God forbid we should have a secular state

Published: March 16, 2009 at 8:32am

Well, here we have it from the horse’s mouth: it’s the clergy who ask the police to “keep an eye to any obscene behaviour” even before the Nadur carnival begins. I’m sure it’s one of the more interesting aspects of the job.

“Let us not give free rein to those who are systematically planning to see a secular Malta in the not long distant future” – exactly where are we living?

The Sunday Times, 15 March

Carnival dishonour
Fr Joseph Rapa, Nadur

The Bishops’ statement deploring the Nadur carnival was clear enough, especially for those who are in charge of public order and public decency. Every year the police are approached beforehand and asked to keep an eye to any obscene behaviour. In the past few years letters appeared in the local press deploring the immoral behaviour and the ridicule to which our faith and religious practices were being subjected to. But this seems to have been disregarded by those responsible. Certainly we have laws governing public decency and respect of our religion.

Unfortunately, our small town has become widely and un-favourably known for its indecent carnival. Let no one think that our community is happy about that. For God’s sake, let us not give free rein to those who are systematically planning to see a secular Malta in the not long distant future.




45 Comments Comment

  1. Graham C. says:

    God forbid the Maltese people find out that St Peter was a rabbit, Learn the truth.
    http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155565/

  2. Tim Ripard says:

    Great clip, Graham.
    Good thing you posted this, Daphne. I missed it due to pressure of work. The mind boggles. It really does.

  3. H.P. Baxxter says:

    Not happy about us coming over to Nadur? Right then. We can take our custom elsewhere, and let the Gozitans starve.

  4. John Meilak says:

    @Graham C

    You can have your secular state but surely mocking another person’s religion is the most vile of acts a person can do. I’m a Catholic Christian, but even so I would rise to the defence of a Buddhist, Muslim or Taoist if they’re being mocked in front of me.

    Surely the Nadur incident is a typical case of poor humour. There is nothing funny about Christ. Nor about Mohammed or Buddha. I don’t think we would laugh if someone mocked us or our relatives. So why should we mock God who is even greater than all of us combined?

    [Daphne – What are you suggesting? A law against bad jokes? The policing of humour? The point you miss is that those people were not mocking somebody else’s religion, but the religion in which they were raised. It is a CRUCIAL difference. And the comparison of religion or God with family does not hold.]

  5. Harry Purdie says:

    Graham,
    A hare raising story.

  6. John Meilak says:

    YES IT DOES hold because you love your God just as you love your family. [Daphne – No, I don’t. My family are real people whom I love. God is an abstract notion to which I occasionally devote two minutes of intellectual interest when I have nothing else to occupy me.] If you love God you do not mock him. [Daphne – Please distinguish between God and religion. Religion was mocked. God was not. It’s hard to mock something that has no shape, form or identity.] And why should I mock the religion I was raised in? [Daphne – Nobody is saying you should. What I’m saying is that it should be your choice whether to mock or not to mock, and not up to the bishops, the police and the law courts.] At least mock the human side of the religion but not the founder of the religion. There is nothing funny about it. [Daphne – Perhaps not, but the reaction was hysterically funny.]

    And yes, if you’ve no capacity for good humour then you should be taught good manners. [Daphne – Ooooh, bossy! I pity your children, if you raised any, and your wife if you have one, if you speak to women in their 40s in terms of what they should be taught or not taught. Funny how xenophobia, authoritarianism and unthinking Catholicism go together.] Just as a burp or fart in public is bad manners, so is bad humour. [Daphne – I would have corrected this before uploading it, but you’re so irritating I’m going to display even poorer manners and correct you publicly instead: ‘bad humour’ means ‘bad mood’, just as ‘good humour’ means ‘good mood’. The English language does not allow for the concept of a sense of humour that is either bad or good] Ha nibqghu sejrin hekk kollox xejn mhu xejn? We have to draw the line somewhere. [Daphne – No, we don’t. The world has suffered more trouble from lines being drawn than from lines not being drawn. I find it particularly amusing that people like you believe that you are the ones who should be shutting everyone up. You really have no idea how many people there are out here who, like me, have a very pressing desire to shut up people like you – but we don’t, because we don’t have an autocratic mindset. Every time somebody like you writes in to a public forum to stick up for religion in this manner, I become more convinced of my observation that the main function of doctrine classes and religious teaching in schools is to prevent children from developing a logical mind, which ensures that they grow up to be irrational adults. The eradication of rational thought in children is a prerequisite for having them absorb irrational religion without questioning it. Religious indoctrination and training in logical thought do not sit well together, and in the choice of what should go, the average parent usually opts for the latter, not realising how badly it handicaps a child. With my children, I did it the other way round, and I am very pleased with the results, which speak for themselves. My main objection to ‘duttrina’, you might be surprised to discover, was not on grounds of religion, but because of the damage I knew it would cause to their rational faculties. A logical mind is a far greater blessing and gift than religious faith, which many dump anyway, at some point in life.]

