which is beholden of some very archaic colonialist thinking. my Lady, what your message in support of condom distribution in Africa says is this ( I use parody): “Those Africans; children, animals.” What I mean is that the logic which supports your position does not allow for Africans possessing the same nature as you and I. Indeed, the message which your policy seems to put across is that the African is, at best a child who cannot help himself but must be always engaging in promiscuous sex. Or that the African is actually a mere animal who, just like a dog must engage in sexual intercourse when confronted by the bitch on heat.

Thank God that the Catholic Church has a higher view of humanity than do the Secularists and the so called Humanists. That is why the Catholic Church calls for abstinence from sexual activity outside of the Sacrament of Marriage.

The real issue in the debate on HIV infection on the African Continent is surely this; that the only guaranteed way of avoiding infection (from any STD and not just HIV) is not to engage in sex with multiple partners. Africans need to hear the correct message; that only celibacy outside marriage, and continence (loyalty to one’s spouse) within marriage can give any guarantee of avoiding infection. The condom message gives entirely the wrong message, namely one that fully supports promiscuous sexual activity.

My Lady, I am forced to the conclusion that your position on this issue, and your, sometimes intemperate language towards the Catholic Church in the many debates in the House in which you have contributed, is motivated entirely by plain, old-fashioned anti-Catholic bigotry.

Yours sincerely

Clive Baulch

Here is the reply which I received from the good Lady.

Dear Mr. Baulch

You talk about the teachings of the Catholic Church which is to practise abstience and chastity and no  relationships outside marriage. Would it surprise you to know that every other religion teaches the same? So then what is the difference? The other religions accept the fallibility of human beings and do not put restrictions of the kind which people are not going to follow. I would have thought that a person as intelligent as you appear to be would understand that not everyone or in fact hardly anyone is like yourself. Should the rules be for the one or two exceptions like yourself, or should the rules be such that they will help those who constantly fall off the pedestal?

I am sorry to say that it is complete nonsense to say that the condoms do not help STDs or protect from HIV infection. If you go on saying these things you just join the Embeke group of heads in the bucket people. The two biggest problems facing the world today are overpopulation and the spread of HIV, both of which require some intervention. The Catholic church does not allow any kind of family planning devices or condoms which would be helpful in both.

I accept the fact that everybody is not a Catholic but the catholic church does have influence and BEPFAR, President Bush's fund for AIDS alleviation in Africa is being largely administered through catholic churches. That surely would have an enormous impact on the efficacy of the money spent. Most of it is being wasted on a "pie in the sky" dream of promoting abstinence. You say that I am motivated by bigotry/ I am not motivated by bigotry, I am motivated by facts. It is the Catholics who never cease to surprise me by their bigotry.

I will not argue with you anymore. We will just have to accept the fact that I view the world reslistically and you view the world from your own moral standpoint, but perhaps you could explain to me how your own prists have been buggering little boys in their care?

Magical chattering mobile phones

The announcement earlier this week that airlines have been given permission to allow the use of mobile phones on flights, made me groan.  As I have stated below, I am not a frequent flier and with the imminent arrival of mobile phones I am less likely to want to fly. I can think of nothing more horrifying than the prospect of being locked in a confined space with no way of escaping until the door is opened at the arrival airport with a person less than 10 mm from my own ear, shouting inane 'chatter' into his or her piece of grey plastic. At least on a train I can walk away. The bus is similar, but in an aeroplane one is a prisoner. As someone who feels that sharing germs on an aeroplane is bad enough, the prospect of  sharing someone else's phone chatter feels me with absolute dread.

The mobile phone seems to free people from all normal commonsense and etiquette. For a start, most people have a need to shout - What's that?!!! Dinner! No! I'm on a train (plane, bus). The contents of most people's mobile phone chatter seems to consist of post-mortems; " so he said, and then I said, then he, then I,... The more embarrassing post mortems are frequently to be heard on the bus or the train on Monday morning. When Helen phones her mate Cathy and gives a blow-by-blow account of everything that happened from the Friday night dancing around the handbags, up until Sunday night's good night sexual manoeuvrings. The most embarrassing such call I was ever forced to listen to was on a bus. The 14 year old schoolgirl had a voice like a megaphone and she had no shame, or not much that was obvious. Some of the contents of the phone call would have curled your hair.I will spare you the details.

Many people feel their mobiles are a type of magic totem or fetish. Research studies tell us that very few owners of cell phones understand the technology behind them. I swear that many people actually, really believe that they function by means of magic. Wherever one goes one can see people gazing into their phone screens and scrolling through their address books. I never know whether people do this in order to validate themselves in some way - "what a good and popular person I am; see, 150 numbers"; or are they looking desperately for someone to phone so they Can 'chatter'. I was once behind a middle-aged couplee in a department store who were looking at buying a cordless telephone ("so we can chat in the garden") The wife turned her nose up at one model since it could store "only 200" numbers. "We want at least 500" she said in her rather shrill voice. Why? You can't tell me that this woman, or even this couple, have 500 friends they want to talk to every day. Most of us, even those of us popular, have anywhere near that amount of 'friends' in real life.Is this an indication of the loneliness that most people feel most of the time? Loneliness and insecurity.

