Gays do exist in the Islamic world, and some of them are even happy. This is the good news in a new book by the editor of the gay Muslim magazine Huriyah, Afdhere Jama.
The book is called Illegal Citizens: Queer Lives in the Muslim World, and follows the lives of 33 gay people in 22 countries.
Jama says he wanted to tell of the suffering but also found some happy lives. However, it's not all pleasant for Muslims who are gay. "Horrible, horrible things happen," he says. "In many of these countries, people disappear without a trace. And that happens only because gay and lesbian Muslims have no voice. They can't object to abuse because, as far as anyone is concerned, they don't exist."
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Monday, 11 August 2008
Point to ponder
Robert Green Ingersoll (pictured) noted this in his Some Reasons Why (1881).
He was born on this day in 1833.
Leading luvvies lambaste disgusting Catholic bigot
I'm about to get quite angry, as the headline probably suggests, so you have been warned. This is a tale of two of the UK's leading gay actors, Ian McKellen and Simon Callow, who have laid into the revolting bigot Bishop Joseph Devine, a leading light in the Catholic Church in Scotland.
In a speech earlier this year, this abomination of a man "singled out the decision to award McKellen an honour from the Queen as an example of the dangers of the increasing power of the gay lobby", according to the Sunday Times.
This reeking gobbet of slime said during a speech at St Aloysius college in Glasgow, "In this New Year’s Honours list, actor Ian McKellen was honoured for his work on behalf of homosexuals. A century ago Oscar Wilde was locked up and put in jail." (The knighthood was actually for McKellen's work for the performing arts, but the reasons have probably become a bit blurred in people's minds since then, maybe because he was later made a Companion of Honour for his work for drama and equality, although that wasn't until the 2008 New Year's Honours.)
The implication – considering that it is couched as criticism, not as delighted wonder at how enlightened we have become since the 1890s – seems to be that McKellen should be given two years' hard labour, too, or at the very least should never have been honoured, and that no gays should be honoured.
I suppose we ought to crucify people, too, for being pains in the arses of the authorities. That's a much older tradition than putting people in the slammer for what they do with their private parts.
Devine, sinking as low as anyone can sink without chewing into the subsoil, also accused homosexuals of aligning themselves with minority groups to present themselves as people under persecution, citing their attendance at Holocaust memorials.
What?
In a speech to a dinner for the gay lobby group Stonewall, which McKellen helped to found, the Lord of the Rings and Shakespearian actor said, "From the pulpit, homophobia is preached by some arrogant religious leaders who think their beliefs are superior to our inborn and, some would say, God-given nature.
"The Bishop of Motherwell [Devine] addressed his flock and told them how appalled he was that I had received an honour and that 100 years ago I would have been imprisoned like Oscar Wilde. He feels that the Roman Catholic Church is beleaguered in some way.
" 'We neglect the gay lobby at our peril,' he said. And when a mother asked him what he would do if his child said he had a mission to be gay, the Bishop of Motherwell replied, sympathising with the mother but not the child, 'I would try to handle it with a degree of compassion but would not tolerate it.' "
A "mission to be gay"? What sort of person would couch it like that? I'm willing to bet it's your own word, Mr Devine, not that mother's. And what is a "mission to be gay"? Did you have a mission to be male instead of female, to be whatever height you are, have whatever girth you have. Did you to have a mission to have two feet and two testicles? (No, scrub that last bit. People like you don't have testicles.)
Callow, meanwhile, in an interview with the Sunday Times, says senior religious figures could not accept the changing attitudes in society towards gay relationships.
"The bishop is in my view a profoundly ignorant and stupid man in his views," he said. "If he finds it offensive that gay people want to celebrate those gay people who died in the Holocaust – which was a large number of people – then he’s also profoundly unchristian.
"The church is shocked by how quickly attitudes have changed. All churches have thrived on prejudice, it’s a means of keeping people under their control and I think they are really shocked at how quickly the world has moved on, especially as it isn’t the world they would like it to be, so they cite biblical incidents as being the word of God."
The appalling Devine has since said there was no evidence he had ever preached homophobia and he insisted he used McKellen’s honour to illustrate the "power and the strength of the homosexual lobby", as if Gandalf McKellen had gone in there and said, "Hey, I'm gay, now give me a K!"
"I was certainly not saying that homosexuality is a crime which requires prison, nothing of the kind," he said.
Of course it was "of the kind", you excuse for a human being. You made an immediate comparison with Oscar Wilde. What else was that but saying gays ought to go to jail?
He goes on, "The focus was on the progress made by homosexuals rather than the suggestion that there should be any draconian laws. It is all very well people in the gay lobby demanding rights, but they are riding roughshod over the rights of others in the process."
Oh, and whose rights are those? The rights of dim-witted morons like you to deny gays and lesbians the rights others have: equality in employment and services, the right to form relationships, and so forth? Is that what you mean by "riding roughshod"?
"What I am saying is not superior," this execrable twassock continues, "it’s just sticking up for 2,000 years of Christian values."
Well, Mr Devine, I'm sure most Christians in this country would tell you to stuff your 2,000 years of values right up your cassocked jacksie if you are an example of those values in action. Only the fundies would lower themselves as far as you have stooped, and they should be made to share a cell with you if ever you do the two years' hard labour I wish you would suddenly find yourself faced with.
Now go and hang your malicious head in shame.
In a speech earlier this year, this abomination of a man "singled out the decision to award McKellen an honour from the Queen as an example of the dangers of the increasing power of the gay lobby", according to the Sunday Times.
This reeking gobbet of slime said during a speech at St Aloysius college in Glasgow, "In this New Year’s Honours list, actor Ian McKellen was honoured for his work on behalf of homosexuals. A century ago Oscar Wilde was locked up and put in jail." (The knighthood was actually for McKellen's work for the performing arts, but the reasons have probably become a bit blurred in people's minds since then, maybe because he was later made a Companion of Honour for his work for drama and equality, although that wasn't until the 2008 New Year's Honours.)
The implication – considering that it is couched as criticism, not as delighted wonder at how enlightened we have become since the 1890s – seems to be that McKellen should be given two years' hard labour, too, or at the very least should never have been honoured, and that no gays should be honoured.
I suppose we ought to crucify people, too, for being pains in the arses of the authorities. That's a much older tradition than putting people in the slammer for what they do with their private parts.
Devine, sinking as low as anyone can sink without chewing into the subsoil, also accused homosexuals of aligning themselves with minority groups to present themselves as people under persecution, citing their attendance at Holocaust memorials.
What?
In a speech to a dinner for the gay lobby group Stonewall, which McKellen helped to found, the Lord of the Rings and Shakespearian actor said, "From the pulpit, homophobia is preached by some arrogant religious leaders who think their beliefs are superior to our inborn and, some would say, God-given nature.
"The Bishop of Motherwell [Devine] addressed his flock and told them how appalled he was that I had received an honour and that 100 years ago I would have been imprisoned like Oscar Wilde. He feels that the Roman Catholic Church is beleaguered in some way.
" 'We neglect the gay lobby at our peril,' he said. And when a mother asked him what he would do if his child said he had a mission to be gay, the Bishop of Motherwell replied, sympathising with the mother but not the child, 'I would try to handle it with a degree of compassion but would not tolerate it.' "
A "mission to be gay"? What sort of person would couch it like that? I'm willing to bet it's your own word, Mr Devine, not that mother's. And what is a "mission to be gay"? Did you have a mission to be male instead of female, to be whatever height you are, have whatever girth you have. Did you to have a mission to have two feet and two testicles? (No, scrub that last bit. People like you don't have testicles.)
