The numbers are screaming

Do something . . . . FAST

There is another nail in the coffin of this country’s illusion, or shall I say delusion, of us being holier than the pope.

However before I get started, I think that it would be prudent to look at the facts first, and then draw some conclusions accordingly. The facts, as revealed by NSO today, are these:

• 25% of the children born last year were out of wedlock
• this is an almost 9% increase on the previous year
• 34% of the mothers fall under the 25 – 29 age group
• 31% of the mothers fall under the 30 – 34 age group
• 35% of the fathers are aged 30 – 34
• 24% of the fathers are 25 – 29 years old

Since 65% of the mothers are over 25 years old, we’re not talking about teenage pregnancies here. The 25% of children born out of wedlock are definitely not all born to teenage mothers. Hence, they’re born to mothers, or parents, who are old enough to get married but for some reason they’re not. These children are born to people who fall into one of these categories:

• One or both members of the couple choose(s) not to get married
• at least one of the parents cannot get married because s/he is separated or going through a separation
• the pregnancy is a result of a secret extra-marital affair
• the child is born to a couple that no longer exists

For sure, any of the cases mentioned above goes against the Catholic doctrine. This is another point in the long list of the Catholic myth buster, and if I hear one other person claiming that this is a Catholic country, I’ll hit them on the head, tie them up, cover their head with a black bag, and drive them to the NSO offices. Then I’ll lock them in a room with a stats geek who will explain to them in monotone why they’re wrong.

If people are having babies out of wedlock, it must definitely mean that something may be wrong with our social fabric. If 1 out of 4 people are having babies outside marriage and, especially, if there’s an increase of 9% in just one year, then something is terribly wrong.

I think that the Social Policy Ministry must investigate the reasons behind these numbers and suggest possible remedial action. If the government decides to keep burying its head in the sand, this situation will keep getting worse and worse until it gets out of hand.

This is like a terminally ill person who doesn’t want to talk to doctors about treatment. The longer the malady goes untreated, the weaker the person becomes.

Our society is sick, and someone needs to diagnose the causes, effects, and possible remedies.

NO to a referendum on divorce

An example of non-partisan messages in Ireland, 1995

Claudette Abela Baldacchino wrote a letter to The Times yesterday calling for a referendum on divorce. While I am pleased to see that the number of politicians arguing in favour of divorce legislation is on the increase, I don’t know why they seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for this much needed civil right.

Jeseph Muscat is promising a parliamentary debate followed by a free vote, and Claudette Abela Baldacchino is calling for a referendum. As she put it “we have a moral obligation to respect and support those who live in non-traditional family units. This is a question fundamentally based on the notion of the respect of the individual person and one’s fundamental human rights.”

One may argue that some countries introduced divorce by means of a popular vote. True, but Italy held the divorce referendum 35 years ago, and Ireland held a number of referenda until the YES vote won in 1995. The realities in these two countries are completely different to ours. Italy was already a secular state in 1976 and Ireland is more cosmopolitan than this island. The separation of powers in Ireland is much clearer than it is here. Hence, we’re not comparing apples with apples.

The MEP candidate suggested a “non-partisan referendum wherein both sides of the debate can put forward their views and leave it in the hands of the people to decide on divorce legislation”. Even if all political parties will agree to stay out of this debate, it will be dominated by the church and its army of chest thumping splinter groups, namely the Charismatic and Neocathecumenal movements, the Legion of Mary the MUSEM, and others. I will bet my head that they will be promising eternal damnation for those who vote YES. Needless to say, the priests will have a field day on the pulpits. If there is one thing that the Catholic religion is surely good at, it must be guilt feelings. This is the right platform for the Monsignieurs to excel in what they can do best.

Anyone who followed the divorce debates on all the different local media throughout these past 10 years or so can point out one single common argument in the NO camp: the religious argument. Many people quote the bible’s claim that “what god has joined together, let no man put asunder”. This is completely out of point. Divorce is a civil issue and therefore any reference to religion should be left out completely. Adultery is a perfect example of how ridiculous this argument is.

