A nation of animal lovers?

“Animal-loving” Brits are happy that their government – and, for that matter, the European Government – condones cruel slaughter of animals for human consumption.

Ritual slaughter for Jews and Muslims satisfies no actual need, just a whim. It’s called religion.

A “leading vet” has, according to the BBC, “criticised the ‘unacceptable’ rise in the number of animals killed in ritual slaughter”. I’d have thought the criticism would be of any ritual slaughter, given that the animal’s throat is slit while the creature is alive to witness its own final moments as it exsanguinates into a trough below its dangling body.

The criticism comes from Prof. Bill Reilly, former president of the British Veterinary Association, who said estimates suggested more animals were slaughtered than was necessary.

Than “was necessary”?

Sorry, but I fail to see how the fact that 99 animals were stunned before slitting can improve the experience of the one animal that has to witness its own painful demise.

Give the prof his due: he does say: “In my view, the current situation is not acceptable and, if we cannot eliminate non-stunning, we need to keep it to the minimum.

“This means restricting the use of halal and kosher meat to those communities that require it for their religious beliefs and, where possible, convincing them of the acceptability of the stunned alternatives.”

So at least he sees prestunning as a desired goal – but perhaps he and his colleagues should be shouting louder for ritual slaughter’s abolition.

Why, indeed, isn’t there a much bigger, widespread outcry about this? While some campaigners work assiduously to bring this horror to an end, most Brits are happy to tuck into their hamburgers, sausages and Sunday joints of meat – not to mention the growing range of chicken-based food items available on supermarket shelves – without asking whether the animal was prestunned.

And that calls for labelling of which foods have been killed ritually, which, as far as I am able to tell, stores are not legally bound to provide.

So, failing that, folks, go organic, because organic standards call for minimum welfare during an animal’s lifetime and deathtime. It costs a bit more, so eat less. Which is more important: the right of the animal to die more peacefully and pain-free or your desire to pile your plate with bigger burgers, more sausages and more slices of beef or lamb?

You can rule out pork from ritual slaughter, of course – so maybe go for that instead.

Poor, poor religion!

So religion is under threat from “militant secularisation”, is it? It’s being “sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere”, according to the Conservative co-chair Baroness Warsi, in an article in the Daily Telegraph.

This Muslim peer is off to La-La Land – sorry, the Vatican – to give a speech there. I bet she’s happy to be meeting the Pope, coming, as she does, from a religion that eschews any other religion and considers all but Muslims to be infidels.

But what’s this nonsense about religion being under threat? How? Well, obviously, she means its special status is under threat. Secularism is no threat to religion itself. It just wants to see it kicked out of privileged positions.

The only threat to religion is that it’s had its day and is in its death throes in many areas, because people don’t believe the fairy stories. So don’t worry your pretty little head about it, dearie. Go and find another plaything.

She says in her Telegraph piece: “I will be arguing [in the Vatican meeting] that to create a more just society, people need to feel stronger in their religious identities and more confident in their creeds.”

Illogical. That implies that, without religion, society cannot become more just.

Try taking from society the rampant capitalism you and your party and every other mainstream party espouse to the detriment of ordinary people and a just society, and you might just get that just society.

She gives examples of what she calls “militant secularisation”: “when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won’t fund faith schools; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere”.

But that’s just putting religion in its place, dear. Why should religious schools be funded by the taxpayer? Why should government buildings favour one religion over another in what they display for all visitors to see?

As for what people are allowed to wear, this seems to vary from one situation to another. A nurse was told a couple of years ago to remove a cross or crucifix hanging from her neck by a chain. It wasn’t because it was a religions symbol but because it could represent a danger if a desperate patient made a grab for it during a sudden spasm or movement. There are dress codes in some jobs, and it wouldn’t just be a Christian cross or an Islamic crescent (do they wear that sort of thing?) that would be banned, but any form of bling pinned to one’s dress or jacket.