Callow, meanwhile, in an interview with the Sunday Times, says senior religious figures could not accept the changing attitudes in society towards gay relationships.
"The bishop is in my view a profoundly ignorant and stupid man in his views," he said. "If he finds it offensive that gay people want to celebrate those gay people who died in the Holocaust – which was a large number of people – then he’s also profoundly unchristian.
"The church is shocked by how quickly attitudes have changed. All churches have thrived on prejudice, it’s a means of keeping people under their control and I think they are really shocked at how quickly the world has moved on, especially as it isn’t the world they would like it to be, so they cite biblical incidents as being the word of God."
The appalling Devine has since said there was no evidence he had ever preached homophobia and he insisted he used McKellen’s honour to illustrate the "power and the strength of the homosexual lobby", as if Gandalf McKellen had gone in there and said, "Hey, I'm gay, now give me a K!"
"I was certainly not saying that homosexuality is a crime which requires prison, nothing of the kind," he said.
Of course it was "of the kind", you excuse for a human being. You made an immediate comparison with Oscar Wilde. What else was that but saying gays ought to go to jail?
He goes on, "The focus was on the progress made by homosexuals rather than the suggestion that there should be any draconian laws. It is all very well people in the gay lobby demanding rights, but they are riding roughshod over the rights of others in the process."
Oh, and whose rights are those? The rights of dim-witted morons like you to deny gays and lesbians the rights others have: equality in employment and services, the right to form relationships, and so forth? Is that what you mean by "riding roughshod"?
"What I am saying is not superior," this execrable twassock continues, "it’s just sticking up for 2,000 years of Christian values."
Well, Mr Devine, I'm sure most Christians in this country would tell you to stuff your 2,000 years of values right up your cassocked jacksie if you are an example of those values in action. Only the fundies would lower themselves as far as you have stooped, and they should be made to share a cell with you if ever you do the two years' hard labour I wish you would suddenly find yourself faced with.
Now go and hang your malicious head in shame.
Sunday, 10 August 2008
Damned and doomed by religion if you're gay
It's time government's communities initiative began addressing "the needs of sexual-minority young people from homonegative faith backgrounds and stop pandering to the frank homophobia exposed by some of the religious professionals and community spokespersons of all the Abrahamic faiths", according a psychotherapist who is also a Catholic.
In a Guardian article, he says, "From a psychotherapeutic point of view, one of the risk factors for mental health difficulties among gay and lesbian people is growing up, and remaining, in one of the toxic versions of the monotheistic religions."
Nothing new there, then, but that's not a criticism of the writer, Dr Bernard Ratigan, a member of the Roman Catholic caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and of the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy. Indeed, it's good that he's said it.
It shouldn't need to be said, though, should it? It should be foremost in the minds of policymakers. Growing up in these overreligious environments can be toxic enough. If you're not of the approved sexuality, then you're damned and doomed.
"In Leicester, where I work," Ratigan writes, "it is not unusual for sexual-minority teenagers and young adults from the black and ethnic minority communities to seek consultations after getting little satisfaction from their religious professionals and GPs. The web is an invaluable aid for young adults, helping them find confidential sources that will take their concerns seriously without making judgments. A frequently posed question is: if my faith is wrong about my sexuality, where does this leave me?"
Often going mad, that's where it leaves you. And need we point out how many people have suffered – even to the point of suicide – as a result the fascistic nature of religion when it comes to sexuality?
In a Guardian article, he says, "From a psychotherapeutic point of view, one of the risk factors for mental health difficulties among gay and lesbian people is growing up, and remaining, in one of the toxic versions of the monotheistic religions."
Nothing new there, then, but that's not a criticism of the writer, Dr Bernard Ratigan, a member of the Roman Catholic caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and of the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy. Indeed, it's good that he's said it.
It shouldn't need to be said, though, should it? It should be foremost in the minds of policymakers. Growing up in these overreligious environments can be toxic enough. If you're not of the approved sexuality, then you're damned and doomed.
"In Leicester, where I work," Ratigan writes, "it is not unusual for sexual-minority teenagers and young adults from the black and ethnic minority communities to seek consultations after getting little satisfaction from their religious professionals and GPs. The web is an invaluable aid for young adults, helping them find confidential sources that will take their concerns seriously without making judgments. A frequently posed question is: if my faith is wrong about my sexuality, where does this leave me?"
Often going mad, that's where it leaves you. And need we point out how many people have suffered – even to the point of suicide – as a result the fascistic nature of religion when it comes to sexuality?
Saturday, 9 August 2008
Green by name . . .
Green by name, green by nature. The naïveté of the man knows no bounds. This is Stephen Green, he of Christian Voice, an outfit that calls itself "a Christian prayer and lobby group".
We've seen how Green tried to prosecute the BBC for showing Jerry Springer: The Opera. We've also seen how he asked for his court costs to be waived once he'd lost the case (see more on that here and here and on the National Secular Society's website here, where we learn that Green has made an offer the BBC can refuse). Ironically, his pursuit of Springer may well have helped to put an end to the UK blasphemy laws, which were duly dumped earlier in the summer.
Now, my fellow blogger Barry Duke over at the Freethinker blog has drawn my attention to Green's naïve attempt to explain to us why homosexuality is wrong, in a press release entitled "Two homosexuals can't be 'one flesh' ".
He begins with a generalisation: "The injunctions against homosexual activity in scripture are not to do with promiscuity, although that it an inevitable part of both male and female homosexuality."
He doesn't explain why it is inevitable. Yes, there's promiscuity among all sexually aware beings, and that goes for a lot of heterosexuals, too. But why is it inevitable, Mr Green – for either cohort?
He goes on:
Well, in a sense, he's right – if you accept (a) the existence of God and (b) that he said what we're told he said (there have been many interpretations of all that Leviticus stuff, remember). Given those things, he's right within the context of his own belief system.
Where he's utterly wrong, however, is that there's any proof of a god (or of God), let alone that primitive people writing what we now call the scriptures got it right. They've been spoken, written down, transliterated, tranlated, interpreted, reinterpreted, updated. But, of course, that is irrelevant if there was never any god to dole out the laws.
So we're left with a misguided man who never fails to entertain. We watch his antics as we would some poor sucker on a sitcom who is the butt of everyone's humour, who always slips on the banana skin, who always draws the short straw, who always gets things wrong, who always walks into the lamppost. It's almost – I say almost – possible to feel as sorry for him as we might for that sitcom character and his or her pratfalls.
It's worth adding a bit from an email the Freethinker editor, Barry Duke, sent me today. I'm sure he won't mind. "I should point out", he said, "that whenever I have come face to face with Green and his cronies, I always ask them why their perfect god, who created the perfectly designed human being, located the male G-spot up the arse. I have so far elicited many a blush, but not a single explanation."
Well, they don't explain: they just believe. And that's not a human thing to do. But, then, since when did fundamentalists understand what it means to be human?
We've seen how Green tried to prosecute the BBC for showing Jerry Springer: The Opera. We've also seen how he asked for his court costs to be waived once he'd lost the case (see more on that here and here and on the National Secular Society's website here, where we learn that Green has made an offer the BBC can refuse). Ironically, his pursuit of Springer may well have helped to put an end to the UK blasphemy laws, which were duly dumped earlier in the summer.
Now, my fellow blogger Barry Duke over at the Freethinker blog has drawn my attention to Green's naïve attempt to explain to us why homosexuality is wrong, in a press release entitled "Two homosexuals can't be 'one flesh' ".
