BB13 all blinged up!

It was about this time last year that my foster son came home with a new piece of bling around his wrist.  "A mate gave me it", he explained, "its what everyone's wearing now".

Several sparkling beads ajoined by intricately woven yarn.  Seemed novel to me, but would hardly catch on.  Or so I thought.  How little did I know?  Not for the first time was I completely out of touch with youth and popular culture.

So, it turns out, that one of the biggest fans of Big Brother UK, and a frequent attendee and contributor on Big Brother's Bit On The Side, is the one and only official photographer for Tresor Paris, Daniel.

Yesterday, a group of us Big Brother 13 housemates (Luke A, Adam, Shievonne, Sara and myself) were invited down to Hatton Garden, the centre of London's jewellery industry, to the headquarters of Tresor Paris (no, they are not, as you may be assuming, on the other side of The Channel) and showered with some lovely gifts from their collection.  Luckily for Adam, it was also his birthday!

As you may have already realised, I am not a massive jewellery wearer.  This is largely because I have not the budget or inclination to spend vast sums on such things.  However, if I have happen to come into possession of such precious items, I am more than delighted to give them a whirl!

I was fortunate enough to come away with a brand new necklace, two bracelets and an exclusive (not yet launched) watch.  I am a lucky boy!  What do you think of my new collection?:

Benedict in US series 'Girls' Guide to Depravity'

Here's Benedict making his US TV debut on HBO Cinemax's series, 'Girls' Guide to Depravity'.

(Does involve scenes of a sexual nature, but it is NOT porn):

'Daisy' Movie Premiere

New  film that tells the real story of British porn star, Daisy Rock, and stars Benedict Garret (as his porn alias 'Jonny Cockfill') made its world premiere at Komedia in Brighton yesterday.

Arriving just a few minutes late, having chauffeured the film's namesake from London, Daisy and I located at our seats at the centre table.  We sat amongst a crowded Komedia, waiting to finally see the much anticipated premier of 'Daisy', a real life account of a moment in the life of Daisy Rock as she travels to Ibiza to what will be her last ever porn shoot, following the antics of her and her fellow porn performers, myself amongst them.

Beautifully shot and directed by Jamie Patterson of Jump Start Productions, it is one of the best insights into the highs and lows of the porn industry I have seen in recent times, as biased as that may be.

The film was enthusiastically received by all in attendance.  To get your copy for just £7.99 and see what you're missing, visit http://www.jumpstartdistributions.com/film/daisy-limited-edition-dvd-uncensored/ .

Benedict to appear in new film

"THE BRITISH BRIDESMAIDS MEETS THE HANGOVER" - Company magazine. ONE WEDDING... AND ANOTHER WEDDING.. BUT ABSOLUTELY NO FUNERALS!! - IN THE CINEMAS OCTOBER 2012

Benedict Garrett plays 'Steelo' the stripper, who becomes ove interest of one of the bridesmaids and, believe me, we you get to see an awful LOT of him!!!

The Hen Night scene dancing with Rhoda Montemayor

'One on One' Interview on BBC Radio Leeds

After meeting him at the Oxford Union prostitution debate, Liz Green invites Benedict Garrett onto her popular daytime show, 'One on One' on BBC Radio Leeds to talk about his life and some of his favourite music.

You can catch it here until 30th July:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00vgy2b

Benedict's Eviction

In probably one of the most memorable evictions ever, Benedict leaves the house in style taking one of the chairs with him, but not before confessing to Luke Scrase that he was the one who poisoned his protein: "Oh, and Luke, sorry about the curry!".

Johnny enters the Big Brother house as 'Benedict Garrett'

Johnny Anglais makes history by being the first male porn performer to enter the Big Brother UK house.  But he enters using his real name, 'Benedict Garrett'.

Here's a selection of pictures from that momentous occasion:

Oxford Union prostitution debate speech

Last night I had the privilege of attending and speaking as an invited guest at the Oxford Union.  I have already spoken at four university debates, however this was the first one not about pornography.  Instead, the motion proposed that "This House would recognise prostitution as legitimate business".