Nope. It’s just the same old bleatings of religionists with an axe to grind. Poor ickle “faiths”! Are the big bully-wullies of secularism defeating them with rational argument, then? Aw, diddums!

It’s time these people got a life. If they exerted half as much energy to make the world a better place as they do trying to push fantasy into the mainstream, they might earn their huge salaries and expense accounts.

Political correctness and censorship

Oh, dear, it’s time for oversensitivity again. Mo (sorry, Mohammed, pbuh) is depicted with a pint of beer in his hand, so politically correct students get all pompous and silly about it.

I refer to the excellent cartoon series Jesus and Mo, which appears monthly in the Freethinker, has become at least two books, and is to be found online. Your humble blogger has an RSS feed, so he misses not one frame.

Those seeming to be offended are the students’ union at University College London (UCL), the first secular university in Britain.

“UCL was founded in 1826 as a secular alternative to the strictly religious universities of Oxford and Cambridge,” says the National Secular Society in the link above, “despite strong opposition from the Church of England. It was the first higher education institution in England to accept students of any race or religious or political belief and was christened by Thomas Arnold ‘that Godless institution in Gower Street’. It is therefore particularly important to support and defend the right to freedom of expression without religious interference and to make a clear distinction between illegal attacks on individuals because of their religion and ‘offence’ used as a means to stifle this freedom.”

Perhaps anyone choosing to be offended by this ought to see the entire series and engage with the often philosophical conversations that occur among Jesus, Mo(hammed) and the barmaid in the Cock & Bull (with occasional contributions from another Mo, Moses).

See also the Freethinker take on the story here, and sign the petition here.
 _____________
UPDATE: I'm glad to see that the students' union has now backed off. A victory for free speech!

Out of Africa: homophobia – and religion is behind it

Leo Igwe gets everywhere – and deserves to do so. Fresh from a long article in the new Pink Humanist, he has now appeared in Digital Journal, the Toronto-based online news source.

He’s a brave campaigner indeed, and he’s convinced – according to this article – that religion is behind most of the hatred of gays that comes out of Africa.

“I would say religion is behind most, not all of the homophobia coming out of Africa,” he says “Religion permeates all aspects of mainstream social, moral and cultural thought.

“Most homophobes use religion as a basis, as a justification of their hatred and antagonism. I have also encountered non religious Africans who are homophobic and they base their homophobia on what they claim to be the unnaturality of homosexuality.”

Barbarism in Nigeria

The UK gay humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust – owner of this blog and a member of the International Humanist and Ethical Union – has expressed its dismay and outrage at the news that Nigeria’s Senate has voted in favour of a bill that will criminalise gay marriage, gay advocacy groups and same-sex public displays of affection.

It will make it illegal to register gay clubs or organisations, as well as criminalising the “public show of same-sex amorous relationships directly or indirectly”. Under the proposed law, couples who marry could face up to 14 years each in prison. Witnesses or anyone who helps couples marry could be sentenced to 10 years behind bars.

The bill, now much more wide-ranging than its initial draft, must be passed by Nigeria’s House of Representatives and signed by President Goodluck Jonathan before becoming law. However, public opinion and lawmakers’ calls for even harsher penalties show the widespread support for the measure in the deeply religious nation.

“Such elements in society should be killed,” said Sen. Baba-Ahmed Yusuf Datti of the opposition party Congress for Progressive Change, drawing some murmurs of support from the gallery.

Gay sex has been banned since British colonial rule in Nigeria, but religious leaders in the country have long pushed for harsher penalties for homosexuality and supporters of gay men and women.

In September 2011 the Anglican Primate of Nigeria called gays and lesbians “evil” at the wedding of tribal royal Princess Ewere Efeizomor, telling the room that God had created women as a “helpmates” for men.”

What is being known now as gay and homosexuality is contrary to God’s plan for human sexuality and procreation,” the Most Reverend Nicholas Okoh said. It is against the will of God, and nobody should encourage it, and those who do will earn for themselves the damnation of the Almighty.”