He begins with a generalisation: "The injunctions against homosexual activity in scripture are not to do with promiscuity, although that it an inevitable part of both male and female homosexuality."
He doesn't explain why it is inevitable. Yes, there's promiscuity among all sexually aware beings, and that goes for a lot of heterosexuals, too. But why is it inevitable, Mr Green – for either cohort?
He goes on:
No, "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind" is as clear as "thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife," and "neither shalt thou lie with any beast" which are the neighbouring verses in Leviticus 18. It is as crazy to say that faithful homosexuality is allowed as faithful adultery or faithful bestiality.
Again, when the Apostle Paul describes homosexual desires as "vile affections" in Romans 1, he makes no exceptions for those who really sincerely think that is "how they were born".
It is impossible for anyone with a scrap of common sense to equate the sexual dead-end of homosexuality with the life-giving God-given institution of marriage.
Civil Partnerships, or any homosexual pairings, are a grotesque parody of marriage. The Lord Jesus repeated the words of Genesis when He said "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the twain shall be one flesh." Becoming one flesh is something a pair of homosexuals can never do. They are simply not physically and emotionally complementary like a man and a woman are.
Even the parts of the body argue against any view that homosexuality is on a par. Frustrated by their inability to enjoy sexual intercourse, homosexuals either press into perverted use a part of the anatomy perfectly designed for the extraction of water from solid bodily waste, or they engage in mutual masturbation. Neither is in any way endorsed or sanctioned by Almighty God or commons sense.
Homosexuals need our pity and the saving and healing power of Jesus Christ; they don't need well-meaning but error-strewn attempts to make them feel that something which God describes as an abomination is in any way acceptable. The loving way to deal with their problem is tough, but then the path to life was ever narrow.
Well, in a sense, he's right – if you accept (a) the existence of God and (b) that he said what we're told he said (there have been many interpretations of all that Leviticus stuff, remember). Given those things, he's right within the context of his own belief system.
Where he's utterly wrong, however, is that there's any proof of a god (or of God), let alone that primitive people writing what we now call the scriptures got it right. They've been spoken, written down, transliterated, tranlated, interpreted, reinterpreted, updated. But, of course, that is irrelevant if there was never any god to dole out the laws.
So we're left with a misguided man who never fails to entertain. We watch his antics as we would some poor sucker on a sitcom who is the butt of everyone's humour, who always slips on the banana skin, who always draws the short straw, who always gets things wrong, who always walks into the lamppost. It's almost – I say almost – possible to feel as sorry for him as we might for that sitcom character and his or her pratfalls.
It's worth adding a bit from an email the Freethinker editor, Barry Duke, sent me today. I'm sure he won't mind. "I should point out", he said, "that whenever I have come face to face with Green and his cronies, I always ask them why their perfect god, who created the perfectly designed human being, located the male G-spot up the arse. I have so far elicited many a blush, but not a single explanation."
Well, they don't explain: they just believe. And that's not a human thing to do. But, then, since when did fundamentalists understand what it means to be human?
Friday, 8 August 2008
Christianity or Islam? Take your pick
Norman Tebbit seems to think that, if we don't smarten up our Christianity, and drop all this poofy nonsense about same-sex marriage, Islam will creep up on us like the big bad wolf and eat us all up.
Well, it could well do that, anyway, but it won't be because some Christians have a sense of fairness and justice, and believe same-sex unions are as valid as opposite-sex ones.
Lord Tebbit is writing in the Daily Mail, where he no doubt feels very much at home. While he has on occasions produced bits of non-PC common sense, Tebbit is an arch homophobe. Today, be berates the Archbishop of Cant, Rowan Williams, for his having once embraced the idea that same-sex marriages are OK.
And these standards, Lord Tebbit?
Yeah, yeah. And this somehow, magically, means that a relationship will be better, more nourishing, more supportive? We've seen the products of some heterosexual marriages, and they're far from perfect. At least same-sex couples have to make a decision to have a child (whether by adopting or by AI), and it's not going to be the result of a drunken shag, and added to the heap of kids already crowding a family that's too large for its own good. Most families are not like that, but enough are to make us wonder whether same-sex couples might, on average, make better parents.
Tebbit then weighs in with the Islam threat:
But will hanging onto old Christianity solve this possibly real problem? His suggestion that it will do so brings with it the threat that a Christian country will tighten up the laws to force people to obey old biblical edicts. Laws can be tightened up without religion. Laws can be tightened up – if that is required – based on our needs and aspirations today, not of when ancient goat herders roamed the Middle East and created their laws according to their perceived societal needs.
If we wish to keep an Islamic state at bay, we need to stamp on the privileged status of all religions and keep them in the private sphere – not in the sense of never having them on display, of course, but in the sense of keeping them out of harm's way, unable to influence legislation, unable to wield power, unable to have undue influence over schoolkids. In other words, let religion be of hobby status as far as policy is concerned, having as much of the government's ear as any other group.
That way, the country has freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. The two can coexist.
Well, it could well do that, anyway, but it won't be because some Christians have a sense of fairness and justice, and believe same-sex unions are as valid as opposite-sex ones.
Lord Tebbit is writing in the Daily Mail, where he no doubt feels very much at home. While he has on occasions produced bits of non-PC common sense, Tebbit is an arch homophobe. Today, be berates the Archbishop of Cant, Rowan Williams, for his having once embraced the idea that same-sex marriages are OK.
Dr Rowan Williams is a decent, likeable and intelligent man. But over homosexuality, he seems to be in a terrible muddle, saying different things to different people. Just days after the Anglican Church agreed to call a halt to ordaining gay bishops, a debate in which he sided with the conservative majority, earlier private letters have emerged in which he equates gay sexual relationships to heterosexual marriage.
These letters show that his private views may be rather different and considerably more liberal. And as a result, many of his fellow travellers, I'd assume, are confused as to what their spiritual leader really believes.
There is, of course, nothing new about homosexuality or homosexual priests and I suspect that most people these days will say "so what?"
But the Church of England still has a role to play in upholding the standards and beliefs which have shaped the society in which we live. And for the leader of that institution to appear confused by his moral standpoint is surely disastrous.
And these standards, Lord Tebbit?
Not just any old group of people shacked up together for a while, but the exclusive partnership of one man and one woman bearing and bringing up children. That way, the traditions, rules and customs of society have been passed from one generation to the next and children have been cared for in a safe, nurturing and responsible environment.
Yeah, yeah. And this somehow, magically, means that a relationship will be better, more nourishing, more supportive? We've seen the products of some heterosexual marriages, and they're far from perfect. At least same-sex couples have to make a decision to have a child (whether by adopting or by AI), and it's not going to be the result of a drunken shag, and added to the heap of kids already crowding a family that's too large for its own good. Most families are not like that, but enough are to make us wonder whether same-sex couples might, on average, make better parents.
Tebbit then weighs in with the Islam threat:
So who is left? Watch out for the challenge from the mosques. An Islam with a modern face will soon begin to present itself as the natural home for those who long for moral certainty and a new sense of discipline within society. The calls for a caliphate, a religious state based on Sharia Law, will be toned down, the firebrand preachers will be done away with by the moderates, and there will be talk of the founding of a secular Muslim state, as in Turkey.
And with no other options on the table, they may soon find that they have an awful lot of fellow travellers with whom to bolster their ranks.
The task for the imams will be to exploit the fatal weakness of the multicultural society and replace a Christian church that has lost its sense of history and direction with a Mosque that has a strong, ingrained sense of both. For Islam, that would be a justified.
