Friday, 26 March 2010

Dear 'The Pope' (again), from Science (No. 16)

The guy just invites this sort of thing, doesn't he?

"Dear The Pope

Hello, it's me, Science. Did you not get my last letter? I know my tone was a little sarcastic, but then I long ago gave up bothering to sound serious and informed with your sort, it's a wasted effort on my part.
Just to re-cap, I was sort-of telling you off for saying how it's wrong for Gay people to do things like be Gay, and work for you. You set yourself up as the indisputable judge of all that is moral. I even had one of your followers having a go at me for confusing 'natural' and 'divine' law (which was in itself a dubious claim), where it's my job to say what 'is', and it's your job to say what's 'right'. Your way doesn't need evidence, apparently, just an elaborate hat.

I admit I wrote the last letter, and was chuckling to myself about your antics, thinking that you were making a spectacle of yourself. I remember thinking specifically, "he couldn't possibly make himself look any worse"

As you like to claim, I can be wrong. But, dude, seriously?

I admit, I don't like to shout about it when I get a null result or something, but... wow!

I mean, if I was the supposed divine representation of moral perfection, I'd, I don't know, not do certain... things?

Seriously mate, did you not think this was a bad idea? I'd have thought someone who was once in the Hitler Youth would have a little more regard for his public image in this day and age. But again, after my stern talking to on the differences between our responsibilities, I'm willing to listen to an explanation for how this sort of thing is OK by 'divine law' (assuming you have one?).

I mean, using contraception and/or pursuing a consensual, loving relationship with some with the same number of X chromosomes as you, these are things that will condemn you to hell for eternity? Whereas abusing children will get you... access to more children? I'm sorry to say I don't follow the rationale there (I realise asking for the logic behind the actions of you and yours is a bit like asking for the mode of action of homeopathy, but you, like them, usually claim to have one, however farcical).

Were you thinking like one of those old stories, where the child is found to be smoking their fathers cigarettes and is made to smoke several packs to 'teach him a lesson'? I, personally, would have said that the rights and innocence of children outranked disposable indulgences like cigarettes when considered as resources for punishment. But then, I'm not Catholic, and the rights of the individual has never really been something you guys have been bothered about (unless, as previously stated, he, and it's always he, has one of your elaborate hats, in which case any criticism must be condemned ferociously)

I don't approve of the 'make them keep doing it until they get tired of it' method of dissuasion anyway. Be it abuse or cigarettes, a child is going to end up severely damaged for the rest of their life. And it's not even punishment in the traditional sense, as it doesn't pair an action with a directly aversive stimulus. It essentially habituates the person to the stimulus which they previously found rewarding and makes them repeat the action until they lose the pleasurable response it normally elicits. Sex doesn't work this way of course, there's a lot of biological compensators in place to stop that happening. See what happens when you ignore evolution!

But then, what does my opinion matter? I'm only the personification of all human knowledge (that is evidence-derived and well researched)

I mean, I can't see the people in charge of the 'regular' law adopting this method for serious offences (child abuse is, by the way, regarded as very serious in terms of 'normal' law, rather than 'divine' law, which seemingly regards it as a mere bad habit).
And I know I said homosexuality is natural because it keeps occurring despite not having a reproductive element. At the risk of inciting controversy, this same argument could be levelled at Child abuse. I see it as different, in the same way murder is different; it involves severely damaged victims and the self-gratification of a sick individual, not social bonding and understanding. So, remember this, Homosexuality = good, Child abuse = bad. I'd have thought it was a simple system, I can't beleive you've been getting it wrong for so long.

Just to see if this is an isolated incident, perhaps you'd be willing to take a test? Tell me, if one of your priests was found to be one of those serial killers you get in TV dramas, the kind who preys on prostitutes, what would you do? Would you;

a) Punish him by sacking him from the church

b) Punish him by imprisoning him

c) Punish him by equipping him with a fresh knife and locking him in a brothel in a different area?

Now, as far as I'm aware, the correct answer is b). But According to your 'divine law', which is it? Getting the boot seems a bit mild a punishment for mass murder, but I don't know how well you guys pay. Or are you guys in it for the 'fringe benefits'?

When you ask yourself 'what would Jesus do?' how the hell did you come up with this answer.

Thing is, I could provide a lot of rationale and reasoning for why this sort of behaviour occurs. Not as an excuse, but as an explanation, and with the hope of preventing it in future. I can list psychological causes, impetus, disorders, mental instabilities that lead to this sort of thing. But I won't. Because, as you've been so keen to point out in the past, this isn't my place.

So I'm going to sit here, in my place, and watch your place as it falls apart.

Is it OK if I make some popcorn before the next scandal breaks?

Fond regards

Science (BA hons)

P.S. After I was mocked for (deliberately) mistaking you for right-wing fundamentalists in my previous letter, I wrote this entire thing with 'Duelling Banjos' playing in the background. I'll say this for the psycho's, they'd probably string up the child molesters, not supply them with more victims. You're currently ranking below the lunatics. What's that like?"

e-mail: Humourology (at)
twitter: @garwboy


Garry said...

why BA and not BSc?

Dave Steele said...

It's a joke.

Social Network sharing gubbins