Mickey Malta

Notes from the zone where 'normal' things don't happen very often

Posts Tagged ‘Secularism

Double standards are divisive

with one comment

You see? JC and Muhammed are friends

First of all I would like to apologise for the hiatus but I am flat out and snowed under at work. My new boss is a slave driver and I’ve been literally working 16 hours a day for these past 2 weeks.

Now that I got this out of the system, I can finally start to vent my frustrations again. As early as last Month, Comedy Central censored an episode of South Park because it mocked the Prophet Muhammed. Now this is bad, and it’s not the mockery of Muhammed I’m talking about, but the censorship. I believe that people should be free to make fun of symbols and leaders – be they political or religious – and I don’t agree with censorship on the basis that the humour may offend others.

I’m sure that any kind of joke on any subject is bound to offend someone at some point. The fish breeders association, for instance, may be offended by someone who links fish with stupidity because of their short term memory loss. This is the way I see it: if you feel offended by something you’re watching on TV, change channel. If you are offended by something that someone said during a live show in a theatre, walk out. You are actually free to do so.

I can never come to terms with the idea that some people want to stop others from doing what they do because the patronising idiots don’t like the other performer’s work. Get a life.

Having said that, I am completely allergic to double standards. So the same Comedy Central TV station that censored the South Park episode less than a month ago is now working on an animated series based on Christ. I’m no fan of any religion, but if South Park was censored on the basis of religion, why are they making a whole series to mock JC?

The Western world tends to be more tolerant than the Muslim world, and many people in the West think that it is OK to mock religion while the same cannot be said of the Muslim world. However, Comedy Central have now set a precedent and they should be consistent.

It is precisely this kind of behaviour from fellow Westerners that is fomenting religious divisions in different societies. Just because Muslims are VERY vociferous and dogmatic they should not get a special treatment. Comedy Central needs to have a clear policy on religious mockery. It should decide whether this is acceptable (and I agree it is), or not. Applying double standards is unjust and, ultimately, divisive.

Written by mickeymalta

08/05/2010 at 10:47

Mass on Facebook

leave a comment »

I will attract youngsters to me thanks to this trendy attire

The smiling bishop has just claimed that “The Catholic Church should examine itself and its methods of evangelisation” according to The Times. I guess that this means that we will be flooded with Facebook churches and “bible reading of the day” tweets.

Obviously, the Church needs to choose a medium that is a one way communication vehicle. No matter how much the Catholic Church talks about changing times, it has to keep preaching and talking down to its followers. It has no other option because it’s a religion. It is promoting a product full of logical fallacies, superstition and fantasy; and blind faith is the only reason why people don’t question and challenge their beliefs. The minute that dogma is challenged, the very existence of the organisation is threatened. That’s why Religions have to resort to indoctrination as opposed to teaching – even though they claim otherwise.

When you teach something to someone, you reason it out, discuss it with the learner, let him or her challenge your claims, and reach a conclusion. For very obvious reasons, no religion can ever adopt this approach. Otherwise there will be chaos together with a whole myriad of mixed messages coming out from different people.  For this reason, no religion can be ‘modern’ and appealing to an intelligent society.

It’s also funny to see the head of Rocker Curia coming up with this assertion, especially when this is put into the whole context of his previous assertions. Only a few months ago, these same heads were on the brink of hysteria to intimidate and control revellers at the Nadur carnival; when carnival is the reign of anarchy.  The smiling bishop is also that same person who lashed out at secularism during his homily on 8 September 2008.

If the heads of our Curia can’t understand post-modern philosophy – which is now passé, how can they ever think of speaking the language of “modern people”?

Written by mickeymalta

18/04/2010 at 10:34

God on film

leave a comment »

Oh God! He looks happy. Why is no one talking to him?

It seems that journalists at The Times are consistently failing to do a decent job on week-ends. They failed to follow-up on a story that could answer millions of questions to billions of people; a story that will undoubtedly bring peace and love to the whole world (or floods and pestilence – depending on the main character’s mood). And yet, they do nothing about it.

About an hour ago, The Times updated their website to keep us all informed about the Pope’s visit, and they publish a picture of . . . GOD HIMSELF! There’s no mention of an interview (planned or hastily carried out) with HIM. What is this? Are they afraid that the Pope will be pissed off because he was upstaged by his boss?