But will hanging onto old Christianity solve this possibly real problem? His suggestion that it will do so brings with it the threat that a Christian country will tighten up the laws to force people to obey old biblical edicts. Laws can be tightened up without religion. Laws can be tightened up – if that is required – based on our needs and aspirations today, not of when ancient goat herders roamed the Middle East and created their laws according to their perceived societal needs.
If we wish to keep an Islamic state at bay, we need to stamp on the privileged status of all religions and keep them in the private sphere – not in the sense of never having them on display, of course, but in the sense of keeping them out of harm's way, unable to influence legislation, unable to wield power, unable to have undue influence over schoolkids. In other words, let religion be of hobby status as far as policy is concerned, having as much of the government's ear as any other group.
That way, the country has freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. The two can coexist.
With this nonsense I thee wed
So now we are to have newly approved, updated sharia marriages in Britain. Women will have equal rights. It's being hailed as something revolutionary, instead of just bringing Muslim marriages (the not-legally-binding variety in this country, so far) into line with civilised practice. Civilised practice means women have equal rights. This sort of thing should be recognised by Muslims and everyone else.
According to today's Daily Telegraph, Muslim women are to be "guaranteed equal rights in marriage under a new wedding contract negotiated by leading Islamic organisations and clerics in Britain". It goes on:
A man will have to waive his right to polygamy! What right? In this country, a man can take as many women as he chooses, but only one is his wife in British law. And it's British law that counts, because it's British law that we all live under (warts and all).
Something called the Muslim Institute has been working four years to draw up this contract, apparently. Perhaps it met only once every two years – who knows? Seems an awfully long time to work on what should be simple equality measures. These marriages are going to take place in Blightly, after all, not some primitive Islamic theocracy.
The story tells us:
Does this mean that the new arrangement will be recognised? It doesn't say. Whatever happens, what on earth is the need for another type of marriage when we have the register office? Surely, it's complicated enough already with having "marriage" for heterosexual couples and "civil partnerships" for same-sex couples.
If religious groups wish to have ceremonies to mark their unions so that they can pretend it's in the eyes of their invisible friend, that's fine, and it should be their right. As long as there's one marriage law to suit everyone and, no matter what the traditions of the religious group, the law of the land is the one that is answered to when it comes to matters of divorce and the welfare of children.
So far, with sharia marriages that aren't legally recognised, "In cases of divorces, the absence of such proof, has meant that many Muslim women have been denied financial rights," the Telegraph says.
Is this not a case in point? If women are married legally, under British law, then their divorce rights are guaranteed and any settlements will be arbitrated according to the same law as applies to others who share this soil. No other form of marriage should be recognised as anything but an informal bonding within a religious context. And there's nothing wrong with that, provided it remains at that, and doesn't try to claim any legal status.
But I suspect it will not be long before different arrangements, in law, are in place, based on one's choice of superstition, requiring yet more buraucracy, at taxpayers' expense, to maintain it all.
According to today's Daily Telegraph, Muslim women are to be "guaranteed equal rights in marriage under a new wedding contract negotiated by leading Islamic organisations and clerics in Britain". It goes on:
Hailed as the biggest change in Sharia law in Britain for 100 years, a married Muslim couple will now have equal rights. A husband will have to waive his right to polygamy, allowed under Islamic law, in the new contract which has been described as "revolutionary".
A man will have to waive his right to polygamy! What right? In this country, a man can take as many women as he chooses, but only one is his wife in British law. And it's British law that counts, because it's British law that we all live under (warts and all).
Something called the Muslim Institute has been working four years to draw up this contract, apparently. Perhaps it met only once every two years – who knows? Seems an awfully long time to work on what should be simple equality measures. These marriages are going to take place in Blightly, after all, not some primitive Islamic theocracy.
The story tells us:
Currently Muslims in Britain have an Islamic ceremony called a nikah (a non register office marriage) which, although it is guaranteed under Sharia law, is not legally binding and does not provide a woman with written proof of the marriage and of the terms and conditions agreed between the spouses.
Does this mean that the new arrangement will be recognised? It doesn't say. Whatever happens, what on earth is the need for another type of marriage when we have the register office? Surely, it's complicated enough already with having "marriage" for heterosexual couples and "civil partnerships" for same-sex couples.
If religious groups wish to have ceremonies to mark their unions so that they can pretend it's in the eyes of their invisible friend, that's fine, and it should be their right. As long as there's one marriage law to suit everyone and, no matter what the traditions of the religious group, the law of the land is the one that is answered to when it comes to matters of divorce and the welfare of children.
So far, with sharia marriages that aren't legally recognised, "In cases of divorces, the absence of such proof, has meant that many Muslim women have been denied financial rights," the Telegraph says.
Is this not a case in point? If women are married legally, under British law, then their divorce rights are guaranteed and any settlements will be arbitrated according to the same law as applies to others who share this soil. No other form of marriage should be recognised as anything but an informal bonding within a religious context. And there's nothing wrong with that, provided it remains at that, and doesn't try to claim any legal status.
But I suspect it will not be long before different arrangements, in law, are in place, based on one's choice of superstition, requiring yet more buraucracy, at taxpayers' expense, to maintain it all.
Thursday, 7 August 2008
How Muslims rule what we read – Part 937
Prepare to be annoyed. To be very annoyed. For those of you who like historical novels have just been denied one.
It's about Aisha, the little girl a chap called Mohammed took as his wife. I haven't read it – no one has, except the publishers and any others who have had access to the manuscript, proofs and/or advance copies – so can't comment on its accuracy or how well written it is.
But it's from an established historical novelist and journalist, Sherry Jones, who had already begun planning an eight-city book tour for her novel, The Jewel of Medina, having learned Arabic and studied scholarly works on Aisha's life in order to bring the character to life.
But Random House have pulled it. They feared it would be a new Satanic Verses. The Wall Street Journal tells us:
So this is it, is it? For ever? We have to consult supersitious pillocks before anything can be published, if it so much as hints that it might have some mention of Islam and its hideous history and its frightful idelology? Are we supposed to quake in our boots, fear for our lives, our loves ones' lives, our employees' lives, our buildings, our streets lest some oversensititive Muslim gets it into his obsessed, Allah-soaked head that some kind of insult might perhaps be perceived by said same oversensitive Muslim and some of his fellows?
Is this our world now? We've seen it with the Mo cartoons and others; we've seen how Muslims here in the UK don't even like pictures of dogs on things, even though they are in a country that does like pictures of dogs on things, thank you very much!
Thankfully, not all Muslims feel the same way. Just the more vocal, it seems. And they always seem to be in a majority. Seem. Is that because others don't speak out enough? Or is it really the case that most Muslims are religion-soaked idiots? Tell me, somebody. I don't know. It just seems that way. And when do you see angry swathes of Muslims marching down a Western street crying, "Stop! Censorship is an outrage! You must allow free expression!"?
There's one at least. Not raving but frowning. For the writer of the Wall Street Journal piece, Asra Q Nomani, is a Muslim, and bemoans this situation:
But will other publishers take it, now that Random House has set the fireball rolling?
It wasn't a Muslim who instigated all this, however, but an American academic, Denise Spelling, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin and someone who is evidently an Islam apologist.
"In April, looking for endorsements," says the Wall Street Journal, "Random House sent galleys [early proofs] to writers and scholars, including Denise Spellberg [. . .]. Ms Jones put her on the list because she read Ms Spellberg's book, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr." The article goes on:
Other bloggers are also fired by this latest threat to our freedom of expression. MediaWatchWatch has a go at it, and so does Ophelia Benson in Butterflies and Wheels, with her accustomed weapons-grade ferocity. Benson concludes:
Our fury is limited to the words we write and speak, and that is as it should be. The fury of the Muslim will be one of fists and fire and threats of decapitation and marching and moaning and whingeing and demanding.