The debate was well attended with some interesting guests on both sides.  As well as myself, the proposing team also had Oxford student Elizabeth Culliford, Nevada brother owner, Dennis Hof, and a last minute step-in from the English Collective of Prostitutes called Emma (her last name escapes me, I shall get back to you on that one).  On the opposing team:  Julie Bindel, authour and co-founder of Justice for Women, feminist activist Finn MacKay and campaigner Ellie Levenson, as well as another last minute addition (whose name also escapes from) of Cambridge University professor and expert in human trafficking.

Unfortunately, I can no longer claim to maintain a winning streak at these debates as the opposing team were victorious in the end.  However, I was very satisfied with the contribution I made and with how my speech was received.

As promised, below is a transcript of my speech.  Please feel free to add you comments and thoughts on the topic.

 'This House Would Recognise Prostitution as  Legitimate Business'

Johnny Anglais

My name is Johnny Anglais.  Someone in this room, however, knows me as Benedict Garrett.  Mr.Garrett, in fact, as I was his teacher.  Now, I regularly perform as a stripper and in pornography. 

I am also a prostitute.

I am not ashamed of it.  I believe there is a distinction between porn performer and prostitute, but I have no problem with being called a ‘prostitute’. My main clients are either women but, more commonly, men who wish to hire me as a ‘gift’ for their wife or girlfriend.

I am not a prostitute out of any desperate need.  Although, like most people who are struggling to make money in this capitalist system that, rather than promoting a sense of community and self-worth, is about promoting individual greed and the accumulation of, through, essentially, whatever means, material wealth,   I do have rent to pay, bills to pay, a dog to look after and I also care for someone else’s child because they were incapable of doing so without harming him.  But I am not destitute or funding a drug habit.  In fact, I know many prostitutes (they might call themselves escorts, they are prostitutes).  Mostly women.  None of them are destitute.  Some, like many people, may have had troubles in their childhood, others not at all, some well educated, others less so. 

Prostitutes are not just poor, defenceless women.  I find it rather disingenuous the continual and disproportionate highlighting of concern that some so-called ‘feminists’ have for women in prostitution.  My concern is not for women.  My concern is for everyone.  I care not what the numbers or the differentials are between the abuses of women and men in prostitution.  The fact that any abuse exists should be enough for us to be sufficiently concerned for their well-being and a desire to take action to protect all regardless of their gender.  For there are also poor, defenceless men who have to suffer at the hands of such brutes as Boy George who, back in 2007, reportedly held a rent boy hostage by hand-cuffing him to a chair and attacking him with metal chains.  Equally, there are empowered, confident women who are prostitutes and doing it because they enjoy it and choosing to do it as a REAL option and not because it is their ONLY option, despite what some ‘feminists’ may have you believe.

This is not to say that I am happy with the current state of prostitution in this country.  I am absolutely not.  Of course, there are corrupt and abusive pimps who treat their prostitutes like little more than slaves.  There are women trafficked over from abroad and imprisoned in properties up and down this land (reportedly over 8,000 in London alone) and forced to work as prostitutes.  There are women, and men, who dangerously walk the streets, taking their lives into their own hands and never knowing where they could end up that night, if even still alive. There are women and men who do it simply out of desperation: to feed themselves, to keep themselves warm, to support their families or to fund an addiction. There are clients who treat the prostitute whose services they acquire with little or no respect.  But there are bad and risky elements to many industries.  Do we say that fashion is a non-legitimate business because some companies use child slave labour in Bangladesh, that we should live in a state of anarchy because some politicians fiddle their expenses so lets ban them,  or that all teachers are perverts because a few may have slept with their students?  Bad apples does not equate to a rotten crate.  The principle of producing and providing apples is still a good and well-intentioned one.

Indeed, I too take my own risks as a prostitute.  I may be a 6ft 2in, well-built, healthy male, but in the possibility, slim or not, of being potentially confronted by a sadistic, psychotic and deranged individual what protection do I really have against a knife or a gun? 