  7. Lino Cert says:

    @John Meilak
    “There is nothing funny about Christ. Nor about Mohammed or Buddha”

    I’m sorry, but I happen to find them very funny indeed. Maybe I have a different sense of humour. Many of my friends find them funny as well. And I love comedians who mock God. In fact most of my favourite comedians specialise in mocking God, and some of them gave superb stand-up shows in Malta. Nobody complained, as far as I know. In one of these shows the hall was packed with Maltese of all classes and there were roars of laughter after each God joke. So there definitely is a market for this. What’s the problem with mocking your own religion, or some even funnier religions? Even the bishops mock other religions, and gave us offensive stickers to mock those religions when they come ringing our doorbells.

  8. John Meilak says:

    No, I don’t. My family are real people whom I love. God is an abstract notion to which I occasionally devote two minutes of intellectual interest when I have nothing else to occupy me”

    And the remaining 3598 minutes at insulting and denigrating other people. You forgot that. I think you have selective memory. [Daphne – I do take baths, you know. And do other things.]

    “Please distinguish between God and religion. Religion was mocked. God was not. It’s hard to mock something that has no shape, form or identity.”

    By definition if you mock religion you mock God. [Daphne – Really? I think you’ll find that lots of people who mock religion do so because they don’t think there is a god. So how can they mock him/her/it?]

    Ooooh, bossy! I pity your children, if you raised any, and your wife if you have one, if you speak to women in their 40s in terms of what they should be taught or not taught. Funny how xenophobia, authoritarianism and unthinking Catholicism go together.”

    You do not need to be so blunt. I only asked for respect for others’ beliefs. As for the rest you can do the hell you want. [Daphne – So it’s true, then.]

    “..bad humour’ means ‘bad mood’, just as ‘good humour’ means ‘good mood”.

    I don’t think those in Nadur had a bad mood. Quite the opposite in fact. [Daphne – That’s what I’m telling you: you used the wrong expression, and gave your sentence the wrong meaning.]

    No, we don’t. The world has suffered more trouble from lines being drawn than from lines not being drawn. I find it particularly amusing that people like you believe that you are the ones who should be shutting everyone up. You really have no idea how many people there are out here who, like me, have a very pressing desire to shut up people like you – but we don’t, because we don’t have an autocratic mindset”

    Oh, so asking for respect is shutting people up now? [Daphne – Yes, it is. What you are telling them is: say what I want you to say or say nothing at all.] No, you don’t have autocratic mindset; you rather have a ‘bulldozer’ mindset. True autocratic minds do not insult other people. They do not even have to resort to that. [Daphne – Nothing wrong with a bulldozer attitude. It’s one of the best ways to get things done.]

    “Every time somebody like you writes in to a public forum to stick up for religion in this manner, I become more convinced of my observation that the main function of doctrine classes and religious teaching in schools is to prevent children from developing a logical mind, which ensures that they grow up to irrational adults.”

    Oh really? May I remind you that some of the brightest students and scientists in history were very religious. Louis Pasteur, Galileo Galilei, Albert Einstein (a Jew), De Cartes, Leonardo da Vinci. All these were devoted religious people. Are you accusing these brilliant people of being illogical? I rather think they had a more universal perspective of reality. Science and God go hand in hand, because science attempts to unravel the mysteries created by God. [Daphne – I think you have a lot of reading to do.]

    Religious indoctrination and training in logical thought do not sit well together, and in the choice of what should go, the average parent usually opts for the latter, not realising how badly it handicaps a child.”

    There is difference between indoctrination and understanding. When I used to go we weren’t indoctrinated. Everything was explained and given the reason for. We used to ask questions and engage in discussion. There is no indoctrination. There are only small minds who cannot grasp God in his totality. [Daphne – See what I mean? “Everything was explained….”]

    A logical mind is a far greater blessing and gift than religious faith, which many dump anyway, at some point in life.”

    Oh, many have perished or given up in their pursuit of climbing Mount Everest. But still, a few determined men like Edmund Hillary who had faith in their God managed to climb the highest mountain in the world. That is Faith. To reach the top. The logical mind alone will not get you there. [Daphne – Ah, but it was the logical mind, and not religious faith, which gave us every modern comfort we use today. With religious faith alone we would still be in caves, wearing skins. Edmund Hillary’s achievement had nothing to do with God and everything to do with a sherpa called Tenzing, and his own physical and mental fitness.]

  9. John Schembri says:

    May I ask you, Daphne, whether you read or had a look at It-Torca of March 1? That newspaper reported “Deher evidenti it-tkasbir tar-religjon b’imitazzjoni ta’ Kristu u d-dixxipli. S’issa ghada ma’ harget l-ebda stqarrija la mid-Djocesi ta’ Ghawdex u l-anqas mill-pulizija u l-anqas minn xi kappillan jew forsi l-pulizija li quddiemhom sehhew certi atti…..”

    I would not be offended or scandalised if I saw a person dressed like a nun french-kissing a person dressed as a priest. I think even the bishops would have closed an eye. But having a person resembling Christ with a four foot ” Luqa monument” supported on a small wheel at its end, is simply not acceptable. Even if he dressed up like Priapus he should have been arrested on the spot.