I think that what fuels the need to just 'chatter' in as loud a voice as possible is  so as to drown out that negative self-talking that most of us hear most of the time. To drown out our own chatter and to break down that sense of feeling lonely and feeling unimportant.

Bishop claims opposition "selecting the evidence" in Embryology row

Archbishop Nichols voices concern at Government position on key moral issues

Archbishop Vincent Nichols used the occasion of the annual Easter Monday Men's Mass, at St Chad's Cathedral, Birmingham today, to draw attention, again, to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, shortly to be debated in Parliament.

The Archbishop of Birmingham, was the principal celebrant and preacher at the Mass promoted by the Catholic Men's Society that has taken place each
year since 1919.

In his homily, Archbishop Nichols said: "You will have read about the provisions of this Bill to permit the creation of animal/human hybrids, to increase the use of human embryos in stem cell research, to remove the 'need for a father' from law and birth certificate. It may well also be used to change the laws on abortion. You will have heard of it in your parishes and, no doubt, asked to write to your MPs. Today I repeat that request."

The Archbishop continued: "Beyond the details of the research which is to be permitted, there are a number of underlying trends, increasingly common in our public discourse, which characterise this Bill and debate about it. I want to draw attention to these as part of our witness today.

"One is the selective use of evidence. We hear consistently the claims that the type of embryo experimentation being permitted by the Bill holds great promise for future cures of illness like cystic fibrosis and MS. The evidence for this is so far sparse. Very little progress has been made through embryonic stem cell research. In contrast, work with adult stem cells is showing far better results. All the published research points in this direction, even in the specific task of finding cures for cystic fibrosis. Yet we hear little about it. What is to be lost in facing these facts? They actually indicate the pathways of successful research to which there are no ethical objections.

"Instead, we know that the best scientific research often contributes to that sense of wonder and awe at the complexity and beauty of the created world which is itself a signpost to belief in God. But our objections to the Bill are ethical. We are not trying to protect God, but ourselves and our
society. Some of the things the Bill proposes are wrong and will do harm."

Archbishop Nichols emphasised: "This Bill makes clear the ways in which scientists are researching into every aspect of human reproduction. It makes clear the ways in which the law of this land is now bearing down on the fundamental patterns of relationships within the family and society. It's as if, in the exploration of an old house, we have now, at long last, reached the basement which no-one has visited since the house was built. If, in that basement, we found a network of strong pillars and beams, we would be foolish indeed to start cutting through them without very careful thought and calculation of the consequences of doing so for the rest of the house.

"But this is what might well be happening. This Bill permits the commercialisation of aspects of human birth: the donation its fundamental elements and the use of surrogates. Research is opening up for us the possibility of engineered human birth away from a natural mother. Because we can do these things, does it mean that we should? Are they really for our common good?"

The Archbishop stressed: "The conception of a child can never simply be a question of the rights of adults. It is also and always a matter of the rights of that new life, that child. These rights, too, must be respected. The provisions in this Bill which permit, in certain circumstances, the need of a child for a father to be set aside neglect those rights. And the proposal that, with the full support of the law, reference to the child's biological father may be omitted from the record of birth is to burden a child with the weight of a lie from the first moments of life. That is a dereliction of our duty. Its repercussions will be felt in years to come. In these ways we weaken crucial pillars in the foundations of our common home."

He added: "Let me take a different analogy. Only slowly, and with the help of science and technology, have we come to realise the damage we have done to our natural environment. We know now we must act to correct that damage. Yet we also live in a 'human environment', too, within a 'human ecology', made up of the structure of nature by which we are born and flourish, and consisting in the network of relationships of family and community. This Bill proposes a profound interference with some of these structures: a diminishment of the practical respect shown to human life in its beginnings,
a restructuring of crucial patterns of parenting. Members of Parliament must think carefully about this Bill and pay attention to the instinctive recoil
that many feel about some of its proposals. There is wisdom in this repugnance. We must make our own thoughts and conviction clear.

"This is why the present position of the Labour Party not to permit a free vote on the key moral issues in this Bill is disturbing. To suggest that Labour MPs with conscientious objections may abstain would not be good enough. We must press and pray for the right of members of the Labour Party to vote according to their conscience on these fundamental moral issues. For them not to be able to do so would suggest that, within the Party of Government, there is no space for the views and the votes of those who have ethical objections, especially when founded in religious belief. Nor can
this be isolated as a Catholic issue because the profound moral principles and convictions addressed in this Bill are of concern to people of many faiths and of none."

Archbishop Vincent Nichols concluded his homily: "So today I ask you to act on these concerns. Now is the time to write to your MP and to join in public debate if you get the opportunity. In this way we follow in the footsteps of St Peter and of many who have gone before us, not least the great Bishop William Bernard Ullathorne OSB, the first Catholic Bishop of Birmingham (September 1850 until he resigned in February 1888) who did not hesitate to
challenge the evils of his time, among them the evils of the penal colonies and the dangers of excessive drinking."