These are indeed real risks.  But many jobs are risky, some riskier than others.  By illegitimising a business and driving it underground, these risks are not eradicated.  On the contrary, these risks become greater.  What we need is the creation of a legitimate prostitution trade that is regulated and where the welfare of its workers is protected.

Some see prostitution as an evil in our society.  Some see it as something that simply panders to the whims and desires of a still male-dominated society.  I actually see it as a helpful and important service in our society.  I’ve argued publicly many times that our national attitude to sex needs to change drastically.  Its getting better but there is still vast room for improvement.  Equally, our attitude to prostitution, the one that treats it as something sleazy, the people who work in it is as dirty and those who seek its service as depraved, also needs to be reviewed. 

A desire for sexual gratification is a human need that, although not as crucial as oxygen, food, water and perhaps even shelter, follows closely behind them and rivals such things as our need for education, loving parents, physical exercise, leisure time, an active social life, having people we call friends around us.  All of which we could survive without, but with enormous difficulty, leading to serious voids in our lives, potentially causing depression, stress, lack of opportunity and so on.  Sexual gratification is a human need on this level.   

Many times, a simple wank is enough as an outlet for our frequent sexual urges.  Many are able to share their sex lives with another and along with it, the intimacy and touch of another, human skin against human skin, the kissing of lips, and simply being in the company of another human being while sharing in, what for most people, is a moment of great vulnerability and self-discovery.  Many people can form loving, intimate and physical relationships with another human being very easily.  Some people however, struggle (either through lack of confidence, skills or because their appearance, personality or characteristics renders them less attractive to many), or go through great periods of their lives without the company of another.  While frequent self-romance may be enough to satisfy the urges of sexual release at times, often the desire to share the experience or be in the company, presence and intimate entwine with another is one which, in my mind, does not need to be denied.  Unless you live a life of high moral values in relation to the sanctity of sexual expression within only the bounds of a marriage, or unless you choose, or, more likely, have been indoctrinated, to believe the unquestionable values that have, apparently, been bestowed upon you by some great mystical, supernatural entity, then the principle of a sexual encounter within a consensual arrangement should not need to raise concern or any controversy.  If it does, I would suggest this is the result of such memes as I have aforementioned and not based on a realistic and rational response to the complexities of human sexuality.

I don’t like marriage or even civil partnerships.  I have no problem with long-term committed relationships.  In fact, I have far more respect for people in long-term relationships who have never entered a legally binding contract to force them to stay together.  If two people really love each other, why on earth would they need it?  For essentially that is all that a marriage or a civil-partnership really is: a legally binding contract between two people.  I hate the idea that so much to do with human relationships, and not simply romantic ones, is brought down to contracts.  But unfortunately it is a necessary reality in so many cases.

The contract between a prostitute and his/her client is, or at least should be, open and clear:  One is exchanging capital for the sexual services of another.    In many cases, this service is carried out respectfully and received in much the same manner.  Most prostitutes take their sexual health very seriously and insist on having their clients use protection or, in my case, ensure I am wearing it.  It is a clear, honest and open contract between two or more consenting adults. 

Let’s contrast that situation with the alternative that occurs every weekend in every town in every bar or nightclub up and down this land.  Let me introduce you to the men and women of this country who are little more than ‘Prostitutes by Proxy’.  I’m sure we’ve all seen it, I’m sure we all know of people, we may have even done it ourselves.  We call it ‘going on the pull’.  Men do it.  Women do it.  Going out, of an evening, with the express intent of, without any prior knowledge of who will be present at the venue, finding a member of the opposite, or same (take your pick), sex with the sole purpose of having sex with them.  And how is it achieved?  Frequently, it is by payment.  But payment is not usually made directly to the person with whom eventual sexual activity occurs, it is exchanged with a ‘bar professional’ for an alcoholic beverage... or two, or three, or.... well, however many is usually enough to get them into whatever state is required for sexual conquest.  Where is the contract?  Where is the consent?  Can a contract and consent for such activity really be sought from someone so intoxicated as to fail to stand correctly or incapable of pronouncing their own name, let alone remembering yours.  How high is the likelihood that these individuals will a) care about using contraception and b) be capable of putting it on correctly?  What are the chances that one or both of these individuals may infect the other with a Sexually Transmitted Infection or impregnate the other?  Judging by our national statistics on these two things, particularly compared to our European neighbours, I would say pretty darn high.