    [Daphne – It-Torca, eh? And I see that you are repeating the ‘scandalous rumour’ that the people dressed as Christ were pushing giant rubber willies before them. No, they weren’t. The giant rubber willies were pushed around by different people entirely. And quite frankly, if a bit of torn bed-sheet and some red paint makes for Christ, then two feathers and a string of beads will make you Pocahontas.]

  10. MikeC says:

    @john meilak

    Nothing funny about ‘god’? How about creating the world in six days (and having a rest on the seventh, of course)? Giving man an extra rib, so that when he takes one away to make a woman the man will still have an even number? Is that some kind of prerequisite for intelligent design?

    Talking snakes? Ships loaded with a pair of each of the creatures of the earth? And the rabbits held back until they were back on dry land. A man living inside a fish for three days? Water into wine? Limbo? Now you see it now you don’t? There’s so many one-liners there I don’t know where to start.

    I could go on and on, but I might hurt your feelings, or maybe god will punish me with a bolt of lightning. Or he might send me to hell. Or purgatory. But I can always buy my way out. Do they take Visa? Mastercard? How about Paypal?

    Give us a break, will you.

  11. MikeC says:

    @John Meilak

    Einstein? Religious? Here are a few quotes:

    The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

    I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

    I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

    The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
    The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism….
    If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
    The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
    Immortality? There are two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and is thus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conserve the memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other.

  12. Lino Cert says:

    @ Einstein
    “But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other”
    Jahasra Einstein, you were doing so well but you blew it at the end, because the cosmos is mortal as well I am afraid. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  13. John Schembri says:

    @ Daphne: I can see that you are furious. [Daphne – I am not at all furious. I am bored. I cannot believe that at the age of 44 and in 2009 I am still listening to ta’ wara l-muntanji people go into paroxysms of horror at the sight of an over-sized dildo tacked onto a man with or without a sheet wrapped round him. This is the sort of thing that induced a sense of great tedium in me 30 years ago.]
    Go get a copy of the paper and see the pictures. I can tell that you don’t have a copy. This was on It-Torca of the 1st March 2009, not a rumour. Shouldn’t people buy it-Torca? It’s good to listen to another bell sometimes. [Daphne – First, the ‘qanpiena l-ohra’ expression cannot be translated literally into English. Second, why on earth would I want to go and find a copy of It-Torca to look at pictures of the Nadur carnival? I am not exercised by what people wore or didn’t wear. I wouldn’t have been exercised even if they wore nothing at all and copulated on the bonnet of the parish priest’s sedan. I am not interested in carnival antics at all. I am, however, extremely interested in what proceeded from those carnival antics. Telling me to look at pictures of this or that is not going to help your argument at all: it is the principle that we are talking about here. People should be able to wear whatever they please without being arrested, unless they are wilfully impersonating a doctor, policeman or military person with fraudulent or criminal intent.]

    And if for argument’s sake they dressed up like Priapus, they were still breaking the law. [Daphne – How so? Does the law specify that one is not to go about in public with a papier-mache dildo attached to one’s person? I’d like to have seen the debate on that particular bill in parliament.]

    One can see that this paper set the ball rolling before the bishops expressed their feelings in a public statement. Your attack on Peter Apap Bologna would have been more convincing if you would have published it on the same paper. I would call that a level playground. He wrote to the newspaper and you should answer back on that paper.That is what I consider fair. [Daphne – What you consider fair is of very little interest to me, given that we clearly do not share a set of values. But in case you missed it, I did. I take exception to your description of what I had to say as ‘an attack’. It was a defence. The attack was entirely his. It would never have occurred to me in a million years to write about somebody so irrelevant. I am bemused by the fact that people feel entitled to treat me like a coconut shy but then God forbid I should respond in kind. No, that’s not allowed.]

  14. Andrea says:

    A bit of refreshment.
    George Carlin: Religion is bullshit.
    Danger!Comedy!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

  15. Graham C. says:

    John Meilak, Leonardo da Vinci religious? Oh please, he was a non-celibate homosexual as were many artistic geniuses of the Renaissance. Galileo Galilee? He realised through science that the church was preaching nonsense, and then paid the price for publicising his theories, which turned out to be fact. If Albert Einstein was a religious man he would not have debated atheism or agnosticism and what not, but a spiritual man would have.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU
    Not that I’m advocating atheism – just an example to say you are wrong to suggest that intelligent people are necessarily Roman Catholic.

  16. H.P. Baxxter says:

    What the hell are you on about, Lino and MikeC?

  17. Lino Cert says:

    @ H.P. Baxxter
    “What the hell are you on about, Lino and MikeC?”

    It’s just “nerd talk” Baxxter, don’t mind us.

  18. John Schembri says:

    Our sets of values are different, Daphne; perhaps you don’t make a difference between “liberta” and “libertinagg”. Even freedom has its limits. Our freedoms stop where other people’s rights start.

