Author: admin

Thought for the Day, 27th March 2026

Donald Trump likes to say he’s a Christian. I don’t know how much of a Christian he really is as I can’t see inside his head. All I can do is watch what he does and compare those actions to those of what I expect a good Christian would do.

To be blunt though, I don’t believe he really is a Christian, after all, he wouldn’t have acted the way he had in business, with workers, women, young girls, the population of the United States of America, his support base etc. if he really followed Christian principles.

And then there’s Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s Jewish. And if we’re asking about Donald Trump, who uses Christianity as some sort of facade, and his faith, then what about Benny? I don’t know enough about Judaism to measure his level of faith against his actions, but I suspect he’s more Jewish than Donald Trump is Christian.

And then there are the targets of this Judo-Christian war. The Muslims. Iran is the main focus of this war but the second front is The Lebanon. We have a supposedly secular country, the USA, aligning with a Jewish state to attack a Muslim state and take side swipes at another Muslim state. This smacks of a “holy war”.

The notion of America’s separation of church and state is broken because it’s leader’s self-professed “Christian values” seem at odds with the bible, and there were overt religious comments in talks to troops at the beginning of this forsaken war.

So rather than ask “what would Jesus do?” ask “what would the pagans do?” because those with a wider and more open mindset would have not gone in to this ridiculous conflict, not because it goes against “Christian values” or “Jewish values”, whatever they are, but, more importantly it goes against HUMAN values, even the values of nature, the world, the planet, and the delicate equilibrium we may have had prior to this “Operation Epic Fury” nonsense.

As a pagan myself, I don’t have any dogma or scripture to “follow”, only an inherent natural affinity with people and the planet. There is not only far too much human suffering, directly from the bombing of people primarily in Iran and Lebanon, but all the other Gulf states and even Israel itself.

And it’s not just the direct destruction of homes, shops, police stations, and other public infrastructure, but the collateral damage to neighbourhood cohesion, national psyche, and the world’s weariness of warfare. The global economy is only just feeling the initial tremors of this shock, as I suspect there is more to come. Even if Trump stops “his” war, will the Israelis continue theirs? Is this a land-grab in disguise? Is that their distraction whilst Trump’s is that you don’t mention the Epstein files?

But back to war, the new thing you’re supposed to be looking at, what will the region look like this time next year, in five years, ten years, a century? What about the rest of the world?

The mindset that “obliteration” of Iran’s high command will leave a power vacuum that ordinary Iranians will fill the void of is naive. Iran murdered thousands when they last started an uprising. And now, just because “the head of the snake” has been cut off, doesn’t mean it won’t grow a new one.

Ordinary Iranians have been shot at and murdered by their own religious state, and now another pair of religious states are raining down destruction upon them.  Where do people turn to? Where is safe? What is best? Because the state of the nation now is dangerous, whichever way you look at it.

So stop all this monotheist chest-beating and think of the wider picture – how are people and the planet doing? Because all this “my god’s better than your god” rubbish is so tiring.

Are You a Lover or a Fighter?

Have you ever been asked that question? Are you a lover or a fighter?

From my own perspective, it’s one of those black & white questions, a binary on or off, a yes or a no, a lover or a fighter. It’s a logical fallacy that’s just far too simplistic.

Now I know it’s often asked as an innocent question, maybe on dates, where one party needs to know whether someone is willing to reconcile or not, a great way to “sus someone out” before going further. It can help filter “swipe lefts” from “swipe rights”. But in my world view, it’s perfectly acceptable to be capable of both. In fact I’d recommend it.

Love and reconciliation are defaults in my pagan world view. The biblical “love thy neighbour” is true. But seeing as Christianity is a modern religion and has taken from earlier traditions, pagan forerunners had such foundations.

The Lover

In ancient Egypt, the concept of Ma’at was a mix of truth, balance, and cosmic order. In 1200 BCE “The Instruction of Amenemope” contained a passage along the lines of:

“Do not build a trap against a person… do not refuse your neighbour.”

That’s a very kind “love thy neighbour” respect.

The Egyptian “Book of the Dead” or “Spells for Coming Forth by Day” was another tome extoling virtue. Whilst it’s often seen as some sort of manual for the afterlife, an ancient “How to Win Friends and Influence People” in some ways, if you read Dale Carnegie’s book, it’s very clear about sincerity.

