And what would you have prefered the increased media coverage to be aimed at: the Royal Wedding? The Grand National?

The death of such a religious protagonist will be mourned, or at least recognized by many, as would the death of say, Tony Blair, however, there, I would definately draw the line at canonization.

But I digress; what I beleive is thus: that a man of such prominence within the world should be mourned, and with positivity, as he was hardly a monster, traditionalism and religion are funny subjects, they stem from old traditions (hence, obviously, the name). Traditions such as the ‘stereotypical male and female roles’, whether he was indeed a propogator of aids can be questioned upon, however he was simply doing as his religion instucted, and cathlocism, although morally wrong, does frown upon the use of contraception.

The writing of Toynbee was an interesting read, but it angered me to see her reference to lenin in such a way; in fact Lenin was gripped by the civil way of the early 1920s and years before, between the socialist Red Army, and the White army, the monarchists. Monarchists infact helped by Britain and the United states, without which the White Army would have been crushed much earlier, with less deaths, which she blames on Lenin.

It is not that I beleive that Toynbee was infact wrong, just that perhaps the choice of Russian leader was a bit ‘skew-whiff’, and that Losif Vissarionovich Stalin might perhaps have been the better choice.

Respectfully,

Joe Wright

Thanks for this.

A man who gave so many people faith should be honoured, perhaps even canonized, atheist as I am I thus beleive he should be respected as the next man who can do such a thing, and I know not of anyone like that.

Do you?