You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Religion’ category.
Policies of the New Libertarian Independent Secular Party (L.I.S.P.)
Like the Libertarian Party in the U.S., the New Libertarian Independent Secular Party – launched here today, 22nd October 2012 – reflects the ideas of libertarianism, favouring a secular, humanist society, a less powerful state (except for the re-nationalisation of essential public utilities), strong civil liberties (including support for same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights), minimum restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, the legalization of cannabis, separation of church and state, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations (i.e., avoiding foreign military entanglements with other nations), freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries, and a more responsive and direct democracy using modern digital technology to enable citizens to vote directly on important issues.
We would:
1) Re-nationalise all public utilities and industries which were nationalised by the Attlee government in 1945 and privatised by the Thatcher government after 1979, to include gas, electricity, water, raillways, telecoms, coal and steel.
2) Provide free residential and nursing support for the elderly in care and nursing homes without means testing or requiring the sale of the elderly person’s house and free home help care for the elderly still living in their own homes.
3) Impose heavy penalties on bankers and all financial traders, managers, executives, stock brokers, commodity and derivatives traders, hedge fund managers etc. found guilty of negligence, fraud, financial malfeasance, misconduct or impropriety – penalties to include large fines, confiscation of personal assets and property, and imprisonment.
4) Abolish prescription charges and make all hospital car parks free.
5) Withdraw all U.K. troops and military personal immediately from Afghanistan, Iraq and all other foreign interventions; no Prime Minister or U.K. government EVER to take the nation to war again without a national referendum.
6) Abolish university fees and re-introduce full grants for all students from low income families and proportional grants combined with a moderate parental financial contribution for students from middle income families; high income families to pay full costs of children’s university education.
7) Abolish religious denomination schools and re-introduce technical and vocational colleges alongside grammar and academy schools, but none of them to be under local authority or central government control.
8) Abolish Ofsted, SATs, school league tables and the National Curriculum*. Allow schools to determine their own curriculums and educational priorities, financed by a voucher system like the one in Sweden.
9) Revert ‘new’ universities back to polytechnic status or re-designate as technical universities and require them to run high quality technology, engineering and I.C.T. courses together with overseeing a large expansion in apprenticeship schemes.
10) Require the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and other ‘top 20’ universities to take at least 70% of students from U.K. state secondary schools and no more than 10% from U.K. private schools and no more than 20% intake of overseas students.
11) Use the Internet and digital technology to reform democracy in the 21st century and give power back to the people. We have social networking on the World Wide Web – why not electronic voter networking using the Internet, mobile phones, chip and pin systems etc. to enable ordinary citizens to vote on important political issues?**
12) Legalise cannabis and allow sale of cannabis through licensed distribution (eg. through public houses, which would help to reinvigorate the licensed trade and traditional pub sector).
13) Reduce excise duty on cask conditioned beers and remove it completely on beers brewed by micro-breweries. Lower excise duty on single malt whiskies and blended whiskies but increase excise duty on ‘alcopops’. Break up monopolies of large pub ownership companies which charge landlords and pub managers extortionate rents.
14) De-criminalise prostitution and make provision for regular health checks and contraception for sex workers.
*Politicians should let teachers get on with their jobs instead of always interfering in education and using it as a political football (this also applies to the health service). They should recognise what teachers and other educational professionals have always known: that educational achievement is largely influenced by social, familial, economic and class factors.
Why do politicians fail to acknowledge what is so obvious to anyone who actually works in education? Educational achievement is adversely affected for children living in areas of social and economic deprivation, where there is high unemployment, family breakdown and multiple social problems. Children in such areas will inevitably perform poorly in standardised educational tests compared with children living in affluent areas where parents are themselves likely to have achieved higher educational levels and are predominantly in well-paid professional and managerial employment.
STOP castigating, criticizing, punishing and micro-managing teachers in schools located in deprived neighbourhoods. Let them get on with their job and stop interfering. DO NOT introduce more and more pointless bureaucratic assessment and tick-lists. DO NOT pay attention to educational consultants, local authority bureaucrats, Ofsted inspectors, or government ministers and their officials. Instead, ask the teachers ‘at the chalk face’ what they actually need and provide them with the extra resources required to make a difference. Introduce social and economic policies which really address problems of multiple deprivation.