Adultery goes against god’s law as stipulated specifically by the 9^th commandment. Yet, in this country, it is not illegal (although it was until the mid 1970s). I’m sure that many people would agree that if we had to make adultery illegal again, it would be ridiculous and unacceptable in today’s society (this would be akin to Sharia law, and incidentally Rockers look at Muslims as being so backward because of this law). The same can be said on the absence of divorce. Its absence in today’s social reality is as ridiculous as the enactment of adultery law in today’s society, and for the same reasons.

I am drawing these parallel examples to illustrate the fact that issues concerning civil law should be debated on social bases only. I would love to point out further arguments on the issue of god-glued marriages, but then I would be going off at a tangent. I’ll point them out some other time.

Back to the issue of a referendum on divorce. Marital breakdown and its consequences are a personal issue, not a national one. Therefore it would not be fair to leave the fate of those who are in need of divorce legislation in the hands of those who don’t give a hoot about the issue.

The last time we were called upon to voice our opinion in a referendum was about a national issue. EU membership is a bread and butter issue for all the people who live on this rock, and for future generations who will inhibit it.

In my humble opinion, instead of discussing whether or not to introduce divorce, it would be wiser to discuss the grounds upon which divorce should be granted. This kind of discussion should be led by politicians, social workers, and family law experts, and the former should not shy away of their duties and responsibilities towards the people they were elected to represent.

Politicians have procrastinated enough on this issue, and the victims of their lack of courage are the same people who voted them in. It is their responsibility to legislate, and in this case they should not pass the buck on. A politician’s gotta do what a politician’s gotta do.

All different, all (un)equal

A local version of a Muslim praying mat

Yesterday afternoon afternoon The Times website published a news report about a silent protest by a small group of Muslims (you can also watch the video of this silent protest). In a nutshell, up to a few weeks ago these people were using an apartment in Sliema as a place of worship, and recently MEPA sealed off the apartment because it was not being used for residential purposes. When I read it, I could imagine what the reactions to this report would be, so I decided to wait for a few hours until the reactions started pouring in.

Unsurprisingly, an astounding majority of the ‘contributors’ expressed their horror, disgust and dismay at what is essentially a small bunch of people praying on the Sliema front. These reactions included comments like:

“Qed tara kif mis-seba jiehdu l-id? They should go to the Mosque. And they bully us as well.”

“What’s wrong with the Mosque in Paola?? Isn’t it suitable for them to do their prayers over there??”

“……….Multiculturalism is fine. Except that in a tiny state like Malta, with a very fragile (make no mistake) identity, a belligerent cultural invasion that operates under the guise of prayer will oust the host culture in the time it takes to say……….”

“As far as I am aware a congregation in excess of ten people requires a police permit. Was one issued. (sI have absolutely no problem with any faith Muslin, Christian, Jewish, Kaballah etc. etc. however I do have a big problem when persons from any faith decide they have some divine right to worship in a public place challenging the beliefs of other faiths. I can just imagine a Catholic or a Jew praying in public in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.”

Challenging the beliefs of other faiths? Can someone explain how and why is this public prayer challenging? Do these people really believe that someone might convert to Islam because s/he sees these people praying? And if so, what’s wrong with that? Wouldn’t that be a personal decision? These comments show a huge lack of security. Am I surprised? No, not really. If your beliefs were imposed on you, then you wouldn’t necessarily be convinced about them. Hence, anything that’s different to what you believe is likely to make you feel uneasy.

Some of the individuals who posted these comments are likely to have attended (or even took part in) Good Friday processions or pageants only a few weeks ago. Some of them may have attended religious services in some village square at some point in their life. When one juxtaposes the two issues, one cannot help but laugh at the irony of this kind of behaviour. As you may have guessed from my previous comments, I’m no fan of any religion. I am especially not a fan of rigid religions like Catholicism and Islam. They’re much more similar than our fellow citizens would like to think.  What beats me is that these ‘commentators’ fail to see things logically.

Instead of getting all worked up, these people should have saved themselves an unnecessary adrenaline rush by sitting back and take an objective look at this issue. A group of individuals have been meeting in an apartment that is intended for residential use. If any occupant wanted to use that apartment for any purpose other than residential, then s/he had to apply for a particular permit aptly referred to as “change of use”.

