Equality for all! Not just the married!

So, it looks like this ill-conceived, expensive, non-binding, divisive, responsibility-dodging survey is going ahead.
When it was announced, rilestar made his feelings known:

So @TurnbullMalcolm & @LiberalAus you gutless wonders - I assume we'll get a plebiscite every time you want to raise taxes or cut services? https://t.co/ZZRT0fKZp7

— Riley J (@rilestar) August 8, 2017

Prognosis? Unlikely.
But ignoring the ridiculous waste and the fact these politicians can't just do their jobs and represent the people and vote in Parliament rather than making us do it for them and despite how terrible this decision is generally for the fabric of Australian society (*takes a breath*), it's good to see some surprising people coming out (no pun intended) in favour of the sensible, non-terrible option (that's Voting 'Yes', in case it wasn't clear).
Case in point, Amanda Vanstone of all people (and the whole article's good - you should read it!):

"Heterosexuals have been rushing out of marriage for decades. If gay people want to rush in I'm delighted. Let's not listen any more to that rubbish about marriage being between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life. Our own laws support the "for life" rule going down the gurgler. Now it just means until such time as you think you might be happier in another marriage. "To the exclusion of all others" is less and less a likely outcome. The only one left is "between a man and a woman"."

And, even better, she succinctly states that this vote is about "whether we believe that we have the right to dictate how others live their lives." Clearly, we shouldn't.
"It's not about what you want for yourself. It's about letting other people have proper recognition of their relationships."

That's right - unless you're a gay person who wants to get married...this doesn't affect you. It's not about you. This will not force you to get gay-married. Just let them be happy! 

Of course, the churches - especially Catholics* - are doing their usual bit of ignoring the logs in their own eyes while staring uncomfortably long at people in their bedrooms (and making it like THEY are the real victims here). This guy in particular is probably just annoyed that priests can't marry their altar boys and says "It is true..." and "There is no doubt..." a lot, but, as we all know, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"**. 

 

Also, here's a truth: There is no doubt you are a hateful monster, and the opposite of what Jesus preached.
Incidentally, the winning response to him was this, by good ol' Bazza:

Bazza Aug 18 2017 at 10:29am Yes we should listen to Catholics in this debate. They are the ones who believe that eating magic bread transforms into the flesh of a 2,000 year old dead guy so they can be forgiven for a sin they were born with because a magic rib woman was talked into eating forbidden fruit by a talking snake. They can take the moral high ground.

Plus this idiot, who says she's not against gay people, but she'll go to the effort of voluntarily voting 'No', just ... because?: "As a 30-year-old woman, everyone expects me to vote 'yes'. But I won't be"
Annie's response was perfect:

AnnieAug 23 2017 at 4:31pm
As an elderly, Catholic, long-married, rural woman, everyone expects me to vote "No" but I'll be voting "Yes". Why? It's not about me. It's about giving the same rights I enjoy to others. Yes, I believe marriage is the bedrock of our society and I believe we will be so much richer when it is open to those who have waited so long. Good, loving, committed marriages can only be beneficial to our country. Yes!

Annie reminds us that some Catholics are actually practising what they preach, and actually doing what Jesus (and the current Pope) would do. In fact, both St Ignatius' College in Sydney and Xavier College in Melbourne have "cautiously endorsed same-sex marriage in messages to parents, staff and students, directly rebuking recent statements from church leaders".
Of course, they're Jesuits, who are notoriously reasonable. Reason has no place here!
Anyhoo, just do the right thing in the upcoming 'plebiscite', and vote 'Yes'. It's easy, and everything's going to be fine. Oh yeah, and people are dying, including kids. Be a hero and help save their lives.
Encourage everyone you know to do so, too.

Show the world that Australia really is the land of the Fair Go. Be relaxed and laid-back. Or are you un-Australian? Maybe we should have another $122 million survey, sort that out...
* Disclaimer: I'm married and a Catholic. Well, I was raised a Catholic, now I'm a Pastafarian Jedi. But I am 100% convinced that (a) my marriage can cope with other people getting married, and (b) Christians will still keep doing whatever they want to do, just as they have since the time of Nero...
** Ironically, Obi-Wan, that is an absolute. Try "Only Sith ... and maybe some other dudes ... deal in absolutes, probably, bruh!"