Much of this was known as far back as 1967 when the Plowden Report was written, stressing that ‘at the heart of the educational process lies the child’ (not Ofsted, not SATS, not league tables, not local government educational advisers, not ministers of education).
It is pitiful that so little progress has been made since Plowden, which included the following recommendations:
- A national policy of ‘positive discrimination’ should favour schools in deprived neighbourhoods (Ch. 5)
- Nursery education should be available to children at any time after they reach the age of three (Ch. 9)
- Authorities maintaining selection should not rely on intelligence and attainment tests. (Ch. 11)
- The maximum size of primary school classes should be reduced (Ch. 20)
- More men teachers are needed in primary schools (Ch. 25)
————————————–
** Our current parliamentary system of so-called democracy means that voters only get a say once every five years and governments can do what they like in between elections. This system grew out of medieval kingship and the patronage of the ruling classes, and is hundreds of years out of date.
We now have the technology (the Internet, secure websites, smart phones, pin & chip cards, etc.) to enable ordinary people to vote on major issues which affect them in everyday life. So why don’t we harness this technology to make a quantum leap towards real democracy and thereby reduce the power of parliament and the executive to decide everything? A few privileged people – mainly rich, mainly white and mainly men – who went to the same schools and universities and belong to the same clubs – currently rule us and make all the decisions on our behalf. Why can’t we vote on important issues ourselves through new voter networking technology? It is easily within our technical abilities as a society to introduce such a system to enable people to vote on important issues – perhaps once a week or once a month – but our rulers don’t want to cede that sort of power to ordinary voters; witness how many times we have been promised a vote on European Union treaties and successive governments have wriggled out of it.
We deserve a better system of democracy than the current antiquated system, where a load of privileged middle-aged and elderly men meet in two plush chambers in a vast 19th century Victorian Gothic edifice on the side of the Thames to ‘hear hear’ and ‘jeer jeer’ each other, while sleek bureaucrats in Whitehall write elephantine piles of ‘minutes’ and reports detailing all the reasons why nothing of a commonsense nature can ever be done.
Advertisements
Pope Benedict XVI says saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
The pope used his traditional end-of-year speech to say a few words about what he considers the important issues of the day. In a world where the practices of greedy bankers and corrupt financiers have forced the global economy into recession, and the insane policies of evil African dictator Robert Mugabe have caused the outbreak of a cholera epidemic and driven his own people to the brink of starvation, the 81 year old pontiff felt an attack on homosexuality and transgenderism was the best way to make use of his end-of-year address to senior Vatican staff.
Pope Benedict looks askance at gays and transsexuals
At a time when a record number of homes even in more affluent countries are being re-possessed and many people find themselves unemployed and facing an uncertain future, the pope emphasised his total rejection of ‘Gender Theory’. While people are facing starvation, disease and genocide in the failed states of Africa – Zimbabwe, the Sudan and Somalia, to name but three of the worst – the 81 year old ex-member of the Hitler Youth showed where his priorities lie by saying that homosexuality and ‘Gender Theory’ are as big a threat to humanity as environmental challenges such as the destruction of rainforests.
Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe raises his fist against the decadent West
Pope Benedict XVI explained that defending God’s creation was not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction.
The pope warned that ‘Gender Theory’ blurs the distinction between male and female and could thus lead to the “self-destruction” of the human race.
Gender theory
Gender theory explores sexual orientation, the roles assigned by society to individuals according to their gender, and how people perceive their biological identity.
Gay and transsexual groups, particularly in the United States, promote it as a key to understanding and tolerance, but the pope disagrees.
It is not “outmoded metaphysics” to urge respect for the “nature of the human being as man and woman,” he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican’s sumptuous Clementine Hall.
The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. It teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are.
In 2005 (his first year in office), Pope Benedict XVI upheld a ban on men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” becoming priests, and also described homosexuality as a “tendency” towards an “intrinsic moral evil”.
The former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – once known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition – from 1981 until his election. His defence of church doctrine led to him to be called “the Pope’s enforcer” and “God’s rottweiler”.