This issue has nothing to do with religion. In fact, let’s put it aside. If an occupant (irrespective of nationality or creed) wanted to use this apartment as a hairdresser’s salon, or a beauty parlour, MEPA would have reacted in the same way. If a bunch of Christians would have used the apartment as a place of worship, MEPA would have still been obliged to seal off the place. So, in case it is not clear enough, I will spell it out: MEPA DID NOT SEAL THE PLACE BECAUSE IT WAS BEING USED BY MUSLIMS. IT SEALED IT OFF BECAUSE THE TENANTS WERE USING IT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE THAN THE ONE OUTLINED IN THE PERMIT. Is this clear now?

Personally, I find the Muslims’ choice to show their disagreement with MEPA’s actions quite appropriate. They have every right to protest because this is a democratic society. Their protest did not threaten, harm or offend anyone. Hence there is no reason to condemn their behaviour. Just because they belong to a different religion or nationality doesn’t mean that they should have lesser rights. At the end of the day, if The Times commentators believe in a god, they should appreciate the fact that these people were praising god in their own way. What’s wrong with that?

When Dr Rebecca Gomperts was delivering a talk about abortion at the Castille Hotel last year, a number of people congregated in front of the hotel. They lit up candles and prayed. Once again, this was a silent protest by individuals who wanted to voice their opposition to a particular event, and there is nothing wrong with that either.

Those who said that these people should stick to the Mosque in Paola have missed the whole point of the protest entirely. They’re completely off the mark. This protest was held a few metres away from the apartment in question. And for those who are concerned about a “fragile national identity”, my answer is: tough luck. If this is an issue, then it’s a country specific issue, and it will not be solved by barring other cultures. What is actually being suggested? Are the authorities expected to come up with a rigid profile of a pure Maltese, and deport anyone who doesn’t fit that profile to a gulag in Siberia?

How insular and cut off from the world these people be? Why are they so intolerant of anything that’s different? Why do they feel so threatened by diversity? This is sheer fundamentalism: if it’s different, axe it.

One other question, if the whole issue happened to a Buddhist or a Lutheran community, would our patriots have reacted in the same way?

Holier than thou, my foot

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt

So there’s another proof, if it were ever needed, that The Rock is anything but the Catholic country it likes to believe it is. There’s a huge difference between what people like to believe, and what hard evidence suggests.

Minister Austin Gatt revealed in Parliament yesterday that the number of births where the father was marked at ‘unknown’ rose to 359 last year from 62 in 1993. A staggering 579% increase in just 15 years.

 Last February, Fr Paul Galea presented a paper at a national conference on marriage, and he stated that

he was told by parish priests that the “unknown” father would actually turn up at the baptism in the role of godfather, and points to the social benefits the parents enjoy as the main reason for not declaring paternity. It resulted they were better off than other mothers, he adds.

The real problem is the “privatisation” of the relationship, according to Fr Galea. It means that being a couple and having a baby has become a private affair, with the collusion of the parents, who even set up a double bed for their daughter and the “unknown father” in their home, where he reaps the advantages, without any obligations.

However, Fr Galea does not put the blame squarely on the man. “It takes two to tango and if the girl wants to get pregnant she knows how. Despite the availability of contraceptives, they do not use them, or they fail.”

Fr Galea says it is endemic of Maltese society that everyone operates outside legality, not just with regard to commerce and taxes.(

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090212/local/welfare-system-supporting-practice-of-having-children-out-of-wedlock/)

The report published in The Times on the 12 February raises other interesting issues, but I will not go into them here as I will be side tracking.

In Fr Galea’s own words: “it is endemic of Maltese society that everyone operates outside legality”. Very Christian indeed.

Isn’t it high time that we face reality and stop consider ourselves as morally superior to others? This issue raises a number of moral implications, and is anything but exemplary. Let’s just stop kidding ourselves and start behaving like real Europeans.

Bring on the troglonecks

The only means of transport used by our European cousins to come and visit us. We are nothing but circus monkeys.