This Decade's Comedy

Following up the last post, here is some more excruciating gold, this time thanks to my inside contact at Dave Hill Industries...



Now before you laugh, think about it. Did this kid really intend to sound like this on a video accessible world-wide? Or is this instead part of a liberal conspiracy to make religious nutjobs look bad?

Wait. Did I just blow your politically correct mind?

How about you just check out how the song originally sounded?

I assume...

Has that changed your mind about what is or is not a "nu" thang?

Whether or not it has, I think you've earned yourself some fresh new beats from the Bea Stie Boys:

Battlefield Essendon

I read an article yesterday about my old friend Madden the Clown and Roddie Doyle attending the opening of a new Church of Scientology building in Essendon. Apparently, Madden is quoted as saying: ''You have set the standard for the community with your restoration of this building and with your social programs - an example for others to follow''.
He's such a character!
But I loved this quote further down:

"The church was founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, who declared that the galactic dictator Xenu dumped millions of corpses in volcanoes on Earth 75 million years ago and blew them up with 17 hydrogen bombs. The souls, or ''thetans'', of the dead were contaminated and in turn contaminated humans, who can be cleansed only by Scientology."

It reminded me of a ranty book review I'd started a while ago after reading the hilarious-for-all-wrong-reasons Battlefield Earth a while ago. I actually read it for scientific purposes - to see whether this Lafayette Ronald Hubbard guy was for real, or more like a misunderstood Sacha Baron Cohen creation, like Borat. Y'know - just saying lots of crazy shit and seeing if anyone picked up that he was joking.
I'd always seen his books around (I had even accepted free entry to the "L. Ron Hubbard Life Exhibition" in Hollywood once when backpacking and thus very poor), and so when the opportunity arose to borrow Battlefield Earth from the library, I took it.
For those of you who don't know it (a) good on you, and (b) it's about an alien race that enslaves humanity in year 3000, and the fight against them (particularly by the "hero" - Jonnie Goodboy Tyler. Yes, that's the name he went with).
I was predictably shocked and stunned by what I read.
At the sheer badness of it.
For one thing, the language he uses is laughable. The bad guys, called "Psychlos", eat “goo-food”, breathe “breathe-gas”, and drink “kerbango”.
Points for imagination: zero.
Another example of extraordinary writing can be found right at the beginning, on page 4, when one of the Psychlos insults another saying ”You’re as crazy as a nebula of crap.”
Can I remind everyone that this was written AFTER Star Wars had come out?
The following paragraph from page 414 was so terrible, I just had to write it down - it's word for word, no typos:

“Chrissie had been spotted by the Scots, and the news earlier rumored to that effect was now confirmed as she went about helping the parson collect wounded Scots on a flatbed that had been gotten running.”

And of course, it contains the propaganda. The following describes a doctor operating on a Psychlo brain:

“MacKendrick saw their reaction. “Nothing new in this. Just electrical impulses approximating brain commands. Some man-scientist did this maybe thirteen hundred years ago and thought he’d found the secret of all thought and made up a cult about it called ‘psychology’. Forgotten now. It wasn’t the secret of thought; it was just the mechanics of bodies. They started with frogs. I’m cataloging this body’s communication channels, that’s all.””

Relevance? Zero.
It even gets some shameless self-congratulatory delusion in there, stating towards the end that after the humans won, one of the characters “wrote a book: The Jonnie Goodboy Tyler I knew, or The Conqueror of Psychlo, Pride of the Scottish Nation. It was not as good as this book, for it was intended for semiliterate people” (page 1049 - yes, that's one THOUSAND and forty nine pages of this!)
In fact, it appears El Ronnie was particularly adept at the self-congratulation. According to his bio (in the book, though I should point out there's a possibility it's not factually correct...or worse) he was "in addition to a writer (with a career spanning more than half a century of intense literary achievement and creative influence), an explorer, ethnologist, mariner and pilot, filmmaker and photographer, philosopher and educator, composer and musician. He broke his first bronc and became the blood brother of a Blackfeet Indian medicine man by age six. In 1927, when he was 16, he traveled to a still remote Asia…"
Ahhhh! I can't do this any more, so I'll just let him finish off, with his preface to the so-called "book":

“To show that science fiction is not science fiction because of a particular kind of plot, this novel contains practically every type of story there is – detective, spy, adventure, western, love, air war, you name it. All except fantasy; there is none of that. The term “science” also includes economics and sociology and medicine where these are related to material things. So they’re in here, too.
“In writing for magazines, the editors (because of magazine format) force one to write to exact lengths. I was always able to do that – it is kind of a knack. But this time I decided not to cut everything out and to just roll her as she rolled, so long as the pace kept up. So I may have wound up writing the biggest sf novel ever in terms of length. The experts – and there are lots of them to do so – can verify whether this is so…
“And as an old pro I assure that it is pure science fiction. No fantasy. Right on the rails of the genre. Science is for people. And so is science fiction.”
“Ready?
“Stand by.
“Blast off!”

