A Light Hearted Assessment of Heaven and Hell

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington Chemistry mid-term.

The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we
need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate
at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a
soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different
Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state
that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not
belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of
Souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until
all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes
over. So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman
year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting
"Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

Conflicting Messages In Burqa Poll

As lawmakers in France openly recommend a ban on full veils, people in Britain believe that garments that cover the face should also be outlawed in the United Kingdom, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

The online survey of a representative national sample of 2,001 British adults showed respondents pictures of three different garments—the burqa, the niqab and the hijab—and asked whether their use should be forbidden in the UK under three specific scenarios.

Burqa

The burqa is an outer garment worn by some Muslim women that is meant to conceal the entire body. In addition to a full veil, the burqa usually features a net that covers the eyes.

More than 70 per cent of respondents would agree with banning the burqa in public places (72%), at schools and universities (79%) and at airports.

Niqab

The niqab is also meant to conceal the entire body and also features a full veil, but differs from the burqa because the eyes are usually exposed.

Two thirds of Britons (66%) would ban the niqab in public places, while higher proportions would forbid the use of the garment at schools and universities (75%) and airports (85%).

Hijab

The hijab is a type of head scarf that usually exposes the entire face. A majority of respondents believe the hijab should not be banned at airports (63%), schools and universities (69%) or in public places (75%).

Mixed Signals

While two thirds of Britons (67%) believe that garments that conceal a woman’s face are an affront to British values, a majority of respondents (58%) claim the Government should not be allowed to tell individuals what they can and cannot wear.

It would appear not for the first time the public are at odds with themselves, and whilst the prejudice amongst society may well see the 70% as vindication of a ban policy clearly, when push comes to shove the public don't like bans.

For complete survey click on title link.

Lord Pearson in the Times

The following letter from UKIP Leader has been published in The Times yesterday. He was doing so well until the last two paragraphs, why did he just not leave it alone.

Sir,

Alan Sked and Richard Milne (letters, Jan 19) have missed the deeper points about UKIP’s suggestion that the burka should be banned in public places. Your leading article (Jan 16) warned that our proposed ban on wearing the burka in public buildings could set us on the road to fascism. However, one of the 21/7 bombers escaped wearing the burka; the hidden face can also hide a terrorist.

When we talk of terrorism, we usually refer to a problem coming from within Islam. Of all the religions, Islam is the only one whose leaders do not wish their followers to integrate into our society, and Sharia, which can alas be described as gender apartheid, holds growing sway in too many parts of our country. So the burka is a symbol of separation, discrimination and fear.

Nor does it have any place in mainstream Islam. The Grand Mufti of Egypt has said it is “not Islamic”. The Muslim Canadian Congress has described it as a “political issue promoted by extremists”, and called for it to be banned.

Let us not forget that Islam is very different to our Judaeo-Christian culture. It is a religious, political and legal system rolled into one, a whole way of life based on the Koran, and the penalty for leaving it can be death. A ban on the burka would be for freedom, not fascism.

We must not run away from Islam, but debate it openly, particularly with the vast majority of Muslims who are our friends.

Lord Pearson Of Rannoch
Leader, UKIP

Nikki Sinclaire banned from using UKIP name

Nikki Sinclaire has been instructed by the UKIP NEC to stop using the party name and intellectual property and banned from attending UKIP meetings after she resigned from the EFD group that UKIP formed in the EU Parliament and the ensuing media frenzy.

All MEP candidates had to sign an agreement before they could stand under the UKIP banner to join whatever group UKIP formed in the EU Parliament.  Nikki signed this agreement but later felt that she couldn't remain in a group that contained parties that had values she was opposed to - homophobia, anti-semitism, etc. - and resigned from the group.

The views on this amongst the membership are varied - some believe that she signed an agreement to join a group, received support from the party as a result and should stick to that agreement whilst others believe she is making a principled stand and should be allowed to leave the group.  From what I've seen, the internet activists lean more towards the latter, whilst the member on the street seems to lean more towards the former.  Why this should be the case I don't know, I'm sure a psychologist could explain.

There is usually a fall-back position for Councillors, MPs or MEPs that have had the party whip withdrawn but haven't been expelled from their party in that they would describe themselves as "Independent UKIP" but that doesn't appear to be an option for Nikki as she's been told to stop using the UKIP name even though she remains a UKIP member.