Two different reports published in yesterday’s The Malta Independent on Sunday confirmed to me that this place is truly stuck in a time warp. Worse still, it emerges clearly in a back page report that some of our European cousins see us as troglonecks – a monstrous hybrid between a troglodyte and a redneck.

In the Religion section, TMIS reproduced an interview that euronews carried out with one of the leading theologians of all time, Hans Küng (http://www.euronews.net/2009/04/07/kueng-catholicism-heading-back-to-middle-ages). Unsurprisingly, Küng makes a number of interesting observations, but one point that was discussed during this interview is worth singling out.

During the interview, Küng explained how the Catholic Church is steering away from Vatican Concil II and is heading back to the middle ages. The reason he gives is that “the Catholic Church is once again taking a course towards reaction, anti-modernism, and the Middle Ages”. Doesn’t this sound like an accurate summary of our Bishops’ sermons?

However, what struck me most is the fact that the same church he is criticising as being on a journey back to the Middle Ages is far more avant-garde than the Church here on the Rock. This means that we’re far worse than the Medieval Vatican.

The following Q&A explains why:

euronews:
Since the second Vatican council, the Catholic church has accepted, to put it simply, a separation between church and state. That’s not always the case in Islam. Does that pose a problem?

Küng:
The Catholic church didn’t accept the idea of human rights and tolerance, in a positive way, right up to the era of Pope John the 23rd and the second Vatican council. The Catholic church needed an enormous amount of time to get there. So we need to understand that Muslims too need plenty of time. But today, there are positive signs regarding the separation of church and state – in Turkey for example. It’s vital that Islam finds a new model to redefine the relationship between religion on the one hand, and the state on the other.

While the Catholic Church seems to have generally accepted the separation of powers, the Bishops here still choose to put pressure on the State publicly even on trivial issues like the Nadur Carnival. Worse still, the State dances to this tune and takes action as prompted by the men in the frock.

This brings me to my second point. Take a look at this report:

Swedish foreign trade minister Ewa Björling has had what she calls a very unusual and positive response during her visit to Malta – discussing not only the expected question of commerce and patents and Sweden’s coming European Union presidency, but also the question of AIDS and condoms – otherwise rather taboo subjects in that Catholic island nation with close ties to a anti-condom Vatican, Radio Sweden reported last week.

The Swedish minister is a professor of virology and has long worked with AIDS – and admits she was determined to bring this up with Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi.

Prof. Björling said that, to her surprise, an at-first surprised prime minister agreed with her that condoms and safe sex campaigns in Africa are essential to save lives, and that only healthy people can carry out business and international trade.

The Swedish minister added that when she travels to places like Africa, she always has condoms in her luggage, which she hands out even to Catholic clergy – even if they become angry and annoyed – and concluded that she will continue with this kind of international diplomacy.(http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=86532)

Admittedly, it is unusual – if not inappropriate – for a Foreign Trade Minister to talk about condoms with the Prime Minister of a country (although this is technically a county, and that makes the PM technically a Mayor). No wonder that the Prime Minister was surprised.  Yet, the message is that we are seen as such a backward country that follows the Vatican blindly, that this person felt the need to bring the subject up out of a genuine concern.

The key point here is that Ms Björling was surprised to see that Dr Gonzi actually disagreed with the Vatican. Wow. She was actually expecting the PM to give her a lecture about the ills and evils of condoms. To me, this proves that we are perceived as Vatican lackeys and that we are seen to be closer to the Vatican State than to the EU. Maybe now you can understand why I will not bother to vote for any candidate in the EP elections. This is also a wake-up call for the main party loyalists who think that all other countries look at our MEPs in awe when they deliver their (irrelevant) speeches in the EP. The truth is . . . . they look down on us.

And why is this so? Well, for a starter we’re the only EU country to deny divorce to its citizens; Stitching is banned on religious grounds; our Social Policy Minister runs to the Holy See to discuss ethical issues, abortion is a taboo -even in cases where the mother’s health may be at risk because of pregnancy .  .  .  . shall I go on? I can keep writing an endless list till sunset. The reality is that we do not embrace the European values of civil liberties.

