Ugandan Bill divides Christians in UK

Antigay Christians in the UK “have shown themselves to be confused, divided and plainly out of touch with Christian, as well as public, opinion” over the evil Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda.

So says Symon Hill, associate director of the religious think tank Ekklesia, in an article that first appeared in The Samosa.

“Those British Christians who regard all homosexual activity as unethical have long insisted that they are not prejudiced. They say they are criticising a behaviour, not a group of people, and that they do not want gay people to be persecuted,” says Hill.

“This assertion is central to the way in which they present themselves. The sincerity of their position is now being put to the test. And different groups and individuals are responding to that test very differently.”

He points out that, in Britain, the proposed legislation has been condemned by many gay-friendly Christian organisations, such as Ekklesia, Inclusive Church and Accepting Evangelicals.

But silence from other quarters worries Hill, who says that most denominations in the UK “have yet to make any formal statement on the issue”, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

Hill doesn’t think Williams is in favour of the legislation, just that he’s wary of upsetting the “traditional” wing of the Anglican Church (as far as I’m concerned, for “traditional wing”, read “bigoted dinosaur wing who might better serve what they claim to be the Christian way by obsessing less about what people do with their naughty bits and more about injustice and inequality).

Hill points out that a glance at the websites of many other “traditionalist” Christian organisations will yield not a mention of the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill. He singles out the Christian Institute and Christian Concern for Our Nation, both rabidly bigoted when it comes to matters of people’s natural sexuality – so much so that one doubts their members’ own sexuality (I’m saying that, not Hill).

One does wonder why people who are comfortable in their own bodies and own identities tend not to obsess too much about what others do with theirs. Not a scientific claim on my part, but one gained from observation.

Oi! Pipe down a bit!

You’re having a quiet nap or a drink with friends on the patio and suddenly there comes a great noise of guitars, drums, singing and shouting from a house across the street, disturbing your peace. You reason that a bit of noise is acceptable when people have to live together in towns and cities, but this is just too much.

Naturally, you ask the partygoers to turn down the noise a bit and, if it persists, you may decide to complain to the local authorities.

You’re having a quiet nap or a drink with friends on the patio and suddenly there comes a great noise of wailing, clapping of hands and shouts of “Hallelujah!” from a building across the road. It’s a church.

Somehow, the partygoers – er, worshippers – feel they ought to be let off the hook. It’s religion, you see.

This has happened in a district of Kenya (I’m sure it happens in other places, too, including in city areas here in good old Blighty).

But these wailing idiots are taking a case to court to challenge new rules on noise pollution.

“You cannot force worshippers who want to sing and shout in praise because even the Bible tells us to make a joyful noise to the Lord [. . .] We will sing and make noise in God’s praise even if they jail us or take us to court,” said Bishop Mark Kariuki of the Deliverance Church of Kenya.

Perhaps the best sort of deliverance for these nutcases would be deliverance to a remote part of the desert, where they could shout and wail to their hearts’ content.

No respect for no belief

I’ve been forced to ponder why a noted atheist who has written and spoken out against religious ideas should have been remembered at a religious event.

You may remember that Ludovic Kennedy, who died in October this year, was a lifelong atheist. He published An End to Belief? in 1984 and All in the Mind: A Farewell to God in 1999, in which he discussed his philosophical objections to religion, and the ills he felt had come from Christianity. He was a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association (BHA), an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society (NSS) and a Distinguished Supporter of the Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS).

In July 2001, he was one of the signatories to a letter published in the Independent, which urged the British government to reconsider its support for the expansion of state-funded “faith schools”, and, in 2003, was a signatory of the BHA petition calling for a public holiday on the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth.

Imagine my amazement, therefore, when I read in the UK’s Daily Telegraph that a memorial service had been held for him in Christchurch Cathedral, Oxford, at which the dean, the Very Rev. Christopher Lewis, gave “a Gaelic blessing” and the Very Rev. John Jury, chaplain Christ Church College, led prayers.

Would Kennedy be turning in his grave, if he had one, I wonder? I also wonder who would have been responsible for arranging such a highly inappropriate ceremony. And, in any case, don’t these God-botherers have any respect at all for a person’s nonbelief?