And besides, reading a manual and acting positively is never as good as being genuinely righteous.

There are similar virtues in Ancient Greek Xenia and Stoicism, in Mesopotamia’s “Code of Hammurabi”, and rules of reciprocity in Norse and Celtic traditions too.

The Fighter

Our innocent dating question posits that if you’re not a lover, then you must be fighter. So is it hinting that if you don’t love your neighbour then you’re hostile and warlike?

That may be the simplistic takeaway. But nothing’s ever as simple as it may seem is it?

Again, from, my own pagan and logical perspective, to take up the sword is a last resort. By default we are all, and all should be, lovers. But, if love does not work and if all avenues have been exhausted, then  surely being a fighter is a genuine and perfectly acceptable role, right?

Think about Private Joker in Stanley Kubrik’s “Full Metal Jacket” – at one point in the film he quips about “the duality of man” all the while being stationed in a land steeped in the tradition of Yin and Yang for aeons.

Taking stock of Eastern philosophy, you aren’t either/or, you are both a lover and a fighter.

In the “Tao Te Ching”, it also frames the fighter as a philosophy of last resort. Check this out:

“Weapons are tools of ill omen, not the tools of the gentleman. He uses them only when he has no other choice. Peace and quiet are what he prizes. Victory is not a cause for rejoicing.”

That offers the perfect balance.

Cognitive Bias and Dissonance?

I didn’t go looking for examples to back up my theory, they were already there. They’d been in place for thousands of years, over many generations of human existence. So any cognitive bias was not sought nor is haughtily proven.

Being a lover and a fighter is a huge part of being human. You have to be able to be both. Therefore, what can potentially be framed as cognitive dissonance is also a moot point – you can and you should be able to hold both values in your heart and your head.

Going back to Private Joker, the irony is on full view, even on the DVD cover and film poster – His GI issue helmet has both “Born to Kill” graffiti’d onto it and “peace” symbol, the famous CND pin badge (I have many myself). The movie is a journey of his struggle to come to terms with his situation over the course of his tour of Vietnam, and find balance for his own cognitive dissonance. Is he a lover or a fighter?

Final Thought

As a westerner, we have god and devil, good and evil; coincidence, huh? Yet I’ve broken out of my own 1970s junior school CofE upbringing and found my own truth many years ago.

What and who we were, pre-Christianity, is just as, if not, more valuable than the Western and Christian traditions we seem to believe and cling on to. We are older than that. Deeper than that. More than that.

So, when asked if you are a lover or a fighter, you are unlikely to be neither but far more likely to be both. Afterall, are you a lover who fights, or a fighter who loves?

One of my own favourite quotes is from Robert Heinlein’s 1973 sci-fi novel “Time Enough for Love” where he states:

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects.”

Specialisation is being the lover or the fighter. As humans, we have the unique capacity top be both.

“There Goes a Man of Hate”

Last night, on my walk home from the pub, my pleasant conversation with my partner was suddenly interrupted by the loud proclamations of a man with a microphone.

It was after 11pm a night, so I was drunk, and he was loud an in my ears. I couldn’t avoid him. A route around where he stood and shouted his beliefs would have cost me longer than I needed. All I wanted was to get home, put my head down, and go to sleep.

But no. This man wanted me to hear what he believed in, whether I wanted to hear it or not. Noise pollution. Brain pollution.

It annoyed me, so I swore. “What a load of bollocks”, I said. He heard me. He didn’t like me defying him. So he said something else, I can’t remember what. I swore again, telling him where to go. And this was his reaction, broadcast to a street in town, via a microphone and a loudspeaker, at gone 11pm at night.

“There goes a man of hate”

That was it! I was angry. I’d had a few drinks and all I wanted was to get home and go to sleep. Instead, what I got was a preacher man, telling me what to think, and then telling others what to think about me.

OK, so maybe I shouldn’t have sworn at him. But then maybe he shouldn’t be standing in the street before midnight, not just sharing, but forcing his point of view upon passing folk. Maybe he shouldn’t be accusing those he does not know of being fundamentally “full of hate”. What a bigoted and uneducated/uninformed thing to say.

It’s this whole attitude that what he believes is so important that he has to shout it out through a loudspeaker to drunk passers by that is so unsavoury. Of course, me swearing back at him can be seen as unacceptable too, but he started it.

I turned around with the thought “Right, that’s it, I’m not putting up with this!”

