Thursday, 7 August 2014

 Sayeeda Warsi puts religion before reason

The resignation of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi from the government in protest over David Cameron's failure to sufficiently censure Israel over their attack upon Hamas in Gaza, should come as no surprise. Her departure from government must be welcomed by all who value freedom, democracy and the right to defend oneself against terrorism.
The undeservedly ennobled Baroness, is a Muslim, and as such, clearly has a partisan view of the conflict between the democratic state of Israel and the terrorists of Hamas. 
She readily criticises Israel for its actions to protect itself from the attacks from Gaza, yet makes no equivalent criticism of the Palestinians for their constant unprovoked attacks upon Israel. Nor does she criticise Hamas for siting its rockets in locations of high population density.
Without any sense of irony, she states in her resignation letter to David Cameron, "our approach and language during the current crisis in Gaza is morally indefensible." What is quite clearly morally indefensible is having at the heart of the British government, an unelected Muslim who promotes faith above reason and who fails to unequivocally support the actions of our democratic ally to defend itself against the terrorism of Hamas. An organisation, whose stated aim is the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of all its Jewish citizens.
The morally relative liberal elite, who so fulsomely praise the unelected Baroness for her "principled" stand over Gaza, should reflect upon whom, in this conflict, are our true enemies. It is not the citizens of the democratic state of Israel, who have never threatened us, or criticised our values. It is rather the terrorists of Hamas, who hate and despise all that we hold dear and who would destroy Israel and its democratic way of life in an instant and without regret if they only had the power and the opportunity.
We need to choose the causes we support very carefully, and not allow our understandable sorrow and regret at the death of Palestinian civilians, to persuade us to lay the blame for those deaths where it does not belong.
I do not believe that, if there had been no provocation from the terrorists of Hamas, that Israel would have mounted any kind of attack upon Gaza. Israel cannot be blamed for responding militarily to constant unproved attacks upon its citizens. Neither can it be blamed or censured for having superior forces or superior fire-power. Neither of which, it would have had to deploy if it had not been continuously and cynically provoked.  
So it is good that, by resigning, Baroness Warsi has revealed her prejudice in favour of the terrorists of Hamas, and that she has finally left the government.
All we can hope, is that David Cameron takes this opportunity to reflect upon the wisdom of ennobling and promoting her in the first place and appointing her to positions of influence and responsibility
We, should be thankful that, this divisive and partisan politician has resigned and celebrate her departure from an official position of power and authority. 

Thursday, 17 April 2014

Cameron: committed Christian or mendacious manipulator?

So, once again we have to witness the unedifying spectacle of 'Saint Cameron the Committed' lecture the nation upon the virtues of the Christian faith.

His stance upon matters of belief would be slightly less nauseating if his policies and political ideals better reflected Christian values, but his claim that he believes in injecting  evangelical Christianity into the heart of the body politic rings very hollow indeed.  For, in the face of his party's callous and heartless disregard for the most defenseless and poorest in our community he proves both himself and his privileged bedfellows, a bunch of contemptible hypocrites.

His demonstrably false statement that this is still a Christian country is deluded, as is his apparent belief in an invisible sky-god, for which there is not a scrap of evidence. In fact, I much prefer to cast him in the role of a cynical opportunist than a believer in bronze-age desert myths. Since if he's the first, then he's ideally suited to high political office, but if he's the latter, and truly believes in the existence of the Christian God, then he's not of sound enough mind to manage a whelk-stall in Whitstable. 

I genuinely fear for the future of humanity when an Oxford educated politician can claim to believe in the truth of Christianity without fear of incredulous derision forcing him from public life. We shall not even begin to free humanity from fear, ignorance, prejudice and hatred until we inject a large dose of rationality into our public discourse.

As a very minimum I expect politicians to get on with the job of protecting and improving the lives of the citizens who elected them, not preaching the virtues of one set of incredible and unsubstantiated beliefs over another.

So come on Dave, let's have a little less religious nonsense and a little more productive action. You won't see-off U.K.I.P. with an appeal to the comforts offered by a little piety, or  a lot of prayer. 

Is this atheist Ed's reaction to the news that Dave really believes in God?