    [Daphne – Our sets of values are different for a great variety of cultural reasons, and not because I don’t distinguish between liberty and libertinism. For a start, the first affects society; the second the individual. And you are wrong in claiming that our freedom invariably stops where other people’s rights begin. It doesn’t always. It’s a lot more complicated than that simplistic assessment. Unfortunately, people who think as you do are unaware of the grave dangers posed – despite the manifest examples from history and the present-day – of using the law or social censure to force people to conform. We all agree that in an ideal world, for example, people would not cheat on their spouses. But there’s a giant leap from that to making adultery a crime, as it was in Malta until not that terribly long ago, and as it is still in certain Islamic states. If not by using legal or social censure, then how would you propose controlling it? You can’t, and nor should you.]

  19. Pat says:

    John Meilak: “By definition if you mock religion you mock God.”

    And yet your useless God can’t defend himself. [Daphne – Oh, yes he can. Look out for the next plague of locusts.] I read about more potent Gods in two-bit fantasy stories in high school (while my contemporaries were busy doing useful things, like having sex and stuff).

    You do not need to be so blunt. I only asked for respect for others’ beliefs. As for the rest you can do the hell you want.”

    I believe a grown man should be allowed to watch a play, even though a bunch of nut-heads thinks it’s bad for them. I believe a grown man should be able to attend (or not attend) a carnival where people wear rubber penises. I believe I have a right to disrespect your beliefs, just as you have the right to disrespect mine.

    Science and God go hand in hand, because science attempts to unravel the mysteries created by God.”

    Science and God conflict as science has to look for the answers the religious think they have.

  20. elio says:

    @Lino Cert on Einstein

    No human being “knows” if the universe is destined to last for ever or to vanish into oblivion. At best these are theories that cannot be proven conclusively (just like the existence of “God” )…so these sweeping cosmological statements are frankly hot air….

  21. Pat says:

    Oh, yes he can. Look out for the next plague of locusts.”

    Well, I suppose according to some there are all kinds of “punishment” going on already. Earthquakes, tsunamis, 9/11 etc.

  22. Dave says:

    @John Meilak

    If someone had to dress up as me for the Nadur carnival, which nobody will because I’m not that important, I would take the joke. Furthermore, if they had to caricature me having a two-metre penis, I would be flattered.

    Why do we picture God as some grouchy Mintoff who gets offended by any satire, caricature or joke about him? Or as Eileen Montesin who gets touchy because of some ZOO sketch about her? If God exists, I’m sure he or she is superior to all this.

    I believe that such mockery here in Malta occurs because religion is shoved so forcibly down our throat since we are kids. Hence, it’s some kind of rebellion against it. The church is merely reaping what it’s sowing here.

  23. John Meilak says:

    @MikeC

    You don’t read the Bible literally. I see you’re incapable of reading symbolisms and interpreting the true message. The Bible is not a physics textbook. It is a moral textbook. If you want to read about science and physics read some scientific paper on Springerlink.

    [Daphne – Yes, that always got me: when it’s about a man living in a fish or a woman being created from a spare rib, you’re told not to take it literally. But then everything else has to be taken literally, including the pronouncements on homosexuality and people being raised from the dead.]

    As for Einstein read this:

    Atheists Irk Einstein
    http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/atheism.html

    Excerpt from http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/einsteinonjesus.html

    “To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?”

    “As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”

    “Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?

    “Emil Ludwig’s Jesus,” replied Einstein, “is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”

    “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”

    “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

    “Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets.”

    “No man,” Einstein replied, “can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.”

    [Daphne – I despair. The fact that one might admire the personality of Jesus or consider him to be a historical figure makes one neither a Christian nor religious. Einstein was Jewish by birth, for heaven’s sake. If he was going to be religious at all, he would have practised Judasim, not Christianity.]

    @Graham C

    I am firm believer in science but I do not need to discard God in the pursuit my understanding of it. Certain people believe that having made a career in science has made them ‘godlike’. I can assure you, that they have only understood a droplet out of the ocean of God’s universe.

    [Daphne – You know a lot about God’s universe, do you? It must be your hot-line to the Creator.]

    @Pat

    And yet your useless God can’t defend himself..”

    Don’t be too sure about that. Ever heard about Sodom and Gomorrah? I’d like to see him do it again. And before you start denying, I assure you that Sodom and Gomorrah were real and their heavenly destruction was very real too. You can read about it here: http://users.netconnect.com.au/~leedas/sodomgom.html . ‘THROUGHOUT the sites are very unusual balls of pure elemental sulfur. The Bible states “…the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven.” (Gen 19:24)’ Maybe it sounds a bit far-fetched to you but God is alive and real. Since humanity has invented nuclear weapons, I doubt God needs to perform the show himself…why not let the stupid humans destroy themselves?

    [Daphne – Oh, Lord. What a lot some Maltese parents, teachers, nuns and priests have to answer for. A grown man’s rational faculties, in ruins, to say nothing of his ability to empathise with others. And to think that this one would probably have been a normal, well-balanced person without these sorts of anxieties had the adults of his childhood left him in peace instead of f**king with his mind, excuse the language.]