And now you want to read it.

Back to the Future's Past...Today!

OK, OK, OK!!! (the last "OK" was a yell, but sadly my acronym was already in capital letters).
One of my few readers got a little uppity recently, saying something like "Why don't you write on your blog any more?"
I KNOW. Uppity to the max!
The answer is clearly something to do with laziness, but my New Year's Resolution is...oh, I can't be bothered going through that. Anyhoo, here's my latest post-age (Pauly Shore-style) re: things that stick in or about my craw-area.
First, Nicholas D. Kristof recetly wrote about Religion and Women in the context of the recent "Parliament of the World’s Religions" right here in the land Down Under:

“Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths, creating an environment in which violations against women are justified,” former President Jimmy Carter noted in a speech last month to the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Australia.
“The belief that women are inferior human beings in the eyes of God,” Mr. Carter continued, “gives excuses to the brutal husband who beats his wife, the soldier who rapes a woman, the employer who has a lower pay scale for women employees, or parents who decide to abort a female embryo.”
Mr. Carter, who sees religion as one of the “basic causes of the violation of women’s rights,” is a member of The Elders, a small council of retired leaders brought together by Nelson Mandela. The Elders are focusing on the role of religion in oppressing women, and they have issued a joint statement calling on religious leaders to “change all discriminatory practices within their own religions and traditions.”

Nice one, Old Un-Sexist Dudes. And for all those thinking "Why should I ever listen to Godless Heathens and/or Jimmy Carter":

"The Elders are neither irreligious nor rabble-rousers. They include Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and they begin their meetings with a moment for silent prayer."

Ahhhh. So they're still a bit MeNtAl.
But at least they're on the right track.
In another article designed to re-disestablish (please don't get on your anti"disestablish"mentarianism high horse) one's faith in this crazy old world of ours and the...what's the best way to put it..."vermin" that populate it: 'Greed culture' killing planet, it appears that the average American consumes more than his or her weight in products each day (and we all know the average American is quite rotund, so we're talking a lot of products here):

"In its annual report, Worldwatch Institute says the cult of consumption and greed could wipe out any gains from government action on climate change or a shift to a clean energy economy."

Nice one, world.
Unsurprisingly, I've got some ideas, at least for our neck of the woods.
I'll get to that another time...

Bah, humbug

I know I should probably do something about how Xmas is a con, that 25 December was a pagan holiday stolen by the Roman church, blah, blah, bah, but I haven't posted for ages and simply couldn't resist a classic Scrooge-ism.
Speaking of Scrooged, if you haven't seen it before, watch Bad Santa for Xmas. Best Xmas movie ever (second best is Scrooged).
Hope you had a rantastic 2009, and I'll try and get back on the rant-wagon in 2010.
rilestar out

Theocrazy

A quick one - due to an article on Barney Zwartz's blog on The Age website about a proposal to allow limited sharia law for mediations between muslims - all voluntary and subject to Australian law at all times (apparently).
Provoked some hearty discussion, most of it ill-informed and of the bad-rant-variety - y'know, racist, xenophobic stuff (not like the good-rant-variety: "Here's why you're wrong and I'm right (add gag)").
Anyhoo, when a bloke called Harry stated the following:

"Our constitution made Australia a Christian Theocracy (in fact). Moslem's in Australia have been saved, in this life only, because of our Christian culture and Heritage. Like it or lump it their fleeing the horror of Islam, arriving in Australia literaly means Moslems have been saved by Our Lord Jesus Christ and the teachings Australia has followed.
We are a Christian nation', 'Christian culture' with to which newcomers should conform, while enjoying freedom for their own beliefs."
All sic as.

