Sticks and Stones

The Seven Deadly Sins is a 5 part series by Leo Davidson in which he analyses the concept of the Seven Deadly Sins, adding his blasphemous and probably heretical commentary along the way.

6. Invidia. “Jealousy” is a pejorative semantic rendering of the admirable and commendable human desire to better one’s conditions. What Aquinas dubbed “sorrow for another’s good” could more accurately be described as sorrow for one’s one lack of another’s good. If one is envious of someone, then that is because he and that person are not equal, and thereby assigning a punishment of eternal damnation to the struggle to raise oneself to that level is malevolent and immoral. If everyone did refrain from Invidia, there would have been no Civil Rights movement, no Reform Acts, no abolition of slavery, no welfare state and certainly no human race. It is no crime to want better, and it is certainly no sin. And while you’re at it, why not covet your neighbour’s wife? What he doesn’t know won’t hurt him.

7. Superbia. “Pride”. It is apparently a mortal sin and, significantly, the punishment Dante ascribes to it is supposed to induce humility. Again, this faux virtue of humility is clearly intended to keep the masses in their place, and echoes the servility and masochism that is inherent in the Christian faith. Not only may one not try to better himself or herself, as we have seen, but they may not even take pride in their state of being. That’s right: you will burn in hell forever for the grievous offence of self-esteem. If you achieve something, it should not be verboten to take pride in that achievement. It is yet another indication of the Church’s attempt to turn its adherents into a flock in as literal a sense as possible.

Click here for the whole series.

No Comments

The Seven Deadly Sins is a 5 part series by Leo Davidson in which he analyses the concept of the Seven Deadly Sins, adding his blasphemous and probably heretical commentary along the way.

4. Acedia. Another of my favourite virtues, “Sloth” : I hope you’ll forgive me if I wax Marxist on this one. Clearly a device to control the masses by keeping them busy so that they don’t organise or, what’s worse, educate themselves, the Church attaches a punishment of eternal damnation to the concept of rest. While it is the Marxist vision to be emancipated from toil, so that man can cease to be alienated from his humanity, this doctrine has the obvious intent of keeping the worker at the level of chattel. That is, however, only one interpretation. To go back to Aquinas, Acedia can be defined as “uneasiness of the mind”, which sounds rather Orwellian to me, as does Dante’s interpretation as “failure to love God with all one’s heart, all one’s mind and all one’s soul”. One final alternative is that it refers to the failure to fulfill one’s potential through laziness, although if that is the case then all are guilty of it, and either way it certainly isn’t deserving of eternal damnation. I would argue that whichever one of these you subscribe to, this “sin” is inexcusable.

5. Ira. Wrath. What exactly is wrong with being angry? This is another result of another ridiculous Christian tenet: that of “resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39), and the even more immoral “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (ibid. 5:44). This is unmitigated nonsense, undermines all sense of morality and justice and again makes a mortal sin out of the natural instinct of a creature supposedly created in the image of God. Persecution and oppression should be met with not just anger, but with outrage and preventative action.

Click here for the whole series.

No Comments

The UK has an established Church yet a very secular populace, generally wary of morality being inflicted upon them by religious institutions. The USA, meanwhile, has a constitution which protects the sovereignty of the people through empowering them as individuals, yet religion serves as a strong political influence, especially concerning gay rights and abortion. It is a shame that two of the most enlightened democracies have got it so wrong in completely opposite ways.

If I want to do something which does not harm others, then why should I not have the right to do so? Morality is a very ambiguous entity; we all disagree and we reach a consensus only on the most basic of issues. We agree it is wrong to murder. We agree it is wrong to steal. Yet murder and theft constitute different things for different people.

If a liberal democracy seeks to promote moral individualism then it should do so completely on matters of personal choice with decisions that affect a personal sphere. If you find homosexuality abhorrent, then don’t be a practising homosexual. But don’t tell Scotty from down the road that he cannot because it has nothing to do with you! And the state most certainly should leave us all alone, to be who we are and do as we wish, within the obvious confines that liberalism naturally dictates.

1 Comment

French President Sarkozy’s love life may be a bit of a nuisance for India’s bureaucrats who are worried about reactions to the President having a girlfriend. Yes, apparently leaders having girlfriends is a problem. While around the world a first-spouse seems to be a free gift that comes with the election of a new President or Prime Minister, Sarkozy is different, having divorced his wife a few months ago.

From the IHT:

Chitra Danger, director of the Center for International Protocol and Etiquette in Hyderabad, warned that if Sarkozy were to travel openly with Bruni it could cause deep offense.

“Indians are high sticklers for protocol,” she said in an interview. “The very idea of a head of state visiting India in an official capacity with his girlfriend is in very poor taste and shows extreme insensitivity to our older, more traditional culture.”

No, what is in poor taste is to make condescending judgements like that. I believe he should be able to date whoever he pleases and if India wants to invite him (to secure closer diplomatic ties) they should provide Bruni a motorcade etc.: the full status a spouse enjoys. Whether or not she is married to him is not India’s concern, furthermore it is not India’s place to dictate how important she is to the President.

2 Comments

The Seven Deadly Sins is a 5 part series by Leo Davidson in which he analyses the concept of the Seven Deadly Sins, adding his blasphemous and probably heretical commentary along the way.

2. Gula. “Gluttony”. Many of you will already know my opinions on this esteemed virtue.

3. Avaritia. This is rather vaguely translated as “Greed”, but let us not assume that it refers to the hoarding of money, a practice of which I as a Socialist heartily disapprove (while that can be the result of Avaritia, in the same way as rape can be a result of Luxuria, that is no reason to condemn it as a trait). Rather, Aquinas defines it for us as “condemn[ing] things eternal for the sake of temporal things” In other words, realising that there is not life after death and trying to live the one life we have comfortably. This relates to the preposterous injunction by Jesus to “Take therefore no thought for the morrow” (Matthew 6:34), and the slightly less famous and vastly less ambiguous earlier verses: “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on… Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.” (ibid. 6:25-6) It is therefore a mortal sin to “gather into barns” because apparently one is supposed to wait for the proverbial silver platter.

Click here for the whole series.

No Comments