Commenting on this development the PTT’s secretary George Broadhead said: “Gays and lesbians already face open discrimination and abuse in a country divided by Christians and Muslims who almost uniformly oppose homosexuality. In the areas in Nigeria’s north, where Islamic Sharia Law has been enforced for about a decade, gays and lesbians can face death by stoning.

“It seems that there is a very real threat that this barbaric bill will become law and if it does, Nigeria will become the most homophobic nation in Africa. Even in South Africa, the one country where gays can marry, lesbians have been brutally attacked and murdered.

“If the bill is legalised, the situation for LGBT people in Nigeria will become completely untenable and set a precedent that would threaten all Nigerians’ rights to privacy, equality, free expression and association.

“It is clear that the impetus for such legislation has come from religious sources, and the Nigerian Humanist Movement (NHM), which has had financial support from the PTT, has been one of the few heterosexual institutions defending LGBT rights in the county. Its executive director, Leo Igwe, deserves much credit for courageously speaking up for their rights in the country’s parliament.”

Aussies are becoming Muslims, MP claims

An Australian MP reckons Aussies are being turned into Muslims because they’re unwittingly eating cruelly slaughtered meat.

Oh, Muslims call it halal, which means acceptable to their religion – a religion that clearly favours cruelly dispatched animals unless, as is allowed by some Muslims, prestunning is employed. But the rest of us call it animal cruelty.

The Aussies aren’t exactly being turned into Muslims, but I see what he means. He reckons it’s a step on the way.

“By having Australians unwittingly eating Halal food we are all one step down the path towards the conversion, and that is a step we should only make with full knowledge and one that should not be imposed upon us without us knowing,” Luke Simpkins has said.

He has a point, just as we do in the UK, where we may be eating meat whose slaughter we’d be ethically opposed to, and would reject that meat in favour of prestunned if we did but know.

How many schoolkids are being fed this stuff, because it’s deemed to make more economic sense to buy in meat from one supplier?

I don’t say people should not be able to follow the customs of their religion, but that goes only as far as not imposing suffering on others – including animals, which are stressed enough in livestock markets and abattoirs without having their throats slit while they’re still conscious. And, of course, it shouldn’t be imposed on those of us who reject this barbarism.

But will government do anything about it? How do you know when you buy beef or lamb in a supermarket that it hasn’t had its throat slit while conscious?

There needs to be clear labelling, but preferably a ban on the practice altogether. If they don’t want to eat meat that’s prestunned, they can always go veggie.

See also “Let them eat hake”.

Believers or “believers”?

“I had a very difficult time following a so-called religion whose founder and followers had butchered my ancestors, raped and sold our women, burned our libraries, and destroyed our magnificent culture. Islam was forced down the throats of Iranians with the sword of Allah. In my heart, I never considered myself a Muslim. However, I didn’t reveal this until later in life for fear of retribution by radical Muslims.”

Thus writes Amil Imani in International Analyst Network.

What makes this statement more remarkable is that he was brought up in an Islamic family. “I never embraced Islam in the first place, although I was born and raised in a Muslim family,” he writes.

He has a go at sharia law, saying, “Sharia law stipulates that any Muslim who turns his back on Islam should be given a chance to revert to the faith. For an unrepentant male apostate, death is the proscribed punishment and life imprisonment for the female apostate.”

And this points up the sheer illogicality of it all. How can you force someone to believe something? They either believe or don’t. Belief is not a voluntary action: it’s entirely involuntary, like your heartbeat.

It also insults the religion, if these bozos who insist on blind faith could only see it. If someone is being coerced into “revert[ing] to the faith”, they will outwardly embrace the tenets without believing in them. They’ll never be able to tell anyone, for fear of punishment. But the fact remains: they are pretending to believe. So how many Muslims – and those of other belief systems where coercion is a factor – are thought to believe in their hocus-pocus while not doing so?

Far better, surely, to have a believer who is literally that, rather than a “believer” you have to put quote marks around.