Joseph Ratzinger was elected to the papacy in April 2005. At the age of 78, he was the oldest cardinal to become Pope since Clement XII was elected in 1730. Joseph Ratzinger was born into a traditional Bavarian farming family in 1927, although his father was a policeman. At the age of 14, he joined the Hitler Youth and was briefly held as a prisoner of war by the Allies in 1945.
Could there be another reason why the pope has used his end-of-year address to speak out against homosexuality and transsexuality? Perhaps he hopes that the traditionalist, ant-gay wing of the Church of England will depart from the Anglican Communion and re-join the Catholic Church.
It cannot have escaped the elderly pontiff’s notice that in July 2008 the Archbishop of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan declared that Gene Robinson, the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire, “should resign for the sake of the church.”
In a press conference at the decennial Lambeth Conference, the Most Rev. Dr. Daniel Deng Bul said that homosexual ordination “is not what is found in the Bible” and that it is “not the norm of the Anglican world.”
Archbishop Bul, who serves as Bishop of Juba as well as primate of the church in Sudan, represents some of the most persecuted Christian minorities in the world, and lives in the country where Mrs. Gillian Gibbons was last year accused of insulting Islam. She was arrested, tried, and sentenced to 15 days in a Khartoum jail.
What had she done? Sheffield-born Mrs. Gibbons, mother of two, primary school teacher – and clearly a danger to the Sudanese state and to the whole Islamic religion – had allowed the seven-year-olds in her class at the Unity High School, Khartoum, to name their teddy bear Mohammed!
Did the pope speak out when the Sudanese government of President Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir persecuted a harmless, 54-year-old English primary school teacher? Did he denounce this ludicrous, outrageous act of bullying? No, he did not – even though he is no lover of Islam. In 2006, in a controversial papal speech, the Pope quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things. This provoked intense anger in the Muslim world. He recently generated more anger among some Muslims by personally baptising a prominent Muslim convert, Magdi Allam, who has been an outspoken critic of Islamist militancy and a strong supporter of Israel.
I like…
I like Barak Obama (so far); David Davies (a courageous Tory who believes in standing up for our fundamental democratic freedoms unlike the despicable Blair gov’t); I like Agnostics; Atheists; Buddhists; Earth-Goddess Worshippers; Feminists; Goths; Jewish intellectuals; Lesbians & Gay men; Gregorian Chants; Optimists; Pacifists; Pagans; Poets; Secular Liberal Humanists (probably am one); Socialists; She-Males; Shamans; TV/CDs; T-Girls; Transsexuals; Wiccans; Wombats; Women by birth or choice; any folk who value and worship the Divine and Earthly Feminine in all its manifestations and psychological, social and gender characteristics; I like any cruiser motorbikes, esp. Yamaha Viragos and Harley-Davidsons; I like drinking (esp. scotch whisky & real ale); gothdom; free speech; talking about gender, transgender, life, religion, the universe and everything…
I don’t like…
Political correctness, religious fundamentalism, war-mongering neo-conservatives, God-bothering redneck creationists, Janet Street-Porter, Sandi Toksvig (who has ruined my enjoyment of BBC Radio 4’s ‘The News Quiz’); Calvinists, bigots of all types, including the Pope; and especially I don’t like self-righteous hypocrites and self-serving politicians and rich lawyers who line their own pockets and do favours for their cronies – for example Tony & Cherie Blair, two of the most loathsome individuals on the planet.
So do I consider myself a ‘woman’ or a ‘man’? And what does religion say about gender identity?
When I am dressed as a woman, I see myself as a woman. Obviously I don’t view myself as a woman all the time, but my desire to function socially and be accepted as a woman most of the time is getting stronger, and I recognise that. I haven’t indicated whether or not I see myself ever living as a woman full time. Maybe I do, maybe I don’t. (I can tell you that even if I had SRS, I would probably occasionally dress as a boy just to be contrary – because I’m like that!)
I guess I want the best of both worlds, and I actually can’t see why that is impossible. Perhaps that’s naive, but there you go. Too much Monty Python in my youth, probably.
I don’t like being designated as a ‘CD/TV’ any more as that’s not how I see myself, and I think those expressions are very limiting.
