Finding one’s path…

I saw an article in the Toronto Star titled, “Pope Francis says it’s better to be an atheist than a Catholic living ‘a double life.’” It fit in very nicely with some thoughts I’ve been having lately.

Namely, that we each find our path alone. Early in our lives, our parents instilled beliefs in us either directly or by religious proxy. As we grow old enough to think for ourselves, we embrace or reject what we’ve been taught and fine-tune our own beliefs.

What I don’t understand is how someone can claim to accept the entirety of a belief system like Christianity, but really only practice the parts they like. For example, many Christians are against same-sex marriage because it violates the sanctity of marriage and their religious teachings. Yet at the same time, many of these same people have divorced and remarried. I would suggest that divorce is much worse for marriage than two people getting married, who happen to be of the same sex. Further, the Bible does not allow divorce. So how can anyone who has divorced and remarried stand up and claim to defend of marriage?

I certainly do not believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but the last time I heard, this is one of the tenants of Christianity. So how can Christians remarry? Work on Sundays? Lie? Steal? Masturbate? Have sex before marriage? Eat pork? Get tattoos? Gossip? Eat shellfish? The list seems entirely endless, and largely nonsensical, but it’s the word of God, right?

Even worse, your average neighbourhood Christian priest seems to steer clear of these topics!

It would be one thing to simply take on the Christian ideals you like as your own and not call yourself a Christian, but if you profess to be a Christian, how can you rationalize picking and choosing what you will practice?

If you really believe there is a hell, this would seem an unwise course of action! Yet many (most?) self-professed believers do it.


Disclaimer: I selected Christianity simply because it’s the religion I’m most familiar with. The same could be said for any of them.

Posted in idiocy, religion | Leave a comment

More top hat!

To further my earlier post about the top hat, I discovered this 1899 Huddersfield Chronicle reprint of a 1797 report of the incident:

Image © The British Library Board. Courtesy of The British Newspaper Blog.

Posted in history | Leave a comment

Victoria’s Cover

PBS’s Masterpiece is airing Victoria in the US. I haven’t started watching it yet but Julie has recorded the first of the eight parts and we are going to watch it together.

I was on Amazon today and I couldn’t help but notice what is certainly one of the most beautiful cover photos I’ve seen in a very long time.

See what I mean?

I was delighted to read that season two is already in pre-production.


The cover image is likely ©ITV.

Posted in art, history, photography | Leave a comment

Inauguration, or …

The writers at the Scottish Sunday Herald wrote up their television listings with a gigantic dollop of awesome sauce. This is their description of Trump’s inauguration:

After George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) wrote on twitter, “The Sunday Herald TV Section wins today,” LisaD (@BlackDogsRule) insightfully replied, “With all due respect to The Twilight Zone, this is basically an episode of Black Mirror.” So true, Lisa, so true.

Posted in funny, politics | Leave a comment

The top hat!

Lord Liverpool climbed out of his carriage at Kensington Palace on June 15, 1837, under blue summer skies. He was wearing a grey suit and a top hat — the top hat was now considered the mark of a gentleman, even though the first man to sport one in public, forty years earlier, was arrested on the grounds that it had “a shiny lustre calculated to alarm timid people.” (Four women had fainted upon seeing it, and pedestrians had booed.)

Julia Baird, Victoria: The Queen, 2016

Can you imagine? Woman fainting and the wearer being arrested!

Posted in history, quotes | 1 Response