Never let it be said that we don't report good news from religious circles. We're happy to announce that the largest Catholic adoption agency in England and Wales, the Catholic Children's Society, have said they will implement an adoption policy that won't discriminate against gay couples.
They seem at pains, however, to stress that the criteria for being able to adopt are still going to be tough. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that, should a same-sex couple make the grade and tick all the right boxes, they will be allowed to adopt, and that this is not just a way of remaining within Britain's Sexual Orientation Regulations, which would forbid discrimination, while not actually allowing a gay couple to adopt.
The Catholic News Agency tells us that the decision, "made by the Catholic Children’s Society of Arundel and Brighton, Portsmouth and Southwark (A&BSP) means the society will not turn away any homosexual couples who present themselves as potential adopters".
Terry Connor, the society's chief executive, has said that such a course offered the "only transparent, straightforward and guaranteed way of preserving our full range of much-needed services for some of the most vulnerable children in the country".
But he says that, should a same-sex couple come along merely to test the system, they would not get very far. "We do not know whether we will actually be asked to consider same-sex couples for the placing of children because, statistically, very few same-sex couples go for adoption anyway.
"We have to give an interview to same-sex couples asking to be considered for adoption. But we are not anticipating we are going to get lots of same-sex couples. It is much more likely that they will go to their local authority because it is the local authority which makes decisions about matching children with approved adopters, not the society.
"We need to make it very clear that the assessment of any adopters is very thorough. It is not about finding children for adults, but it is about finding families for very difficult children.”
Which sounds a bit like "You'd be better off going somewhere else" – but, as I say, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Monday, 28 July 2008
"Nazi" or not, a sex kink is OK
So, Max Mosley, the son of the former Blackshirt leader, Oswald Mosley, has won the right, in principle, for everyone to have a private sex life. As Mr Justice Eady's summing up made clear at the High Court in the case against the News of the World newspaper, there was no evidence of a "Nazi" theme during the five hour SM bondage orgy indulged in by Max Mosley and five so-called "hookers". But so what if there had been? It strikes me (no pun intended), that whatever goes on privately behind locked doors, between informed consenting adults – even public figures – it is solely a matter for them, unless it has a direct bearing on their public role.
As the Operation Spanner boys maintain, sado-masochists have every right to privacy and freedom, even if they do want to be tied up, slapped, whipped, or have steel bolts driven through their scrotums. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but the key words here are "private", "consent" and "adults". Since the ruling – an all too rare example of European Human Rights Laws leading to a sensible legal outcome – the News of the World and others, like former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie, have been squealing about "press freedom", claiming that by curbing its prurient intrusions into the bedrooms (or private torture chambers) of public figures, the court has dealt a death-blow to our democratic freedoms, or at least those who valiantly seek to defend them.
Of course, this is complete eye-wash. Modern red-top newspapers cannot legitimately claim to be part of the noble "Fourth Estate" that seeks to defend freedom, democracy and truth in this country. They are produced to entertain people and deliver huge readerships to capitalists in exchange for their advertising revenue. Not only are these papers full of bingo, celebrity nonsense, sport and pictures of topless girls, even their news stories are written to a strict "info-tainment" formula, often being compared to the scripts from Hollywood films (stories about "Home Alone" kids, for example, or "Rambo" gun killers on the loose).
Although Judge Eady, presiding over the case, accepted that the News of the World genuinely believed there was a Nazi theme to all the shenanigans (hence his decision not to grant exemplary – i.e. punitive – damages against the paper), the gross intrusion into Max Mosley's private life and its false allegations of a "sick" Nazi theme to all the spanking and wanking had little to do with lofty notions about the public interest, it was just a cynical ploy designed to sell more newspapers. It insults our intelligence to pretend otherwise.
Ironically, the News of the World's Nazi orgy story relied on exactly the same kind of furtive frisson amongst its readership that Mr Mosley was falsely alleged to be guilty of. Publishers of history books and the kind of penny dreadful thrillers you see in airport bookshops will tell you that a swastika on the cover can send sales skyrocketing. However much we may fear or loathe it, Nazism, or rather, the Nazi aesthetic, still holds a fascination and allure for many people, all the more potent for its transgressive and forbidden qualities. Why should this be?
Because of the evils perpetrated by the Nazi regime it is inevitable that powerful feelings surround any Nazi cultural artefacts (the flags, the songs, the posters and so on). The Bolsheviks had already learned how to manipulate modern media for political ends by the time Hitler rose to power, but the Nazis were even more skilled in creating a strong, dynamic and alluring aesthetic. The mass rallies and night-time rituals of allegiance, the uniforms, the strict discipline and hierarchy, the military music, phallic salutes and shrill speeches – all brilliantly committed to film by Leni Riefenstahl - were designed to attract, inspire and brain-wash. After the humiliations and privations of the 1920s, it is hardly surprising that a whole generation of Germans, particularly German men (at whom the bulk of this propaganda was directed), responded to the Nazis' clarion call to build a newly virile and conquering Fatherland.
Mercifully, Nazism was eventually defeated, both militarily and politically, but that doesn't mean that its artefacts, or its overall aesthetic, have lost their power to enthrall. As I have already mentioned, for many there is still a furtive frisson in flirting with the Nazi aesthetic which is all the more potent for its transgressive and forbidden qualities (certain songs and images are still banned in Germany and Austria, for example). And where transgression and the forbidden exist, sexual fetishism is never too far behind. The Nazi propaganda machine's appeal to sadism and masochism, together with its barely concealed homoeroticism, means that the Nazi aesthetic inevitably pervades a sub-strata of the gay leather and SM scene, occasionally spilling over into the straight sex scene too (mostly in the commercial sector, i.e. prostitution). Anyone in a leather coat or tall boots is bound to attract their fair share of drooling admirers and there's no denying that the black SS uniforms manufactured by the Hugo Boss company were hot – they were purposely designed to flatter the masculine physique and emphasise male power.
This need not concern us too much. Several years ago, I met a man in a London gay bar who was quite up front about what he called his "Nazi fetish" and who seemed well connected to that part of the SM sub-scene in which this fetish is indulged. Although my tastes are somewhat more conventional and "vanilla" I was interested to learn more about this hidden scene he belonged to and a long discussion ensued. He can only have been in his early 30s, was intelligent and uncommonly handsome - not at all what you might expect. He also held down a responsible job in the public sector and was perfectly level-headed in every way. He told me that there are several private clubs, necessarily clandestine, in which men like himself can act out sexual fantasies involving Nazi uniforms and paraphernalia, but they live in constant fear of being exposed.
Having already "come out" as gay at work, he had been bounced into coming out a second time, this time as a "Nazi fetishist" when a would-be blackmailer threatened to distribute images from his fetish website amongst his work colleagues. In the event, he proudly showed the website to his immediate colleagues anyway, who apparently took this revelation in their chuckling stride and respected his right to a private fantasy life.