In the grand scheme of things, we are nothing but circus monkeys where people from the big land entertain themselves by looking at us in our small cage. They must be really entertained by our strange acts and unusual behaviour, and when they hand out bananas and peanuts to us, they make us feel needed and important. How we fail to see the bigger picture beats me beyond recovery.

While most of us look at Turkey as a third world country, Hans Küng cited this beautiful place as an example of how things are changing in the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the smiling Bishop over here keeps warning his congregation (which incidentally involves most, if not all, Parliamentarians) about the ills of secularism.

No wonder that our European cousins see us as a freaky monster, a fusion between a troglodyte and a redneck. How can you blame them?

Gonzi is out of synch

A symbol of total submission towards the Catholic Church. Does he bow in front of and kiss the hand of every other head of state? Would he have done the same had he met the Dalai Lama? If not, then why should the pope be any different?

This morning, PN Leader Lawrence Gonzi resorted to the same old and boring rhetoric that stifles a political party’s forward-looking approach in order to convince potential voters to vote for his EP candidates.

He reminded his supporters that if they don’t go out to vote in hordes this June, the same thing will happen as in the previous EP elections. The PN leader seemed quite ticked off at the prospect of having the same party which campaigned against EU membership and subsequently did not respect the referendum vote having more MEPs than the party that promoted the EU agenda in the first place. Ironic, isn’t it? But who said that life is fair?

I will reiterate for the umpteenth time that the end result of these elections will not have the slightest effect on any possible decisions that may or may not affect this country. The reason why the political parties want to make these elections look like a nudge slightly lower than the general elections is to satisfy their ego and tick another ‘success’ box in their checklist.

Back to Gonzi. I think that it is high time for the PN to stop talking about the past. It was somewhat understandable to do so while Alfred Sant was still leader of the Labour Party; as it could have been argued that the country was still at risk of having that same person who did those idiotic mistakes at the driving seat as Prime Minister. Now things have moved on. Even though Joseph Muscat was a Sant loyalist, and even though Muscat’s writings supported Sant’s skewed positions in the past, the PN should start thinking about convincing people to vote for it because it is the best party with the best people and the best policies; and not just because Labour has consistently been on the wrong side of history for the past 30 years. For a party that has been in government (mainly because it had no valid opposition) for the last 20 years to focus on the past is unwise at best.

Gonzi expects those of us who voted yes in the EU referendum to vote PN by default. The tragic thing is that he has no clue about how wrong he is. Despite that a number of people have been pointing out consistently on a number of different occasions, he seems to want to ignore the fact that a number of people voted in favour of EU membership in the hope that this would take us closer to the continent.

Instead, as soon as we joined the EU Gonzi and his team seemed to have turned into a bunch of Mullahs and decided to strengthen the barricades to keep us as distant as possible from the secular model that is so widely practiced in the majority of the other states within the EU. As I said in an earlier post, we are closer to the Vatican than to the EU itself. The government chooses to be close to the EU only where economic matters are concerned. There’s more to life than money, Mr Prime Minister, even though you preach about values and the ills of materialism. Maybe it’s high time that you start leading by example.

The Nationalist camp (both through its MEPs and the Cabinet) has been raising the middle finger towards those who advise secularism. If Gonzi decides to send his Social Policy Minister to discuss ethical issues with the Holy See, then he should ask the Catholic Church for support. He cannot go on ignoring a growing section of society as he pleases, and then asks for its support only when he needs it.

He cannot expect every single person who endorsed the EU membership to support his candidates for voting consistency’s sake. If anything, those who – like me – will abstain to voice our protest at a Taliban government are being consistent. We saw the EU as a vehicle that will lead us to secularism. The government is doing its best to obstruct this process, hence we do not support the government. Logical isn’t it?

If the PN wants to form a government that truly represents everyone (as promised by GonziPN in the last electoral campaign), then it needs to respect the will of an ever-growing group of individuals.

Apart from secularist reasons, there is also the protest vote. Many people use EP and local council elections to voice their protest against the incumbent government which, incidentally, is not a star performer at the moment.