Uganda evil: the pressure builds

Just received the following news release from the European Parliament’s Intergroup on LGBT rights, which may be of interest to Pink Triangle readers. For some background on the vicious antigay Bill in Uganda, see here, here and here.

Africa Caribbean Pacific-EU Assembly: the European Union speaks up against the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill
The infamous Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009 was vehemently discussed yesterday [Monday] in Luanda, Angola, during the 18th session of the ACP (African-Caribbean-Pacific)/EU (European Union) Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

In his opening speech to the plenary, Louis Michel, former Development Commissioner and Co-President of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, denounced the draft law as attacking human rights, and called for the separation of religion from politics and mutual respect. During the discussion with the European Commission, and despite some ACP delegates insisting that they could do “what they wanted” in their own countries, Development Commissioner Karel De Gucht recalled that they had obligations under the Cotonou Agreement, as well as under International Conventions.

Following a negative response from a Ugandan delegate, this was echoed by other Members present, including Michael Cashman MEP [the gay former actor], Co-president of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on LGBT Rights and Member of the European Parliament Development Committee.

“It is quite clear that this issue of state-sponsored homophobia has been building up for years, and now it is finally out of the bag. We should have faced this down years ago, but now we can ensure that such homophobia is never endorsed by our silence,” said Michael Cashman.

“Things are changing, it will take some more time, but this clock is never going to be turned back. We are all equal in this world and it is high time LGBT people are granted their full human rights, wherever they live,” he continued.

The proposed legislation includes provisions to punish those alleged to be lesbian, gay or bisexual with life imprisonment and, in some cases, the death penalty; any parent or teacher failing to report their LGBT children or pupils to the authorities with a fine equivalent to $2,650 or three years’ imprisonment; and landowners providing shelter to LGBT people with seven years’ imprisonment. The legislation would apply to Ugandan citizens both inside and outside of the country.

Relationship counsellor loses appeal

The Relate counsellor who didn’t fancy counselling same-sex couples has lost his case against unfair dismissal.

Relate is the former UK Marriage Guidance Council, and Gary McFarlane was sacked for saying he didn’t want to encourage sin.

He said the publicly funded service failed to recognise his faith – seeming to think that it should recognise someone’s eccentricities when paying them to do a job.

Let’s pretend it didn’t happen

Shades of George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth here – this guy wants to rewrite history.

Britain’s Telegraph tells us that “a leading US Roman Catholic asked for a meeting with [Cherie Blair] to be struck from the record because he discovered her ‘opposition’ to some Church teachings”.

The Rev Jack Sullivan, 71, is said to have been healed of a debilitating spinal condition after praying to [possibly gay – tee-hee] Cardinal John Henry Newman in 2001 and was visiting the UK ahead of Newman’s beatification for the miracle by the Pope next September.

He initially said in a statement that he was “most impressed” by barrister Mrs Blair after visiting her last month.

But when he discovered her pro-choice views and endorsement of birth control, he tried to erase any reference to the meeting at Mrs Blair’s £5.75m home near Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire, contacting several newspapers to ask them to amend their stories.

What a berk!

The hex factor

Soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo’s return to action after nearly two months of injury woes could be short lived.

This is according to a Malaga sorcerer, known only as Pepe, who said he was introduced into the occult by a Mexican sorcerer over thirty years ago. He says he’s been paid €30,000 by a “famous” former girlfriend of Ronaldo to put an injury curse on the player.

“The best is yet to come,” the 57-year-old is quoted as having told the news agency AFP at his office in the Mediterranean port, which displays burning candles, incense and statues of the Devil.

“I have given myself four months to end his career and I have said everywhere that once Cristiano started playing again he would play just one to three matches before being injured again.”

Where are the spineless archbishops?

The United Reformed Church (URC) has become the first major Christian denomination in the UK to issue a statement condemning Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, under which gays could be hanged for having sex in certain circumstances.

But where are the other churches in the UK? In a press release a couple of days ago, the URC said that its commitment to justice and equality meant it was “appalled” at the “draconian measures” proposed by Bill.

The URC passed an anti-homophobia resolution as early as 1999 at its general assembly.

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has joined the Prime Minister of Canada in condemning the Bill.

So far there’s been nothing from either the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, or the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, who grew up in Uganda. Nothing from the Catholic Church, either, as far as I can see, but that’s only to be expected.