When I asked him if he was genuinely some kind of fascist or racist, he told me he had no time whatsoever for right-wing politics. In fact, he was a Labour supporter and through his job, actively committed to opposing racism. He was also very scornful of some of the other Nazi fetishists he had encountered who did engage with the far-Right, apparently oblivious to, or unfazed by, the far-Right's trenchant and sometimes violent hostility to homosexuals. The majority, however, like himself, managed to detach the fetishised Nazi aesthetic they embraced, from the Nazi ideology they rejected (I know of one Jewish gay masochist who has also managed to do this). They see themselves as part of a long tradition of homosexual flirtation with Nazi iconography and fantasy, whilst remaining acutely aware of what actually happened to thousands of homosexuals in the concentration camps. They are not alone. Famously, the erotic photo-realist drawings of Tom of Finland draw upon Nazi iconography even when his fantasy males are not adorned with SS breeches and fascist insignia, although he did draw a series of overtly fetishistic Nazi-themed fantasies. These were inspired from his youth when he encountered sex-hungry German soldiers in Helsinki during the Second World War.
There are many within the gay community, particularly the left-wing gay community, who find such engagement with the Nazi aesthetic distasteful and unacceptable. Presumably, they think that to admit the erotic charge within Nazism is to rehabilitate it and to some extent, they have a valid point. When I wrote for the left-leaning London newspaper Capital Gay in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it often carried stories about gay men whose fetish for Nazi insignia or roleplay had caused a furore, or tipped over into something more sinister. One London nightclub had a doorman in a stormtrooper uniform guarding the entrance, until someone complained, while another club was taken to task for having German eagle insignia in the entrance lobby, though the swastika part had been concealed with gaffer tape. Leigh Bowery, the flamboyant nightclub host and avant-garde performance artist caused outrage when he incorporated a Nazi-themed medical examination into his live stage act.
On another occasion, Peter Tatchell warned the Earl's Court leather and SM community of a German man (called Max, coincidentally), whose reported Nazi roleplay had allegedly crossed the consensual line on several occasions to become violent assault. Another man who approached two men wearing SS uniforms in a bar to voice his distaste for their attire was beaten up for his trouble. A gay murderer was found to have a stash of Nazi paraphernalia and was only apprehended by police when he was found in possession of a swastika flag he had stolen from one of his victims – who, by coincidence, also shared this dark fetish.
Some of the examples above serve to remind us that Nazi fetishism and sexual roleplay cannot always be neatly filed into the category of "harmless transgressive fun". But equally, we shouldn't join the ranks of the hysterics who think that just because someone gets off on a Nazi-themed fetish they are necessarily goggle-eyed Fascists (a famous newsreader, with impeccable liberal credentials, is rumoured to own a wardrobe full of Nazi uniforms, though precisely for what purpose is unknown). Twenty years ago, the ill-fated GLC-funded Lesbian & Gay Centre in London's Cowcross Street, was embroiled in a row about leather SM enthusiasts using its facilities, after a group of lesbian militants claimed that wearing leather uniforms was "fascistic" per se and should be banned. What these women seemed to forget, however, was that while Fascism undeniably incorporates some sado-masochistic elements, sado-masochism predates Fascist ideology and exists independently of it. Not only that, but banning people, ideas and behaviour one happens to disagree with can also be construed as "fascistic".
There are parallels here with the hysteria over Prince Harry's fancy dress faux pas, when he donned a (rather tatty and unconvincing) Nazi uniform for a party. Believe me, the real Nazis we have to worry about are not to be found in private sex dungeons, dodgy gay bars, or at fancy dress parties. The real ones are nasty little "chavs" in designer track-suits who live on council estates, or twisted losers like David Copeland who bombed Soho's Admiral Duncan gay bar in 1999. To dress up as an SS man, whether for a party, a military re-enactment, or for kinky sex, is simply to dress up as an historical figure and should be no more concerning than someone dressing up as a Crusader, a Roundhead, or a Suffragette – though it would be undeniably tasteless to do so in Golders Green High Street. As Mr Justice Eady ruled in the Mosley case, fetishists do have a right to demand that their privacy is respected, but they, in turn, must respect the sensibilities of others and use their discretion accordingly.
The American gay writer and cultural critic, John Rechy, once said of sado-masochistic sex within the gay community: "I have no doubt that sado-masochism is the fascist side of the homosexual experience . . . it is the most depleting, the most self-hating, by definition. I think that every time homosexuals are involved in a sado-masochistic relationship they are doing a kind of Black Mass to heterosexual oppression. We imitate the kind of oppression they have made us feel, and we pay homage to them".
Rechy was writing in the 1970s, but in 2008 I think we can allow ourselves to frame sado-masochism and even Nazi fetishism, for those so inclined, in a more positive and libertarian way.
In the same way that some gay men re-appropriated the word "queer" in the early 1990s, emptying it of negative connotations and filling it with positive meanings instead, it could be argued that those gay men who have appropriated the Nazi aesthetic have emptied it of its murderous anti-gay hostility and in using it for their own playful sexual pleasures are taking ultimate revenge on a loathsome political regime that brutally murdered 50,000 homosexuals. The signifiers of enslavement, fear and death, have thus been appropriated and refashioned for enjoyment, albeit enjoyment of a darker kind. If Adolf Hitler had a grave he would probably be spinning inside it, knowing that the signifiers of pure Aryan manhood have been subverted by the deviants he sought to eradicate. Looked at from this perspective, Nazi sex fetishism within a small sub-strata of the gay leather and SM communities (and beyond) doesn't represent a worrying revival of Nazi ideology, it represents its final defeat.
As the Operation Spanner boys maintain, sado-masochists have every right to privacy and freedom, even if they do want to be tied up, slapped, whipped, or have steel bolts driven through their scrotums. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but the key words here are "private", "consent" and "adults". Since the ruling – an all too rare example of European Human Rights Laws leading to a sensible legal outcome – the News of the World and others, like former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie, have been squealing about "press freedom", claiming that by curbing its prurient intrusions into the bedrooms (or private torture chambers) of public figures, the court has dealt a death-blow to our democratic freedoms, or at least those who valiantly seek to defend them.
Of course, this is complete eye-wash. Modern red-top newspapers cannot legitimately claim to be part of the noble "Fourth Estate" that seeks to defend freedom, democracy and truth in this country. They are produced to entertain people and deliver huge readerships to capitalists in exchange for their advertising revenue. Not only are these papers full of bingo, celebrity nonsense, sport and pictures of topless girls, even their news stories are written to a strict "info-tainment" formula, often being compared to the scripts from Hollywood films (stories about "Home Alone" kids, for example, or "Rambo" gun killers on the loose).