Let’s face it. Statistics show that Atheism is the third biggest religion, and God’s presence here on the Rock will definitely put an estimated 1.1 billion people out of their misery. I cannot possibly fathom how our illustrious journalists did nothing about this once-in-a-planet-lifetime event! God reveals himself to us and they ignore him because they’re too busy waiting for the Pope. There are so many questions they could have asked him. They could have also invited him to address the whole world . . . . after Ratzinger’s address, of course.  This is a great opportunity to speak to everyone journalists from all corners of the world will be following Razzie in these next few hours; or shall I say minutes?

But what’s REALLY surprising  is that for the first time in His life, God looks happy. He is ACTUALLY smiling. After decades of drowning people and handing out punishments like Kwiksave gifts, God is finally happy. And he got himself pictured in a miraculous t-shirt with the word “Paulus” written in reverse too!

Written by mickeymalta

17/04/2010 at 16:20

This God is an idiot

with one comment

As the saying goes: an idiot is a genius to another idiot

Imagine that life here on this earth is a small scale reflection of the cosmos. In the same way  that every village here on earth has an idiot – THE idiot – the big guys in the ever expanding universe must have their own idiots too.

If that is the case, then we’re unlucky to be born on THE planet that was created by the Gods’ village idiot. Yeah, that’s right. The God that’s venerated by billions of people on this little planet must be the village idiot in Godworld. Just take a cursory look around you and you’ll see hundreds, if not thousands,  of clues leading to this conclusion.

I don’t believe that we’re alone in the universe. If we will ever be lucky enough to make contact with other civilisations out there in the future, and these turn out to be more advanced than us, they will either be a religion-free (o r free of any other superstitious beliefs at all) civilisation, or believe in Gods that are completely different to the ones worshipped here.

If the latter will be the case, I can bet my head that they won’t be worshipping someone who consistently seems to be making the wrong choices while proclaiming to be almighty and all knowing.

Faith and fear  are the greatest assets that this God could ever have. If people weren’t  brainwashed to fear God and have total faith in his plan since their birth, then he would be cast aside even by the creatures of his own making.

Let me point out a few reasons why I believe that this God is an idiot:

Many religions claim that their God is the creator of the whole universe. This means that he had (and still has) total control over his creations: the looks, the actions, the thoughts, etc. worse still, some religions hold that we’re created in his true image and likeness! Yet, a few hundred years after he went through the hassle of creating Earth and the universe, he was enraged by  the way humans were behaving and decided to (practically) eradicate mankind bar a 600 year old man and his family, and all the animals that this poor old sod could take on his ark.

Since God is all-knowing, he must have known that humans would piss him off in the future, so why did he make man fallible in the first place? And why did he only tell Noah to save animals (that must include mice and insects) but he didn’t save the innocent new born children. This would have at least spared Noah’s family from practicing incest (like Eve and her sons did before them) to multiply the human race.

Speaking about man’s fallibility, instead of creating his mistakes in “take two”, the post-flood humans don’t seem to be any different from those who lived in the pre-flood era. So why go through all the trouble of destroying the planet when after some time humanity would go back to that same point that irked him so much? This genocide must have been a total failure. Only an idiot would go through such a hassle when he knows that it’s not going to yield any desired result.

But it gets worse. He wanted to communicate his love to us, and he wanted us to know that he has a divine plan. Instead of doing something about it himself, he chose humans to do it. The result of God’s laziness: different religions and peoples killing each other in God’s name through all the different ages. In his wisdom,  God also promised a holy land to his people. One would expect The Holy Land to be a true example of heaven on earth. Ironically, it’s the complete opposite. It’s literally hell on earth.  This is the single most violent region on the whole planet; and it has been like that for centuries and “God knows” when or if this holy war will ever end. Excellent work indeed.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I didn’t go into the old testament’s claim of God causing people to sacrifice their children or allowing Lot to offer his daughters to the mob to gang rape them. I didn’t mention how the Bible promotes xenophobia; homophobia and hatred towards women; or how Jesus spoke about the need for salves to respect their master and did not utter a single word about womens’ rights. I also left out God’s (ethically-challenged) deals with people – especially locally – where he is willing to tweak his divine plan in exchange for prayer, a gold ring, a bracelet, and other material items.