The rilestar can't let that slide:

"I know I shouldn't bite when crazy people say crazy stuff, but Harry from Sydney's comment that Australia is, constitutionally, a Christian Theocracy, needs some rebutting: the constitution says quite the opposite, and preserves the secular nature of Government - section 116: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
The original white settlers of Australia may have been Christian themselves (although I know that at least one of my convict ancestors was Jewish), but that doesn't mean it's a theocracy run by religious nutjobs in accordance with the Christian Bible (Kevin Rudd notwithstanding) or that everyone who subsequently comes here has to be Christian, just as everyone who has arrived since 1788 doesn't have to be a convict or a prison-guard.
Newcomers should only conform to our rule of law, not to any particular religion or culture (especially Harry's) - culture naturally evolves anyway, and every individual has the potential to change our culture, whether they were born here or not. I was brought up a devout Catholic but have rationally chosen to be an atheist (or Pastafarian, according to the latest census). And now I'm commenting on a blog!
And speaking of the rule of law, I agree with Godot that taxpayers of other/no religions should not have to pay for setting up these types of tribunals that may entrench discrimination on the basis of a certain person's reading of 1400 year old texts.
But apart from that, why the hell not?"

Why the HELL not, indeed.

Happy are the unemployed

Jesus said that, didn't he? That's gotta be the only reason the Catholic Church is trying to force one of its most popular priests, Father Bob Maguire, to retire.
I don’t know if I should support their position, knowing that actions like this could ultimately lead to the death of the Church, or support Father Bob, because he’s a good bloke.
Obviously, if I was religious, I’d be going for the position that destroyed the most people possible, especially people who have slightly different beliefs, because that's what religious people like. And that would mean supporting the Church's own-goal in this case of getting rid of good priests who don’t molest children and thus contributing to its own decline.
But I think I’m just going to have to support Father Bob on this, even though a win for him would mean priests such as he can continue preaching, thus allowing the Church to survive a little bit longer.
Call it my un-Christian values.
Good luck, Bob. Fight the power.

Hell hath no fury like the Catholic Church

Really. Why would you even bother trying to join, or remain with, a dysfunctional pack of clowns like this?: “Sex abuse victim told to 'go to hell'.” By an Archbishop, no less.
Though he's not alone in his total lack of sympathy, and moral standing, by any means.
To quote Jerry Seinfeld (in relation to the New York Yankees, but apt, nonetheless): "That's a hell of an organization they're running up there."

Discriminating discriminators

Victoria's anti-discrimination laws are currently being reviewed, and a suggestion has been made to remove the exemption allowing religious bodies to discriminate.
First, this is a bit of what our former Treasurer and Exclusive Brethren apologist had to say about this very reasonable proposition:

"The Christian churches want to continue current practice. But a host of community organisations wants to change it. The Federation of Community Legal Services told the parliamentary review that the law should change, claiming: "To allow religious organisations a broad exemption for conscience encourages prejudice..."
"Just think about the moral vanity of that statement. According to these lawyers, a religious conscience leads to prejudice. How did the church arouse public conscience over slavery? How did Florence become a haven for the arts and letters? How did civilisation develop in the past couple of millennia without the Community Legal Services to guide it?"

My response in letter format:

"It was ironic that, in the same edition of the newspaper that Peter Costello used as his vehicle to promote intolerance for people who don’t subscribe to the exact same religious viewpoint, another article reported that yet another child has died for religious reasons: “Dead girl's mother: sickness caused by sin”
"Peter, do you really think we should let decisions on what is or is not right to be dictated by people like this?
"The fact is, our society has progressed despite religious doctrine, not because of it. Religious authorities, comfortable with the status quo, are always resistant to change. But thankfully, our secular society has been able to make leaps and bounds in terms of democracy, precisely because it has not stayed in the dark ages of superstition and entropy.
"Made-up religious reasons should no more be a basis for discrimination than made-up racial reasons."

Although my letter didn't get published (possibly because I never sent it), many other reasonable people replied and were published on my behalf (though no-one made the clever link to the crazy lady article), such as this one from Janine Truter de La Basin:

"PETER Costello seems without irony when he talks of the benefits that religious conscience has brought to society, and fails to mention the oppression of women, the biblical endorsement of slavery, the Crusades, the jihads, the Inquisition and, more recently, the sexual and physical abuse of thousands of children in church homes and parishes, and terrorist attacks around the world.
"If religious institutions truly uphold human rights, they will have nothing to fear from this review. But for those who want to sack a pregnant female teacher because she is unmarried, on the grounds of religious conscience, legal standards for human rights are clearly timely and necessary."