Although Judge Eady, presiding over the case, accepted that the News of the World genuinely believed there was a Nazi theme to all the shenanigans (hence his decision not to grant exemplary – i.e. punitive – damages against the paper), the gross intrusion into Max Mosley's private life and its false allegations of a "sick" Nazi theme to all the spanking and wanking had little to do with lofty notions about the public interest, it was just a cynical ploy designed to sell more newspapers. It insults our intelligence to pretend otherwise.
Ironically, the News of the World's Nazi orgy story relied on exactly the same kind of furtive frisson amongst its readership that Mr Mosley was falsely alleged to be guilty of. Publishers of history books and the kind of penny dreadful thrillers you see in airport bookshops will tell you that a swastika on the cover can send sales skyrocketing. However much we may fear or loathe it, Nazism, or rather, the Nazi aesthetic, still holds a fascination and allure for many people, all the more potent for its transgressive and forbidden qualities. Why should this be?
Because of the evils perpetrated by the Nazi regime it is inevitable that powerful feelings surround any Nazi cultural artefacts (the flags, the songs, the posters and so on). The Bolsheviks had already learned how to manipulate modern media for political ends by the time Hitler rose to power, but the Nazis were even more skilled in creating a strong, dynamic and alluring aesthetic. The mass rallies and night-time rituals of allegiance, the uniforms, the strict discipline and hierarchy, the military music, phallic salutes and shrill speeches – all brilliantly committed to film by Leni Riefenstahl - were designed to attract, inspire and brain-wash. After the humiliations and privations of the 1920s, it is hardly surprising that a whole generation of Germans, particularly German men (at whom the bulk of this propaganda was directed), responded to the Nazis' clarion call to build a newly virile and conquering Fatherland.
Mercifully, Nazism was eventually defeated, both militarily and politically, but that doesn't mean that its artefacts, or its overall aesthetic, have lost their power to enthrall. As I have already mentioned, for many there is still a furtive frisson in flirting with the Nazi aesthetic which is all the more potent for its transgressive and forbidden qualities (certain songs and images are still banned in Germany and Austria, for example). And where transgression and the forbidden exist, sexual fetishism is never too far behind. The Nazi propaganda machine's appeal to sadism and masochism, together with its barely concealed homoeroticism, means that the Nazi aesthetic inevitably pervades a sub-strata of the gay leather and SM scene, occasionally spilling over into the straight sex scene too (mostly in the commercial sector, i.e. prostitution). Anyone in a leather coat or tall boots is bound to attract their fair share of drooling admirers and there's no denying that the black SS uniforms manufactured by the Hugo Boss company were hot – they were purposely designed to flatter the masculine physique and emphasise male power.
This need not concern us too much. Several years ago, I met a man in a London gay bar who was quite up front about what he called his "Nazi fetish" and who seemed well connected to that part of the SM sub-scene in which this fetish is indulged. Although my tastes are somewhat more conventional and "vanilla" I was interested to learn more about this hidden scene he belonged to and a long discussion ensued. He can only have been in his early 30s, was intelligent and uncommonly handsome - not at all what you might expect. He also held down a responsible job in the public sector and was perfectly level-headed in every way. He told me that there are several private clubs, necessarily clandestine, in which men like himself can act out sexual fantasies involving Nazi uniforms and paraphernalia, but they live in constant fear of being exposed.
Having already "come out" as gay at work, he had been bounced into coming out a second time, this time as a "Nazi fetishist" when a would-be blackmailer threatened to distribute images from his fetish website amongst his work colleagues. In the event, he proudly showed the website to his immediate colleagues anyway, who apparently took this revelation in their chuckling stride and respected his right to a private fantasy life.
When I asked him if he was genuinely some kind of fascist or racist, he told me he had no time whatsoever for right-wing politics. In fact, he was a Labour supporter and through his job, actively committed to opposing racism. He was also very scornful of some of the other Nazi fetishists he had encountered who did engage with the far-Right, apparently oblivious to, or unfazed by, the far-Right's trenchant and sometimes violent hostility to homosexuals. The majority, however, like himself, managed to detach the fetishised Nazi aesthetic they embraced, from the Nazi ideology they rejected (I know of one Jewish gay masochist who has also managed to do this). They see themselves as part of a long tradition of homosexual flirtation with Nazi iconography and fantasy, whilst remaining acutely aware of what actually happened to thousands of homosexuals in the concentration camps. They are not alone. Famously, the erotic photo-realist drawings of Tom of Finland draw upon Nazi iconography even when his fantasy males are not adorned with SS breeches and fascist insignia, although he did draw a series of overtly fetishistic Nazi-themed fantasies. These were inspired from his youth when he encountered sex-hungry German soldiers in Helsinki during the Second World War.
There are many within the gay community, particularly the left-wing gay community, who find such engagement with the Nazi aesthetic distasteful and unacceptable. Presumably, they think that to admit the erotic charge within Nazism is to rehabilitate it and to some extent, they have a valid point. When I wrote for the left-leaning London newspaper Capital Gay in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it often carried stories about gay men whose fetish for Nazi insignia or roleplay had caused a furore, or tipped over into something more sinister. One London nightclub had a doorman in a stormtrooper uniform guarding the entrance, until someone complained, while another club was taken to task for having German eagle insignia in the entrance lobby, though the swastika part had been concealed with gaffer tape. Leigh Bowery, the flamboyant nightclub host and avant-garde performance artist caused outrage when he incorporated a Nazi-themed medical examination into his live stage act.
On another occasion, Peter Tatchell warned the Earl's Court leather and SM community of a German man (called Max, coincidentally), whose reported Nazi roleplay had allegedly crossed the consensual line on several occasions to become violent assault. Another man who approached two men wearing SS uniforms in a bar to voice his distaste for their attire was beaten up for his trouble. A gay murderer was found to have a stash of Nazi paraphernalia and was only apprehended by police when he was found in possession of a swastika flag he had stolen from one of his victims – who, by coincidence, also shared this dark fetish.
Some of the examples above serve to remind us that Nazi fetishism and sexual roleplay cannot always be neatly filed into the category of "harmless transgressive fun". But equally, we shouldn't join the ranks of the hysterics who think that just because someone gets off on a Nazi-themed fetish they are necessarily goggle-eyed Fascists (a famous newsreader, with impeccable liberal credentials, is rumoured to own a wardrobe full of Nazi uniforms, though precisely for what purpose is unknown). Twenty years ago, the ill-fated GLC-funded Lesbian & Gay Centre in London's Cowcross Street, was embroiled in a row about leather SM enthusiasts using its facilities, after a group of lesbian militants claimed that wearing leather uniforms was "fascistic" per se and should be banned. What these women seemed to forget, however, was that while Fascism undeniably incorporates some sado-masochistic elements, sado-masochism predates Fascist ideology and exists independently of it. Not only that, but banning people, ideas and behaviour one happens to disagree with can also be construed as "fascistic".