What we have allowed into our world now is something very dark, very sinister, something that will, if we're not very careful, soon have us culturally hogtied, appealing – before we dare to publish a word – to some bloody fatwa committee of bearded, grizzled old men who wouldn't know a good piece of fiction if they ever reached far enough into the real world to take it down off the shelf.
It's about Aisha, the little girl a chap called Mohammed took as his wife. I haven't read it – no one has, except the publishers and any others who have had access to the manuscript, proofs and/or advance copies – so can't comment on its accuracy or how well written it is.
But it's from an established historical novelist and journalist, Sherry Jones, who had already begun planning an eight-city book tour for her novel, The Jewel of Medina, having learned Arabic and studied scholarly works on Aisha's life in order to bring the character to life.
But Random House have pulled it. They feared it would be a new Satanic Verses. The Wall Street Journal tells us:
In an interview about Ms Jones's novel, Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said that it "disturbs us that we feel we cannot publish it right now." He said that after sending out advance copies of the novel, the company received "from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment".
After consulting security experts and Islam scholars, Mr Perry said the company decided "to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel".
So this is it, is it? For ever? We have to consult supersitious pillocks before anything can be published, if it so much as hints that it might have some mention of Islam and its hideous history and its frightful idelology? Are we supposed to quake in our boots, fear for our lives, our loves ones' lives, our employees' lives, our buildings, our streets lest some oversensititive Muslim gets it into his obsessed, Allah-soaked head that some kind of insult might perhaps be perceived by said same oversensitive Muslim and some of his fellows?
Is this our world now? We've seen it with the Mo cartoons and others; we've seen how Muslims here in the UK don't even like pictures of dogs on things, even though they are in a country that does like pictures of dogs on things, thank you very much!
Thankfully, not all Muslims feel the same way. Just the more vocal, it seems. And they always seem to be in a majority. Seem. Is that because others don't speak out enough? Or is it really the case that most Muslims are religion-soaked idiots? Tell me, somebody. I don't know. It just seems that way. And when do you see angry swathes of Muslims marching down a Western street crying, "Stop! Censorship is an outrage! You must allow free expression!"?
There's one at least. Not raving but frowning. For the writer of the Wall Street Journal piece, Asra Q Nomani, is a Muslim, and bemoans this situation:
This saga upsets me as a Muslim – and as a writer who believes that fiction can bring Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing way. "I'm devastated," Ms Jones told me after the book got spiked, adding, "I wanted to honor Aisha and all the wives of Muhammad by giving voice to them, remarkable women whose crucial roles in the shaping of Islam have so often been ignored – silenced – by historians." Last month, Ms Jones signed a termination agreement with Random House, so her literary agent could shop the book to other publishers.
But will other publishers take it, now that Random House has set the fireball rolling?
It wasn't a Muslim who instigated all this, however, but an American academic, Denise Spelling, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin and someone who is evidently an Islam apologist.
"In April, looking for endorsements," says the Wall Street Journal, "Random House sent galleys [early proofs] to writers and scholars, including Denise Spellberg [. . .]. Ms Jones put her on the list because she read Ms Spellberg's book, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr." The article goes on:
But Ms Spellberg wasn't a fan of Ms Jones's book. On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms Spellberg's classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. "She was upset," Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms Spellberg told him the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history," and asked him to warn Muslims.
In an interview, Ms Spellberg told me the novel is a "very ugly, stupid piece of work".
Other bloggers are also fired by this latest threat to our freedom of expression. MediaWatchWatch has a go at it, and so does Ophelia Benson in Butterflies and Wheels, with her accustomed weapons-grade ferocity. Benson concludes:
Denise Spellberg, self-appointed censor and destroyer of books: you should be embarrassed at yourself. You should go into a very different line of work, right away – you should not be allowed anywhere near students, and you should never get another book or article published.
Our fury is limited to the words we write and speak, and that is as it should be. The fury of the Muslim will be one of fists and fire and threats of decapitation and marching and moaning and whingeing and demanding.
What we have allowed into our world now is something very dark, very sinister, something that will, if we're not very careful, soon have us culturally hogtied, appealing – before we dare to publish a word – to some bloody fatwa committee of bearded, grizzled old men who wouldn't know a good piece of fiction if they ever reached far enough into the real world to take it down off the shelf.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
JC in Gitmo
The Welsh blogger the Cynical Dragon is being cynical with the South Wales Echo again, this time over a story about a new play called Iesu! in which a female Jesus is thrown into a Guantánamo-style prison camp.
The Cynical Dragon was one of a number of bloggers, including us, who were outraged by the Echo's grovelling apology recently to Christian fundamentalists after an opinion piece on what one such fundamentalist might have made of Jesus as told in the Gospels, and might even have concluded that he was gay. For this, the writer got his opinion piece butchered in its online version. Read our take on it here, and sign the petition we talk of there here.
The Cynical Dragon wonders if the Echo will apologise for reporting this, too. Will Stephen Green and his appalling Christian Voice outfit be out complaining about this, too? Well, I doubt the paper will censor this one. It's a straight news story, after all, as opposed to a comment piece, reporting on a playwright-priest, Aled Jones Williams, who, in a Welsh-language play at the Eisteddfod in Cardiff, has depicted Jesus as a woman who, instead of being crucified, is incarcerated in a Gitmo-style prison camp and brutalised.
However, it does no harm to keep our readers alert to the fact that this sort of censorship is going on, so all power to the Dragon's fiery breath.
Back to the play. The Dragon reckons it's bollocks to portray Jesus as a Gitmo prisoner.
He has a point. From an artistic point of view, though, my take on it (and I've posted something along these lines in the comments section of his blog) is this.
I once saw Julius Caesar set in Mussolini's Italy: costumes, sets. It was still Julius Caesar, of course, with the Bard's words intact. For me this was a way of putting a historical (and in this case literary) picture against a different background, much as you might have your same photographic subject (your wife, boyfriend, butler) in ten different pictures, but all in different settings: same subject, different impression given.
Now to me this placing of a mythical (perhaps partly historical) figure, Jesus of Nazareth, in a different setting can only help Christians (and anyone else who happens to be interested) to understand the meaning of their chosen belief system. Or, for that matter, those who don't believe it in but have an interest in mythology and religion. It's an exercise. I think it's a good exercise. I wish I could see it (if I understood Welsh).
It's part of what we as human beings do when we're doing our cultural thing: writing, acting, making music, painting, dancing.
But, to return to my analogy of a photo for a moment, let's compare a plain, representative photograph with a painting. A painter can do more, because he can inject more of his own personality into the work, and with it allow the viewer to look at something in a new way. Sometimes an artist injects something at a psychological level that he may not be fully aware of himself, something that it's not possible to realise in logical thought and talk about – but you know something is there. That's art over and above photobooth photography.
And so it is with the performing arts. Provided an audience know that what they are seeing is not meant to be a literal rendering of a factual story, they can allow themselves to be taken in new directions.
Do the Stephen Green types of Christian not wish to explore their big pal in the sky in different ways, perhaps see nuances they haven't perceived before? Don't they even conjecture that it's part of the human way of doing things that allows us to explore in this way? Do they not even entertain the possibility that, within their belief system, God gave some human beings the arts and skills to do this, as a way of speaking to others, just as there are preachers who take the word to the flocks?
