http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... um=twitter

Obviously forgets that she has been attacked in the street by Muslims yet never by atheists.

Shes one of those people who are perpetually confused. Religion, when its mixed with culture, does that to some. Others, can see the problems their culture and religion create. She has no common sense.

Unelected Politician meets Unelected Head of State to wail that democrats want religion out of the public sphere.

I read that while spontaneously repeating "Stupid woman" aloud, over and over. And yet it's the last line that's the most depressing:

The delegation will then be received by Pope Benedict XVI — an honour not normally accorded those who are not heads of state or government.

UK ministers kowtowing and considering themselves 'honoured' to be received by the morally bankrupt child-molester-in-chief, whose contribution to the sum of human wellbeing is a substantial diminution. And these people are running the country. For fuck's sake.

The minister, who is also chairman of the Conservative Party, says: “My fear today is that a militant secularisation is taking hold of our societies. We see it in any number of things: when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere.

Well there's a reason or ten for that like, oooh, off the top of my head: Mass murders in the name of the religion of peace/love of <insert prophet's name here>, the widespread protection of peadophiles fraudsters criminals and hypocrites, constant war, organised bigotry against homosexuals and women and any number of other minority groups, etc, etc

And the silly woman wonders why the population at large are getting well and truely fucked off with the self-righteous tossers who contribute so much pain and misery to the world.

We don't need "militant secularists" to turn people off religion. The unending stream of bigotry and hate from believers does that far more effectively than anything someone like me can do.

Baroness Warsi, what a silly bitch.

The list of falsehoods and untruths in the 2nd paragraph of her actual opinion piece ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9080441/We-stand-side-by-side-with-the-Pope-in-fighting-for-faith.html ) shows how much credence can be given to the rest.

England's first lasting diplomatic relationship was negotiated by John of Gaunt with John of Avis, King of Portugal around 90 years before the treaty with the Vatican that she mentions. She talks of it being the UK's first diplomatic relationship but the UK did not exist in any sense until the first Act of Union in 1706/1707. The Holy See was not even recognised as a sovereign state until the nice friendly fascist Benito Mussolini decided it was personally politically convenient in 1929.

What the hell does this insane woman want? Going back to before Cromwell when Jews were excluded from Britain? Going back to the 19th century when her hero Bennedict Ratzinger could be arrested for saying mass? Does she really want to ignore the secularism that means it has never been illegal to lead a congregation in Hindu, Muslim or Sikh prayer in this country abolished?

What is the point of this woman? Is there anyone outside of Cameron's inner-circle that has the slightest respect for her? From what I have seen on Muslim blogs and forums (non-scientific sampling and so merely anecdotal) British Muslims hate her. What is even the point of allowing a Minister Without Portfolio to exist and have a Cabernet role? Warsi's seems to be all about pretending to Christian extremists with overly PC leaning that the government is "down with the Muslims", whereas Mandelson's was all about unjustified reward for patronage to one particular PM. Isn't it time we constitutionally banned this non-job?

Kingsley wrote:What is the point of this woman?

Tokenism writ large. She ticks a lot of boxes (female, ethnic, Muslim).

Just ignore her, everyone else does.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Kingsley wrote:What is the point of this woman?

Tokenism writ large. She ticks a lot of boxes (female, ethnic, Muslim).

Just ignore her, everyone else does.

Not the Biased Bullshit Corporation, whose news reports cover her every drip of verbal diarrhoea.

jez9999 wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Kingsley wrote:What is the point of this woman?

Tokenism writ large. She ticks a lot of boxes (female, ethnic, Muslim).

Just ignore her, everyone else does.

Not the Biased Bullshit Corporation, whose news reports cover her every drip of verbal diarrhoea.

Oh Jesus mother fucking Christ.

Yes, because the Telegraph is operated by the BBC, isn't it?

What the fuck is a militant secularist?

Someone who "militantly" fights for a religious persons right to not have any religious beliefs (be it Islam, Scientology or Judaism) imposed on them by the government?

FFS. What is bad about that? The alternative to secularism (in this case) is some kind of christian fascism. IF ANYONE IS A MILITANT, YOU ARE... morons

Yes, being a militant "insert term of religious believe here" means you blows up things.

Militant atheists/secularists are a bit rude.

DougC wrote:Baroness Warsi, what a silly bitch.

In the spirit of Monty Python ... Baroness Warsi, what a silly bunt.

MacIver wrote:

jez9999 wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Kingsley wrote:What is the point of this woman?

Tokenism writ large. She ticks a lot of boxes (female, ethnic, Muslim).

Just ignore her, everyone else does.

Not the Biased Bullshit Corporation, whose news reports cover her every drip of verbal diarrhoea.

Oh Jesus mother fucking Christ.

Yes, because the Telegraph is operated by the BBC, isn't it?

I didn't read about this in the Telegraph; my ears were rudely assaulted by it in one of Radio 4's news bulletins.

Funny how when it's an opinion they don't like (legalize cannabis) they immediately wheel out an authority figure who disagrees with it, but when Warsi comes out with this, it goes unchallenged.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831

200 comments (mostly negative) in less than 90 mintues.

If only we had a high ranking atheist politician with the balls to challenge such bollocks and stand up for secularism. Oh well.

How can you compare those two examples? Talk about apples and bloody pomegranates. Again, more evidence-free analogies and stories from you Jez. I've seen and heard many an expert talk about cannabis on the BBC. Some of them have the opinion that drug prohibition works, others don't. I know you don't like it but people are allowed to think what they want in the real world. I seem to recall they made quite a big deal when the last government sacked their drugs advisor for stating cannabis should be decimalised.

Back to being on topic, on the BBC's article on this on their website they clearly link to Dawkins' recent findings on Christians not really being Christians.

Biased my fucking ass.

MacIver wrote:Back to being on topic, on the BBC's article on this on their website they clearly link to Dawkins' recent findings on Christians not really being Christians.

Biased my fucking ass.

Well, the 'Outdated and divisive' section is a pretty decent counterweight to the headline, for once. Whoop dee doo.

MacIver wrote:I seem to recall they made quite a big deal when the last government sacked their drugs advisor for stating cannabis should be decimalised.

Too right. It always does my head in trying to remember how many grams in a quarter.

jez9999 wrote:

MacIver wrote:Back to being on topic, on the BBC's article on this on their website they clearly link to Dawkins' recent findings on Christians not really being Christians.

Biased my fucking ass.

Well, the 'Outdated and divisive' section is a pretty decent counterweight to the headline, for once. Whoop dee doo.

What?

The headline is a quote from Warsi. Is there no underhand tactic or questionable strategy you will lower yourself to to try and prove your point?

You reject any examples I give out of hand, whilst you have yet to provide a decent example of your own. How unbelievably irrational of you.

Actually no, that's a lie. It's completely believable.