Well don't go there then.

Author's note: Tonight's posting is sponsored by 'Tasty Old Wife' Cider of Old Wives Lees, Kent. A fine little cheeky monster which is matured in whisky vats, giving it a rather cheeky smoky flavour.

Anyhow, where was I? Ah, yes.

The price of a church wedding could soon increase by up to 50% under plans being considered by the General Synod.

The move - to be discussed later by the Church of England's law-making body - would see fees rise from £284 to £425.

Blimey, times must be getting tough. Bit of a bummer now, what with them not being able to demand a tithe from all and sundry.

The Church of England insists the hike is justified and says couples in some parishes could pay less under the plan.

Yes, one of the best ways of paying less is by not getting married in church.

No doubt some people will be up in arms about it. But really, I ask this question of people not just in this category, but of the women that want to vicars and bishops and homosexuals that want to be vicars and bishops.

Why?

Why do you want to be part of this organisation that doesn't want you as a member (in the case of the girls and the homosectionals) and will treat you with utter contempt when you do join (in the case of . . . well, anyone not called Rowan Williams)?

You can start your own church, you know, you don't have to join their's, and any church you set up will be just as valid as their's. Oh, they'll tell you it isn't, but it is, people said the same to the Catholics, Church of England, Methodists, Baptists, Seventh day advent hoppists (Red Dwarf joke), don't even get started on the Amish, Presbys, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and Coptics. Really, will one more make any difference?

You are completely free to start your own, and bollocks to the rest.

I've gone a little off the original topic here, but I don't give a damn.

If you want to love your God, then go and love him in your own style. God won't mind, the churches aren't his construct, no matter what those churches say. Any God that holds a pair of breasts or a fondness for bum sex against you isn't worth worrying about.

Life is too short, go, be happy, you don't need anyone's permission, grudging or otherwise.

The obligatory religious bit.

I am no theological historian, but even I know that when Augustine was sent over to Kent to start the conversion of the population to Christianity, he faced an up-hill battle.

The old Celtic and Saxon polytheistic beliefs were really deeply ingrained, and people were unsure about this new belief structure. I should imagine that many received the 'good news' with the sort of scepticism that most of us would reserve for the dogma of Scientology.

The Romans had had a couple of experiments with the calendar, more, I believe, in a drive for accuracy and efficiency than for any hard and fast religious reasons, but the devotees of the old Celtic and Saxon religions measured their days by the passage of the sun, moon and seasons.

The problem for the church being that whilst many may have converted, probably just for five minute's peace, (they were most likely fed up with the spineless insipid missionaries knocking on the door of the hovel, quoting selected lines of Latin at them to prove some point which didn't really make sense to them anyway, and leaving parchments explaining how believing in this Jesus chap would explain the horrible stuff that was going on in the village and give them some comfort, which they couldn't read.), when the big important stuff happened, they reverted to the old ways.

Rollo (not the kid's TV character boy-king, but the ancestor of William the Bastard Conqueror) was given the province of Normandy, he was given it on two conditions; firstly that he'd stop sending raiding parties into France, as it was getting on everyone's tits, and secondly that he converted to Christianity as it was what all the cool, progressive, cutting edge 10th Century European leaders were doing. Come his death, somewhere in the late 920's, he displayed a superb capacity for pragmatic cynicism by having a hundred Christian devotees beheaded in front of him in his death bed, to appease the old Norse gods he had followed. Then, just to make sure, he made sure that the Christian organisations were given a shit load of gold, to appease them for the fact that he'd just offed a hundred or so of their mates.

Of course, the general population didn't really have the contacts and resources to slaughter a load of people and then give out a ton of cash in recompense, but when the landmarks of the year rolled around they'd still adhere to the old ways.

So when the shortest day came around, when the Sun reached its lowest point in the sky, they'd have a little celebration to mark the fact that the days would now start to get longer. But there was no room in the church calendar for this sort of stuff, it had to be changed. But how to do it? Well, of course, that was when Christ was born. (As an aside I saw a programme on one of the satelite channels a while back in which a historian was saying that the Roman census was carried out in the summer, so there would have been no race to Bethlehem in December.) So, you can have your little celebration, we'll just come in and change the reason for it.

Similarly when Spring rolls around, and everyone's thoughts turn to eggs, bunnies and little fluffy chicks, it has nothing to do with nature coming out of hibernation, it's all to do with the death and then, then, (this is the good bit), the re-birth of Christ. At the same time of year? What are the chances? You've got to hand it to the church, it's a great bit of marketing.

So when the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton gets involved in a story like this:

A bishop has urged parents not to let their children dress up in ghoulish gear in the run up to Halloween.

The Rt Rev Kieran Conry, the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, wants to reclaim the festival as a Christian celebration.


He suggested children should dress up as saints rather than traditional Halloween garb.

In the Christian calendar, Halloween falls on the day before All Hallows' Day, a day to honour all the saints.

 The Rt Rev Conry said Halloween had "no meaning to it whatsoever" and was a waste of money for parents.

He's completely forgetting that people have been marking the point in the year when the trees lose their leaves and the plants die back, or at least stop growing, for thousands of years. This is why people dress up as ghosts and skeletons, it is a marker of death in the natural cycle. And what does it say about us that 1400 years after death of Augustine that when the big markers roll around, we still go back to the old ways to recognise the landmarks?