Ah, but I'm imbuing your average Christian fundamentalist with imagination in this picture, aren't I? Silly me! They don't do imagination. They want that straightforward photograph against a plain background, so they can see what they've got. They want the picture in the scriptures, with no artist's interpretation that might open up new meanings for them.
Their belief is sterile. They and their belief belong together.
I am not religious, but I share the vision of this priest who is looking at the object of his veneration in a different way, and probably bringing something fresh to the minds of his audience/flock, too.
The Cynical Dragon was one of a number of bloggers, including us, who were outraged by the Echo's grovelling apology recently to Christian fundamentalists after an opinion piece on what one such fundamentalist might have made of Jesus as told in the Gospels, and might even have concluded that he was gay. For this, the writer got his opinion piece butchered in its online version. Read our take on it here, and sign the petition we talk of there here.
The Cynical Dragon wonders if the Echo will apologise for reporting this, too. Will Stephen Green and his appalling Christian Voice outfit be out complaining about this, too? Well, I doubt the paper will censor this one. It's a straight news story, after all, as opposed to a comment piece, reporting on a playwright-priest, Aled Jones Williams, who, in a Welsh-language play at the Eisteddfod in Cardiff, has depicted Jesus as a woman who, instead of being crucified, is incarcerated in a Gitmo-style prison camp and brutalised.
However, it does no harm to keep our readers alert to the fact that this sort of censorship is going on, so all power to the Dragon's fiery breath.
Back to the play. The Dragon reckons it's bollocks to portray Jesus as a Gitmo prisoner.
[T]he drama sounds a right load of balls. Anyone who thinks that putting a fictional religious character in Guantanamo and equating his fictional trials with the imprisonment of dangerous religious terrorists who'd happily kill half the world is bonkers.
He has a point. From an artistic point of view, though, my take on it (and I've posted something along these lines in the comments section of his blog) is this.
I once saw Julius Caesar set in Mussolini's Italy: costumes, sets. It was still Julius Caesar, of course, with the Bard's words intact. For me this was a way of putting a historical (and in this case literary) picture against a different background, much as you might have your same photographic subject (your wife, boyfriend, butler) in ten different pictures, but all in different settings: same subject, different impression given.
Now to me this placing of a mythical (perhaps partly historical) figure, Jesus of Nazareth, in a different setting can only help Christians (and anyone else who happens to be interested) to understand the meaning of their chosen belief system. Or, for that matter, those who don't believe it in but have an interest in mythology and religion. It's an exercise. I think it's a good exercise. I wish I could see it (if I understood Welsh).
It's part of what we as human beings do when we're doing our cultural thing: writing, acting, making music, painting, dancing.
But, to return to my analogy of a photo for a moment, let's compare a plain, representative photograph with a painting. A painter can do more, because he can inject more of his own personality into the work, and with it allow the viewer to look at something in a new way. Sometimes an artist injects something at a psychological level that he may not be fully aware of himself, something that it's not possible to realise in logical thought and talk about – but you know something is there. That's art over and above photobooth photography.
And so it is with the performing arts. Provided an audience know that what they are seeing is not meant to be a literal rendering of a factual story, they can allow themselves to be taken in new directions.
Do the Stephen Green types of Christian not wish to explore their big pal in the sky in different ways, perhaps see nuances they haven't perceived before? Don't they even conjecture that it's part of the human way of doing things that allows us to explore in this way? Do they not even entertain the possibility that, within their belief system, God gave some human beings the arts and skills to do this, as a way of speaking to others, just as there are preachers who take the word to the flocks?
Ah, but I'm imbuing your average Christian fundamentalist with imagination in this picture, aren't I? Silly me! They don't do imagination. They want that straightforward photograph against a plain background, so they can see what they've got. They want the picture in the scriptures, with no artist's interpretation that might open up new meanings for them.
Their belief is sterile. They and their belief belong together.
I am not religious, but I share the vision of this priest who is looking at the object of his veneration in a different way, and probably bringing something fresh to the minds of his audience/flock, too.
Abbot talks of "arbitrary" religious beliefs
The North American, "pro-life", Web-based LifeSiteNews.com treats its readers to a brief examination of the British media, in the course of discussing the Lillian Ladele case (this link will take you to all our stories on that, including this and any future ones).
Christian fundmantalist Ladele is the Islington registrar who won an employment-tribunal case after she'd refused to handle same-sex weddings. Now, she'll be able to be excused them. But the council, to its credit, is appealing the decision.
The story tells us that the Labour MP Diane Abbott has tabled a Commons motion that would eliminate the so-called freedom-of-religious-conscience rights of public servants who, as it rather pointedly puts it, "oppose the homosexualist political agenda".
I wish someone would tell me where this huge conspiracy is, because all I've been aware of is lesbians and gays wanting the same rights and privileges as anyone else gets. But, of course, if that doesn't fit with the "pro-life" lobby – who clearly do have a political agenda, especially in America – then it's some sort of evil plot to take over the world.
In the course of its story, LifeSiteNews.com tours some of the British media, with a short description on each, and concludes that even the most conservative have been rather taken aback by the judgment.
Christian fundmantalist Ladele is the Islington registrar who won an employment-tribunal case after she'd refused to handle same-sex weddings. Now, she'll be able to be excused them. But the council, to its credit, is appealing the decision.
The story tells us that the Labour MP Diane Abbott has tabled a Commons motion that would eliminate the so-called freedom-of-religious-conscience rights of public servants who, as it rather pointedly puts it, "oppose the homosexualist political agenda".
I wish someone would tell me where this huge conspiracy is, because all I've been aware of is lesbians and gays wanting the same rights and privileges as anyone else gets. But, of course, if that doesn't fit with the "pro-life" lobby – who clearly do have a political agenda, especially in America – then it's some sort of evil plot to take over the world.
In the course of its story, LifeSiteNews.com tours some of the British media, with a short description on each, and concludes that even the most conservative have been rather taken aback by the judgment.
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
How do you defame the utterly fatuous?
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting take on the fashionable pastime of claiming one's beliefs in sky fairies are being "defamed". Its headline says, " 'Defamation of Religion' – The New International Legal Craze?"
"Is liability for 'defamation of religion' catching on?" it asks, and continues:
"Islamophobia is a problem," says Angela Wu, the international law director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public-interest law firm. "But this is not a practical solution, and it destabilizes the human rights agenda. The defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals, and makes the state the arbiter of which ideas are true. It requires the state to sort good and bad ideologies."
And it is to this stage that the world's God botherers – well, many of them, anyway – want to bring us. An end to freedom of expression, and let's instead see the world according to desiccated old scriptures written by ancient nomadic herdsmen.
"Is liability for 'defamation of religion' catching on?" it asks, and continues:
The United Nations hopes so, reports Maclean’s[. . .] According to Maclean’s, Pakistan brought the first “defamation of religions” resolution, entitled “Defamation of Islam,” to the UN Human Rights Council in 1999. (The title was later changed to include all religions, notes Maclean’s, although the texts of all subsequent resolutions have continued to single out Islam.)
In March, the Islamic nations were successful in introducing a change to the mandate of the UN’s “special rapporteur on freedom of expression” (an official who travels the world investigating and reporting on censorship and violations of free speech) to now “report on instances where the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.” The issue, reports the magazine, is expected to be a focal point of the UN World Conference Against Racism next year in Geneva.
"Islamophobia is a problem," says Angela Wu, the international law director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public-interest law firm. "But this is not a practical solution, and it destabilizes the human rights agenda. The defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals, and makes the state the arbiter of which ideas are true. It requires the state to sort good and bad ideologies."