"Faith is a practical project. We are the builders of our world. There is a task at hand and we can do no better than to build on Christ as our
foundation. He, who alone has conquered death, is the one to be trusted. Let us renew our trust in Him and work in His name."

© Independent Catholic News 2008

The Chimera of the Brown Premiership

As a Catholic I find myself living in an increasingly intolerant society so far as my faith and my beliefs would have it. Lying in my sick bed I have had every opportunity to listen to the news and to opinion concerning the bru haha created by Keith, Cardinal O'Brien Primate of Scotland. Leaving aside for the moment just what this fuss has been about ( I will return to the subject later) I have been struck by just how much old fashioned bigoted hatred is to be found in the hearts of the so called liberal establishment. References to "allegiances to Rome" and the use of the word "Vatican" as a term of insult. Amazing. And this hatred was broadcast on good old BBC Radio 4. I have to say that some of the comments aired by that broadcast station made my hair curl. And why, one wonders, is it so acceptable to bad mouth the Catholic Church and Catholics? Perhaps because if we were Moslems being insulted and denigrated in this way we would bomb them? Yes, that must be it. Double-Standards.

Gordon Brown is a control freak. Yes, a good old fashioned dictator would suit his style of management. And the New Labour project quite early on descended into fascistic tendencies. It is plain wrong to deny a free vote on a matter which is all about conscience. And why this bullyboy tactic anyway? Who is pulling his string? And why?

What is certain is that the usual subjects - the Multinational Pharmaceutical Corporations (mainly American) stand to make Billions out of this research. But it is less certain, indeed extremely improbable, that any 'cure' for Parkinson's Disease or MS will come out of this 'science'. Research into cures for these diseases are already within reach using harvested stem cells from Placentas and skin and from other living sources. It is cheaper science too. But the British public is being lied to by the government and its spin doctors when they say, quite incorrectly that this science will bring about cures for these dreadful diseases. As of yet not one, not one single 'cure' has come out of destroying life in this way. Destroying and manipulating. Do we have no respect and dignity for the human being anymore. The so called 'Chimera' clause, allowing scientists to place human DNA into Animal eggs (and vice vers of course) is particularly worrying. Why does the UK government think this is an OK procedure when just about every other government looked at it, then said 'no thanks'. Yes, which is where the Monsantos of this world come in. Not allowed to do it in the US so lets get over to that friendly UK and do this stuff over there.

The arrogance of the scientific community (and this government) is breathtaking. Back in early January the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Agency issued the first three licences for 'Chimera' research. This was before the Bill which contains the legislation to allow this to happen had even been delivered from the government printers. So far as they are concerned this Bill is a 'done deal'. Hence Brown's panic now as he realises that it aint quite the 'done' deal he thought it was. Very far from being in the bag.Typical of  the style of the 'New Labour' project. Lets piss on the people now. ***** Democracy.

Quite a lot of effort over the weekend from various scientists to persuade us that "of course" we would never go there. Never create any abhorrent half man half animal hybrid. But, you know, I don't believe 'em. And why? Because scientists could never resist doing "just another experiment" to "see what happens". Its the nature of science. They just will not be able to resist. So best not allow them to begin in the first place since we know that science is incapable of any meaningful self governance.

I am not into conspiracy theories but I am aware of what goes on in the world. Just a note to the thinkers out there who might read this Blog. Is it really credible that the US Military and the Russian Military are investing thousands of millions of Dollars into this research in order to cure Parkinsons Disease? I think not.

Lecture Time

Today, on the news (BBC Radio 4) I heard an item that rather made me cross. The report from the Parliamentary Select Committee on Overseas Development was released today because it is Mothers Day. The report concerns the issue of women dying in labour or during delivery. It makes the point that the statistics concerning Africa have not progressed one jot for twenty years and this despite all the money that has been injected into Africa during all this time.

What made me cross was the statement in this report that the fact that the situation had not improved for over two decades was; a collective, global responsibility. Sorry, I can't see that at all. Collectively and globally the United States, the UK, the European Community, even Russia and China as well as Australia and New Zealand, the World Bank and the United Nations have poured billions of Dollars as well as agencies and people into the African continent and especially into the usual 'stretchercase' nations in sub-Saharan Africa. So it isn't fore the lack of effort, committment or money that this situation has not improved.

So we have to ask ourselves who is responsible for this situation if it is not improving or responding? Well, how many hundreds of millions of dollars did Idi Amin salt away in Switzerland? Or, more topically, Robert Mugabe is known to have a personal fortune amounting to nearly four hundred millions. When are the Africans ever going to help themselves to more than world money?

I don't think I need a lecture from a bunch of obvioudsly ill informed MP's especially at a time when we are seeing them with their snouts in the trough of their 'private' expenses.