There are parallels here with the hysteria over Prince Harry's fancy dress faux pas, when he donned a (rather tatty and unconvincing) Nazi uniform for a party. Believe me, the real Nazis we have to worry about are not to be found in private sex dungeons, dodgy gay bars, or at fancy dress parties. The real ones are nasty little "chavs" in designer track-suits who live on council estates, or twisted losers like David Copeland who bombed Soho's Admiral Duncan gay bar in 1999. To dress up as an SS man, whether for a party, a military re-enactment, or for kinky sex, is simply to dress up as an historical figure and should be no more concerning than someone dressing up as a Crusader, a Roundhead, or a Suffragette – though it would be undeniably tasteless to do so in Golders Green High Street. As Mr Justice Eady ruled in the Mosley case, fetishists do have a right to demand that their privacy is respected, but they, in turn, must respect the sensibilities of others and use their discretion accordingly.
The American gay writer and cultural critic, John Rechy, once said of sado-masochistic sex within the gay community: "I have no doubt that sado-masochism is the fascist side of the homosexual experience . . . it is the most depleting, the most self-hating, by definition. I think that every time homosexuals are involved in a sado-masochistic relationship they are doing a kind of Black Mass to heterosexual oppression. We imitate the kind of oppression they have made us feel, and we pay homage to them".
Rechy was writing in the 1970s, but in 2008 I think we can allow ourselves to frame sado-masochism and even Nazi fetishism, for those so inclined, in a more positive and libertarian way.
In the same way that some gay men re-appropriated the word "queer" in the early 1990s, emptying it of negative connotations and filling it with positive meanings instead, it could be argued that those gay men who have appropriated the Nazi aesthetic have emptied it of its murderous anti-gay hostility and in using it for their own playful sexual pleasures are taking ultimate revenge on a loathsome political regime that brutally murdered 50,000 homosexuals. The signifiers of enslavement, fear and death, have thus been appropriated and refashioned for enjoyment, albeit enjoyment of a darker kind. If Adolf Hitler had a grave he would probably be spinning inside it, knowing that the signifiers of pure Aryan manhood have been subverted by the deviants he sought to eradicate. Looked at from this perspective, Nazi sex fetishism within a small sub-strata of the gay leather and SM communities (and beyond) doesn't represent a worrying revival of Nazi ideology, it represents its final defeat.
Oi! Where's our dosh?
Parishioners in the Liverpool area are asking where the hundreds of thousands of pounds they've donated to the Catholic Church for repairs to a building has disappeared to.
According to Liverpool's Daily Post, a pressure group called SOUL (Save Our Unique Landmark) was set up to save "the renowned SS Peter and Paul’s church in Wirral", but it has now "called for an investigation into church leaders by the Charity Commission. The campaigners say they have donated hundreds of thousands of pounds through Gift Aid – which allows the church to reclaim tax on the money – but that money has not been spent as they believed it would be, such as on routine maintenance."
Catholic authorities are refusing to say where the money has gone, saying there's nothing to add to the bishop's announcement that the church will be closed, but the Charity Commission has said it will investigate.
SOUL says the building has been left without key repairs being carried out for at least ten years, as Catholic authorities prepared to find a way to close it.
SOUL's chairman Frank McGowan has written to the Charity Commission, saying, “We the parishioners accept that the Trustees may decide to change their policy in regard to the maintenance and repair of a building that is under their care in the trust.
“However, we do not accept that, when such a decision impinges on the interests of our parishioners, the Trustees have a right to keep such a decision secret.”
If any decency is to be shown at all, the church should either be preserved with the money, as an interesting building, or the money should be given back. When you give under the impression that your dosh is going to pay for A, you don't want to find suddenly that it's going to pay for B.
According to Liverpool's Daily Post, a pressure group called SOUL (Save Our Unique Landmark) was set up to save "the renowned SS Peter and Paul’s church in Wirral", but it has now "called for an investigation into church leaders by the Charity Commission. The campaigners say they have donated hundreds of thousands of pounds through Gift Aid – which allows the church to reclaim tax on the money – but that money has not been spent as they believed it would be, such as on routine maintenance."
Catholic authorities are refusing to say where the money has gone, saying there's nothing to add to the bishop's announcement that the church will be closed, but the Charity Commission has said it will investigate.
SOUL says the building has been left without key repairs being carried out for at least ten years, as Catholic authorities prepared to find a way to close it.
SOUL's chairman Frank McGowan has written to the Charity Commission, saying, “We the parishioners accept that the Trustees may decide to change their policy in regard to the maintenance and repair of a building that is under their care in the trust.
“However, we do not accept that, when such a decision impinges on the interests of our parishioners, the Trustees have a right to keep such a decision secret.”
If any decency is to be shown at all, the church should either be preserved with the money, as an interesting building, or the money should be given back. When you give under the impression that your dosh is going to pay for A, you don't want to find suddenly that it's going to pay for B.
How mumbo-jumbo wastes money
The Australian taxpayer has had to stump up A$2.4 million for the dubious privilege of having a geezer in a white frock go there to spout shite. And that's on top of the genuine cost of the visit.
What happened was this: the church waited so long to tell the state government that its World Youth Day pilgrim numbers had changed that the government was "forced to install far more showers and smoke alarms than needed in schools intended to house them", according to a story in the Sydney Morning Herald.
It continues:
As much as A$3.2 million may have been spent on the project.
Presumably, the Vatican is happy to let this go at a time when Pope Ratzo has been going on about world poverty. If the damned visit hadn't gone ahead in the first place, A$3.2 million could have helped a lot of people, both in Oz and elsewhere.
What happened was this: the church waited so long to tell the state government that its World Youth Day pilgrim numbers had changed that the government was "forced to install far more showers and smoke alarms than needed in schools intended to house them", according to a story in the Sydney Morning Herald.
It continues:
The equipment was installed in as many as 412 schools – more than four times the necessary number – because the church waited until last month to tell the Government it would not need many of the schools requested.
As much as A$3.2 million may have been spent on the project.
Presumably, the Vatican is happy to let this go at a time when Pope Ratzo has been going on about world poverty. If the damned visit hadn't gone ahead in the first place, A$3.2 million could have helped a lot of people, both in Oz and elsewhere.
Sunday, 27 July 2008
Killing is justified, say UK Muslim students
A report says nearly a third of Muslims on campuses of British universities believe it's OK to kill in the name of religion.
According to a report in the Observer today, student groups say the poll's methodology is "deeply flawed".
The poll is called "Islam on Campus", and was conducted by YouGov for the think tank the Centre for Social Cohesion. The poll showed that "32 per cent of Muslim students polled said killing in the name of religion was justified", compared with 2 per cent of non-Muslims.
And a third of those polled are said to be in favour of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, and 54 per cent supported the idea of having their own political party at Westminster.
"Just under a quarter did not believe men and women were equal in the eyes of Allah, while 25 per cent said they had little or no respect for homosexuals," says the Observer story.