    ..Read about more potent Gods in two-bit fantasy stories in high school (while my contemporaries were busy doing useful things, like having sex and stuff)”

    What stopped you from doing them? Did God take away your uterus? I think not. [Daphne – God didn’t give him one in the first place. Pat is a man. And in any case, women don’t need a uterus to have sex, otherwise they’d have to be celibate after a hysterectomy. You either don’t know how it’s done, or you’ve got the names of the relevant organs confused. I suppose they didn’t put diagrams up on the whiteboard at duttrina.]

    Science and God conflict as science has to look for the answers the religious think they have.”

    Both are seeking the same thing: the truth. One party tries to seek it through scientific methods alone. Which is not enough. The other party tries to seek it through introspection and spiritual contemplation. Which is not enough. Both need to work together in order to find the truth. Science needs morality and morality need science. [Daphne – The usual mistake: that morality can be derived only from religion, which is tantamount to saying that there can be no morality without religion and that all non-religious people, like myself, are essentially immoral or amoral. I see more morality in people who are not religious. Indeed, I observe that the most moral and ethical people, even if they are religious, do not derive their morals and ethics from religion.]

  24. Pat says:

    John Meilak,

    As Daphne already wasted her precious time on answering your remarks I probably shouldn’t even bother, but what the hell… lunchtime anyway.

    “You don’t read the Bible literally.”
    Let’s hold on to that thought a bit…

    It is a moral textbook.”
    Correction: it is an immoral textbook.

    As for Einstein read this”
    Einsten was a pantheist, with respect for deism, atheism and theism. In fact, you will find virtually none of his much-quoted words show anything other than humility and respect, which is a quality he was greatly admired for. What’s your point?

    “I can assure you, that they have only understood a droplet out of the ocean of God’s universe. “
    As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out several times, the knowledge of how little we know is the true sign of an educated person. This is why we need to stick to facts and rational conclusions, rather than making up fairy tales about these things.

    Don’t be too sure about that. Ever heard about Sodom and Gomorrah?”
    Yes, a part of that book which we shouldn’t take literally, right?

    What stopped you from doing them? Did God take away your uterus? I think not. “
    My lack of a uterus was probably an advantage as I am, as Daphne kindly pointed out, a man. The main reason was lack of consent from the opposite sex for said acts, something I do after all respect.

    Both are seeking the same thing: the truth.
    No, one seeks the truth while the other claims to have it already. I’ll let you figure out which is which.

    Science needs morality and morality need science.”
    Science needs morality as much as I need a uterus. Same goes for the corollary. Science is a method to work out.. well.. how things work. Morality is a concept defining how we should behave. Religion is an attempt to provide answers in both fields, which in a way is admirable, but it has no capacity for error recognition in its own methods, which is why it fails.

  25. H.P. Baxxter says:

    Typical Maltese debate. Five days ago we were discussing civil liberties and now we’re talking about the existence of God, and putting words into Einstein’s mouth.

  26. Pat says:

    John Meilak:
    Don’t be too sure about that. Ever heard about Sodom and Gomorrah? I’d like to see him do it again.”

    You want to see another city turned to ash? Is that your wish? You’re quite a frightening person, you know.

  27. Mark Ellul says:

    @Pat

    And yet your useless God can’t defend himself”.

    Do you really think that God needs to defend himself? You know, the trouble with science is that, in the hands of the untrained mind and charlatans, it is soon becoming another religion, fighting for recognition and control – the exact same thing that was done to God by religious zealots in the past.

  28. me says:

    I would describe religions as a very small part of truth, a big chunk of tradition, a good dose of half truths and a whole lot of outright lies. Truth was slaughtered on the altars of religions.

  29. Pat says:

    You know, the trouble with science is that, in the hands of the untrained mind and charlatans, it is soon becoming another religion, fighting for recognition and control”

    Yes! No doubt about it. Which is why we need to make sure to it does not slip into the hands of pseudo-scientists with a prior agenda.

  30. Tim Ripard says:

    ‘If God were a woman sperm would taste of chocolate’ from the New Woman Big Book of Bloke Jokes edited by Louise Johnson and quoted without their (or God’s) permission.

  31. MikeC says:

    @John Meilak

    I never suggested the bible should be taken literally, but that the idiotic fantasies contained within it are fair game for ridicule, simply because they are idiotic fantasies.

    Evidently, you take the bible literally, at least in your response to Pat, where you advocate something that, to you, would be a repeat of the Sodom & Gomorrah story. Good Christian morals, as far as you are concerned, involve not only smashing peoples’ teeth in, but also the wholesale destruction of cities and the populations within.

    I fail to see why that particular story should be considered any less fantastical or open to ridicule than the ones I mentioned earlier, or than, say, the hysterically funny Onan story, (the ‘symbolism’ of which is grossly misused), the daily conversion of bread and wine into flesh and blood (which we are supposed to take literally), resurrections, virgin births and bodily ascensions into paradise.

    With respect to Einstein, you can quote him, misquote him, partially quote him, misinterpret him and reproduce as many quotes as you like, but he is on record as saying that his words were deliberately misused to imply the kind of religiosity which you claim for yourself. Interestingly, your religiosity also includes the promotion of genocide, but why am I not surprised? The bible also advocates it – ask the Midianites, assuming you can find any.