Perhaps that marketing campaign by the church, almost one and a half thousand years in the running, hasn't been as effective as they thought, because they are still fighting to stop people celebrating in ways that we've done since before the Roman conquest. Of course, the difference now is that the church can't have us shunned, fined, imprisoned or put to death for failing to conduct ourselves in a manner which they find acceptable.

No, it would appear that that particular little perk has now passed to the adherents of the green church and the anti-smoking/drinking/eating church. Nature abhors a vacuum, and it looks like Rome and Canterbury's loss is their gain.

The One That Says 'Of Course They Bloody Can' . . .

Rights, rights, rights.

It seems anomalous that in a world where our liberties are being taken from us on a daily basis, you can't move for peoples' rights. There's a very real difference between liberties (the freedom from. . .) and rights (permission to. . .) and over the last ten years especially people have been 'given' rights which overlap and contrast with those of others.

For instance, a publican has the right to deny service to anyone he sees fit. It is his business and his property, hence the marvellous 'Bar Alistair Darling' campaign. If the landlord didn't have the right to bar entry, then that simply wouldn't have happened.

But, hello? What's this? A homosexual couple have just walked in to the Hypothetical Arms. Now I've no problem with homosexuality, it isn't my bag, but then neither is eating sprouts, and I don't hate people who do eat them. Indeed, some of my best friends are sprout eaters. But if that landlord decides he doesn't want gay people in his premises, then he's in a world of trouble.

Well how can you have 'rights' that trump other people's? Does this mean that my 'rights' are less inalienable than others'? Does the homosexual's 'right' to go to the pub outweigh the landlord's 'right' to refuse service to anyone he sees fit? It's a conundrum isn't it?

For what it's worth, I believe it is his property and his business, if the landlord wants to turn away trade and demonstrate he's a twat, then that's his look out. There's plenty of other places where the gay guys can drink quite happily. Even if you weren't barred, because it was illegal, would you still want to give the bloke your money, knowing he wanted to refuse you service but isn't allowed by law?

So imagine my mirth when I read that the Crystal Cauldron Pagan club had been told by the Catholic Church that perhaps Stockport's Our Lady's club wasn't the most suitable venue for their witches' ball and cancelled the booking.

A diocese spokesman said the group was not compatible with the club's "ethos".

You don't say.

"In this day and age I just didn't think that we would get that prejudice from the Catholic Church,"

Said the leader of the group. Why was that then? Perhaps they'd just been sweeping up after the Lesbian Jihadist for Mohammed Jumble Sale when you went in to make the booking? No? You mean to say that this club, owned and run by the Catholic Church, don't want non-Catholic groups using their club? What a bunch of bastards.

"You can't seriously segregate clubs like this by religious values."

Errrrm, yes. Yes you can. Because, and perhaps this wasn't made clear enough, it is a Catholic Club. I doubt the local Mosque will be hiring out its hall for a BNP meeting. I doubt the local golf club would hire out the 4th green for a game of cricket. Nor should they be made to, it is their club and what goes on there isn't anyone's business but their own.

"It's not black witches and pointy hats, and we're not devil worshippers. We respect everybody's religion and we're trying not to have things in the shadows."

Well that's irrelevant, even if there is a racist gag in there. You may respect everyone else's religion, but the Catholic Church doesn't. They respect their own. So quite rightly told you to sod off.

"You don't have to be pagan to come and join us - it's just a fun open night with evening gowns and fancy dress and a fantastic Abba tribute group playing"

Oh, bloody hell. Not a court in the land would convict them. An Abba tribute playing in some church hall in Stockport is never likely to be 'fantastic.' Sounds like a perfectly ghastly evening. It's not often I agree with the Church in any guise, but the Micks have got this one spot on.

The One That Will Vote Any Damn Way He Chooses. . .

Interesting to note that their Graces the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have waded into the debate surrounding the forthcoming elections. They too are keen that people should not vote BNP, even though it is none of their bleeding business. Do we really want the established Church supporting or opposing political parties?

Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu said it would be "tragic" if people abstained or voted BNP at the local and European elections on 4 June.

I see, but it is perfectly acceptable to vote communist, monster raving loony or Satanists for Indian takeaway night on a Thursday, though.

Let’s face two facts here, the term BNP is now in danger of becoming the generic term for ‘others’, just as hoover becomes interchangeable with vacuum-cleaner and ‘Kosovan’ was taken to mean an asylum seeker of any nationality. Not Tory, Labour or Lib Dem? Must be BNP then.

Second, the BNP are likely to provide significant support for the status quo regarding Monarch, Church and State. So what’s the real beef here?

There have been some rumblings about taking this current crisis and using it as a catalyst for some real far reaching reforms of Parliament. David Starkey has been very vocal, as was Martin Bell on Question Time on Thursday evening, even drawing enthusiastic applause from that common purpose droid Ben Bradshaw. One of those serious reform ideas is for a totally elected Upper House.

The Lords Spiritual will not be amused at the idea of losing their last real bit of constitutional power in this country. They can’t really say ‘vote for the status quo’, so they use the BNP dog whistle in the hope that people equate ‘minority party’ with ‘horrible racist’.

Well it isn’t going to work on me.