So here's the question...

For some reason, in addition to the obligatory and obvious Russian who has added me as a friend in the past couple of weeks, a further three LJs have added me.

The question is, since we have no friends in common, do alenadalina, babachor, or bacel actually exist, or are you just random bots? And what prompted you to add me as a friend - not that I mind.

serfstyle is of course my latest temporary Russian.

Hello, if you're real people. Leave a comment, perhaps.

So here's the question...

For some reason, in addition to the obligatory and obvious Russian who has added me as a friend in the past couple of weeks, a further three LJs have added me.

The question is, since we have no friends in common, do alenadalina, babachor, or bacel actually exist, or are you just random bots? And what prompted you to add me as a friend - not that I mind.

serfstyle is of course my latest temporary Russian.

Hello, if you're real people. Leave a comment, perhaps.

Society for the Bleedin' Obvious

Now, to be fair, I have only glanced at this article , but I have to say that I didn’t need an expensive piece of research to tell me that if I have coronary heart disease AND depression, I am in more trouble than if I have just one of the conditions.

Given that the study followed 6,000 civil servants over a five-and-a-half year period, I wonder if the factor they are missing is that it is a combination of all three.

Society for the Bleedin' Obvious

Now, to be fair, I have only glanced at this article , but I have to say that I didn’t need an expensive piece of research to tell me that if I have coronary heart disease AND depression, I am in more trouble than if I have just one of the conditions.

Given that the study followed 6,000 civil servants over a five-and-a-half year period, I wonder if the factor they are missing is that it is a combination of all three.

Don't discuss religion or politics. Don't act with children or animals.

Other than for any humour that can be squeezed out of the trip, I don’t give a fig that the Pope is in the UK. I am not a Catholic, so he’s not important to me in any way, shape or form. As a head of state he’s as important or as unimportant as any other president, prime minister or monarch and entitled to the same respect and pomp as we would extend them or expect to be extended to ours. As a head of a religious group, too, he should get the same respect as the leader of any other religious group (though where you draw the line between religions and sects, I don’t know).

Either way you cut it, he’s here and a lot of people are happy to see him, so that’s a good thing. I think he’s old, irrelevant, out-dated and out of touch, but others don’t and this island is big enough and the people on it are big enough (by and large) to accommodate all shades of opinion. So welcome, then, Pope Benedict XVI. I hope you have a good visit and that you don’t find us too third-world for your tastes.

What I do object to though, is the insinuation that lack of belief is a bad and aggressive thing – though my opinion in this matter is undermined by the strange antics of people like Dawkins, who I would otherwise admire. I lean more towards his atheism than I do the Pope’s religion. But in the same way that I object to being told that atheism is a bad thing by the religious lobby, and get completely irate when they muddle secularism and atheism. America seems to be doing that as do many other places. Religion is a personal matter and should not be pandered to in any way, shape or form, by the State. The individual should be free to believe any old crap he or she likes provided it doesn’t impinge on anyone else’s life or beliefs or interfere with the pursuance of the individual’s duties. If they want to be evangelical about their faith, fine: do it on their own time. That’s what secularism is: keeping religion out of the state. That’s the way it has to be if you are to be inclusive of all beliefs.

I oppose being preached at by anyone, regardless of their agenda. I don’t want the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, any Imams, Buddhist Enlightened Ones, Rabbis, Shamen or Voodoo Witch Doctors trying to convert me (or anyone else unless they ask to be converted). Similarly, I don’t want people like Dawkins, Hitchens or (would you believe) Stephen Fry telling people that religion is evil and that they should abandon it.

I may agree with one side or the other on the existence or otherwise of God or Gods, plural or single. I do dispute the teaching of religion as science (intelligent design, my arse), but at the same time, it doesn’t hurt my quality of life or peace of mind if some hick deludes him or herself either in favour of, or against some particular mental stance in the privacy of their own home, provided that they don’t try to push that enthusiasm on to me. I’ll even give them the benefit of the doubt if they try to convert me once, provided they desist when I tell them to.

It’s whatever rocks your boat, Guys. Just don’t expect it to rock mine, or everyone else’s.

So, at the end of the rant it comes to this: if you are pro-religion, or anti-religion, fine. Just shut up and do whatever it is that keeps you going through the day. Invite me to join in, if you like, but don’t pester if I say no.

And don’t go around telling people they’re idiots, insane or criminals if they don’t like your views. Just accept their idiocy as you expect them to accept yours.

In the meantime I have decided that I would like the Pope better if he wore a propeller on that little white beanie of his.

Don't discuss religion or politics. Don't act with children or animals.

Other than for any humour that can be squeezed out of the trip, I don’t give a fig that the Pope is in the UK. I am not a Catholic, so he’s not important to me in any way, shape or form. As a head of state he’s as important or as unimportant as any other president, prime minister or monarch and entitled to the same respect and pomp as we would extend them or expect to be extended to ours. As a head of a religious group, too, he should get the same respect as the leader of any other religious group (though where you draw the line between religions and sects, I don’t know).

Either way you cut it, he’s here and a lot of people are happy to see him, so that’s a good thing. I think he’s old, irrelevant, out-dated and out of touch, but others don’t and this island is big enough and the people on it are big enough (by and large) to accommodate all shades of opinion. So welcome, then, Pope Benedict XVI. I hope you have a good visit and that you don’t find us too third-world for your tastes.

What I do object to though, is the insinuation that lack of belief is a bad and aggressive thing – though my opinion in this matter is undermined by the strange antics of people like Dawkins, who I would otherwise admire. I lean more towards his atheism than I do the Pope’s religion. But in the same way that I object to being told that atheism is a bad thing by the religious lobby, and get completely irate when they muddle secularism and atheism. America seems to be doing that as do many other places. Religion is a personal matter and should not be pandered to in any way, shape or form, by the State. The individual should be free to believe any old crap he or she likes provided it doesn’t impinge on anyone else’s life or beliefs or interfere with the pursuance of the individual’s duties. If they want to be evangelical about their faith, fine: do it on their own time. That’s what secularism is: keeping religion out of the state. That’s the way it has to be if you are to be inclusive of all beliefs.

I oppose being preached at by anyone, regardless of their agenda. I don’t want the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, any Imams, Buddhist Enlightened Ones, Rabbis, Shamen or Voodoo Witch Doctors trying to convert me (or anyone else unless they ask to be converted). Similarly, I don’t want people like Dawkins, Hitchens or (would you believe) Stephen Fry telling people that religion is evil and that they should abandon it.

I may agree with one side or the other on the existence or otherwise of God or Gods, plural or single. I do dispute the teaching of religion as science (intelligent design, my arse), but at the same time, it doesn’t hurt my quality of life or peace of mind if some hick deludes him or herself either in favour of, or against some particular mental stance in the privacy of their own home, provided that they don’t try to push that enthusiasm on to me. I’ll even give them the benefit of the doubt if they try to convert me once, provided they desist when I tell them to.

It’s whatever rocks your boat, Guys. Just don’t expect it to rock mine, or everyone else’s.

So, at the end of the rant it comes to this: if you are pro-religion, or anti-religion, fine. Just shut up and do whatever it is that keeps you going through the day. Invite me to join in, if you like, but don’t pester if I say no.

And don’t go around telling people they’re idiots, insane or criminals if they don’t like your views. Just accept their idiocy as you expect them to accept yours.

In the meantime I have decided that I would like the Pope better if he wore a propeller on that little white beanie of his.

Can't stop to talk...

...trying to get lid back on Can o' Worms^TM.

That is all.

Can't stop to talk...

...trying to get lid back on Can o' Worms^TM.

That is all.