A Man of Hate

To be labelled so was infuriating. Yes, I’d sworn at him, twice, but my peaceful walk home was interrupted by a man telling me what I should believe. I know what to believe – there’s only one way of life, and that’s your own (Your own, your own!)

I turned and stormed back towards him. I wasn’t having this.

I confronted this Christian, this “man of god” and immediately he looked petrified. He was younger than me, he held the microphone close to his chest. Anything he said was amplified, anything I said, didn’t get a boost. Telling, right? Or not.

I asked him why he thought his belief system was superior to mine and why he had to impose his thoughts on passing revellers so late at night. His response was something about the father and son being water and ice, or something like that. It was a bit cryptic, not really the sort of thing post-pub revellers would be able to unravel. Poor messaging, as the marketing professional in me thought.

He asked me about my beliefs, and I said I had “none” – my “religion” was fluid and, as an example, I’d spent a proportion of my night before with the Hari Krishna folk at Stonehenge, it had been the summer solstice.

Ultimately, I said it was all down to freedom and that he should not impose his belief system upon others because, walking home, I was not imposing mine on every Tom, Dick, and Harry passing by.

Another Christian intervened after a few minutes and said I was “free to go”. I should damn well hope so too! Of course I’m free to go. I should have been free to walk home without religious propaganda being forced into my ears as I was mid conversation with someone. That’s just rude.

So I did eventually give up on discussing freedom with this indoctrinated young man and make my way home.

Human Rights

On the way I did discuss with my walking partner how appalling it was that religion is forced upon the young. Some children, for instance, are subject to genital mutilation because that’s “just part of their religion”. Yet Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has been illegal in the United Kingdom since 1985 and is an important health and human rights issue. Human rights! Right?

There are double standards too. A young person has no choice if they are brought up in a religious family – dogma and doctrines force children to believe only certain things, behave in particular ways. Females must cover their hair or even their faces, no meat, no alcohol, no tobacco, in some religions they don’t even have hot drinks! Self-flagellation, caste systems, avoiding electrically powered devices, even electric lights, and not even being able to carry things in a public space.

Yet here we are with a religious man being allowed to shout his beliefs at passers by in an English town at a time of night where he will surely be disturbing the peace? He disturbed mine anyway.

I have a right not to have my peace disturbed.

I have the right not to be forced to listen to someone else’s “commands”.

I am lucky that I was not forced to have my genitals mutilated on religious grounds before I was old enough to grant consent.

They have their freedom, where’s ours?

The rights of the religious seem to be above those of the irreligious. But then we have been ruled by them for many hundreds of years. “England’s a Christian country” they say. Who’s they? The religious? The racists? Those who are against Islam?

Let me ask them this; how long has this been a Christian country? What was it before that? And how long was it NOT a Christian country before it became a Christian country?

The answer is that the British Isles have been Christian for as many as 1,600 years. Prior to that, this island nation’s civilisation enjoyed at the very least 10,000 years of being non-Christian.

So, the “dominant” religion has told us what to do for a mere 10% if not far less of this land’s human history. If you really look back at human belief systems, the recent dominance is an even tinier proportion.

A Man of Love

Having spent the summer solstice at Stonehenge with my child, in the company of celebrating Hari Krishna, and mingling with random people of beliefs I do not know, I think the “there goes a man of hate” label was just that – a target on my back, placed by an indoctrinated religious bigot, who disliked being challenged, and would rather I was known as “the bad guy” thus taking the heat off him.

I’d say he was the man of intolerance, having a predisposed intolerance before my own reactionary rejection of his views. Yes, I was intolerant too, and yes, I was drunk, but the song remains the same – He is allowed to spout his views publicly, via microphone and loudspeaker, to all and sundry who pass by, whether they want to hear it or not, whether it is relevant, loving, kind, or not…

I’d spent a night, in fact, a whole life, not imposing my view upon others, when I was accused of reacting negatively to those who would do the same they accused me of themselves. Hypocrites.

Ironically, those who “attempt to poison and destroy my brothers” are more likely Christian than non-Christian. Funny that, aye?

NB: Later in the summer, I saw the Police talking to this preacher guy – he looked worried. Again. I don’t know what was said in the conversation as, again, I needed to get home. But I wouldn’t doubt it was a talk about not disturbing the peace late at night in a town centre. Even the drunks were quieter than the Christian gobshite.