For God's sake

What on earth is all this about?

Sikh victims of crime in London are to be given the option of asking for a police officer of their own faith to work on their case.

Palbinder Singh, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Sikh Association (MPSA) said: "It's about understanding and appreciating difference.

"I don't believe a white officer is ever going to be fully conversant with a Sikh for example."

Now what really annoys me about this bit, is that Mr Singh has failed to notice that 'Sikh' relates to a particular invisible magic sky-pixie (or is it multiple sky-pixies in Sikhism?) were as 'white' refers to the colour of someone's skin. Race does not equal religion, or vice versa. Or are victims allowed to specifically state that they want someone who believes in Sihk fairy-stories AND has brown skin? I dare Mr Singh to try that one...

Then of course there is the obvious, if a bit Daily-Maily, issue of role reversal. How do you think the MPSA react if a white victim complained that he/she didn't want their crime investigated by an Asian-looking officer with a funny turban? I am a staunch Pastafarian, would I be able to specify that a Pastafarian officer dealt with my crime? (I would be happy specifying that my crime would be dealt with at all, given the attitude of the modern police force)

I do think that there is a lot of benefit to be had from officers with specific cultural knowledge, which could be very handy given that certain 'cultures' like to force underage girls to marry their cousins, or kill women who dare to have sex before marriage (assuming they are cabable of having sex, if they've been lucky enough not to have their genitailia mutilated), but to go this far is just ridiculous.

The Met said the new service, which has been pioneered by the MPSA, could be extended to other minority groups in future.

Great.

No particular group should be pandered to, especially not by the police, and it saddens me that in 2009 people are still so keen to segregate themselves on religious grounds. I've not made any secret of my hatred of religion (not of religious people - of religion), and this kind of bullshit from the met does my head in, and I'm sure will just infuriate the majority of the population, and also piss off a few Sihks along the way. Nobody likes being patronised.

Now, maybe I'm being cynical here, but I wonder how big the Sihk vote is in London......

PS. Incidentally, from what little I know about Sihkism, I understand that it's one of the 'less bad' religions.

Religion

Christianity. n; The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

Right, cards on the table here. I hate religion. All religions. They have caused unimaginable harm throughout history, and they continue to do so. I do not respect anyone's religious views. Not one of them. If you chose to believe that Mohammed rode up to heaven on a winged horse, I will call you foolish for believing something so absurd. I will happily allow you to believe it; you can believe anything you want, but I will absolutely not respect it. I also despise the way religionists indoctrinate children. The very concept of 'faith', that is belief without evidence, is a dangerous one. Religion is divisive, it causes people to segregate themselves according to which fairy-story they believe in, or even according to which version of the same fairy-story. In many cases it teaches that people who don't believe in the same fairy-stories are inferior, unworthy, dirty, and even deserve to die.



Anyway, in the comments section of an earlier post, a police blogger known as 200 called me a bigot.

He called me a bigot because I was attacking the catholic church for being able to duck out of anti-discrimination rules and continue to discriminate against non-catholics and homosexuals. (Despite my objections to the cathloic hatred of homosexuals I was also branded homophobic)


I can only assume that 30 years in the police removes one's sense of irony.


The catholic church has so much to answer for; it is difficult to know where to begin. The masses of instances of child abuse maybe? Where the church not only turned a blind eye, it actively protected the perpetrators. Priests were having sex with young children and the church allowed it.

Or was that just a cheap shot at the catholics? What about the untold millions who have died of AIDS and other STDs as a direct result of the catholic stance against condoms. How much more morally abhorrent can you get than telling millions of people who believe your every word that condoms have tiny holes in them, and that it is a sin to use them?


Hmmm, how much morally abhorrent can you get than that? Perhaps the muslim leaders who caused the failure of the World Health Organisation's attempt to wipe out Polio could stake a claim. Yep, as I write this, the entire world could have been completely Polio free. But our friendly religionist nutters told people that the vaccine was a trick by the evil west to make muslims impotent, and that no muslim should take the two small drops of liquid. As the project hinged on getting everyone vaccinated in a very short time of each other so that the virus had no hosts, the entire project failed because of this. Polio is now rife again.

Nice work faith-heads.

Of course it isn't just koran-bashers who like to stand in the way of disease prevention. Yep, bible-bashers would rather see women die from cervical cancer than allow HPV vaccines to be given out, in case it causes girls to be more premiscuous. You can't make this shit up. Maybe we should create some more STDs, that'll put people of the horrible sinful act of sex, what do you reckon, bible-fans?


As I said earlier, 'faith' is a very dangerous thing. Muslim suicide bombers have 'faith' that they will live on in heaven with 72 virgins. They actually believe this.
Had it not been for religion, those guys would not have flown planes in to buildings on September 11th. There is no evidence at all that people live on in a magical world up in the clouds, yet these people had 'faith' in it. Now they are dead, along with thousands of innocent people.


Why do religionists think that their absurd beliefs should be respected? Why do they think that the rest of us should accept them? Why is it considered rude to question somebody's religious views, and point out how stupid they are? It is fine to question someone's political views, their taste in clothes, or anything like that, but when it comes to religion; views no matter how absurd, must be respected.

Not here they ain't.

Peace

Bible bashers

You may or may not be pleased to see that this post is a break from the normal themes, but this little article reignited my anger over this issue...

How on earth is this allowed to happen in this day and age? 'Equality' laws are applied to the extreme in most cases, often resulting in ridiculous cases like this, yet once again the god-squad are going to be allowed to openly discriminate against people who don't believe their stupid fairy-stories.

My missus is a teacher, and she cannot get a job in a catholic school (if she wanted one that is). Yep, in the UK, in 2009, a fully state funded organisation can legally say "we are not employing you because you don't believe in the same utter utter nonsense/religion as us". How on earth is this the case?

Arrrggghhh!