Only an idiot can be easily bribed by people who will then spread the word tall all and sundry accompanied by pictures of the statue which is then adorned with the  golden watch, necklace, or earring. Wise people take bribes in private and they make sure they cover all their tracks. And why do statues need jewellery anyway?

Closer to our time, I’m deeply concerned about his choices. He is supposed to handpick people to act as his ministers. His preachers. One would expect priests to be a shining example of how God would like man to behave. Unfortunately, it turns out that a huge number of the people God himself has handpicked (remember?) throughout the years were anything but. The Catholic Church’s history is inundated with priests who would have been more suitable for Alistair Crowley’s role (in the divine plan?) than the one they actually played. Just think about the inquisition, the missionaries, paedophile priests, high ranking Church officials connected to various secret organisations . . . .  The list goes on and on.

Islamic suicide bombers and other Jihad fanatics choose to do what they do because they believe that they’re God’s (or Allah’s) soldiers. They’re simply the messengers of the supreme being, and are acting on his behalf. Obviously defenders of religion will say that this is the wrong interpretation of the Quran. This takes me back to my original point: why did he deliver his word through humans? Is that wise? Look at the consequences.

I’m really not impressed.  There are loads of other examples that I can bring. In fact, I can write a whole book about God’s idiocy. However, I still won’t manage to do it as eloquently as George Carlin described the greatest bullshit story ever told: “Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong in the résumé of a supreme being. This is the kind of shit you would expect from an office temp with a bad attitude………. In between you and me, in any decent run universe this guy would have been out of his all-powerful-ass a long time ago.”

I don’t know if there’s some form of energy or supreme being out there that is the prime moving force for creation. It doesn’t really make a difference to the way I lead my life. I can only be sure of one thing: the idiot projected by religions cannot possibly be true. It simply just cannot be. No creature can be so self-contradictory, extremely violent and utterly stupid, let alone a supreme being.

Written by mickeymalta

29/03/2010 at 16:37

Just give us concrete proposals . . . . not fluffy titles

leave a comment »

I'm progressive . . . . even my t-shirt says it

Joseph Muscat is constantly harping about this new movement for progressives and moderates, but to me it seems to be millions of light years away what is considered as being normal in the developed world.

A cursory look at the co-pilot is enough. Anglu Farrugia is the embodiment of anything that is diametrically opposed to progressive AND moderate. He’s an ex long serving cop (can cops ever strike anyone as being moderate or progressive?) and, worse still, he was on the forefront in the Force during the dreadful Mintoff / KMB years. And how can we forget his shenanigans immediately after the electoral was announced in the last election? His reaction was puerile for want of a better word.

The same applies to Alex Sceberras Trigona. His long flirtations with totalitarian regimes in the dreadful ’80s don’t exactly make him an eligible candidate for Mr Progressive or the Nobel Prize for Moderate people.

So if he really wants to gain credibility, Muscat has no other option but to produce a Jason Micallef sequel and replace Farrugia with a decent and truly moderate chap like Gavin Gulia. Ditto for  Sceberras Trigona who has to be replaced by someone who is truly moderate and has no skeletons in the closet.

But the buck doesn’t stop there. That’s just the beginning. Political parties and movements are all about policy. I is the movement’s policy that dictates whether it is truly progressive, not slogans  and self flattery.  Unless Joe Muscat comes up with concrete proposals to be implemented when in government, then this movement is as virtual as my avatar in Second Life.

If Muscat really wants to lead the progressives to the promised land, it is fair to expect that the electoral manifesto in a few years’ time would include the following proposals:

  • the introduction of divorce (a concrete proposal instead of his current gimmick )
  • a legislation in favour of same gender marriages – the formation of a LGBT group is not enough to eradicate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; it’s yet another empyu gimmick
  • the total abolition of censorship on any form of art
  • the total abolition of archaic laws regulating political and religious satire, and carnival attire
  • a legislation that regulates prostitution so as to protect the prostitutes from their pimps, and their clients from an increased risk of STDs
  • the total removal of censorship on media on the basis that whoever wants to broadcast  and/or distribute pornographic material can do so through dedicated channels with the necessary parental control and anti-paedophile procedures in place
  • a law that allows private establishments to apply for special licenses that will make it possible for them to operate as strip clubs – at the moment we have a typical Rocker watered down version of these clubs and it is absolutely ridiculous
  • the decriminalisation of possession of soft drugs for personal use
  • a law that allows for abortion to take place in the following cases: rape; where there is strong scientific evidence that the baby will be born in a vegetative state; where complications caused by the pregnancy endanger the mother’s life
  • the removal of any restrictions on shop opening hours; if the owner of the grocer shop  down the road wants to operate his business on a 24 x 7 basis, then he should be allowed to do so

By the standards of our European cousins, most of the above points are not progressive at all. If anything, they’re moderately progressive. They’re akin to our big achievement of freedom of speech in 1987 when the whole of the developed world had been enjoying this right for decades.

I can write reams about each and every point mentioned above to explain and justify how it is high time to give the inhabitants of this rock a push towards normality. The claim that EU membership is not a la carte should not only be applied to economic principles. There’s a social dimension to it, as it has a direct impact on the way we lead our lives.

It is so easy to come up with slogans and to give yourself fancy titles. I can call myself superman, but that won’t give me the faculty to fly at the speed of light. The essence lies in actions not words.

Written by mickeymalta

23/02/2010 at 14:22

Living happily ever after

leave a comment »

Our politicains' approach on family breakdowns

Our politicains' approach on family breakdowns

A round of applause for the Today Public Policy Institute for approaching the divorce issue in a very pragmatic manner.

I haven’t seen the report myself, but according to the news report in The Times, it does not only make a case for the introduction of divorce legislation, but it also suggests that this will be based on the Irish model. Incidentally, this means that it will be harder to get a divorce then to get annulment today. Therefore anyone who is concerned about that divorce “opening the floodgates” can rest assured that there are good safeguards to prevent this from happening.

The think tank’s proposal coincides with my suggestion last Wednesday’s where I wrote that “…… instead of discussing whether or not to introduce divorce, it would be wiser to discuss the grounds upon which divorce should be granted……”

The changes that our society has gone through in these last 20 years brought about certain realities that cannot keep on being ignored. In fact, this report also revealed that failed marriages increased by a staggering 160% between 1995 and 2005.There are a number of reasons why marriages fail, and each and every case has its own specifics. However the fact of the matter is that marital breakdowns are on the rise, and the effects of this need to be addressed sooner rather than later. As we’ve seen last Thursday, one of the effects of the absence of divorce is an increasing number of children born outside wedlock. These children are sometimes referred to as “illegitimate”.

At the moment, we have new forms of families and this is creating total chaos in our social fabric. This is a situation that needs to be tackled ASAP, and any politician who insults us with the usual rhetoric about ensuring that marriages last forever should be sent to a reality check.

The objective of divorce is not to fix broken marriages. Divorce is the effect of a broken marriage so anyone who links the divorce issue with the State’s obligation to encourage long lasting marriages is completely and utterly misguided. One good thing about divorce, and which is incidentally always omitted by the marriage-for-life parade, is that it could lead to a new marriage in the future. Thanks to divorce, those who may have been unlucky or who may have made the wrong decision at an earlier stage in life will have a second chance. This fixation with forcing people who hate each other’s guts to live together – especially if they have kids – is completely wrong.

If a couple-that-is-no-more has kids, they should leave each other for the sake of the kids as this would spare them of countless shenanigans, insults and other kinds of abuse. Needless to say, one happy parent is better than two angry ones.  And what kind of message do parents who sleep in separate rooms – not separate beds, but separate rooms – give to their children?

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless other anecdotes that ‘family members’ have to face on a daily basis. Like any other relationship, when a marriage is over and beyond reconciliation, then the best thing to do is shake hands and agree to go separate ways.

We have been told so many times that the time is not ripe for divorce legislation to be considered. When is it going to be the right time? Is it when the official marital breakdown rate hits 50%?

Written by mickeymalta

16/05/2009 at 15:47

Holier than thou, my foot

leave a comment »

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt

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.

Written by mickeymalta

21/04/2009 at 16:08

Posted in Blog Main Page, Religion

Tagged with , ,