I know, I know: "Religion, blah, blah, TV, blah, Lance Armstrong, blah." That's the Rant O'Clock Way.

An unhealthy stuperstition

Just watching the last stage of this year's Tour de Boredom (don't get me wrong, I love the Tour, and have stayed up to watch every stage for the last 3 weeks, but this year, with Cheatador being all-conquering, it's not very exciting...) and I've started thinking about teenagers having sex.
First time, for real!
(An aside - Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen have just, at 11:56pm, agreed with my blog entry about Allan Davies! I didn't know they (or anyone else apart from Fenz) read it! They didn't actually mention the blog, but they were pressed for time - the cyclists are over 80 km from the stage finish, and I'm sure they don't have time to talk about "sources"...)
What I'm thinking is best phrased as a question: Living as you do, being a blog-reader, in the 21st century, if someone you're near starts coughing all over you, do you (a) rely on what science has given us in the last 200 years and get some kind of medical solution to the problem, or (b) turn to religion, and hope that 2000 year old texts can deal with, e.g., H1N5 flu?
Since you can read, I know you'll go with Option A. We've known for about hundreds of years now that religion is no good when it comes to health issues. Being told you're inhabited by seven devils might have been useful 2000 years ago, because people back then were morons, but these days it's not as useful as it used to be.
So. Looking now at teenagers, or anyone else, having sex, which involves a lot more human fluids than coughing on each other (if you're doing it right), I put to you humble blog-reader, should we treat that as a health issue or as a religious issue?
Oh, really? We need to consult our two to four thousand year old texts, rather than the more recent scientific method which has no doubt saved many, many people than religion ever has?
You're an idiot. And your daughter's going to get pregnant to an idiot.
Yes, you.
No, not you - the first guy.
Yeah - you know who I'm talking about, first guy.
You idiot.
PS Go Lance and Cavendish for tonight. That's right. I'm not afraid to pick the outsiders...
PPS Go saints.

I'm a Rock Star! AKA So let's all get in a (Rock) Fight

This morning I read that the Government is considering banning people from climbing Uluru/Ayers Rock/Uberock (my personal invention and fave), prompting a wave of complaints: Uluru climb ban 'last thing tourism needs'
I used to think that, if I ever got to Uberock, I wouldn't climb it, out of respect for the traditional owners, and because I was self-righteous and judgmental.
However, I now think: It's just a big rock. Sure, the local aboriginal tribes believe it has religious and spiritual significance to them, such as that "during the time when the world was being formed, the Uluru climb was the traditional route taken by Mala men when they arrived at Uluru" or that it "was built up during the creation period by two boys who played in the mud after rain", but we now know about geology and tectonic movements and evolution and rocket ships, etc. Fact is, their religious beliefs are verifiably untrue. Quaint, yes. True, no.
And I say this to be fair as possible. If I'm going to trash on Judaeo-Christian myths and legends, I can't very well give the Aborigines a free pass, can I? No, you're right, I can't.
(Isn't it nice that I'm no longer self-righteous and judgmental?)
Anyhoo, the Government seems to have stepped away remarkably quickly, with call-back radio all a-flutter and this article appearing that afternoon: Climbdown? Uluru proposal sparks debate
That's because they know Australians are racist and don't care.
But I do.
And one day I'm going to climb it.
And get hit by lightning.

Who's Chasing the Chasers?

Borat apparently.

Anyhoo, my recent sojourn meant I missed ranting about The Chaser's naughty episode a few weeks ago.

I actually didn't see that episode, the third in the series I think, mainly because the first two hadn't really been that funny.
Suffice to say, I also didn't think that the dying kids "sketch" was funny ... or necessary ... but I also have the exact same opinion about censorship. If someone makes a joke about dying kids and people are appalled and don't watch any more, as many wowsers who probably weren't watching before have said they will not, then the show will die a natural death and the market will have spoken. No need for the ABC to get all antsy/auntsy, and start firing people and pulling shows off the air.
Someone needs to tell them: "They're only wowsers, Aunty" (except for the people who have actually lost kids to a bad sketch (or whatever, I didn't see it, go ask your father)).