As things stand at the moment we as members don't know the full story.  We have rumours and conflicting stories from both camps but what we don't have is an understanding of exactly what is going on here.  Resigning from the EFD group clearly isn't the only reason for the actions of the NEC - that's like cracking a walnut with a sledge hammer - so there must be more to it and until this is all done and dusted we aren't going to find out what's going on.

On one hand we must have faith in Lord Pearson and the NEC who we elected to lead the party but we must also question their decisions when it is clear that it is driving a wedge in the membership.  If Nikki has been, in effect, suspended from UKIP then we as members should at least be given clarification on her status and when details will be available.  Leaving the rumour mill and anti-UKIP trolls like Junius and Greg Limp-Wrist to fill the void will make matters worse.

Clearly we can't expect details because it's an ongoing (disciplinary?) matter but vagueness encourages rumour and discontent and with a general election looming, the last thing we need to be doing is fighting each other instead of the europhile establishment.

I would also suggest that the NEC and Nikki both stop airing their dirty linen in public.  If the matter is too private for members to know what's going on, we shouldn't be reading snippets in the newspapers.

Leafleting in Shifnal

Former NEC member, MEP-in-waiting and UKIP parish councillor, Jill Seymour, is standing in the upcoming by-election for the Shifnal Rural ward.

A leafleting session has been arranged for today and members from all over the West Midlands euroregion will be in Shifnal to help out.  If you are at a loose end today, feel free to come along (I'll be there).

The meeting point is the car park behind the Co-op on Shifnal High Street.  Meeting time is 11:30am and maps will be provided.  For a map of the location, click here.

Rushmoor Borough Cllr Joins UKIP

Yet another Tory Cllr has joined UKIP .Edward Poole an Aldershot Cllr and has joined UKIP. Mr Poole was interviewed on Meridan News (ITV) at 11am this morning about his defection. I will, if possible put a link up later.

UKIP's Godfrey Bloom on Alex Jones Show Jan 2010

UKIP's Godfrey bloom talks to Alex Jones about  global government, the EU's corpus juris, common law, global warming, QUANGOs, Common Purpose, bankers, swine flu and Gordon Brown - amongst other things.

Bloom described Gordon Brown as "a dysfunctional individual", to which Jones added "there's something wrong with that man", "he's some kind of freak"!

Alex says of UKIP, "these guys have really got it right". Well, there's an endorsement!

Wow!



Cross-posted

Why not ban the burkha?

So far there have been two opinions represented here on Bloggers4UKIP on the proposed ban on wearing the burkha in public - outright opposition to the policy and a more balanced view.  I'll offer the alternative opinion - support for the ban.

Let's start by putting this into perspective.  The burkha is not in the Koran.  It is no more a genuine religious tradition than gospel singers or gay vicars.

Go into a bank or a petrol station forecourt or even some shops and you'll see one of these:

It's obvious why - if you were going to rob a bank or a petrol station, a bike helmet with a blacked out or reflective visor is an excellent disguise.  So why is it wrong to see one of these?

It is believed that one of the key suspects for the 7/7 terrorist attack (a man) in London escaped the country wearing a burkha.  In Afghanistan and Iraq, our troops are putting their lives on the line every time the encounter a burkha wearer - is it a suicide bomber or not?  But not just in Afghanistan and Iraq: on the streets of our own cities you will find many people covered head to toe in a burkha - the perfect disguise for a suicide bomber.

Like it or not, since the IRA stopped bombing the mainland, the only terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks we have experienced have been down to muslims.

But it's not just the security risk, it's the social aspect as well.  It is essential that immigrants and the children of immigrants integrate with society rather than setting themselves aside from the rest of us by refusing to speak the language, refusing to associate with the "natives" and by covering themselves from head to toe.  All of these send out a very clear message - I am different, I am off limits.

If most people in this country don't want to see the burkha being worn on our streets then why should we have to see it?  It's not a genuine religious garment, there is nothing in the Koran to say that women have to wear it.  It is simply a lifestyle choice and not a matter of religious freedom.

It is not unreasonable to expect followers of an alien religion and culture to make an effort to integrate into society.  The burkha is a barrier to integration, it is anti-social and a security risk and if a majority of people in this country want it banned then who are we to say that is unacceptable?  Lord Pearson and Nigel Farage are responding to legitimate concerns about the burkha and the wider issue of Islamisation, something no other mainstream party will do.  Voters no longer have to choose the BNP if they want a party that will deal with immigration, overbearing political correctness and multiculturalism.

