www.owohrod.com.

'Why is she sad', asked the delusional spouse of the now dead British Jihad, through interpretor sitting beside the latter's grieving mother?  The spouse having previously declared her happiness that her late husband - clearly a preferred state of being for the innocents whose lives he would have taken, had he lived - was now in heaven (god knows which heaven she was referring to .  Her apparent surprised that the mother of this man, who had done her such terrible dishonour and disgraced his family and country, should not be praising the Jihadi's God - who reasonably humans would see as the proverbial Devil - seemed palpable.  The Jihadi's wife could not appreciate the understandably ambivalent state the mother had, of feeling both grief for having lost her son to death, and relief that he is no longer around to slaughter and oppress innocent humans. Although, arguably, she had lost her son from the day he fell victim to the unbelievably delusional and

Life is, as most of us humans should or will know, is a journey. A journey over which most of us will have some influence over the means and experiences we have in making it.  Which, of course, is somewhat dependent on our time upon the earth and our age and capacities. How well we make this journey will be influenced by our perceptions and our expectations.  With our perceptions being dependent on how we tend to see ourselves, others and the the world. Broadly speaking, as it were, the  more flexible our thinking and thought processes, the better our experiences are likely to be.  Since our expectations will also, ipso facto, not be too rigid, and therefore allow us more flexibility to find common ground with others and their views. Our discourse with others will tend to be more on and adult to adult level, than on a parent to adult or parent to child level. We will be more receptive to the view points of others.  Be more likely to be saying, mm, that is an interesti

Birds having fun feeding, before it is all gone. Please take a look, if you will, and, enjoy the moments of others experiencing happiness.

For thousands of years, humans, first the priests, shaman, and the clergy, and then the ordinary people, have sought to speak with the gods, and then for the gods.  Always being secure in the knowledge that the gods would not denounce what they have reported of these conversations. So, why have the gods remained silent? Why have the gods chosen not to speak for themselves? T.: So, G. What does the above tells us about the relationship between you and humans?  What does it tells us about why humans, early humans, felt the need to, according to the humanists and the evolutionists, create you?  What need did they have for doing so, and what need do contemporary humans have for the continuation of this very asymmetrical relationship?  A relationship in which only one of the parties is able to speak, to have a voice, while the other is completely reliant on the other to speak on their behalf? Yes, G., we have already covered much of this ground. Having considered

It is only natural that us humans, at least, the more aspiring of us, should yearn to continue to improve our condition.  Our economic, social, spiritual and personal status. That, if we are not happy, we should have the desire to become happy, and, if we are happy, that we might desire to become happier.  And when we are happy, the we in us, should desire that this happiness, this freedom from poverty and want, should be shared with our fellow citizens; our compatriots. But how we go about trying to attain this freedom from poverty and want. When the quest for this greater freedom can be a very fraught journey?  And, if we are not careful, or not sufficiently vigilant, we might actually lose what we already have.  Here, the analogy of the 'dog with the bone crossing the bridge over the river', comes to mind.  The dog holds his very real bone in his mouth, but, upon perceiving the bigger bone in the water, which was no more than a shadow of his bone.  He

Please take a look at this video, of people enjoying the lovely attractions and views at Bournemouth!

In the unequal relationship between a traditional or orthodox Muslim man and a Muslim woman. The man can simply utter the dreaded and probably petrifying words, after having married the woman, 'I divorce you', 'I divorce you', I divorce you', to the woman. And that can bring an end to their marriage, and, for the woman living in a misogynistic world which is geared up to serve the man's and the family's interests, primarily, the end to her world. For a Muslim women living in the West, or other secular parts of the world. Where she is accorded equal rights and has not been denied the right to be able to avail herself of education, and have a career.  She might be in a position to tell her husband where to get off with his Talaq,Talaq, Talaq! A she might welcome the decision. Whereas in the West, Muslim women are likely to have recourse to a secular judicial system to resolve disputes, involving or arising from from marital relationship. 

It would appear that India's Supreme Court has either been taken over by the spirit of 'Islamic State' like evil, or have lost its head.  It seems that India's Supreme Justice's have, for reasons which are not yet quite clear, have decided to piss on jurisprudence, and replace it with bad old religious and communal bigotry. 70 years after the nation's independence from Britain, the mother of parliamentary democracy, and we still have India's Supreme Court deciding that a woman and man from different religious affiliations cannot get married.  That an adult woman is not capable of making that most crucial of decisions which they have a right to make; that of which man they should marry, unless it is a man who belongs to her religious and ethnic background.  For prudence sake, how can this be? Has India's Supreme Court been taken over by Hindu Jihadists? Has its Judges loss their jurisprudence? India was beset with  terrible in