And it is to this stage that the world's God botherers – well, many of them, anyway – want to bring us. An end to freedom of expression, and let's instead see the world according to desiccated old scriptures written by ancient nomadic herdsmen.
Dry humour and a blow job in Ohio
This stunt (pictured) was set up by American Atheists, according to a story in the Columbus Dispatch. They described it as a "coming-out party" for atheists.
Well, if you were baptised, you were made wet. A blow job with a hair dryer seems the best antidote.
The master of ceremonies was AA's president, Frank Zindler, who called to the assembled throng, "Do you agree that the magical potency of today's ceremony is exactly equal to the magical efficacy of ceremonial baptism with dihydrogen oxide, and do you agree that the power of all magical ceremonies is nonexistent?"
There was a huge "amen", while the first in the queue was calling, "Dry me, brother! I'm free!" The congregation loved it.
"It sounds perhaps frivolous, but it's a very serious thing," Zindler told reporters before the ceremony. "The event is more of an invitation to a revolution more than a party in a sense. Until we come out of the closet and let people know our numbers, politicians think they can ignore us."
Monday, 4 August 2008
Muslims "import creationism" into schools
Professor Richard Dawkins, author of (among other things) The God Delusion, has laid into the British education system for allowing creationism to be taught in schools. His anger is also directed at Muslims in Britain, who, he says, are adding to the problem.
His views are made known in today's Daily Telegraph, where he says, "Most devout Muslims are creationists, so, when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught."
Dawkins, professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, says teachers are "bending over backwards" to accommodate these prejudices; the government could do more, but it isn't doing so. It is "fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come".
Science teaching is under threat because the government accepts that theories such as "intelligent design" can be discussed "in the context of being one of a range of views". Teachers are scared of being thought racist, he says.
It's come to something when Dawkins feels he has to make these points. We have an education system that is supposed to educate, and give the best theories that are to hand so far on such subjects as the creation of the universe. And, because teachers (like so many other bodies) wish to kowtow to Muslims, whether because of this silly racism thing (Islam is a religion, not a race) or because they want to seem politically correct, we get our kids being taught creationism (whether the long or short variety).
Islam, along with some types of Christian fundamentalism, is backward-thinking and we have a supine government that allows lies to be taught as facts in a Western country in the twenty-first century. It beggars belief. Or, rather, it buggers belief in anything that's sensible.
His views are made known in today's Daily Telegraph, where he says, "Most devout Muslims are creationists, so, when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught."
Dawkins, professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, says teachers are "bending over backwards" to accommodate these prejudices; the government could do more, but it isn't doing so. It is "fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come".
Science teaching is under threat because the government accepts that theories such as "intelligent design" can be discussed "in the context of being one of a range of views". Teachers are scared of being thought racist, he says.
It's come to something when Dawkins feels he has to make these points. We have an education system that is supposed to educate, and give the best theories that are to hand so far on such subjects as the creation of the universe. And, because teachers (like so many other bodies) wish to kowtow to Muslims, whether because of this silly racism thing (Islam is a religion, not a race) or because they want to seem politically correct, we get our kids being taught creationism (whether the long or short variety).
Islam, along with some types of Christian fundamentalism, is backward-thinking and we have a supine government that allows lies to be taught as facts in a Western country in the twenty-first century. It beggars belief. Or, rather, it buggers belief in anything that's sensible.
Splits within splits
It's not just the Anglican Communion as a whole that is split over gays, but the Episcopal Church within it, according to this piece in the Republican American.
Episcopalians, it says, keep insisting it's "not about gays".
That international religious conference was, of course, Lambeth, the ten-yearly powwow attended by the world's Anglican bishops. But this year a quarter of them stayed away, because they think the Episcopalians are very naughty for voting for and then consecrating Bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire.
The conference, in Canterbury, showed "no ability to suture [the Church's] wounds", the paper tells us. It was not intended to make binding decisions, but "the strife within the church was so deep that more than 200 conservative bishops from Africa, Asia and North America boycotted the meeting entirely, convening in Jerusalem instead".
Episcopalians, it says, keep insisting it's "not about gays".
But, as American Episcopal bishops return home from an international religious conference this week, it's clear that the "gay issue" is one that continues to split the Episcopal church. Since the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, Anglicans have been divided over their approach to gay priests, gay marriage and who holds ultimate authority in the communion of 77 million followers around the world.
That international religious conference was, of course, Lambeth, the ten-yearly powwow attended by the world's Anglican bishops. But this year a quarter of them stayed away, because they think the Episcopalians are very naughty for voting for and then consecrating Bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire.
The conference, in Canterbury, showed "no ability to suture [the Church's] wounds", the paper tells us. It was not intended to make binding decisions, but "the strife within the church was so deep that more than 200 conservative bishops from Africa, Asia and North America boycotted the meeting entirely, convening in Jerusalem instead".
Sunday, 3 August 2008
Secularism – a cast-iron case
Is there a cast-iron case for a secular society? Nick Cohen thinks so, writing in today's (UK) Observer.
He looks at how anti-discrimination laws aim to, well, to prevent discrimination based on, inter alia, sexuality. But then he makes the point that religion seems to want to go beyond that, and it's a cogent argument. Go read. Among the cases he cites is the one of the Sikh school pupil in Aberdare, South Wales, whom we've featured a few times (see "Baubles, bangles and bias" from Friday's Pink Triangle posts).
Cohen doesn't like the Aberdare judgment any more than we did:
He says that so imbued with discriminatory thinking have politicians and judges become that "they are shocked when citizens ask for equality before the law".
He looks at how anti-discrimination laws aim to, well, to prevent discrimination based on, inter alia, sexuality. But then he makes the point that religion seems to want to go beyond that, and it's a cogent argument. Go read. Among the cases he cites is the one of the Sikh school pupil in Aberdare, South Wales, whom we've featured a few times (see "Baubles, bangles and bias" from Friday's Pink Triangle posts).
Cohen doesn't like the Aberdare judgment any more than we did:
Last week, Mr Justice Silber ruled that Aberdare Girls' School in South Wales had been guilty of racial discrimination when it excluded Sarika Watkins-Singh for insisting on wearing a religious bracelet. It was a trivial case, which made you wonder about the dogmatism of both sides and the quality of their lawyers. The school could have given way – the bracelet was little more than a slim band. Watkins-Singh's parents could have accepted that they had a duty to uphold the authority of the teachers. Still, for all the pettiness, Mr Justice Silber's judgment was remarkable for his inability to recognise that a just society should treat people equally. He didn't rule that all the girls at Aberdare had the right to wear bracelets, just Watkins-Singh, because she was its only Sikh pupil.
He says that so imbued with discriminatory thinking have politicians and judges become that "they are shocked when citizens ask for equality before the law".
Sign up, sign up
There's an online petition now, organised by Barry Duke of the Freethinker, over that business of the South Wales newspaper that showed a distinct lack of testicular fortitude when it issued an arse-licking apology to Christians who felt peeved after a columnist, Dan O'Neill, had dared to suggest that Jesus's actions as related to us in the Gospels might cause some to question his sexuality.
The columnist, as you can see from this Pink Triangle post of July, was not himself questioning Jesus's sexuality (not that there should be anything wrong in that): he was asking what Stephen Green of Christian Voice – were he not already convinced otherwise – would have made of Jesus had he come across stories of him for the first time.
Just so it gets another airing after the South Wales Echo censored it online, I'll print it again, here:
Not – let us emphasise again, lest it not get through to those who clearly cannot tell the difference – that the writer of the "offending" column is speculating for himself, but for an imagined version of Stephen Green who might come across Jesus without the baggage of his, Green's, prejudices.