So, I leave you with this thought.  How different might the scenario be if the same people lived in a society where brothels weren’t treated like sinister, sleazy centres of smut and filth, but actually seen as useful and regulated services, where the well-being of its workers were properly cared for,  that could be accessed in order to fulfil a basic human need, perhaps having one on every high street next to your Primark, Superdrug or JD Sport, where men and women of all ages could go in the moments of their life where their desire for sexual gratification needed more than simply a quick tug on the chap or session with the rampant rabbit, where men or women, for lack of sexual satisfaction in their own relationships, but loving their partner nonetheless, could seek the sexual fulfilment without the fear of attachment or greater intimacy that an affair might bring and potentially, in the long term, holding their marriage or relationship together?

As much as this scenario may make you laugh or sound so outlandish as to not be easily imagined, I would actually suggest in all seriousness that, compared to the current situation, living in that society would create a far more productive, healthy and happy community than the one in which we currently reside, not to mention one where those who work as prostitutes are treated decently and their well-being cared for.   If we are able to fight the cultural memes we have all inherited, but some of us have been able to shed, if we can rise above the irrational, unproven claims of the god-fearers, if we can begin to actually think about the reality of our society, the dangers our current national view of sex and anything related to it poses, often to our most vulnerable, and the complexities of our human sexuality, rather than the arbitrary rigidity that such memes, traditions and religions have attempted to impose on us, and begin to fathom how actually a recognition of the legitimacy of prostitution and an elevation of its reputation would improve the lives of its citizens then we would, in my opinion, be taking humanity in the right direction and not a step back.

Porn Star teacher set to give Oxford students a lesson in prostitution

Johnny Anglais, the former teacher-turned-stripper-and-porn-star, who hit the headlines last year after winning the right to return to teaching, will be speaking at an Oxford Union debate this Thursday where he will confess to being a prostitute and argue that the world’s oldest profession 'is a legitimate business'.

Since being outed by his pupils in 2010, Johnny Anglais (whose real name is 'Benedict Garrett') has spoken at no less than four university debates.  Last year he was the first ever porn performer to speak at the Cambridge Union, as well as Queen Mary College London and Trinity College Dublin twice, each time defending pornography and being on the winning team.

While performing in porn films on Television X and Playboy TV and stripping for the Dreamboys, Johnny also earns cash from working as a male escort or, as he is not ashamed to say, a ‘prostitute’.

“I am not ashamed of it.  I believe there is a distinction between porn performer and prostitute, but I have no problem with being called a ‘prostitute’. My main clients are either women or, more commonly, men who wish to hire me as a ‘gift’ for their wife or girlfriend.”

Johnny, who describes himself on his Twitter profile as a “sexual libertarian, perception challenger, 'norm' breaker and fighter for rationale”, aims to focus his argument on the idea that prostitution offers a useful service as an outlet to a human need; that our attitude and perception of prostitutes and those who use their services should change for the betterment of our society and that the contract between a prostitute and client is a far more honest and open arrangement than that between many men and women who go “on the pull” each weekend and become little more than, what Johnny calls, “prostitutes by proxy”.

Johnny will be part of a pro legalising prostitution team that will include Dr Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal and brothel owner and founder of Nevada’s Moonlite Bunny Ranch, Dennis Hof.

They will be arguing against Julie Bindel, author and co-founder of Justice for Women, feminist activist Julia Long and campaigner Ellie Levenson.

As well as universities, Johnny has been an invited speaker on BBC debate shows “Sunday Morning Live” and “The Big Questions” as well as guest on the “This Morning” couch:

“I love being part of debates and tackling controversial issues.  Of course, it is satisfying to win, but what is most important is that we are discussing these issues and that we, as a society, are no longer shying away from what some perceive to be taboo topics.”