And all of this prompts the question: how many true believers are there? As many as they like to claim? Obviously not, if many of them are “believers” under duress.

Why secularists make Christians angry (and vice versa)

A report from Premier Christian Media is highlighting how Christians feel more persecuted. The rise of secularism is one thing that is blamed for this.

But it’s cause and effect. If Christians (and other religions, notably Islam) didn’t make ridiculous demands, secularists would be less vocal. It becomes a game of ping-pong, with each side trying to hit the ball harder each time it comes to its end of the table.

If secularists complain that there’s too much religion on TV, say, that’s probably because there is (disproportionately so), and the BBC and other broadcasters are guilty of kowtowing to these beliefs, instead of – as I’m sure would be quite acceptable – making interesting programmes about religion to enable us to increase our knowledge, just as we might seek to increase our knowledge of cooking by watching Jamie Oliver. (No, scrub that. TV cooking is just a spectator sport for morons, but I digress.)

I’m not saying secularists are always right – and often one wishes they’d stick to secularism if that is their only remit, and stop pontificating on spiritual matters or issues of ontology and theology. After all, secularism is just a case of wishing to chuck the churches and other religious organisations out of public decision making and put them on a level playing field with any other group that seeks the ear of those in power.

If secularists have “humanist” in their name, then that’s a different matter, because the term “humanism” seems to have such a wide scope that it invites its devotees to say just about anything. However, not all humanists are as freethinking as they like to make out, and some so-called freethinkers can be quite dogmatic, as a glance at the letters pages of the Freethinker will confirm.

But, on the whole, secularists pure and simple or secularists who are humanists, rationalists and/or freethinkers have the moral high ground as far as this humble blogger is concerned. Religion is a huge power game, and should be put in its place. It’s far removed from the simple sets of beliefs that probably gave rise to it. Spirituality is a personal thing, as is belief in gods and other supernatural agencies.

Most secularists would argue that people should be allowed to enjoy their beliefs, practise their rituals, celebrate their festivals, honour their deities – as long as they don’t wish (a) to push it all down everyone’s throat or (b) to restrict others’ freedom, either to have religious beliefs or not to have religious beliefs.

And that, if anything, is the strongest case for keeping religion in the private sphere. I’m sure few people object to a bit of sentimental hokum at Christmas, say. I for one like the sound of carols, and the odd crib scene in a town centre doesn’t send me into a vapour; church bells can be pleasing to the ear, provided they don’t keep one awake or frighten the horses. Christianity was here a long time before it began to decline, and it’s informed much of our culture.

If I saw a harmless display celebrating Diwali, say, I’d think the same.

But religionists who shout and throw their toys out of the pram can turn mild secularists into raging, uncompromising fanatics, complete with pitchforks and torches.

Sense-of-humour bypass

Police say the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo have been destroyed by a petrol bomb.

According to the BBC, “It comes a day after the publication named the Prophet Muhammad as its ‘editor-in-chief’ for its next issue.”

The magazine has been in trouble before over Islam – notably the question of the Danish cartoons. But it’s back to the question of freedom of speech, isn’t it, which we were discussing (well I was discussing) in the last post?

But that’s something that humourless Muslims don’t believe in. Oh, I’m sure they’re not all like that, but the ones that get the ear of the media clearly are, those who set themselves up as self-appointed “leaders” of the Muslim “community”.

So go to the BBC story and read it, so that efforts to gag are to some extent, at least, thwarted. Anyway, it has some rather amusing bits by way of explanation, such as:

“The edition of the paper which was being published on Wednesday was called Charia Hebdo – a play on the Islamic word sharia.

“The cover shows Muhammad saying: ‘100 lashes if you are not dying of laughter’. “Inside there is an editorial, attributed to the Prophet, and more cartoons – one showing the Prophet Muhammad with a clown's red nose.”

The story then adds: “Depiction of the Prophet is strictly prohibited in Islam.” Prohibited in Islam. Note the preposition here. It’s not prohibited outside Islam, last I heard.