"These findings are deeply alarming," said the report's co-author, Hannah Stuart. "Students in higher education are the future leaders of their communities. Yet significant numbers of them appear to hold beliefs which contravene liberal democratic values."
Then let us be warned. If we're not careful, do we stand to reap the "benefits" of their education, or is their possible influence being overplayed?
The story goes on to tell us that Ed Husain, author of The Islamist and a former member of the radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has been banned from most campuses, has claimed that universities are a fertile breeding ground for extremists. And in 2005, Professor Anthony Glees of Brunel University said that he had identified "extremist and/or terror groups" at 30 universities. "But his claims", says the Observer, "were largely dismissed by many academics and the NUS [National Union of Students]."
Hannah Stuart reckons the the report's findings show there are signs of growing religious segregation on campuses. "These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said that there is no extremism in British universities," she tells the paper.
According to a report in the Observer today, student groups say the poll's methodology is "deeply flawed".
The poll is called "Islam on Campus", and was conducted by YouGov for the think tank the Centre for Social Cohesion. The poll showed that "32 per cent of Muslim students polled said killing in the name of religion was justified", compared with 2 per cent of non-Muslims.
And a third of those polled are said to be in favour of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, and 54 per cent supported the idea of having their own political party at Westminster.
"Just under a quarter did not believe men and women were equal in the eyes of Allah, while 25 per cent said they had little or no respect for homosexuals," says the Observer story.
"These findings are deeply alarming," said the report's co-author, Hannah Stuart. "Students in higher education are the future leaders of their communities. Yet significant numbers of them appear to hold beliefs which contravene liberal democratic values."
Then let us be warned. If we're not careful, do we stand to reap the "benefits" of their education, or is their possible influence being overplayed?
The story goes on to tell us that Ed Husain, author of The Islamist and a former member of the radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has been banned from most campuses, has claimed that universities are a fertile breeding ground for extremists. And in 2005, Professor Anthony Glees of Brunel University said that he had identified "extremist and/or terror groups" at 30 universities. "But his claims", says the Observer, "were largely dismissed by many academics and the NUS [National Union of Students]."
Hannah Stuart reckons the the report's findings show there are signs of growing religious segregation on campuses. "These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said that there is no extremism in British universities," she tells the paper.
Reckoning time for Stephen
It's been seven months since Stephen "Birdshit" Green's Christian Voice lost its blasphemy case against the BBC for its screening of Jerry Springer: the Opera in 2005. But now the BBC is claiming its pound of flesh.
The BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, and the show's producer, Jonathan Thoday, were awarded £90,000 in costs. But Green is unable to pay, and is facing bankruptcy.
"They are demanding their pound of flesh," Green says. "There's no commercial sense in pursuing someone worth a fraction of the money owed, so I can think of nothing but spite driving them on. Thompson earns 20 times what I'm worth in a year."
The BBC has now served a statutory demand for the money, which is likely to bring Green to the bankruptcy courts.
"Whatever happens is in the hands of the Lord," Green philosophises.
The BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, and the show's producer, Jonathan Thoday, were awarded £90,000 in costs. But Green is unable to pay, and is facing bankruptcy.
"They are demanding their pound of flesh," Green says. "There's no commercial sense in pursuing someone worth a fraction of the money owed, so I can think of nothing but spite driving them on. Thompson earns 20 times what I'm worth in a year."
The BBC has now served a statutory demand for the money, which is likely to bring Green to the bankruptcy courts.
"Whatever happens is in the hands of the Lord," Green philosophises.
Saturday, 26 July 2008
You know where you can shove your condoms, Vatican tells dissident group
A dissident Catholic group told the Vatican it should reverse the Catholic Church's stance on condom use because it's been catastrophic, but the Vatican has, predictably, dismissed the allegation.
The group – made up of people from Britain, France and Canada, among others – sent an open letter to Pope Ratzinger on the 40th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae ("On the regulation of birth").
The signatories say the effects of ban by the Vatican on artificial birth control had been "catastrophic", especially in poor countries of the world.
The letter criticises a stance it says "puts the lives of women in danger and exposes millions of people to the risk of contracting the AIDS virus".
But a spokesman for Ratzo, Father Federico Lombardi, dismissed the letter as "paid-for propaganda in favour of the use of contraceptives" and said the groups, who were "well known" to the Vatican for their views that ran contrary to church teachings, represented "nothing new".
"In addition the harshest accusation, that the Catholic position causes the spread of AIDS, and thus pain and death while obstructing enlightened health policies, is manifestly unfounded," Lombardi has told Vatican Radio.
"The spread of AIDS is completely independent from the religious faith of populations and of the influence of the clergy, while polices against AIDS based on the distribution of condoms have largely failed," Lombardi said.
This is in spite of evidence that condoms can be a protection against the passing-on of infectious diseases (as well as sperm), and in spite of the fact that those Catholics who obey the Vatican will not be using condoms. So how can it be independent from religious faith?
And "paid-for propaganda"? Is he really saying that commercial condom manufacturers are sponsoring this letter? Even if that were so, how would he know?
The group – made up of people from Britain, France and Canada, among others – sent an open letter to Pope Ratzinger on the 40th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae ("On the regulation of birth").
The signatories say the effects of ban by the Vatican on artificial birth control had been "catastrophic", especially in poor countries of the world.
The letter criticises a stance it says "puts the lives of women in danger and exposes millions of people to the risk of contracting the AIDS virus".
But a spokesman for Ratzo, Father Federico Lombardi, dismissed the letter as "paid-for propaganda in favour of the use of contraceptives" and said the groups, who were "well known" to the Vatican for their views that ran contrary to church teachings, represented "nothing new".
"In addition the harshest accusation, that the Catholic position causes the spread of AIDS, and thus pain and death while obstructing enlightened health policies, is manifestly unfounded," Lombardi has told Vatican Radio.
"The spread of AIDS is completely independent from the religious faith of populations and of the influence of the clergy, while polices against AIDS based on the distribution of condoms have largely failed," Lombardi said.
This is in spite of evidence that condoms can be a protection against the passing-on of infectious diseases (as well as sperm), and in spite of the fact that those Catholics who obey the Vatican will not be using condoms. So how can it be independent from religious faith?
And "paid-for propaganda"? Is he really saying that commercial condom manufacturers are sponsoring this letter? Even if that were so, how would he know?
Friday, 25 July 2008
Treat Muslims better, UK told
Some "energetic measures" are needed to deal with negative public attitudes towards Muslims in Britain, according to the nine-member UN Human Rights Committee. It's concerned that "negative public attitudes" towards Muslims continue to be allowed.
According to a story published today in the UK's Telegraph's online edition, these energetic measures should be taken to eliminate "this phenomenon and ensure that authors of such acts of discrimination on the basis of religion are adequately deterred and sanctioned".
This is a committee of legal experts from Britain and Ireland and several other countries, including from Europe and South America.
