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 One That Is Going To Write To Ofcom. . .

I'm going to sit in on Sunday, waiting for Songs of Praise, just so I can be offended after reading this snivelling whinging guff from the ridiculous self-obsessed sky pixie brigade.

Angry Coronation Street viewers have complained to Ofcom and ITV after a character made "anti-Christian" remarks during an episode on Easter Sunday.

The broadcast watchdog said it received 23 complaints over Ken Barlow referring to the faith as "superstition" and God as a "supernatural being".

Oh for crying out loud, just get a life won't you?

One minute you're bleating about how God is all powerful, created the universe etc, etc, and the next your bellyaching that 'To choose this script on the most holy day in the Christian calendar is insulting and greatly offensive.'

Well isn't that the ultimate in offence by proxy? Taking offence that a fictional character said something you don't agree with about a character who is either a; fictional themselves, or b; omnipotent.

So either it doesn't matter, or God who is all powerful really won't give a flying fuck.

And besides, if Easter Day is the holiest day in the Christian calendar, then why are you spending it watching Coronation Street, you hypocritical fuckers?

What a bunch of arseclowns.

The One That Doesn't Understand The Problem . . .

Why are people so obsessed with other peoples' relationships? I remember the very earnest, and in some cases reactionary debate over 'civil partnerships.' I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

I'm straight so would never be interested in marrying a man. If two men or two women decide that they love each other and want to make a commitment to each other, well you're not hurting me, so if it makes you happy, then go ahead. I wish you the best of luck.

I was astounded that there was even a referendum on the subject in California over the subject, one which threw same sex marriages out. Why? What possible harm are they doing? If you don't agree with marrying someone of the same sex, then don't do it.

One of the problems is that marriage is seen as the preserve of the religious establishment, and the problem with the religious establishment is that God has told them what should and should not be done. It's difficult to argue with what people say God wants, that is the only response in what quickly becomes a circular argument:

Me: Why shouldn't gay people get married?
Them: Because God says so.
Me: But they're not doing any harm.
Them: Yes they are, they're upsetting God.
Me: Well how do you know this?
Them: It says so, in this book.
Me: Well how do you know this is the word of God?
Them: Because God says it is.

And you can go on like that, well, until Judgement Day. I hold the opinion that it is my soul, I'll take decisions regarding it and deal with the consequences myself.

During the debate about same sex marriages I remember a lot of politicians hiding behind the religious argument when the real issue might have been that they just didn't like gay people very much and I think this is evident by the fact that in this country, at least, gay people still can't get married, they can only have civil partnerships. Why stop short? Straight couples can get married without any religious involvement at all, so why should it be any different for gay people?

So it was with interest that I read this story on Al-Beeb today. In a nutshell, Baroness Warsi, the shadow minister for Community Cohesion (don't even get me started, what in the wide, wide world of sports is that?) had decreed that cultural sensitivity has meant politicians have neglected to discuss polygamy.

She wants all religious marriages to be registered to prevent men marrying more than one woman.

Well, why? What's the problem? Where has this value judgement come from? Why should people only be allowed to marry one person? That may be the majority Christian view, but is that any reason to impose that value on everyone else?

There will be those who say with a hint of indignation that we are a Christian country and should operate as such. Fine, then have the guts to ask for what you really want, a theocracy. I understand religious observance to be complete, you either believe and follow or you don't, there's no 'I support the teachings of the Church except that bit, and that, and some of that, oh, and I don't agree with that at all'. To be faithful means you submit yourself entirely to the will of God. So let's have a theocracy then, let's ban Islam, throw out the Hindus, lock the Jews in a big old warehouse and burn it to the ground, enforce attendance at church every Sunday. Let's take a leaf out of the Saudis' book and have brigades of religious police touring the streets, sweeping anyone up they decide has broken the religious moral code, Lord knows the political police are nearly there.

Look, arseholes, doesn't matter if it's a man with women or a woman with men, there's nothing wrong with polygamy, as long all those involved are adults, aware of the situation and enter into it of their own free will. Who are they hurting? Nobody. So just keep your bloody nose out of what doesn't concern you.

We either live in a country with personal and religious freedom, or we don't. It can't be done by degrees. You can't say 'you have personal freedom unless you want to marry another man or want to live with more than one woman.' That isn't freedom, and don't pretend it is, because I understand that God really hates liars.

The One That Wonders What They Expect. . .

How's this for a news story:

Duran Duran fans have accused the government of favouring AC/DC and other bands whilst only paying "lip service" to New Romanticism. A report commissioned by the Simon LeBon fan club says ministers failed to understand the full range of Duran Duran's work, that the government has marginalised the band and called for a change of attitude.

It's a bloody ridiculous story, isn't it? Yes, you can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

Of course, if you substitue Duran Duran with Christianity, AC/DC with Islam (although I'd prefer it if both were the other way around. 'Cardinal to replace Catholicism with Led Zeppelin' shouts the headline, great! Where do I sign up?) then you have the story in the press today.

Well, why? Why should the government be asking the church, of whatever faith, what they think about policy? What the hell is it to do with them? They don't even listen to the electorate, and to be honest all you Bishops, Imams, Rabbis and anyone else, your views really don't matter. It is like asking the Guildford Am-Dram society their views on renewing Trident. As an organisation they are, or at least should be, a political irrelevance.

Let's face facts guys, taken as an average you've had about two thousand years haven't you? For a long period of time you WERE the governance, the legislature, the 'moral compass', and you have squandered your time. You have spent centuries bickering, killing each other, killing your own followers, indulging in schisms and plots, oppressing, spreading misery and disease, and then, you have the total fucking cheek to whine and bitch because the government don't take heed of your moral bleatings? Why the fuck should they? Your track record isn't great, is it?

We still suffer the Lords Spiritual sitting in the upper chamber, and they are only Protestant, CofE clergy, no Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, bloody Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (wiki it, it rules) and yet you moan at a lack of involvement in debate and government?

Piss off, you are not open to debate, you are prescriptive, dictatorial and when push comes to shove will simply state that anyone opposing you will be damned to the eternal fires of hell. Not really a structured argument is it? If I were God, I'd start sending thunderbolts down on to your churches, temples, mosques, synangogues and whatever else now, in response to the evil you have done in my name.

EDIT:
And here's an addendum; The Chief Constable of Notts Police, Steve Green (Steve? Give me strength), has basically demanded a ban on the sale of cheap alcohol. Newsflash, Stevie boy, you police, because WE, as society, want you to. You don't get to make policy either, on detention of terrorists, ID Cards, alcohol, anything, you get to enforce the laws WE want, not the ones YOU want. I appreciate our government makes your job as a copper pretty much impossible, but still. In fact, most of your constabulary probably consider you to have only a fleeting relationship with reality and your 'troops', I bet you call them that, don't you?