And, for that piece of speculation on what a man in 2008 might think of a Gospel account, O'Neill is censored. As well as links I gave in the linked-to Pink Triangle story above, Ophelia Benson's had a go in the excellent Butterflies and Wheels.
Right, now go and sign that petition.
The columnist, as you can see from this Pink Triangle post of July, was not himself questioning Jesus's sexuality (not that there should be anything wrong in that): he was asking what Stephen Green of Christian Voice – were he not already convinced otherwise – would have made of Jesus had he come across stories of him for the first time.
Just so it gets another airing after the South Wales Echo censored it online, I'll print it again, here:
How would this fanatical Hammerer of Homosexuals [Green], leader of a bunch of annoying bigots [Christian Voice] have interpreted events in Palestine a couple of thousand years ago? 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?
Not – let us emphasise again, lest it not get through to those who clearly cannot tell the difference – that the writer of the "offending" column is speculating for himself, but for an imagined version of Stephen Green who might come across Jesus without the baggage of his, Green's, prejudices.
And, for that piece of speculation on what a man in 2008 might think of a Gospel account, O'Neill is censored. As well as links I gave in the linked-to Pink Triangle story above, Ophelia Benson's had a go in the excellent Butterflies and Wheels.
Right, now go and sign that petition.
Saturday, 2 August 2008
Pride in spite of prejudice (from that bloody woman)
They're asking people to turn out in their droves for Belfast Gay Pride today, which will fly in the face of recent homophobic remarks from bitter, twisted Iris Robinson, the bigot who is not only an MP and and Assembly Member but also chairs Northern Ireland's Assembly Health Committee.We've carried several stories over the past few weeks about that bloody woman, as we can't resist calling her, which will provide the background. Briefly, she thinks homosexuality is an abomination, she's said the only thing worse that a homosexual is a child abuser and that homosexuals need psychiatric help.
But Pride will parade proudly today, in spite of this appalling prat. And, indeed, people are being urged to turn out in force for the parade.
The Irish Times says:
Her stance has sparked a wider debate in Northern Ireland with gay rights campaigners and religious adherents exchanging firmly held views in a variety of media outlets.
That dialogue is set to be played out again at today’s event with a sizeable group of protesters expected to gather outside Belfast City Hall as the colourful parade passes by.
Political opponents of Mrs Robinson have also staged a number of demonstrations in the week leading up to the pride event.
Gerry Lynch of the Alliance Party has called on people to make the event the biggest yet seen in Northern Ireland.
“I would encourage everyone to come along to the Pride march, whether they’re gay or straight, young or old, alone or with their families,” he said.
Meanwhile, one of Northern Ireland’s main newspapers carried a full-page ad yesterday from a Free Presbyterian church entitled the “Word of God Against Sodomy” stating that homosexuality is an offence in the eye of Bible believers.
Well Bible believers can go to hell. If there were one, they probably would.
Frilly pink Tories
But they'll be there for the second year running in Brighton today. Pink News describes it as the Conservative party's "attempts to make itself appealing to the gay community".
Those who remember Section 28 of the Local Government Act, which was finally repealed only in November 2003 (2000 in Scotland) – having been sat on for six years by a Labour government, but that's another Tory, er, story – would have laughed then if they'd been painted a picture of Tories on a big camp float celebrating sexual diversity, instead of condemning it with the fervour of a nutty Catholic cardinal or an African archbishop doing an exorcism.
David Bull, a TV doctor and Tory candidate for Brighton Pavilion, is behind today's float, says Pink News. I think they mean behind the idea rather than walking in its wake. He's quoted as saying, "Four years ago if someone said the Conservative Party were going to do a float for Pride, we would have been laughed out of the city.
"Last year we were amazed at the positive response and that’s why all the team here in Brighton and Hove wanted to put together a float that represents the fact that Brighton is the best place to be in the world. It’s somewhere that everyone can be themselves."
Friday, 1 August 2008
Baubles, bangles and bias
We're not the only ones here at Pink Triangle to pose the question about what will happen to schools' dress codes after the case of the 14-year-old Sikh pupil in South Wales who won her case after a dispute over her bangle.
The kara is a thin, unobtrusive bangle that is considered essential (see our previous posts, "So it's any bling goes at school today" and "Bangle wrangle") within the Sikh religion. Why should there be a fuss over something so inoffensive? you may ask.
But the school, at Aberdare, said no jewellery except ear studs and watches. That sounds to me like a rule that says, "No exceptions!" But an exception has been made, and that exception has been made in the name of religion.
And that is favouring the religious above others, who might wish to wear, say, a nose stud or a special kind of necklace – equally unobtrusive, you could argue – for good reasons of their own.
But they wouldn't be allowed to. Yet the Sikh girl is allowed her bangle.
The Times Educational Supplement has a report today, and teachers' unions, it seems, aren't happy. They need guidance.
The only guidance that can come out of this is that pupils be allowed to wear only what the school stipulates is allowable, except in the case of religious requirements. Or perceived religious requirements.
And that would be grossly unfair and morally indefensible.
The kara is a thin, unobtrusive bangle that is considered essential (see our previous posts, "So it's any bling goes at school today" and "Bangle wrangle") within the Sikh religion. Why should there be a fuss over something so inoffensive? you may ask.
But the school, at Aberdare, said no jewellery except ear studs and watches. That sounds to me like a rule that says, "No exceptions!" But an exception has been made, and that exception has been made in the name of religion.
And that is favouring the religious above others, who might wish to wear, say, a nose stud or a special kind of necklace – equally unobtrusive, you could argue – for good reasons of their own.
But they wouldn't be allowed to. Yet the Sikh girl is allowed her bangle.
The Times Educational Supplement has a report today, and teachers' unions, it seems, aren't happy. They need guidance.
The only guidance that can come out of this is that pupils be allowed to wear only what the school stipulates is allowable, except in the case of religious requirements. Or perceived religious requirements.
And that would be grossly unfair and morally indefensible.
Why Catholicism is disordered behaviour
It's to be hoped that the reason 150 delegates crammed into a room designed for 50 was so that they could satisfy themselves that the speaker really was going to spout such utter rubbish that they wouldn't wish to miss it, for the laugh. But I doubt it, somehow.
This was at the Lambeth Conference, where they heard Cardinal Walter Kaspar, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, proclaim that homosexuality is a disordered behaviour that must be condemned.
Quoting from a key document on Anglican and Catholic relations he told the meeting, "Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour. The activity must be condemned; the traditional approach to homosexuality is comprehensive . . . A clear declaration about this theme must come from the Anglican Communion."
This utter excuse for a human being said he was saddened that dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church had been seriously compromised over the issues of women's ordination and homosexuality. These developments, he said, had also caused the Communion to enter into a period of dispute.
You can read more here. Perhaps this monster got a round of applause. Better a dose of clap.
This was at the Lambeth Conference, where they heard Cardinal Walter Kaspar, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, proclaim that homosexuality is a disordered behaviour that must be condemned.
Quoting from a key document on Anglican and Catholic relations he told the meeting, "Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour. The activity must be condemned; the traditional approach to homosexuality is comprehensive . . . A clear declaration about this theme must come from the Anglican Communion."
This utter excuse for a human being said he was saddened that dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church had been seriously compromised over the issues of women's ordination and homosexuality. These developments, he said, had also caused the Communion to enter into a period of dispute.
You can read more here. Perhaps this monster got a round of applause. Better a dose of clap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)