I am also suspicious of the whole way that transgendered people are ‘diagnosed’ by the medico-psychological professions who believe themselves to be the experts on transgenderism. I think our understanding of TGism is about at the stage that the barber-surgeons of the 18th century were at as regards conventional medicine, if I can make that analogy.
In other words, the so-called experts may well be wrong; their ‘treatments’ as regards SRS etc. may also be wrong, at least for some people. Certainly that great early pioneer of how to ‘treat’ transgendered people medically, Dr. Harry Benjamin, has been proved to have been misguided in some instances. The famous case of the male twins who were circumcised is an example of this – something went wrong, and one twin had his penis accidentally cut off by the rabbi – Dr. Benjamin then decided he should be raised as a girl, with disastrous consequences for the individual concerned, who as an adult chose to revert to the male gender.
SRS may not be the inevitable end point for all transgendered people – be they transsexuals or not – and I am not sure even whether the term ‘transsexual’ is any more helpful than ‘transvestite’ or ‘crossdresser’.
Transsexuals are cross-dressers or transvestites, at least while they are pre-operative, as the terms ‘cross-dresser’ and ‘transvestite’ are properly merely nouns denoting a neutral description of behaviour. The term ‘transgendered’ on the other hand recognises the distinction between gender, a social and psychological construct, and biological sex, which is a physiological reality.
I don’t see gender identity as an ‘either/or’ – I think ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are simplistic psycho-social constructs over emphasized by the three great monotheistic or Abrahamic religions, as a means of reinforcing prejudice and justifying the control of one biological sex over the other. As an agnostic humanist, I don’t care for any of the fundamentalist manifestations of Islam, Christianity or Judaism.
Some societies and cultures have never fully subscribed to the bi-polar notion of sex and gender, and have room for a ‘third sex’ – North American Indians recognise the ‘squaw man’ as a valued member of their community; in Thai culture there are the Kathoi or ‘Ladyboys’; and more recently in our western society being a ‘she-male’ seems to be growing in acceptability and popularity as a social gender role option.
On the subject of Ladyboys, we saw a wonderful cabaret of ‘The Ladyboys of Bankok’ which fortuitously visited my home town of Chesterfield (Derbyshire, UK) last week, so we were privileged to enjoy the performances of some of the most beautiful ‘transvestites’ in the world.
The brochure we bought before the show about the Ladyboy cabaret described them as ‘tranvestites’ and referred to them as ‘Mr – ‘ but I would guess this was for the benefit of the general public, who may not have come across Ladyboys before. The female pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’ would inevitably be used within the troupe (I would guess) to denote the Ladyboy members, as there were also four distinctly male members of the group.
The Ladyboys had well-formed breasts, wide hips, narrow waists, very slim builds and very beautiful feminine faces. They looked much more like women than many self-identifying ‘transsexuals’ I have met.
To me and probably the rest of the audience they looked like lovely women – but yes, I understand they still also had their male parts down below. Some would probably see the Ladyboys as ‘transvestites’, but I saw them as very feminine and beautiful women.
What, exactly, is a ‘woman’? Now there’s a question! (See Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘Second Sex’ and the Feminist writings of the 1960’s and 70’s.)
If we have to use limiting gender designations, Ladyboys could best be described as ‘TG girls’ or ‘transgendered women’ – I can’t see them as ‘transvestites’ – they are much more than that in their full social gender identity as women.
What makes a ‘woman’ or a ‘man’? I think it has very little to do with what you have between your legs, but everything to do with how you feel inside, how you express your personal psychological ‘gender’ attributes socially, and perhaps more important than anything – how others view you.
So in my book it is perfectly possible to be a ‘woman’ with a penis, or a ‘man’ with a vagina – and there are plenty of examples.
I appreciate that I am probably challenging some entrenched views among the TG community as well as ‘straight’ society – but there you go – if we don’t challenge these stereotypes and definitions, we are never going to progress as a species beyond them.
To be governed in one’s behaviour by conventional male/female/masculine/feminine stereotypes is very limiting and it is a shame that so many so-called ‘normal’ or ‘straight’ people are so controlled in how they are able to express themselves gender-wise.