    Strangely, according to you we should not be expected to take the bible literally (the silly bits and the horribly nasty ones) but we should be expected to do so when Einstein is talking about concepts as nebulous as spirituality and faith.

    For some reason a couple of the Einstein quotes you have selected refer to the historical Jesus. It is interesting to note that the only ‘record’ we have of him is the gospels, and no other contemporary writings, notwithstanding the large amounts of contemporary accounts of so many other events happening at the time. Who knows what the real one was like, assuming an actual individual existed? Certainly nothing like the stories we have, in view of the fact that large numbers of the stories, like many of those in the Old Testament, are simply plagiarised from other cults, which were in turn plagiarised from yet other cults.

    This should not detract from the positive value of the correct interpretation of the quotes ascribed to him, real or not, but I submit that you yourself have become lost in the hysteria of the mythical stories and lost sight of the value of the morals embodied in those quotes. I have not, and I think that notwithstanding my non-belief I have done a rather better job than you when it comes to ‘reading symbolisms and interpreting the true message’.

  32. John Meilak says:

    @Mark Ellul

    Don’t bother with Pat. I laugh when I see the futile attempts the stupid humans make against forces created by God. The idiotic humans boast that they can obliterate the planet three times over, and yet they still get buried under rubble against natural forces which they cannot stop. Their bodies still ridden with ravaging diseases they cannot comprehend or cure. Their cities still getting flooded. Their crops still getting destroyed. How laughable! And they call that science!

    @Pat
    “You want to see another city turned to ash? Is that your wish? You’re quite a frightening person, you know.”

    I’ve no fear of destruction. When it comes I’ll be sipping White Horse whiskey in my front porch while you’ll be cowering in your cosy little basement, praying for deliverance. At least I won’t let the maggots have a free meal when the party is over. [Daphne – Ah, you’re one of the saved. And so you’ll survive the apocalypse. Something tells me you’re in for a big disappointment.]

    Correction: it is an immoral textbook.”

    Recorrection: only a sapient species can be immoral. A textbook is an inanimate object. The immoralities are done by humans as a result of misinterpretation. Please, do not put everyone in the same fold. There are Christians and “christians”.

    Einstein was a pantheist, with respect for deism, atheism and theism. In fact, you will find virtually none of his much-quoted words show anything other than humility and respect, which is a quality he was greatly admired for. What’s your point?”

    Scientists like Einstein embraced both God and science, since as you say, he was humble enough to say that he was awed by the universe created by God. [Daphne – He said nothing of the sort.] That is a true scientist. And he proved he was so by his contribution to science, even though his research enabled humanity to destroy itself. Today, some scientists are a bunch of depressed people with a god-complex whose research produces basically nothing of value. Do they really think they can recreate Nature? Can you be more arrogant than that? So you see, rather than understanding Nature and leave it be, today you find scientists who think themselves to be better than God. The result: horrible mutations. Einstein did not attempt to change the laws of nature and physics. He merely exploited them. [Daphne – The very essence of evolution is mutation. And there have been some very horrible mutations indeed that were not created in a laboratory. The first that spring to mind are all the bacteria and viruses that cause disease, cancer cells….In your way of thinking, God made them all, and I assume you don’t believe in evolution, either.]

    As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out several times, the knowledge of how little we know is the true sign of an educated person. This is why we need to stick to facts and rational conclusions, rather than making up fairy tales about these things.”

    He’ll be crying for God when he is in dire need. Everyone does. Even the staunchest of self-proclaimed atheists. [Daphne – Actually, very few people do. When adults are in deep distress, they cry out for those who looked after them when they were young, even if they are dead. The most commonly uttered last word of soldiers who died on the battlefield in World War I wasn’t ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’. It was ‘mother’, or one of its variations.

    No, one seeks the truth while the other claims to have it already. I’ll let you figure out which is which.”

    As I’ve said to Mark Ellul, I laugh when I see humans trying to play God. They’re so ridiculous. Forget Christianity for a moment. A thing I know that is true is that every civilisation and culture which sprouted on this planet believes/believed that there is a supreme being which created the universe. [Daphne – Ding dong! That’s because they had no other way of explaining it. It was before science.] Even cultures isolated from the rest had their beliefs. I don’t think it is just a coincidence that all cultures believe there is something higher than themselves. Tell me now, what would be the reason of your existence if there was no God? To just eat, drink, shit and sleep? [Daphne – Even if there is a God, that’s pretty much it. To be frank, the prospect of an afterlife in a space stuffed full of people like you is quite horrendous. The prospect of any sort of afterlife is horrendous. One needs to turn out the lights and disappear at some point. The prospect of eternity is hellish rather than heavenly – think about it.]

  33. Lino Cert says:

    @Tim Ripard
    “If God were a woman sperm would taste of chocolate”

    Maybe God is a lesbian.

  34. Harry Purdie says:

    What an entertaining thread. Mr. Meilak and a few cohorts have greatly contributed to much needed mirth on the rock. What was the book we should read but not ‘take literally’? Oh, yes, the Bible. OMG.