“We all need to be far more open and honest about issues to do with sex and sexuality in this country, not just for our own sense of identity, but for the health and well-being of our young people.”

“Our traditional prudish attitude and lack of confidence by many parents and teachers to deal with the ‘birds and the bees’ at an appropriate and relevant level has proven to fail our young people.  We have the highest rates of STI and pregnancy amongst them in Europe: this needs to change." 

“Blaming it on such things as porn and prostitution is simply a scapegoat for our shameful national attitude to sex.”

YOUR QUESTIONS: Children should be separated from the world of pornography until they are mature enough to understand it, because it gives them false information about sex, they feel the need to measure up to Porn actors, you promote porn... The GTC is wrong.

This is not a question. However, let me put this question to you. Do you think I walked into the classroom and got my penis out or gloated about doing porn? I made no mention of it. Children should be protected from certain things but not seeing human beings copulating! Children should be separated from the harmful effects of smoking, but we don't tell teachers who are smokers they cannot teach. Children should be seperated from the life threatening effects of a high fat diet, but we don't tell teachers who are fat that they are bad role models and should not be allowed to teach. Children should be seperated from the evil, devastating and cruel effects of religions, but we don't turn to teachers who are Christians, Jews or Muslims and say that what they preach and practice does not gel with what we teach as a school and you should therefore not be a teacher. There are no proven negative effects from the viewing of people having sex. Nothing proven at all. Violence in whatever context is always wrong. Non-consensual acts of any genre are always wrong. Sex, talked about, seen, heard, is not, in my opinion wrong, for anyone of any age to witness. Get a grip, grow up and get a perspective, Deal with the real threats to our young people, not the unproven and the hypothetical which are largely knee-jerk reactions by the prudes, the pompous and the God-fearers.

YOUR QUESTIONS: At 16 where did you think you would have been in 20 yrs, in other words what were your dreams and aspirations?

Up until 16 I always wanted to be an actor. By the time I was 16, I wanted to be a social activist fighting for the rights of oppressed peoples. I was reading a lot about Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, slavery, Gandhi, the Holocaust, apartheid, etc. I wanted to change the world.

YOUR QUESTIONS: How is it possible for one person to be able to teach Citizenship, PSHE, Politics, Sociology, RS, French, German, History and Geography?

I guess its called having half a brain, a keen interest in various things, plus the inability to say 'no' when the school increasingly asks you to be its bitch. I didn't teach them all in the same year. The most subjects I taught at the same time was in my last year: Citizenship, PSHE, Politics, Sociology, Religious Studies and German.

YOUR QUESTIONS: How do you relax?

Watching QI, lying in the bath or a good wank. OR all three together!

Prescriptive sexualities hinder natural human sexuality

Ever the controversialist, I decided to once again tackle common-held perceptions of sexuality which are oft perpetuated in both ‘hetero’ and ‘homo’ camps.

Yesterday, with the obvious intention of commencing debate, I posted the following comments on Twitter:

One of the biggest enemies to the acceptance of human homosexuality has been the coining of the term ‘homosexuality’.

I understand why some want to identify themselves as ‘gay’, but it is as unnatural as calling yourself ‘straight’.

It didn’t take long for one of my more loyal Twitter followers from Scotland to take me on:

You are one of the wisest men on here, but I couldn’t do anything to a woman. I fell asleep in biology too.

I am not implying that anyone has to be sexual with both sexes, but identifying with A sexuality is unnecessary and unnatural.  

So does this mean you are open to a bit of cock on the right person or am I being crass?

Tis rather crass. It means I don’t feel the need to tell anyone or anything. Its between me and whoever I’m having sex with.   Thing is: If you’re asking, not sure you’ve fully understood my point.

It’s almost betraying ourselves to have any dealings with a women. Tho most of us can French Kiss & do titties.

While that may be how you feel, I don’t think you represent all ‘gay’ men.  Idea of ‘betrayal’ to your sexuality is exactly my point.   I worry that this view is as unhelpful to a real expression of human sexuality as those who denounce homosexuality.  