Additionally, the PN must keep in mind that the only reason that the majority of voters did not vote it out in the general elections as well is that there was no alternative government. It would have been 1996 all over again; or maybe even worse as Sant got even more bitter, and the chip on his shoulder was snowballing with every day that went by.

That is the main and possibly the only reason why the PN is still in government after two decades.

Food for thought for the superstitious

Religion(s): the source of so many conflicts throughout the ages

This is an excellent concise writeup for The New Statesam by A C Grayling; a professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London (http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/superstitions-religions-living).

The Empty Name of God

A C Grayling

Published 09 April 2009

‘The basic doctrines of the major religions have their roots in the superstitions and fancies of illiterate peasants living several thousand years ago’

What religious people mean by “god” means nothing to me beyond an incoherent cluster of concepts from which the aforesaid folk choose the subset most convenient to themselves.

But the word brings to mind the man-made phenomenon of religions, whose net effect on humanity now as throughout history has been, by a considerable margin, negative. It would be so just because of the falsity of belief; and the consequent absurdity of behaviour premised on the idea that there exist supernatural agencies who made this very imperfect world, and who have an interest in us that extends to our sex lives and what we should and should not eat on certain days, or wear, and so on. But it is worse than false: it is far too often oppressive and distorting as regards human nature, and divisive as regards human communities.

It is a frequent source of conflict and cruelty. Monstrous crimes have been committed in its name. And more often than not it has stood in the way of efforts at human liberation and progress.

Apologists for religion point to the Sistine Chapel and Bach’s Mass in B minor as some sort of justification for it. I answer: first, the church had the money to commission these things; second, lots of wonderful art is about naked women and bowls of fruit, and required no belief in deities to prompt its production; and third, the existence of religious art does not excuse burning people alive at the stake for disagreeing with some doctrine or other.

Apologists for religion point to charitable works as some sort of justification for it. I answer: non-believers perform these, too, out of simple fellow feeling, not requiring the idea of pleasing a deity or getting into heaven to prompt them to it.

Apologists point to Stalinism and Nazism as murderous ideologies, as if their existence made Torquemada and the Taliban somehow acceptable. I answer: all monolithic ideologies, claiming to possess the One Great Truth and demanding that everyone to submit to it on pain of penalty, with their prophets and pieties and shibboleths and sacred cows, come to the same thing when allowed to go to their all too natural extremes – which is precisely my objection to religion. This does not stop me having the same objection to Stalinism and Nazism, which I very much do.

The basic doctrines of the major religions have their roots in the superstitions and fancies of illiterate peasants living several thousand years ago. It is astonishing that these superstitions, in the partial guise of sophistical successor versions, retain any credibility. The reason they do is proselytisation of the very young, the institutionalisation of religious sects, and certain psychological factors.

I would wish people to live without superstition, to govern their lives with reason, and to conduct their relationships on reflective principles about what we owe one another as fellow voyagers through the human predicament – with kindness and generosity wherever possible, and justice always. None of this requires religion or the empty name of “god”. Indeed, once this detritus of our ignorant past has been cleared away, we might see more clearly the nature of good, and pursue it aright at last.

Another interesting article by Grayling was recently published in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/20/islam-unitednations)

A Rocker’s Easter Sunday

It’s finally over. This arduous journey started with a wild anarchic festival otherise known as carnival. For 5 days, we partied, drank wine and enjoyed all the things of which we were to deprive oursleves for the following 40 days.

The following 40 days were long and tough. As our stomachs growled we felt good about ourselves. The acid-induced heartburn (a result of lack of food intake from sunrise to sunset) is a vivid symbol of how one’s soul will burn in hell for eternity if they don’t follow the rules set out by our good shepherds in Rome and Floriana. Forty days of self-deprivation better known as sacrifice.

Our souls are now purified. They’re as white as belached sheets, which reminds me: I hope that all these sacrifices won’t have the same effect bleach has on sheets! Who cares? Now it’s all over. We can go back to our life. The past two weeks were terrible. Two processions in one week are no joke. I was happy to win this year’s bet amongst my kllikka at il-kazin tal-banda; but this came at a price, a big one indeed. I had to drag the heaviest metal ball of them all during the Good Friday procession. I think I may have damaged some ligaments in the process but, hey, who cares? It’s in the name of Our Lord; so it must be good, right?