I am sure the burkha ban would be preceded by a referendum under the Swiss-style referenda policy that Lord Pearson announced as a key manifesto pledge and that it would actually be voters who decided with a UKIP government putting the case for the ban.

At the end of the day it's down to whether you think a minority of religious fanatics should be able to segregate themselves in public because of a fake tradition or whether the wishes of the majority are more important.

James Pryor joins UKIP as campaign co-ordinator

James Pryor has been appointed as UKIP's campaign co-ordinator.

Pryor was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister and like many Tories at the time, left the Conservative Party to join the fledgling Referendum Party.  And like so many Tories nowadays, has joined UKIP.

As a party we've cracked EU elections, the number of UKIP councillors is increasing almost on a weekly basis and we have two UKIP peers in the House of Lords but if we are ever going to leave this corrupt, hugely expensive and undemocratic European Empire we need to fight the LibLabCon from inside the House of Commons with UKIP MPs.  We can't rely on the electorate's distrust and disappointment with the LibLabCon to put UKIP MPs in Westminster, we have to fight a professional and sustained election campaign from now right up until the day of the election.

The general consensus is that the general election will be held on May 6th, allowing Labour to spend taxpayers money on their election campaign with a giveaway bonanza budget in April.  Pryor will be starting work on the election campaign straight away devising strategy and policy.

There's Nothing Liberal about Banning Symbols

Strongly opposed to the war in Iraq, frequently described as feminist and republican, the author Joan Smith, writing in The Independent today, does not come across as someone who would naturally have sympathy with UKIP’s burka ban policy.

However, Joan Smith acknowledges that the burka ‘limits women’s contact with non-relatives and maintains barriers between people who have different ethnic and religious backgrounds’ and that the garment signals a woman’s ‘deliberate separation from people unlike herself’. Smith points out that regardless of the woman's motive, whether it be family pressure, religious belief or political statement, the meaning of the burka remains the same: ‘separation, rejection, an acceptance of shame’. Thus she neatly concludes ‘wearing it in the 21st-century is preposterous’ but she concedes she would never support a ban.

A fellow feminist, who I believe would be more likely to support the ban is the Swiss, best-selling author of psychology books Julia Onken. Onken’s last minute email campaign was vital in swaying the vote of the recent Swiss referendum which banned the building of any further minarets in Switzerland. For Onken ‘the minarets are masculine symbols of power’. This has nothing to do with the minarets themselves but what they connote: a religion whose fundamentalist strands suppress women’s freedoms.

Many Swiss nationals were persuaded; the building of any future minarets was not voted against because they are an eye-sore, but because they represent a religion which has led to a perceived breakdown in social cohesion. Voting for the ban was making a statement.

If you overlook the genuine Islamophobes and racists, the desire of the Swiss people to ban minarets is very similar to the desire of UKIP’s leadership to ban burkas. Onken viewed the minarets as a symbol of Islamic patriarchy and this is just how Smith and Farage view the burka. Mr Farage said himself on The Politics Show that it is a ‘symbol of something that is used to oppress women’. Like the Swiss and minarets, Farage also views the burka as a symbol of the breakdown of social cohesion.

Mr Farage’s argument leads us into dangerous territory. Take the minaret example: Julia Onken attacked them because she saw no other way of expressing her views about extreme Islam. Surely It must be asked: why stop at minarets? By her own logic, if she had the chance, Onken would want to ban all the Islamic symbols in an attack on the religion's patriarchal nature, why not ban mosques, the Koran etc. And the exact same could be said of Farage’s line of argument. Why pick just the burka? Surely Mosques should be banned as they are spreading the doctrine of patriarchy and seclusion which he detests so much.

As any liberal will tell you tolerance and pluralism are the keystones to a free society. As Evlyn Beatrice Hall attributed Voltaire with writing: 'I detest what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. You might hate what is being worn but that gives you no right to ban it. If we believe the burka is inappropriate because it goes against our traditional British cultural values then so too must we ban that which is worn by Punks and Goths or the short skirts which our grandparents would of been shocked by in the 1950s.


Yes, let's encourage British culture in society, but forcing people to take part by restricting their liberty connotes fascist ideology (no surprise at all we're being linked with the BNP). Our Party would do well to concentrate on serious policy proposals in the regions of Foreign Affairs and Terrorism Legislation to deal with the real threats of Islamic extremism.