It’s not just that though, we may have the same childish, romantic memes but it really isn’t going to happen.

 I’m sorry, I’m not sure I entirely understand your point.

But that’s because you are straight, you don’t get put the same process.

I have not grown up ‘straight’. I have not grown up ‘gay’. ‘Gay’ people do not have a monopoly on homosexuality.   I have made conscious effort never to define myself as a sexuality. So have been through my own ‘process’, as we all have.  

No, I am all for hetero/homo respect which you represent but some things you just have to have grown up gay to understand.

No-one ‘grows up gay’. ‘Gay’ is the identity and refuge one finds that is most accepting of the preferences you have.  We all grow up in a heterocentric world and ‘gay’ is only a reaction to this. How we each relate to it is our own process.

OK so what do I term myself in ways the people who might have a mutual want understand?

Why do you need a group of people to understand? Go to a ‘gay’ club, join a ‘gay’ dating site. That is their function, but it is unnecessary to let this be an identity or limit your natural human sexuality even if it means you only ever have gay sex.  

I hate watermelons. But I don’t let my preferences define me or preclude from liking watermelons in the future.  

I don’t but where else am I going to see a male stripper (a rare species in Scotland).

In a gay club. I’m not saying don’t go to ‘gay’ clubs and do things where people who wish to explore their homosexual side go.  Equally, if you’re into swinging, you go to a swingers’ club.  Sharing a preference with like-minded people is absolutely acceptable.

I don’t get this one.

OK.  I like apples and oranges.  I prefer oranges but I like both, as do many people.  Some prefer one or the other.   Is there any point in my life where I’ve ever felt the need to exclaim I am mostly into oranges and allowed it to define me?  

I recognise many people think I am making a mute point, but I actually think its an important one that few people recognise.

I absolutely understand how finding a community that accepts them & shares a preference is helpful to ‘gay’ people in feeling  they belong and are embraced.  However, the perpetuation of the idea of ‘gay’ does not help the wider population and its acceptance of homosexuality as a normal sexual act for anyone to explore.  That ‘gay’ people have added to division in society and taken exclusive ownership of, and monopolised a side of human sexuality which is simply that, just one side of it.  Instead, the identification of an individual as being either ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ has created narrow-mindedness in both camps to the natural human inclination for what is commonly described as ‘bisexuality’. And yet too often those in ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ communities deny its existence.

I also received the following comments on Facebook to my original points:

Your comment sounds rather glib. Do you have the faintest idea what it is like to be a gay person in a heterosexist, hetero-majority world, in which your innate and perfectly natural sexual feelings towards the same sex are still viewed as abhorrent and perverse by many? To know that half the planet (at least) thinks you have no right to exist? To live with the intense shame of a gay identity about which you have no choice? For many, being able to positively identify as gay is part of a long and tortuous journey out of shame, oppression and humiliation. Please don’t belittle it.

To which, I responded:

I understand all of that. This is the result of our society’s oppression of the act of homosexuality. I understand the sense of belonging and the need for acceptance within such a thing as the ‘gay’ community for a people who have felt ostracised and discriminated against for their feelings and preferences. However, this does not make it any more a ‘natural’ thing for a human, a sexual being, to do. I understand the reasons behind it, it does not mean that I accept that it is a natural phenomenon or one that is indeed helpful for the population at large to find acceptance for the act of homosexuality and preopenderence towards homosexuality that can be present in everyone. I understand how the need for humans to identify themselves as ‘gay’ has appeared, but I also recognise the divisiveness this further creates and the monopoly that some within that ‘community’ have over the concept of homosexuality rather than allowing all humans to take ownership over that and every other aspect of their own sexuality.

Once again, its always good to have the debate.  What are your thoughts?  Feel free to leave your comments and opinions too.