I see no point in giving up one straight-jacketing stereotype (as a conventional ‘man’) simply to don another, as a conventional ‘woman’.)
I am transgendered – yes, but I refuse the designation ‘transvestite’ or ‘cross-dresser’, and I am not ready to take on and adopt the term ‘transsexual’ to describe myself.
I rejoice in my transgenderism, I regard it as a gift, and I wouldn’t be any other way, unless it was to have been born a biological (genetic XX chromosome) female. I guess that would have been my first choice – but being a TG girl isn’t too bad as a second choice. I would hate to be a ‘straight’ male – it must be ghastly.
To sum up, I would suggest there is much more to gender identity than that which is believed by conventional society – and the transgender community is itself a work in progress and shouldn’t be circumscribed by these conventional definitions.
As we find out more about ourselves as trangendered people, we can educate society as a whole – and ourselves – but it would be a pity if we were constrained by the traditional views of what constitutes a ‘woman’ or a ‘man’ .
The current prevailing orthodoxy, originating, as I have suggested above, from the bigoted, repressive, misogynistic and patriarchal views promulgated by the Abrahamic religions, does not have to be the last word on the subject.
So there you go. I can’t seem to leave this subject alone. Oh dear!
As regards my prostate, (with which I was having problems), I got the result of the PSA test today – it was normal – so I’m quite pleased about that, even though I know the PSA prostate test can be unreliable. I am still going to see a urologist (my G.P. referred me) re. the prostate, just to make sure I have nothing to worry about, as I do seem to suffer from many of the symptoms of BHP (Benign Prostate Hyperplasia).
Regarding taking 1mg of Finasteride to promote my scalp hair growth, this is more from vanity than necessity. I am lucky in that I probably don’t have much to worry about. I will upload next a very recent photo of myself and Rose-Marie (my wife) taken l at Martine Rose’s ‘Harmony Weekend’ at Matlock Bath – which should be appearing as my avatar and photo on TrannyWeb once it has been approved by the moderator. I already have shoulder length blonde hair and therefore don’t have much to complain about, but I am conscious of a very marginal thinning right at the front of the crown, which I’m hoping that the Finasteride might improve after about a year – but if it doesn’t do anything, it doesn’t really matter that much.
I am still working out which is the best ‘ femme’ hair style for myself, bearing in mind my age and personal preferences. The current very straight styles maybe don’t work for me, as my hair is naturally curly, and although I can get it to go straight (at least the hairdresser can), I think a few soft curls or ‘bangs’ as they say in the States, works better in softening and framing my face (god, I am going on…sorry!)
Regarding why I am trying to feminising my body, please excuse the length of my reply, but I need to ramble on at some length also about this, and it might be helpful to others in a similar situation.
Yes, I guess I am transitioning, or to put it another way – as my wife says – I am a ‘work in progress(!)’ …but from what and to what is perhaps at this stage still open to question. My current designation on TrannyWeb as a ‘TV/Crossdresser’ doesn’t really describe where I am at nowadays. I would prefer ‘transgendered’.
I prefer to think of gender as a very broad continuum. Some people start at one point (eg. hetero TV) and stay on that point all their lives; others may start at one point and ‘get off’ at another point – which is probably what is happening to me, and I am sure I am not the first.
I have thought about this a lot over many years. In the late 1980’s I did a Masters degree dissertation on ‘Gender Identity Development’ – and very much believed in ‘nurture’ rather than ‘nature’ explanations of gender identity, which partly came out of 60’s Feminism, Simone De Beauvoir’s ‘The Second Sex’, and the idea that women and men are ‘made’ (by upbringing, society, etc.) rather than being born.
I am gradually trying to explain here my own development re. theories of transgenderism and gender identity in the context of developing psychological, psycho-sexual and societal theories of gender identity development and the views, explanations and distinctions that were advanced by transgender social groups such as the Beaumont Society and Northern Concord (a Manchester-based TG group), over the last 30 years or so. Quite a job I have set myself!