Swindon UKIP in Town Centre Push

Members of Swindon UKIP spent four hours in Swindon Centre handing out leaflets and collecting signatures from members of the public for the EU in/out petition

Branch Chairman Greg Heathcliffe, said, " Despite the cold and damp conditions we collected over 100 signatures and handed out a lot of leaflets. This was a good first time effort which will be repeated in the coming months. I would like to thank those members who gave up their time for this event."

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

Those who read the threads of the members forum will recall I sent this message to Lord P,

Why have you not made any comment on the terrible abuse of Nikki Sinclair by Nigel Farage and other senior party officials. Do you lead UKIP or not.

Nikki says you fully supported her decision to leave the EFD, if true, why have you not called a halt to the on going character assassination.

Name: Robert Feal-Martinez

Email: r.feal-martinez@btconnect.com

I have today received a reply which I cannot disclose other than to say the possibility of justice being done exists. I cannot say more than that at this time, in deference to a request in the email.

I am content at this time, but will report as soon as I am able to.

Veil of Ignorance: Burka's Is this a step too far.

Aside from the fact that once again a policy announcement has been made without any consultation with the membership, is this call to ban the Burka simply pandering to those who might just vote BNP. This is the question posed in a Times editorial. (click on title link.

I speak as a UKIP member who believes in fairness, tolerance and democracy. As someone who comes from a mixed race back ground, my father was Spanish, it was not easy growing up with the 'w*p', w*g, jibes but one learnt very early on that these reactions were from a base of ignorance. That said more about the adults /parents than of my peers, using the language.

I am British and I am proud to be so, many of us within the party warned that the agenda for UKIP would change were Lord Pearson of Rannoch to be elected Leader, given his somewhat ill thought out comments on Islam and Muslim women.

I do not believe that a total ban is the answer. I believe that anywhere where other forms of facial covering is deemed unacceptable, banks, building society, airports etc then it should only be right that the same applies to burka's.

I think that there is a lot to be said for this policy, were it not to be perceived as a political tool, as the Times article says,

"It is, ( I prefer to ask Is it) therefore, stirring racial discontent, for its own electoral benefit and this is reprehensible. Calling for withdrawal from the EU is respectable, if wrong-headed. Increasing fear and misunderstanding between communities is not."

I think in future we as front line members interacting with our peers will now find it just a touch more difficult to convince the public we are not the BNP in Blazers.

These are personal views as a member of UKIP and are not the necessarily the views of my branch.

Daily Politics & Nikki Sinclair

Congratulations go to Nikki who despite the aggression shown her by the presenter and allowing Ian Dale to have a go at her she got her point across. She named names where she was allowed. Pointing out how Lord Pearson had given his assurance that she could remain within UKIP, she called upon him to show leadership by making a statement.

As an aside I have still not received a reply to the email I sent him.

The Guardian Associate Editor agree with Nikki that the some of groups within EFD were very extremist.

All in all despite the clear BBC agenda to put her down. I believe she has shown her commitment to UKIP. What was interesting once again, is that the NEC has not followed party rules with the actions they have taken. Let's wait to see them spin this.

I've put the daily politics link in the header, the interview should appear there soon.

The Nikki Sinclair Affair

Those who visit this site on a regular basis will have seen two versions of one event posted here, which the Chairman of the NEC Paul Nuttall in his statement simply doe not refer to, indeed I have repeatedly asked Douglas Denny of the NEC and others including Christopher Gill's grandson for clarification of this visit to Nikki's office as clearly two 'reliable' sources have provided two different versions.

Paul Nuttall in his condemnation of Nikki Sinclair does not mention that 'the breach' referred to concerns the allegation made by Nigel Farage on National television. Nikki Sinclair states quite categorically that two of the most senior figures in the party were fully aware she was a discharged bankrupt. She named these as the Party Secretary Michael Zuckerman, who also doubles as the parties legal adviser, and Clive Page, the now former Chief Press Officer for the party and formally a close confident of Nigel Farage.

It is clear for those with an open mind Nikki Sinclair, after leaving the EFD group, and my only comment about that would be that we are told Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the party leader, who has kept silent on this, fully supported Nikki Sinclair in leaving, has been subjected to a witch hunt to justify her removal from the position of PPC, and the possible expulsion from the party.

This once again indicates that it matters not that a member of 16 years standing who has donated thousands of pounds to the party, who has been in very large part responsible for a huge rise in support for UKIP in her region, has had her reputation impugned by the former leader of the party Nigel Farage, for what many have said is his personal dislike of her.

I think it is important that both sides of this story be told.

Click on the link to Paul Nuttalls statement above.

This is Nikki's response.