Respecting Religion

I was deeply disturbed by a recent event that took place at my old university. According to The Independent, students attending a debate about sharia law organised by the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society at Queen Mary University in London were told they would be "hunted down and killed" by a man who burst into their lecture theatre and filmed them on his phone.  The man had reportedly been motivated by a call to action placed on extremist website, Islamic Awakening.


After I was informed of this, I made the following postings on Twitter:


How long are we going to let religious nutcases who have no evidence for their beliefs, threaten, harm & kill us in our own free-thinking land?  You might be able to bully & beat religion into your own children, but don't fucking dare threaten me with your unsubstantiated bullshit.  The idea that religion, by sheer virtue of being a religion, demands respect is utter nonsense. It requires no more respect than the respect it has for other groups in society. Which is not a lot much of the time.


I was then pleasantly surprised to be joined in a debate by one of my former students who challenged some of my views, particularly the manner in which I had expressed them:


I dunno, that seems to me to be a bit of a generalisation.  I'm anti-religion myself, but to state that religious groups not be respected undermines society's views on tolerance all together, right?  We should respect all groups of people regardless of if what they're saying makes complete sense or it's all utter bullshit.


Its not the bullshit I have no respect for, it is the lack of respect some religions have for others and yet expect respect.  


Sure but that applies to extremists.  It appears (to me anyway) like you're criticising all religious people.


It definitely applies to extremists but, I would argue, also applies to some who might class themselves as moderates too.  


We should absolutely tolerate difference, but for things we have choice over, we must be prepared to justify and be judged for.  Tolerance for the intolerant is surely intolerable even for the most tolerant if the safety and security of all is paramount.   I promote tolerance of difference for things which we have no control over. My tolerance does not extent to hate-mongers.


Which isn't the case because the majority of religious people i know are peaceful, respectful and -to an extent- open-minded.


Many religious people are indeed. But many are not and they use religion to justify their actions.  Those who are peaceful and respectful are so in spite of their religion, not usually because of it.  They are pickers and choosers and ignore the most wicked and brutal parts of their religion.  Which is good for society, of course.  But their moderation comes from a moderate society, not from a religion.   I am not thankful to their religion for their moderation, I am thankful to an enlightened society that has impacted on their interpretation of their religion to justify to themselves and make it seem more respectful and relevant to others.


Exactly, and I commend liberal thinkers who take into account sociological changes when interpreting and practicing their religion and respect them more for it.   The beauty of free people do not have to follow religious texts to the word and can change aspects of it.  I don't think religions should be viewed as institutions set in stone that cannot be changed, so I think it's wrong to criticise religion itself, rather criticise those who are too narrow-minded to accept different views.


I do not disagree with you at all, (think I share a lot in common with you to be honest) but, playing devil's advocate, let me present the following arguments to you:


- If a holy text is, as some believe, the actual word of God, why would it need changing?


- Is not the changing of interpretation to suit modern society simply a PR campaign by some in those religions to make it appear more palatable and spread the delusion of God to people who might otherwise question it?


- Should the fundamentalists not at least have more respect for the fact they are not 'pick and mix' followers?


- If a God-created religion needs changing, isn't it evidence that it was not created by a God at all?  If she has, surely she would have had the foresight to have predicted these societal changes.


Hmm... I guess, because personally I view all religions as different interpretations of one 'higher entity',   I pretty much disregard the validity of 'holy' texts.  So when I look at them I'm more inclined to be focusing on positive aspects they promote, and disregard the more negative as mere views of the time that they were written, which is why I, on the whole, respect religion but condemn religious fundamentalism.


But if you disregard the texts you disregard the whole basis of Judaism, Christianity & Islam and simply say that their belief is a belief in a higher entity and that is all. Which clearly gels with your own interpretation, but isn't that you basically saying that each of those religions is based on utter bullshit except for the fact they believe in a higher entity?  Therefore expressing, as I was, a lack of respect for much of the basis of each of the main religions in this land.


I think any religion is just a human attempt to conceptualise and understand a higher entity, or 'God', so I wouldn't call the basis of religion 'utter bullshit', just an attempt to rationalise the world as we know it and I think it's a false dichotomy (A level English ;) ) to say you either respect or disrespect religion as a whole.