First to suffer under Muslim rule? Muslims!

Whether it’s gays or women, the first and primary victims of the medieval “law” they call sharia are Muslims.

As this story in The Australian points out – citing the UK and Canada – sharia threatens all that Muslim women activists have fought for.

“Many aspects of these laws are unpalatable to a society that has enforced equal rights for divorce, custody, inheritance and court testimony, and criminalised polygamy and forced, under-age marriage,” says the writer, Ada Lichter.

“Moreover, the experience with sharia in Britain and Canada is cautionary. It is estimated thousands of British Muslim men have taken advantage of a loophole in the law against bigamy to avoid official registration and seal polygamous marriages in mosque ceremonies.”

She goes on to quote a British think tank: “According to a report by British think tank Civitas in 2009, some rulings of sharia courts or tribunals advised illegal actions and others were incompatible with British law. Try these: polygamous marriage (two to four wives) is considered legal; there is no requirement to register a marriage according to the law of the country; a woman cannot marry without the presence (and permission) of a male guardian; a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent; a woman may not retain custody of her child after seven (for a boy) or nine (for a girl); and ‘severe punishments for homosexuals’ are recommended.”

We know not all Muslims wish to impose these barbarisms, but the fact that enough do, and that many of those are vocal and become self-appointed “community leaders” and often have the ear of government and other authorities, is worrying.

Mosque in homophobia row

There's a bit of a row going on in London over a mosque that's said to keep breaking its promises when it says it won't host homophobic speakers.

Gay campaigners, including Peter Tatchell, are raging about it; Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph is raging about it, and the mosque says other groups, such as Christians, are anti-gay, too.

You can read all about it here.

Wilders acquitted

“Far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been acquitted by a court in Amsterdam where he was on trial for inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims,” reports the Muslim TV outlet Al Jazeera.

His statements, said the judge, were “rude and condescending”, but didn’t amount to criminal activity.

Wilders was hauled before the court for “inciting hatred”. So now, perhaps, it will be possible to speak objectively about religious ideologies without attracting the touchy-feely brigade.

Burning issue

Well, things have reached a pretty pass when you can’t burn a bit of rubbish in your back garden for fear that a left-leaning Sunday newspaper will grass on you in its zeal for political correctness.

It happened to British National Party candidate Sion Owens – who is standing in the Welsh Assembly elections next month – when the Observer shopped him, apparently, after receiving a leaked video of him burning a copy of the Koran.

Not many people – this blogger included – have much positive to say about the BNP, but it comes down to freedom of expression.

And, yes, no one can forget what happened in Afghanistan after Pastor Terry Jones of Florida presided over the burning of a copy of the Koran last month. However, the killings were not Jones’s fault, any more than similar atrocities – if they happen – will be the fault of this BNP thug.

Owens had the case against him dropped. The BNP says on its website that the police have realised that you can’t make a racial-hatred case – as it says they were doing to do – if Islam isn’t a race. True.

And what Owens did was provocative, and no doubt he’s chuffed to bits that his party is getting publicity out of his act. He’s probably chuffed to bits, too, that he’ll have achieved his fifteen minutes of notoriety.

And, no, I will not say he shouldn’t have done it, any more than I’d say Pastor Terry Jones shouldn’t have presided over a Koran-burning incident in March. All I’d say is: is there a real need to?

If you didn’t feel the need to do it in the first place, you couldn’t be accused of self-censorship by then not doing it, any more than I am guilty of self-censorship by not burning a copy of the Koran or a bible.

I just don’t see the need, think it would be futile and can’t be arsed to do it.

Is barmy pastor to blame for barmy Islamists’ murders?

Pastor Terry Jones is that chap who threatened to burn a copy of the Koran last year, decided against it (after some pressure, it has to be said) and then, last month, presided over a burning of it, anyway.