During the procession, I really didn’t appreciate a funny guy’s remark saying that it would be better if we, the KKK bunch leave the procession and go to Safi and Marsa to ‘do our job’. He tried to amuse his friends standing there in the crowd like idiots munching sifneg, mqaret andpastizzi – they must have thought it was a family picnic. If it were up to me, I would have put my KKK skills into practrice by setting him on fire.

It’s a pity that the  15cm crucifix around his neck was made of solid yellow gold hanging around a necklace that was 10cm thick. Iwould have marked his shining white socks with his own blood, and for a gran finale, I would have courteously handed him over his curls after pulling them one by one from his greased long hair.

My apologies! Usually I’m not this violent, and these thoughts must be the result of a long starvation, lack of sex, lack of sweets, and constant imagery of a young man battered to death. I guess that some of the images have rubbed off on me, and that my testosterone levels must be running very high.

Anyhow. It’s all over now, and I can go back to my extramarital endeavours, playing my favourite game (1,0001 ways how to shaft the taxman), swear at immigrants, temper with water and electricity meters, and best of all, spread more and more malicious rumours about my neighbours. Enough about that now. I’ll go back to my routine tomorrow, and will then bring it to a brusque stop next year for lent.

It’s Easter Sunday today. Time to party. Wait a minute. What’s that song that I hear? Yippeeeeee. My favourite: “Young man, there’s no need to feel down, I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground……………….“

"It's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A"

The father of all mysteries

You’ve got to give it to him. The Man upstairs is brilliant. He’s exceptionally smart. To start off with, he managed to convince practically

Let's give the old Man a break, shall we?

everyone that He works in mysterious ways. Every time I tried that with any of my bosses, I failed miserably. None of my bosses ever ended up worshipping me when I worked ‘in mysterious ways’. The very opposite happened.

This mystery business prompted me to try to understand the Guy better. And like one of those tornado hunters who hop in Jeeps and chase tornados all over the country, I delved deep into the only source of information we have about him . . . The Bible.

Logically speaking, I know that my methodology can be challenged, as I will base all my findings, if any, on just one source; but the problem is that it’s the ONLY source. Hence, for the purpose of this exercise, please don’t doubt the scriptures. You have to assume that they’re accurate, and the information they give us as, well . . . . . gospel truth.

The first mystery I would like to solve one day is: if He created man in His own image, then humans must act roughly in the same way He does – give or take a few exceptions here and there. But that’s not the case. The Bible tells us how in the early stages, He acted in a diametrically opposed manner to humans.

He started off as a grumpy, angry old Man in the peak of midlife crises. Then, all of a sudden, at the turn of the page, He turned into a gentle, kind, and forgiving kinda Guy. One day He’s chucking people out of a beautiful, serene garden and punishing them for eternity; or flooding the entire planet; or turning the River Nile to blood; or sending endless plagues and punishments to everyone who dared to do something He didn’t like, and the other He plants the seeds for the hippie movement (that followed roughly 1,964 years later) by sending a third of Him to talk about love, peace, and forgiveness.

However, there are some consistencies in His tricks and behaviour. In the New Testament, he still changed the chemical properties of water in one fell swoop. This time, instead of turning water into blood, He enabled His son to turn it into good quality wine. The purpose of this is still unclear to me, though. Did He do it to spite Muhammed and his alcohol-free followers, or to convey the message that if you’re drunk, you need to drink more wine rather than water? I wonder what Sedqa has to say about this.

Another mystery that baffles me is: what’s His problem with sons? He asked Abraham to kill his own son; He killed Egypt’s first-born sons;  He allowed Herod to kill the first-born sons in the year 0000; and . . . He killed His own son!  For some odd and unexplainable reason, daughters seem to have had it better, though. Ask Jairus.