But your belief is not in a religion but in a higher entity. So if a text, which is the basis of these religions, is simply a human effort to rationalise the world as we know it at the time that we know it, isn't that therefore a nice way of saying it is 'utter bullshit'?  That it is man-made twoddle and the only leg they, rather shakily, stand on is a belief in an unproven higher entity?


I know of some interpretations of some religions for which I have more respect for.  But I do not respect them automatically because of their religious status.  Religions too often have an untouchable status in our society which elevates them to a level which some seem to think excludes from criticism and ridicule.  'Religions' are, after all, no different from 'cults'.  The differences are only in numbers of followers and length of life-span that has granted them greater acceptance in society.


 I'm not saying I disrespect religion per se.  I'm saying they should not just expect respect because they are a religion.  Of course, I do not class all religious people under the same light or, indeed, all denominations of a given religion.  


Clearly, I would not class you as someone who is religious.  Believing in a higher entity does not make you religious.


So what would your view be on the Danish newspaper that depicted the prophet Mohammed?


Denmark is not a Muslim country.


Denmark is a democracy.


Why should rules that people who choose to be Muslims follow be imposed on those of us who choose not to be Muslims?  If visitors to Saudi Arabia must accept the principles of a violent and brutal Sharia legal system, then those who choose to reside and visit Denmark must accept that it is a free-thinking and democratic system with its own laws, none of which are dictated to them by any religion whatsoever.   


Its funny how so many newspapers in Islamic states will make anti-semitic comments or characterise Jewish people, but the moment a newspaper in a non-islamic state pokes fun at their religion the reaction of some muslims is of threats of death and violence.
As a citizen of the UK who chooses to continue to reside here, the only laws I follow are the laws of the land.  I am not Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, etc.  Anyone from any of those religions tries to impose their rules on me they can (with no respect whatsoever) fuck right off.


I can't really comment on islamic newspapers because i've never seen one LOL, but, in regards to the Danish one, surely that was an issue of disrespect for a religion, despite the fact Denmark is a secular state, the press should still have respect for a rule which is so highly regarded in the q'ran, although perhaps religions and religious people (even  though the number of people who think like this is small) should be open to criticism.  But i think it would lead to a lack of  intolerance to other religions.  Wait i've lost my train of thought :S


Ah, but this is exactly the crux of my argument: Why should any religion command respect just because those who believe it might be offended? This is ridiculous.


This is a religion that often has no respect for anyone who dissents from it in lands where Islam is the official religion.  That will stone, hang, beat, lash anyone who does anything they deem as 'wrong'.  


The West is too often too scared to criticise precisely because of the extremists (not only in Islam) who are nothing more than bullies, brutes and psychopaths who believe they have a god on their side.  


Should we have to cower to them because of this?   


 Should we have to tip-toe and be victims of their bullying tactics or should, like the brave editors of the Danish newspaper, actually say, 'look, you live by your rules I live by mine! Don't like them, fuck off to a land where you agree with the rules.'


Too many people use the West as a money-making entity but have zero respect for our brand of tolerance and throw it right back  in our faces.  You want to live in a land where people are not free to criticise others, or express themselves sexually or according to their own religious beliefs or even possess none, as free/equal women, then please, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran or numerous other Islamic states.  You have options.  This land is for people who CHOOSE to live somewhere not dictated to by religious dogma.


Practice what the hell you want in this land, but don't impose it on others.    


Any religion worth its weight in gold (or any other matter) should have no problem with being questioned. Its only because it fears people knowing too much or being able to question too much that it imposes such rigid and intolerant practices.  Any religion that imposes such practices is not a real religion.  If 'believers' only believe because they are bullied into it through coercive means and abusive practices, then its not a belief, is it?  Its an imposition.
Religion, where it fails, bullies and abuses, must be exposed.


We should never be too scared to stand up to the hypocrises of religion. 


Very, very, very true.


Noooooo! Don't give in that easily!!!!


Can we continue this after my economics homework is done? :'(