Happy Birthday Liberty

On this day, 791 years ago, King John of England signed the Magna Carta Libertatum ("Great Charter of Freedoms").

Wikipedia: "...just about every common law country with a constitution has been influenced by Magna Carta... (including the) United States Constitution and Bill of Rights... making it one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy..."

This charter, most importantly, meant the king could could be bound by law.

King John spent most of his life upsetting the Pope, losing large parts of northern France, and raising taxes until everyone got right pissed off and started having civil wars and shit. The barons of England got a posse together and, like enlightened parents of disruptive children today, wrote out a list of "dos" and "don'ts" and forced John to sit in the naughty corner until he argeed to it.

But like all bad boys, as soon as the barons left the room, John produced his crossed fingers and said ".........NOT! BWAHAHAHAHA!"

As soon as the barons heard John was all over London, dissing their charter, they felt it would be rude if they didn't have a civil war, in return. Although it was none of his business, the Pope decided to chime in, saying the Magna Carta was "a load of old bollocks" and released John from the contract.

But John got the fatal shits in the middle of the war and kicked the bucket (hopefully not the one with the shit in). His nine year old son, Henry III, was all cute and lovable, so they quickly crowned him king and the barons, suckers for his big innocent cow eyes, chipped in for an icecream and a go on the dodgems and went home.

Henry III later reissued the Magna Carta, but without all the articles preventing the king from eating toffee apples or using pea-shooters on elderly female courtiers.

Wikipedia: "The influence of Magna Carta can be clearly seen in the U.S. Bill of Rights, which enumerates various rights of the people and restrictions on government power, such as:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Article 21 from the Declaration of Rights in the Maryland Constitution of 1776 reads:

That no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."

Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective

Lehman Strauss "taught Old Testament history for eight years at Philadelphia Bible Institute, and served as pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church, Bristol, Pennsylvania, from 1939 to 1957."

1. What is homosexuality?

Strauss: Homosexuality is a sickness where men, who should normally get stiff at the sight of womanly-shaped-but-firm buttocks, pert breasts, and the tender female thigh, instead find the taught-muscled behind, broad chest and the stubbly, square-jawed features of a man arousing. Recently (and by "recently" I mean anything within the last 2000 years) the term "gay" has come into popular use. Other acceptable terms include, "arse-bandit", "queen", "bender", "anal buckaneer", "fag" and "poof".

2. Can a woman be a homosexual?

Strauss: Not really. The Bible does not consider girl-on-girl action to be sick, like the male equivalent. God told Moses, ""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. But if a woman should lie with womankind, let them not hide. Bring them out so we can witness them. Unless either should be manly in their likeness, in which case, don't bother." (Leviticus 20:13) We can clearly see the Bible indicates that if a woman finds another woman attractive, that's just natural, playful fun. And in some instances, quite moving.

3. What explicitly does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

Strauss: The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, sheep-fuckers, cluster fuckers, rimming, hand jobs, blow jobs, golden showers, fisting, gang-bangs, muff-diving... basically anything other than the boring old missionary position.

4. Why do homosexuals refer to themselves as "gay"?

Strauss: The word "gay" means merry, exuberant, bright, lively. More recently it has been adopted by homosexuals. In its original use it did not have this double meaning. The clever adaptation of the word "gay" by homosexuals has robbed it of its pure meaning, thereby corrupting a once perfectly good word. I never use the word "gay" when referring to homosexuals. There are many bright, exuberant, merry people in this world who are not sexual perverts.

5. You made reference to First Corinthians 6:9-11. What is the meaning of the word "effeminate" in verse 9?

Strauss: There are certain words in every language that can be used in a good or bad sense. In the context of this verse the use of "effeminate" is obviously in a bad sense. It is listed among other evils which are condemned. It describes feminine qualities inappropriate to a man. It is normal and natural for a woman to be sexually attracted to a man; it is abnormal and unnatural for a man to be sexually attracted to another man - otherwise God would have not told Moses "And, as I have anus, so does man, that I have created him so is for two purposes and for those two purposes the anus is within its limit. Neither shall ye know thy own anus, nor the anus of thy neighbour." Many male homosexuals are effeminate, but not all. Nor are all lesbians ugly, fat dykes.


(OK, I added a few bits here and there. The funny thing is, one of the answers is a direct quote from Mr Strauss. Can you guess which one it is? No peeking.)

Jesus Is Born. False Beard-Makers Rejoice!

Came across this Jesus film which is available to watch online in a mind-boggling selection of languages (from Aari to Zulu).

I don't know where it was shot, but local beard-makers must have done some very good business indeed. The amazing variety in size, shape and colour of fake facial growths is a wonder to behold. The sheer scale of the logistical and continuity task which must have been required to get the right beards to the right people for the right shot would, I'm sure, have been enough to bring most other film projects to their knees. My admiration goes out to the prop department - your efforts have not gone unnoticed.

The Dirty Dozen

Last night, a close friend of mine, who was brought up in East Germany, came round for dinner, and we ended up watching The Dirty Dozen, for some reason. This may sound insensitive on our part, but we always joke about the war, to the point where even I'm totally bored of it. It was interesting to watch it with a Kraut, not least because he was able to tell me which German-speaking characters were actually German. I get the feeling he was less than impressed by the semi-propoganda, American chest-beating on show.

The Dirty Dozen was one of those films which was very popular when I was growing up in the 70s. It had that classic war film status and took turns with The Great Escape as the safe bet for Christmas TV schedulers.

I never liked it. Don't know why, but somehow it left me cold. And, as a pre-teen boy who collected toy soldiers and loved his Action Man (with gripping hands!), I loved war movies. As a side note: my mother made knitwear for a living. Once I'd learnt to use her knitting machine, I made my Action Man trendy pure-wool pullovers. I even started a small business selling them alongside my mother's stuff at Camden Market - strangely, my sweaters were only bought by young, female, Sindy Doll owners. Don't know why...

Watching it now, The Dirty Dozen seems confused. On the one had, it has a macho and jovial attitude to war. But this is mixed, uncomfortably I think, with a determination to show grim reality. I don't mind them "showing it like it is". It's just they weren't. Our heros are anti-heros, who, as murderers, religious psychos, and open rascists, become the cliched, romantasized heros and the German army is shown, typically, as being made up of the usual, dim-witted cannon-fodder, typical of pre-70s war movies.

What interests me, though, is how unrealistic war movies were for the 20 or so years after the event. They were almost always one-sided accounts. Why? Surely the most accurate representation of World War 2 would be found being produced during and immediately after the war, as people's memories were freshest.

Not so. The war movies of the 40, 50s and 60s reflected how people who had lived through, and often fought in, the war wanted to view the war. They wanted to be told they were right to fight, to kill and/or to sacrifice their loved ones. They wanted to be told the German army (you rarely see the people) was made up of unsympathetic characatures, as depicted in war-time propoganda.

This is why, when you are looking back in history, you have to remember the people closest to the action are most likely to be prejudiced in its retelling. The Dirty Dozen, to me, is a reflection of it's audiences' increasing confusion. Made in 1967, the idea that "the war was good" is beginning to fade, eventually to be replaced by the reality that "all war is grim".

If the Jewish people in 1st century Plalestine were involved in a violent rebellion, they would want to be told they'd done it for good reason. One thing that hasn't changed over the centuries: story tellers always try tell stories their audience want to hear.