I am not sure I am any longer convinced about the ‘hard and fast’ designations or self-identifications of TG girls as either‘ TV/crossdresser’ or ‘transsexual’. And in saying this I know I am posing a threat to some people’s confort zones, and will probably bring down the wrath of both the ‘professional’, ‘wear it on my sleeve’ transsexuals – and ‘hetero TV’s’, who believe themselves to be ‘just a bloke in a frock…but I’m not in the least bit effeminate..’, who make a big thing about distinguishing themselves from transsexuals, so as not to frighten the horses, wives and partners, etc.
If we have to use the ‘TV/crossdresser’ versus ‘transsexual’ distinction – and see these as mutually exclusive rather than different points on the same ‘spectrum’ – I guess some people would say it sounds as if I am moving more towards the latter designation, in that I am taking female hormones and feminising my body, etc. But I still prefer to use the expression ‘transgendered’ in describing where I am myself, as this seems to me to be an embracing and inclusive term, whereas ‘TV/crossdresser’ and ‘transsexual’ are arguably limiting and more ‘exclusive’ – though I don’t have a problem at all with folk who prefer to self-identify by using either one or the other term, and for many these are probably the best designations.
I prefer ‘transgendered’, in that it can be taken to include everyone who dresses as the so-called ‘opposite’ sex (a term in itself with which I disagree) – my understanding of the term ‘transgendered’ (which may be wrong), is that it can include transvestites/crossdressers; transsexuals; she-males; drag queens; drag kings – regardless of sexual orientation, so you can be ‘straight’ ( hetero), bi, lesbian, gay, or whatever, but we are ALL transgendered if we sometimes or all the time like to dress in the clothing normally associated with the other biological (genetic) sex…and if some of us do something about changing our bodies as well. Phew! Glad I got that off my chest!
I thought and believed originally, back in the 1970’s – when I first ‘came out’ – that I was a ‘heterosexual TV’. When I joined the Beaumont Society in the 1970’s, I had to say what I thought I was, and this was the nearest designation that described me at that time.
The closest I could come now to an accurate designation of myself is that I am a ‘she-male’ and ‘lesbian’. If I transitioned the whole way, I think I would be lesbian.
My wife and I have been discussing all this recently. She knew about my cross-dressing before we got married, as I made a point of telling her. She was under the impression (and so was I) that she was marrying a hetero tranny, which she was quite happy about.
We are still happily married (after 31 years), and Rosie loves my female side and in fact used to get cross with me if I didn’t get a skirt on often enough. That hasn’t been a problem lately, as these days I seem to be Katie more often than I am my male self (poor dolt that he is).
And yes, I am taking female hormones, and my wife rejoices in my growing breasts and very much enjoys touching and fondling them! Aren’t I lucky?! But she also enjoys making love to a male as regards the ‘down-below’ department, and would miss this if I have SRS (sex-reassignment surgery – ie. getting an ‘innie’ rather than an ‘outie’). We both recognise that this is no longer a total no-no and impossibility in the future; it is acknowledged and open for discussion between us, including the consequences for our sex life. (We both laugh about ending up as two old ladies.)
I guess if that happens we might rub along together as a lesbian couple. Likewise if my feminising hormone regime, or for that matter, any treatment for prostate problems meant that I could no longer get an erection, we would deal with that in a similar way. Or Rosie joshes me that she might just go off and find a toy boy – and I guess she might, who knows! (I hope not – but I would hardly be in a position to object.)
I am certainly still at present heterosexual, in a male sense, so being lesbian as a female might be on the cards if I transition the whole way – but again I say, who knows? Perhaps I’ll go and find a toy boy as well. There was certainly a very nice young man – looked a bit like a public school type, with a floppy quiff, waiting on us two ladies for afternoon tea in the restaurant at Chatsworth House yesterday (nice young man, nice young man…) Maybe sexual orientation, as well as gender identity is also a ‘moveable feast’, or perhaps we are all basically bisexual (…discuss). Am I hetero as a male, am I hetero as a female, am I lesbian, am I bi – who knows? Who the fuck cares? Ain’t life interesting?! We should embrace all the possibilities, as regards finding out what we are gender-wise, sexual orientation-wise, life, the universe and everything-wise… Is there a god? I don’t think so, but I can’t prove it, and neither can you prove there is a god, if you are god-botherer… But I digress…
I think I’ll stop for today at that point…!