But should he be condemned for the violence that resulted on 1 April in Afghanistan, caused by people who don’t like his sentiments or that he presided over the burning of some sheets of paper – as if they were the only sheets left containing historic scripture?

Nope.

Digital Journal has a longish think piece on it, discussing the New York Post’s barmy idea that Jones has blood on his hands and a Telegraph piece by Brendan O’Neill (editor of Spiked), which says he doesn’t.

It's child abuse! Children AS YOUNG AS 4 to be 'educated' in atheism! What is the world coming to?

Yes, it's a long headline above, and reflects this blogger's pissed-off-ness with the likes of the Daily Hate (sorry, Mail – old habits die hard).

Its headline screams: CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS FOUR TO BE EDUCATED IN ATHEISM.

What is really happening is that humanism will be incorporated into religious education in primary schools in Blackburn with Darwen, Lancashire (in the north of England), to accompany the religions that are there: Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, Buddhism and Islam. So kids will be told that certain religions exist, and this is what they say, and that there are people who don't do religion, and this is what they say.

Simple and, if you're going to teach religion at all, sensible. Religions can then be put into a context: that there are people who have no religion and there are people who have.

But it's not just the Mail's take: it's also lousy journalism. A Mail hack knows he can get away with the utmost shit if it leads to a screaming headline with some sensationalism in it, manufactured though that sensationalism is in this case.

So he gets brownie points.

However, if you read on you realise it's a story that comes down in favour of humanism and the new bit of the curriculum. There's even a priest quoted:

Reverend Kevin Logan, a local journalist, author and religious community leader, said: "It is quite a change but it is completely right to recognise atheism and humanism.

"They are religions like any others. It is just that people worship man instead of a god.

"I am certainly not worried about Christianity. It can stand against any belief and come out in a good light."

And others quoted in the story come out in favour of a more sensible approach, too. So why do the headline (which is down to the subeditor, usually, not the writer) and the intro make out it's a crime against humanity to teach kids as young as four about atheism?

And nowhere, you'll note, does it venture to suggest that it's perhaps more dangerous to teach kids as young as four about religion, rather than leaving that till later in their school lives, when they are better able to offer critical judgement.

Muslims' hate posters in London's East End

Kids going to school in London's East End are being treated to hate posters near their school, declaring "Gay Free zone". Charming!

We assume it's the work of Islamic extremists, because the posters add, "Allah is severe in punishment".

"They appeared across Whitechapel and Spitalfields at the weekend—some even believed to be targeted at school children," says the East London Advertiser, linked to above.

"Most have now been have torn down by a community writer and activist who has had to keep his identity secret because of previous death threats."

All gays were abused as children, shock, horror!

So, if you are gay you were abused as a child. Hmm.

But you can see what sort of idiotic pillock came up with that one when you see later in the Daily Mail story linked to above that he thinks anyone who leaves Islam should be jailed.

It’s OK to rape your wife

So it should not be considered a crime if a husband rapes his wife, eh? This is the opinion of some Sharia Council chap here in the UK.

The link above is to Digital Journal, where a few people in the comments section below aren’t too pleased, either. One commenter says, “Three words. THROW. HIM. OUT.”

Are you getting cruelly killed meat? Perhaps you won’t be told!

“Britain goes halal . . . but no-one tells the public: How famous institutions serve ritually slaughtered meat with no warning”, says a Mail headline.

Yes, it’s really quite disgusting. It’s a longish piece, but interesting. And it’s also rather disturbing that some places that sell halal and kosher (i.e. cruelly killed) meat as a matter of course don’t see the need to tell their customers.

Tick-tock-tick-tock

Tick-Tock Muhammad: something
else to get Muslims jumping

We’ve all seen the “Turbomb” picture – the one that was published (among others) a few years ago by the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten and upset Muslims so much that they started killing people. Now there’s a new take on it.

The ESHE streetware clothing company in Australia has produced a series of images, including the T-shirt you see here (called “Tick-Tock Muhammad”), one called “Pedo Pope” and some wallpaper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.