One way to prevent a negative attitude towards Muslims – one that is not evident against other religious groups, note, or, if so, in a much smaller degree – is for the Muslims themselves to stop coming over as a whingeing, whining bunch of humourless pillocks. Well, it's usually those who claim to be their leaders who are guilty of this (we rarely know what the ordinary Muslim thinks), and you can see several stories on this blog (type "Muslim" into the blog's search box at the top) and others that show Muslims complaining about things we take for granted, and often getting their way.
No wonder there's resentment among the indigenous community when stories appear concerning Muslims, whether they're about cartoons, pictures of animals, ads for swimwear, medications, Christians being turfed out of a "Muslim area" or demands to put an end to perceived insults to Islam. And they're just a few. And not all of them are sourced from the likes of the Daily Mail.
If they accepted the norms and traditions of their host countries more willingly they might face negativity only from racists and similar nutters, and not those who, like us, are concerned only with their constant religious demands.
According to a story published today in the UK's Telegraph's online edition, these energetic measures should be taken to eliminate "this phenomenon and ensure that authors of such acts of discrimination on the basis of religion are adequately deterred and sanctioned".
This is a committee of legal experts from Britain and Ireland and several other countries, including from Europe and South America.
One way to prevent a negative attitude towards Muslims – one that is not evident against other religious groups, note, or, if so, in a much smaller degree – is for the Muslims themselves to stop coming over as a whingeing, whining bunch of humourless pillocks. Well, it's usually those who claim to be their leaders who are guilty of this (we rarely know what the ordinary Muslim thinks), and you can see several stories on this blog (type "Muslim" into the blog's search box at the top) and others that show Muslims complaining about things we take for granted, and often getting their way.
No wonder there's resentment among the indigenous community when stories appear concerning Muslims, whether they're about cartoons, pictures of animals, ads for swimwear, medications, Christians being turfed out of a "Muslim area" or demands to put an end to perceived insults to Islam. And they're just a few. And not all of them are sourced from the likes of the Daily Mail.
If they accepted the norms and traditions of their host countries more willingly they might face negativity only from racists and similar nutters, and not those who, like us, are concerned only with their constant religious demands.
How dare you think for yourself?
Catholics don't like it when people think for themselves. They like it even less, it seems, when legislative bodies think for themselves, as instanced by this story in the online EWTN News, a Catholic outlet.
This audacious comment came during an international meeting with the heads of various religious communities, when Cardinal Franc Rode, prefect of something called, pompously, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, said Europe is "moving backwards in the area of religion because legislative bodies on the continent are increasingly moving further away from Christian principles".
The cardinal said that "laws being passed in almost every country in Europe do not coincide with Christian principles", and therefore religious "superiors have a clear challenge, and at the same time an inescapable task: to root out the subtle forms of internal secularization that have become present in our surroundings".
He these forms of internal secularisation, he says, include "language that has lost its religious content".
The church and society "need people capable of giving themselves totally to God and to others out of love of God", and therefore "consecrated persons can and should respond in a credible way to religious indifference, to the loss of the sense of the transcendent and of eschatological hope", averred the French cardinal.
Merde, Cardinal!
This audacious comment came during an international meeting with the heads of various religious communities, when Cardinal Franc Rode, prefect of something called, pompously, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, said Europe is "moving backwards in the area of religion because legislative bodies on the continent are increasingly moving further away from Christian principles".
The cardinal said that "laws being passed in almost every country in Europe do not coincide with Christian principles", and therefore religious "superiors have a clear challenge, and at the same time an inescapable task: to root out the subtle forms of internal secularization that have become present in our surroundings".
He these forms of internal secularisation, he says, include "language that has lost its religious content".
The church and society "need people capable of giving themselves totally to God and to others out of love of God", and therefore "consecrated persons can and should respond in a credible way to religious indifference, to the loss of the sense of the transcendent and of eschatological hope", averred the French cardinal.
Merde, Cardinal!
Thursday, 24 July 2008
"Civil rights" group derides free expression
The latest to jump on the bandwagon of trying to outlaw criticism is a "civil rights" group in Spain, which, according to a story on the Catholic News Agency website, has filed a complaint because participants in Gay Pride "insulted" the Pope and cardinals and wore clerical-type garb.
The story tells us that Hazteoir.org has filed a complaint with the Spanish Attorney General because gays incited religious hatred on 5 July. It continues:
Aw, did little Catholics feel hurt, then? Is your ickle churchy-wurchy being cwiticised by those big bad perverts? Are they making fun, then? Diddums!
The story tells us that Hazteoir.org has filed a complaint with the Spanish Attorney General because gays incited religious hatred on 5 July. It continues:
The gay pride parade, which took place in Madrid, is renowned not only for its graphic and violent displays of homosexual sex, but also for its open aggression against the Catholic faith. Many participants dress up in clerical or religious garb combined with sexual objects, and others carry signs that insult the Pope, the bishops and Catholics in general.
Aw, did little Catholics feel hurt, then? Is your ickle churchy-wurchy being cwiticised by those big bad perverts? Are they making fun, then? Diddums!
Archbishop of Cant confirms it: No poofters!
It reminds one of that old Monty Python sketch with a load of Aussies sitting around shouting, "No poofters!" It's a cry that seems to be coming from all over the Anglican Church at the moment. The Pythons said it with an element of harmless fun, but the Archbishop of Cant, Rowan Williams, is serious.
We shouldn't be surprised, of course. He's trying to save the church of which he is head from schism, and already a quarter of the world's bishops – mainly from African countries, where homophobia is rife – have refused to attend the current Lambeth Conference, the church's ten-yearly powwow.
Apart from that, they believe that sex – a natural phenomenon among animals – is strictly for people who have undergone either a legal or spiritual (preferably both) ceremony, the mumbo-jumbo. That was convenient, because they could allow married people who had merely undergone a civil ceremony to play a part in the clergy and the episcopate if that person wished to join.
Now, two gays can undergo a ceremony, and in some places, such as California, they can even call it "marriage". Not so convenient.
So what does Williams mean when he says, "I do not believe that sex outside marriage is as God purposes it"? What of sex within a California marriage, for instance? That's called marriage, Dr Williams. Sorry, but you can't hide behind the not-married thing any more (any more than you can with civil partnerships here in Blighty, which is why I made the point about civil marriages above, but we'll let that pass for the moment).
So you somehow know that two people of the same sex married in California, to stick with our example, are not married in the eyes of God? How do you know that?
He made his remarks as the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement distributed copies at the conference of Williams's 1989 essay "The Body's Grace", in which he adopted a liberal stance towards same-sex love, arguing that the Bible didn't necessarily legislate only for "reproductive sex".
It's a bloody mess, Archbishop. Admit it: you don't know whether you're coming or going.
