Bloggers like me say an awful lot of dumb things. Hey, we have to write very often so it’s inevitable. You mix a low i.q. like mine with a busy life with five kids, and work, you get a guy who’s not big into self editing.

So most people expect me to say dumb things. And I give a wide berth to people who say dumb things.

But sometimes someone of actual import says something really really incredibly stupid and I find myself just having to point and mock. I know I’m busy but there’s always time for pointing and mocking, isn’t there?

Britain’s Lord Toulson, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom said, “Religion should not be confined to religions which recognise a supreme deity…”

Huh?

This is so much like the argument about marriage. There is an attempt to make the institutions meaningless by making the words themselves meaningless. The interesting thing going on is that they’re not attempting to stamp out religion outright but making the word meaningless through inclusivity.

Ask someone who’s a supporter of same-sex marriage how they define marriage and they usually either can’t or won’t. Because any definition they come up with will have to be defended. So is polygamy allowed? No? Why not? Who are you to limit marriage? Incestuous marriage? Why not?

So now, there’s no limit on what a religion can mean? None? It’s a bunch of people who hold similar beliefs. (Heh, you could actually argue that Catholics wouldn’t fit under that definition.) So you expand the meaning into meaninglessness. Then you argue whether it’s appropriate that these organizations have special rights or tax provisions.

So maybe what lord whosiwhatsy said wasn’t dumb at all. Just the next step in the strategy. He’s just the first out of the clown car.

*subhead*Clown.*subhead*