  35. John Meilak says:

    @Daphne

    Ah, you’re one of the saved. And so you’ll survive the apocalypse. Something tells me you’re in for a big disappointment”

    Why would I want to survive the apocalypse Daphne? To live with bunch of half-dead corpses? No sir.

    The very essence of evolution is mutation. And there have been some very horrible mutations indeed that were not created in a laboratory. The first that spring to mind are all the bacteria and viruses that cause disease, cancer cells….In your way of thinking, God made them all, and I assume you don’t believe in evolution, either”

    I believe in evolution, but I do not believe that Nature should be tampered with. Nature is as perfect as it can be. Yes, with disease and everything. Diseases are God’s population control mechanism, as is our penchant for violence. [Daphne – Well, then – next time there’s something wrong with you or your family, don’t go cluttering up the hospital, please.]

    Even if there is a God, that’s pretty much it. To be frank, the prospect of an afterlife in a space stuffed full of people like you is quite horrendous. The prospect of any sort of afterlife is horrendous. One needs to turn out the lights and disappear at some point. The prospect of eternity is hellish rather than heavenly – think about it”

    I think the opposite is horrendous. To live your life…for nothing. [Daphne – And to live your life so as to flit about forever is living your life for something? That’s an eternity of pointlessness, as opposed to just 80 years, if you see life as pointless.]

    @Jane

    The Pope is a puppet. God is not. [Daphne – There’s something disturbing about your conviction. You’d have been a prime candidate for some nut-job cult if you had been raised in one of the remoter parts of the USA in the 1970s. You actually need to believe.]

  36. Pat says:

    John Meilak:

    You may have a thirst for the afterlife, but I’d rather enjoy my 80-odd years on this earth, than an afterlife with the likes of you. Becoming worm food doesn’t quite frighten me, although I’d rather turn into a nice Sunday roast.

    Recorrection: only a sapient species can be immoral. A textbook is an inanimate object. The immoralities are done by humans as a result of misinterpretation. Please, do not put everyone in the same fold. There are Christians and “christians”.

    I wasn’t referring to the followers, I was referring to the actual teachings of the bible, which I find immoral to a large extent (does not mean they all are).

    Today, some scientists are a bunch of depressed people with a god-complex whose research produces basically nothing of value. Do they really think they can recreate Nature?”

    They are already reproducing nature in so many ways. Their ability to do so has saved countless human lives through anything from medicine to the ability to predict and prepare for natural disasters.

    He’ll be crying for God when he is in dire need. Everyone does. Even the staunchest of self-proclaimed atheists.”

    Nice assumption. What do you base it on? You have actual proof that atheists cry to God when in distress? I know I certainly don’t. Again you are in error.

    Looking forward to further stupidities uttered.

  37. me says:

    Let’s start at the beginning; ‘Let there be light’. That was about 14 billion years ago. Lately, very lately the creator discovered that he (I’m using ‘he’ for the sole purpose of efficiency) needed some creation so as to have someone to adore him for the rest of eternity (as if he needed it, having already spent over 13 billion years without the need), so he created the human race in his own image.

    By using evolution as a machine it took him some time to come to the final appeasing result, but wanting to give his creation an eternal soul this created a dilemma. From which rung of the evolutionary ladder should he grant the creature a soul? Should it be Homo Australis? Cro-Magnon man? Neanderthal man? Homo Erectus? Or just dump all into the rubbish bin and grant this eternal spirit only to Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Hopefully the ancestors wouldn’t notice and so would not demand the same privilege. This creature he created ignored his biddings and so he was cast out and made to toil the soil for a living and eventually die. What a sensitive way to correct one’s creation.

    On being cast out they decided to create a new god in their own image and endow it with all the possible power imaginable. This god must be eternal; was, is, and will ever be; knowing the past, the present and the future in the same instant; omnipotent, vindictive and destructive if the need arises and all the rest of the un/imaginable requisites. But this god will be satisfied with burnt offerings. Throughout many generations thousands of its own creatures will be burnt to satisfy this ego.

    Wanting to be free, the creators of this god endowed upon themselves the privilege of being born with a free will. But how can one reconcile a god created and endowed with being omnipresent and omniscient, therefore knowing the end result even before it happens, and a being created with a free will? There can be no free will if the end result is already known. They had to go back one step and decided that this god must send someone as a saviour.

    There lies a problem. This saviour must have been thought of already even before creation or else the creator is not omniscient. Apart from that, the whole setup of human beings must be adapted so as to take in the possibility of a god born of man. How do you do that? Well, create prophets. They should know what is to come in the future and to hell with free will. It will be known as the mystery of salvation. Salvation from what? From the same original creator?

    Back to the drawing board. This god has too much power. Let us trim him down to size. We will create saints and dump them on this god. He must accept them. Then we will oblige this god to take heed when they intercede on behalf of man. In this manner at least we wouldn’t have to bargain with him directly. He is omni-short-tempered and he might drown the whole world with a deluge or send some big rock smashing into our planet. [Daphne – Saints: “The people have spoken”.]