Anyhoo, the 2 week break seemed to do them some good, as I thought their first episode back from exile was eeeexcellent, Mr Burns'-style, much better than the dross they were serving up previously (be interesting to see how they go in tonight's episode).
A gem I thoroughly enjoyed was their lampooning of the Catholic Church's claim that excessive wealth is a sin:

Which brings to mind another recent event involving the Catholic Church, when the Victorian Supreme Court held that the finance arm of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd was "harsh, unreasonable and unnecessary" when it kicked some guy out of his home and sold his home out from under him.
They didn't need to - they were going to get their cash anyway - so I guess they just wanted to.

Ahhhh, Catholics. You guys* are Hilaaarious!

* Disclosure: I am nominally one of those guys, if you believe baptism scars a person ad infinitum.

Let's believe in nonsense so we can all be offended!

I just read yesterday that Aborigines have been jumping up and down about Nicole Kidman blowing (poorly) on a didgeridoo on a German variety show: Kidman's TV stunt offends
Which brings me to today's particularly un-PC rant: Why are primitive sexist customs considered sacrosanct?
Let's look at this like rational human beings: we are assured that women are prohibited from blowing the didgeridoo.
OK. Why?
Is it because women have traditionally been subjugated by men? Or perhaps something to do with ancient myths and legends about the dreamtime or a big rainbow serpent (e.g., I’ve heard that some Aborigines believe if a woman blows on a didgeridoo she can become infertile), that science can now prove are demonstrably wrong? Oh!! Well, in that case, let’s keep the sexism going then.
Nicole: please stop offending people living in make-believe land by playing the didgeridoo and go back to offending them with your acting.
PS Nah, but seriously Nicole, you’re all right.

Ye of little to no faith

Went to an Atheist Society meeting last night.
I'd never been to one before, but it sounds fun, right? As the guest speaker, Catherine Deveny of The Age, said (and I paraphrase), since atheists have, like, no morals, an Atheist Society meeting should be Debauchery Central.
Alas, it was a sedate affair, and I actually went on my lonesome because I am a lonely heathen. Catherine was speaking about her "Conversion to Atheism" though she remarked that it wasn't so much of a conversion as a very gradual process - an evolution, if you will - with an eventual realisation that she was simply an atheist. She's a very good speaker by the by, and though I disagree with some of her columns, I can't fault her convictions.
One of the questions asked of her, in response to her stated reliance on rational thought, was "What about faith, then?", which prompted the query "Can someone please explain to me what "faith" is?" to much laughter.
Having thought about it, though, here's my definition: "Faith" is the stubborn willingness to believe in nonsense despite all evidence (especially new and emerging evidence) to the contrary.
Whaddaya think? Dictionary material?
Also, speaking of complete lunacy, some more religious nuts have come out of the woodwork lately, claiming they don't have to obey Australia's laws: Defiant cult 'above the law'. I don't know what they base this on, but to throw a bit of scripture* their way, they should check out Luke 20:25:

"21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: 22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? 23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? 24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. 25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."

That's right, Jesus says "Pay your bloody taxes!"

* For those who don't know, "scripture" is a reference to the collected writings of other, and older, unsophisticated religious nuts, generally of Middle Eastern extraction, mostly written to justify their beliefs and their place in society, often for political purposes. The Onion did it best: Mistranslated Myths Of Nomadic Desert Shepherd Tribe Taken At Face Value

Paid to Pray

In Newcastle on Monday (still travelling for work), I was reading their local rag - the Newcastle Herald - and was surprised to discover that our politicians start every Parliamentary session with "The Lord's Prayer" ("Heaven forbid pulping the prayer" - this story has also appeared in other rags, too).

It's not like they're wasting enough of our money, they also need to take time every day, time that we're paying for, to mouth platitudes to their Imaginary Friend as well?

"Oh Christian God, apart from all that bad stuff you're responsible for, you're so great!! PLEASE, PLEASE make my life better, it kind of sucks. Amen" (I've paraphrased it somewhat - there's a better analysis of the prayer, and Malcolm Turnbull's justification for keeping it, here).

Anyhoo, Bob Brown wants to replace it with a moment of quiet reflection. Seems perfectly reasonable, particularly in our multi-denominational country, with a supposedly secular Government.

I'll pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, see if he can't sort this out.

Or maybe the Boognish.