We shouldn't be surprised, of course. He's trying to save the church of which he is head from schism, and already a quarter of the world's bishops – mainly from African countries, where homophobia is rife – have refused to attend the current Lambeth Conference, the church's ten-yearly powwow.
Apart from that, they believe that sex – a natural phenomenon among animals – is strictly for people who have undergone either a legal or spiritual (preferably both) ceremony, the mumbo-jumbo. That was convenient, because they could allow married people who had merely undergone a civil ceremony to play a part in the clergy and the episcopate if that person wished to join.
Now, two gays can undergo a ceremony, and in some places, such as California, they can even call it "marriage". Not so convenient.
So what does Williams mean when he says, "I do not believe that sex outside marriage is as God purposes it"? What of sex within a California marriage, for instance? That's called marriage, Dr Williams. Sorry, but you can't hide behind the not-married thing any more (any more than you can with civil partnerships here in Blighty, which is why I made the point about civil marriages above, but we'll let that pass for the moment).
So you somehow know that two people of the same sex married in California, to stick with our example, are not married in the eyes of God? How do you know that?
He made his remarks as the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement distributed copies at the conference of Williams's 1989 essay "The Body's Grace", in which he adopted a liberal stance towards same-sex love, arguing that the Bible didn't necessarily legislate only for "reproductive sex".
It's a bloody mess, Archbishop. Admit it: you don't know whether you're coming or going.
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Bring on Brian 2
While there are those who'd like the bizarre ban on The Life of Brian lifted in the mid-Wales town of Aberystwyth lifted (see "Bring on Brian" earlier this week), there is one who doesn't, even in these post-blasphemy-laws times.
He's the Rev. Stuart Bell, rector of St Michael's Church in the town, who thinks the new mayor, Sue Jones-Davies, who as an actor played the part of Judith Iscariot in the Monty Python classic, has better things to do than worry about a banned film.
Stuart Bell obviously cares little about freedom of expression, and people's freedom to see a movie in a cinema in their town if they so choose.
Aberystwyth Today tells us that Bell thinks it an unpleasant film, yet he hasn't seen it!
“If it was an unpleasant film 30 years ago, then it remains an unpleasant film 30 years later," he's quoted as saying. “I have not seen the film, nor have I any wish to do so. And I would have thought there are many issues of more importance to the people of Aberystwyth for the mayor to consider than having a ban on this film removed.”
She's done the considering, Mr Bell. All that's needed is for her to give the nod to a flunky and the relevant letter will go off to the council that imposed the ban in the first place.
He's the Rev. Stuart Bell, rector of St Michael's Church in the town, who thinks the new mayor, Sue Jones-Davies, who as an actor played the part of Judith Iscariot in the Monty Python classic, has better things to do than worry about a banned film.
Stuart Bell obviously cares little about freedom of expression, and people's freedom to see a movie in a cinema in their town if they so choose.
Aberystwyth Today tells us that Bell thinks it an unpleasant film, yet he hasn't seen it!
“If it was an unpleasant film 30 years ago, then it remains an unpleasant film 30 years later," he's quoted as saying. “I have not seen the film, nor have I any wish to do so. And I would have thought there are many issues of more importance to the people of Aberystwyth for the mayor to consider than having a ban on this film removed.”
She's done the considering, Mr Bell. All that's needed is for her to give the nod to a flunky and the relevant letter will go off to the council that imposed the ban in the first place.
Holy gristle!
The name of Allah has been found in a piece of gristle, it's being claimed.The BBC news website tells us that it was found in a restaurant in Muslim-dominated northern Nigeria, where the name of Muhammad was also found lurking in the nosh.
They were allegedly found by a diner in Birnin Kebbi. Now they're flocking in their thousands to see it.
It's not the first time, though. Take a look here and here for Allah-related food (tropical fish and tomato respectively), and this story about the face of Jesus found in a chapati.
And I'm not sure where the featured picture on this blog entry came from. I've been saving it. It's the inside of a toilet. I hate to think what's forming that image there, but it sure looks like Jesus (assuming anyone knows what Jesus looked like, of course, even assuming he existed at all).
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
Protest by "miserable, glum weirdos" doesn't set Wales ablaze
Stephen "Birdshit" Green's Christian Voice are not happy bunnies at the moment, and have been protesting at the offices of a Wales newspaper, the South Wales Echo.
They were a bit miffed about a column by Dan O'Neil, which posed the question, "If God considers gays an abomination, why did he create them?" The column was published on 16 July, and in it O'Neil said:
He then wonders how Green might have wondered about Jesus's own behaviour, and spoofs him as saying, “This Jesus feller swans around all day with a dozen other blokes. No women. Mark that, no women. And he wanders off into the mountains now and again to spend quality time with his, uh, favourites (Mark.9:2). He picks up small boys and girls and puts his hands upon them (Mark 10:16) And he was seen in a garden when one of his mates came up and kissed him (Matthew,26:48). Suspicious, eh?"
A post today by the Welsh blogger the Cynical Dragon informs us:
After being asked to leave the building, the Christian Voice Six apparently sang hymns outside. The Cynical Dragon has a couple of updates, the last of which says he or she walked past the office later and four miserable-looking evangelists were still there.
"Why are fundamentalists such a bunch of miserable, glum weirdos?" he/she asks.
Why indeed?
__________
Hat tip MediaWatchWatch
They were a bit miffed about a column by Dan O'Neil, which posed the question, "If God considers gays an abomination, why did he create them?" The column was published on 16 July, and in it O'Neil said:
Our Carmarthen-based zealot was at it again this week. Outraged at the appearance in Britain of Gene Robinson, the American bishop blanked by the CoE because he’s openly gay (as opposed to being secretly gay like dozens of his peers) the Prophet Green of Christian Voice thundered: “It is a sad day when you get a bishop in a church preaching something that God himself called an abomination.”
He then wonders how Green might have wondered about Jesus's own behaviour, and spoofs him as saying, “This Jesus feller swans around all day with a dozen other blokes. No women. Mark that, no women. And he wanders off into the mountains now and again to spend quality time with his, uh, favourites (Mark.9:2). He picks up small boys and girls and puts his hands upon them (Mark 10:16) And he was seen in a garden when one of his mates came up and kissed him (Matthew,26:48). Suspicious, eh?"
A post today by the Welsh blogger the Cynical Dragon informs us:
Word has reached me (not the "word" by the way, I'm still a committed atheist) that the offices of the South Wales Echo have been invaded by a crack detachment of the South Wales God Squad. Thomson House's foyer this morning was the scene of ugly demonstrations (well the leaflets and message were pretty dreadful) complaining about the blasphemy in [. . .] the Echo.
After being asked to leave the building, the Christian Voice Six apparently sang hymns outside. The Cynical Dragon has a couple of updates, the last of which says he or she walked past the office later and four miserable-looking evangelists were still there.
"Why are fundamentalists such a bunch of miserable, glum weirdos?" he/she asks.