  38. Pat says:

    [Daphne – Well, then – next time there’s something wrong with you or your family, don’t go cluttering up the hospital, please.]

    This is what is so remarkable. So many of the faithful preach to let nature take its course as it’s all to the plan of the almighty, yet when there is a medical problem they don’t hesitate to run to the nearest polyclinic. Shows that the corollary of what he claimed before is true: when we face despair even the most faithful scream for science, not God.

  39. Mark Ellul says:

    “Ex nihilo nihil fit” (nothing comes from nothing) argued Parmenides to which Leucippus expressed “Nothing happens in vain, but everything for a reason and under necessitation”. These are some of the most basic tenets that underline Western civilisation without which we would not have the advanced society that we have today. It’s hard to go anywhere if you believe that you came from nothing and for nothing. Knowledge alone does not show the way – it has to be supplemented by reason to serve any purpose for mankind.

  40. me says:

    Part II
    What we need is a set of rules to control the masses. We will call it religion. It sounds nice; what the masses wouldn’t know is that we have coined it from two words. ‘Re’ meaning return, and ‘ligare’ meaning to bind; so we have a ‘return to bondage’. Good isn’t it.
    The twelve? Who are the twelve? Sorry they have become eleven. One of them is no more. Another victim of his own free will? No, it was prophesised that one would betray him. So much for free will.

    Fishermen? We can’t have fishermen as the founders of a religion. You can’t build churches on rocks that are slippery due to the time spent by the sea. I was born and bred a Pharisee and a Roman citizen, educated and have a way with words, I will be the founder. We can use the word ‘Nazarene’ and use the shape of a fish to identify ourselves. After all, ‘Nazarene’ is fisherman in the old language and that should keep the others happy.

    Yes I know it is a problem being born and bred a Pharisee. We believe in an afterlife. The Sadducees don’t, and they constitute a very strong political party mainly in the aristocracy. I can’t remember how many times I argued with some Sadducee or other on this point. We as Pharisees put all our faith and trust in a god. The Sadducees are more practical and they believe only in what they can see and touch. But we can always use the afterlife as a marketing tool. One way or the other the masses will be happy even if they are living in misery. And if they do not accept this religion we can always find converts in other countries. The miserable lot we have in this country are not as open-minded as those living nearer the centre of power.

    We should also create some kind of history for this religion. We know all the important dates. All one has to do is create a character and place him in the context of what happened in the past. It would make a good novel to read. Take care to entrust this project to more than one person. At least if one copy is lost there will always another.

  41. Pat says:

    To further to what I said about the faithful seeking medical help:
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/03/18/religious_dying_patients_more_likely_to_get_aggressive_care/

    “Patients who rely heavily on their religious faith to cope with terminal cancer are more likely to receive intensive life-prolonging measures in their last week of life, Boston researchers reported yesterday.”

  42. Elfism…the new religion…and clicking the Undo button… says:

    5 euro buys one eLfworshiP membership

    http://www.elfworship.150m.com/

    …the Undo button

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7941817.stm

    http://www.secularism.org.uk/debaptism.html

    Breaking News: Where’s the credit crunch?
    There’s more money to be made in setting up a Malta based certificate issuing franchise than importing “Joseph’s Sinkijiet”.

  43. Carmel Scicluna says:

    Messagg tal-15 ta’ Marzu, 2009, Xewkija – Ghawdex

    Gheziez uliedi, u wliedi ta’ qalbi! Ghid dan lil Fr Hayden biex jghaddih
    lin-nies.

    Ftit granet ilu, fuq dil-gzira Ghawdxija, ghal xi whud inholoq dezert. Xi
    whud ghamew. Ghamlu ghogol kif ghamlu missirijietkom fl-antik. Mhux
    tad-deheb, imma tal-maskri u tal-kostumi. Waqqghu r-religjon ghac-cajt.
    Qalbi u qalb Ibni Gesù kienu mweggghin hafna dak in-nhar. Ma kienx
    baqaghlhom aktar biex jizzuffjettaw dak in-nhar. Riedu jwaqqghu l-Knisja
    u r-religjon ghac-cajt.

    F’kelma wahda, Satana hadem fin fin fihom. Xi whud, ghall-ewwel bdew
    icapcpulhom u jidhqulhom u jkomplu maghhom. Wara indunaw. Però mbaghad
    kien tard wisq, ghax-xorta Satana hakimhom. Thallux dawn l-affarijiet
    jergghu jsiru. Ghidulhom lin-nies li jiena u Ibni Gesù weggghajna,
    weggghajna bis-serjetà. Ghidulhom. Wassluh dan il-messagg. Il-qlub taghna
    mugugha.

    Ezatt! Hekk kien sar, kif ghamlu fl-antik. Uliedi z-zghar tieghi kunu
    mohhkom hemm! Thallux lil Satana jqarraq bikom. Thalluhx jahkimkom jew
    juzakom.

    Grazzi wliedi talli smajtu s-sejha tieghi.

    [Daphne – This is an extract from the Borg In-Nadur apparitions blog (yes, there is such a thing).]

Leave a Comment