Even though at a later stage of His life He seemed to  have chilled out a bit, one could still notice traces of the bitterness reminiscent of the midlife (in His case, it must have been early life) crises. So, He sends His son to Earth, and in doing so, He negates the pleasure of sex to a poor carpenter. Imagine how he must have felt when his girlfriend went up to him and said: “hey Joey. Guess what. I’m pregnant! I know it’s not yours; but don’t be upset. It happened through . . . . Divine intervention!” I can just imagine poor Joey going “Divine intervention? Well, that’s ok then. For a minute, I thought that Zack the blacksmith round the corner had something to do with it. Phew”.

So after years of research, scrutiny, interviews with experts, and sleepless nights trying to understand these mysteries, I concluded that it’s all down to stress. Creating a whole universe is no joke, and instead of searing, we must be emphatic. Let’s give the good Man a break, poor guy.

It’s either the meat or your soul that will be grilled today

Don't worry, you won't burn for eternity if you eat this today

I just love the way we celebrate Good Friday on these islands. It brings out the true colours of my fellow Rockers. Many people make it a point not to eat meat. Any Rocker who eats meat on this day will be doomed for eternity.

Anyone with half a gram of grey matter between the ears can figure out how ludicrous this tradition is. It may have possibly made sense in the past – where meat was a luxury.  But that was 50 years ago. Life has change significantly since then, and nowadays there are many kinds of other food that’s considered as a delicacy other than. There’s also a growing number of vegetarians and vegans who don’t eat meat 24×7x365. Every day is Good Friday for them.

What beats me is that many people fail to see the irony behind this issue. They make it a point not to eat meat, but they still eat like there’s no tomorrow. What kind of sacrifice is that? We’re just kidding ourselves. It is so condescending on the supreme being. We must really think that he/she/it is a complete idiot. If there is a god, then he/she/it must be really offended by this kind of behaviour.

To think that He’s proud of us because we’re not eating meat on the day that His son technically committed suicide (but on the other hand we’re STILL eating like pigs when we’re supposed to be fasting and depriving ourselves of goodies) must be naive at best, and downright stupid at the very worst.  If people really want to fast, they should do it the Muslim way; although I personally don’t agree with the concept of self-deprivation. In contrast, I think that from a Christian point of view,  it would be better to encourage people do perform good deeds rather than be nasty to themselves to make them(selves) pay for their wrongdoing.

So here’s a Christian test for you. Many people willingly follow the Curia’s instructions not to eat meat on this day. Let’s imagine that the bishops suddenly decide to put Christianity into practice and advise their flock to perform good deeds to compensate for their sins. Let’s imagine that they won’t just stop at that. To make it more exciting, they raise the stakes. They advise the faithful to go to the detention centres and make this day a special one for the detainees. What will the outcome be? Did I hear “a total flop”? No doubt about that.

It’s so easy to kid yourself into believing that you’re making a sacrifice by not eating meat yet still satisfying your appetite on a public holiday. Forget about Christ and his beatitudes. The good Samaritan was a schizo, and the author who wrote that god created “man in his own image” was already in metaphor mood as he was gearing up for the snake and the apple story. In fact, he go so carried away, that he overlooked a fine detail: he gave Adam and Eve two sons; but let’s not go there shall we?

The Curia’s instructions (or shall we say orders?) to its faithful not to eat meat on Good Friday shows how patronising church authorities are. If it wants people to deprive themselves, why doesn’t the church tell its followers to decide for themselves on the kind of sacrifice they want to do? Why is the church so scared of letting people using their brains? This attitude only serves to reinforce the traditional (or folkloristic, as Fr Mark Montebello referred to it last Wednesday: http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/04/08/t2.html) function of Religion.

As members of society become more learned, more and more individuals are realising how archaic and out of synch organised religions are. Hence the reason why the number of people who are rejecting organised religion is on the rise year on year.

The Catholic Church’s fossilised traditions and skewed views on many issues that don’t reflect today’s realities (take its teachings on sexuality and the portrayal of women’s role in the family as being the submissive one, for example) tend to make people’s decision to leave so much easier.

Morality is much more important than rituals and ceremonies for the masses.