Why indeed?
__________
Hat tip MediaWatchWatch
It's the leaders you have to watch
The UK gay-equality lobby group Stonewall reckons religious folk aren't as homophobic as their press image implies. It's the leaders who are the bigots.
"Love Thy Neighbour, a report published by the gay equality group, interviewed followers of Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu faiths," says a story in the online Pink News.
Stonewall's chief executive Ben Summerskill is quoted as saying, "Witnessing the saddening divisions in the Church of England demonstrated at this week's Lambeth Conference, it's telling that so many people of faith say they actually live, work and socialise with lesbian and gay people, and that significantly reduces negative ideas about difference.
"Many Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus are clearly markedly more moderate than we are often allowed to believe.
"The stark conclusion to draw when it comes to religion and homosexuality is that it may be time to start listening to the voices of the many people of faith in Britain which have until now not been heard enough."
It would be a start. But, to take one example, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Organisation has been around for decades and has done some sterling work, but we still have a quarter of the world's bishops boycotting Lambeth this month because they have a problem with other people's sexuality and pretend that their invisible friend doesn't like some aspects of it.
And that is not said as criticism of LGCM – far from it – but as a reminder, should we need it, that there are many of those who strive for and achieve leadership positions in the major religious organisations who are also pillocks.
"Love Thy Neighbour, a report published by the gay equality group, interviewed followers of Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu faiths," says a story in the online Pink News.
Stonewall's chief executive Ben Summerskill is quoted as saying, "Witnessing the saddening divisions in the Church of England demonstrated at this week's Lambeth Conference, it's telling that so many people of faith say they actually live, work and socialise with lesbian and gay people, and that significantly reduces negative ideas about difference.
"Many Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus are clearly markedly more moderate than we are often allowed to believe.
"The stark conclusion to draw when it comes to religion and homosexuality is that it may be time to start listening to the voices of the many people of faith in Britain which have until now not been heard enough."
It would be a start. But, to take one example, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Organisation has been around for decades and has done some sterling work, but we still have a quarter of the world's bishops boycotting Lambeth this month because they have a problem with other people's sexuality and pretend that their invisible friend doesn't like some aspects of it.
And that is not said as criticism of LGCM – far from it – but as a reminder, should we need it, that there are many of those who strive for and achieve leadership positions in the major religious organisations who are also pillocks.
Remember – a few rules
We'd like to remind you of our commenting terms. We've had a couple of comments that have caused us some concern recently, and we'd prefer not to have a repeat performance. So here's a reiteration of our commenting terms, reproduced from the small blurb above the comments area. You can also find them in the sidebar.
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. Blatant commercial advertising will be removed. Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Monday, 21 July 2008
That bloody woman again!
Yes, just as the Pope might get himself a boyfriend and open a condom factory, Mrs Robinson.
Today's issue of Pink News cites an interview in the Belfast Telegraph, which says it's now emerged that she said some pretty horrible things during committee proceedings in the Commons last month, comparing gays to child abusers.
She is quoted as having said, "There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children. There must be sufficient confidence that the community has the best possible protection against such perverts."
When contacted by the Belfast Telegraph, Robinson reiterated her views and said she was following Scriptures. "Can you think of anything more vile than man and man or woman and woman and sexually abusing children?" she told the paper. "What I say I base on biblical pronouncements, based on God’s word. I am amazed that people are surprised when I quote from scriptures. It shows the churches either aren’t preaching God’s word or are watering it down.
"I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable. I feel totally repulsed by both."
__________
UPDATE: Robinson went on to claim that Hansard – the official parliamentary record – misquoted her.
Bring on Brian
According to the BBC news website, a number of areas in Wales banned the film 30 years ago, because they thought it was blasphemous.
"Given what's on TV now I think it's amazing a ban in Aberystwyth still exists," Sue Jones-Davies (pictured in the role) tells the BBC. "I think it should be lifted.
"I would like to think that any religion would have the generosity to see the film for what it is," she adds, "which is a comedy. I was surprised at the outrage it caused at the time, but I did not expect or appreciate the impact and never thought it would turn out to be so popular."
Saturday, 19 July 2008
Censorship by religion
Another example of how religion seeks to censor the arts comes in this story in the Belfast Telegraph, which tells us that there may not be a sequel to the first of the films based on Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials."Sources in the film industry said that plans for a sequel to The Golden Compass [based on Northern Lights] appeared to have been put on ice following the fervent Christian protests surrounding the first film, which led to boycotts and box office disappointment in the United States," says the story.
Atheist Pullman says he's not aware of any imminent plans to film the sequel, The Subtle Knife, although he feels people would wish to see one, and he certainly would.
But the film sank in the States when Christian bigots organised boycotts, and made only $70 million (£30 million), although it took a disproprtionate $300 million internationally.
You can see a trailer for The Golden Compass in the YouTube video below.
You'll learn about Islam whether you want to or not
Talking of having things shoved down your throat, as we did yesterday over the Dudley mosque, it now seems likely that kids in all state schools in England will be taught Islamic traditions as part of their citizenship classes.
Now we all realise the role religion has played in the shaping of human society, for better or worse or bits in between, and that's why it's important to learn about religions (as opposed to having compulsory talking-to-invisible-people rituals). But this, according to some critics, is holding up Islam above other religions.
A story in Britain's Daily Mail tells us that the idea, announced by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, is to curb extremism. "Other plans announced by Miss Blears also drew criticism," the story says, "including a state-funded panel of Islamic scholars and theologians to provide community leadership.
It goes on: "Prominent Muslims said this scheme was naïve because Government endorsement would erode the credibility of those taking part, especially among the young and disaffected." For that, read, "We don't want state educators teaching it, because that might be too objective."
Now we all realise the role religion has played in the shaping of human society, for better or worse or bits in between, and that's why it's important to learn about religions (as opposed to having compulsory talking-to-invisible-people rituals). But this, according to some critics, is holding up Islam above other religions.
A story in Britain's Daily Mail tells us that the idea, announced by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, is to curb extremism. "Other plans announced by Miss Blears also drew criticism," the story says, "including a state-funded panel of Islamic scholars and theologians to provide community leadership.
It goes on: "Prominent Muslims said this scheme was naïve because Government endorsement would erode the credibility of those taking part, especially among the young and disaffected." For that, read, "We don't want state educators teaching it, because that might be too objective."
David Conway, senior research fellow at the Civitas think-tank, said: "Some will see this as another sign of a creeping process of Islamisation – an insidious process which plays down the Christian basis of our culture and encourages children to learn more and more about Islam's contribution.
"Muslims are still a relatively small minority in Britain and, while I have nothing against children in our multi-religious society learning about each other's faiths, for one particular faith to be privileged in mainstream schools seems to me pointless, and won't make for greater harmony.
"I fear it will play into the hands of the small minority who want to see the Islamisation of Europe, and believe they will triumph through sheer numbers."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)