An online petition launched by the Christian Think tank Ekklesia urges one of these snivelling bastards, Williams, to speak out against the Bill, and it’s brought signatories from priests, ministers and other church leaders around the world and “those who, despite differing beliefs over homosexuality, have come together to expose the religious rhetoric used by the Bill’s supporters”, Ekklesia says.

The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill prescribes life imprisonment for any sexual activity between adults of the same sex, with the death penalty for anyone whose same-sex partner is disabled or is under 18.

The petition calling on the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Christian leaders to speak out against the Bill in public can be found here

The Christians who are happy to allow long, lingering deaths

A bunch of nutty Christians want everyone to respond to a consultation by the UK’s Director of Public Prosecutions on assisted suicide.

“Following the case brought by Debbie Purdy,” Christian Concern for Our Nation write in an email alert, “the Law Lords instructed the Director of Public Prosecutions to draw up guidelines stating his policy on the situations in which he would or would not bring a prosecution against someone assisting in the suicide of another person in England and Wales, both within these countries and overseas.”

As you would expect, the extreme Christians would want everyone prosecuted. “If we consider life sacred and wish to see all life protected we must take this opportunity to raise the voice of concern. It would be good if we could create thousands of responses.”

So all life must be preserved even if life is intolerable. That, folks, is the nature of their “Christian concern”.

The group have submitted their own legal response. Click here to see it, but be warned that it’s a PDF.

Well, if they want us to respond, perhaps we’d better respond (PDF). We have until 16 December. Let’s say how we feel that life isn’t as innocently simple as this bunch of naïve loons would want us to believe, and that sometimes a person’s death is going to be far more welcome to that person than life is, and it behoves friends and other loved ones to help in any way they can.

You can print off and send a questionnaire if you prefer (PDF again).

It goes without saying that safeguards would have to be in place, but it’s not beyond human wit to come up with something that would be as watertight as possible. Nothing is ever perfect.

Sins of the fathers

There’s little point in going over the whole child-abuse thing that the Catholic Church has allowed its priests to continue to get away with in Ireland. It’s all over the press and other media. You can’t miss it.

I thought it might be helpful, though – because this stuff can’t be exposed too often (although it will be soon forgotten, except by the victims and their families) – to give a search link for your convenience.

Happy reading (I think not!).

No doubt we’ll see some hand wringing on the part of the Catholic bloody Church, and blaming the poofs and blaming everyone else and feeling sorry that the Catholic Church itself has had to suffer this ignominy, blah-di-blah, bullshit, balderdash, folderol, piffle, poppycock, rot, shite.

Ho hum.

Voicing concerns about education

Our friends in nutty Christian Voice, whom we don’t seem to have heard from for a while, are getting twitchy about recommendations that home-schooled kids in the UK probably deserve a better deal.

The Badman Report “will oppress-home schoolers”, say Christian Voice in an emailed alert to an online petition.

The email links to an article on a Guardian blog called Mortarboard, which says:

The government’s announcement of the review came wrapped in sinister language about the need to investigate “claims that home education could be used as a ‘cover’ for child abuse such as neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude”.

As the same blogger, Adharanand Finn, said in January:

From the government’s perspective, the world of home education is full of unknowns. It doesn’t know how many children are educated at home. It doesn’t know how well the ones that are can read and write and meet other educational targets. And it doesn’t know if anything more sinister is going on under the cover of home education.

Now, whether you agree with compulsory education is another matter. Given that it’s the law that children be educated till the age of 16, you might argue that it’s up to the government to make sure the right sort of education is being administered. What you consider “right” education is, again, a matter for debate in another arena, but perhaps we can agree that, if children are being educated at home, we ought to be able to be satisfied that certain standards are being met and that kids are getting taught.

But, in the online petition Christian Voice want you to sign, they clearly don’t want any tightening up of inspection and supervision.

One wonders what they’re afraid of. Perhaps our more secular inspectors might decide that Mrs Godworthy is giving her kids too much Bible; or that Mr al-Bakri is shoving the Koran down his kids’ throats at the expense of English and maths.

I suspect Christian Voice won’t much care what happens to kids whose parents follow other religions, but they’d certainly be against removing any God-bothering nonsense from lessons.

However, where I might agree with them is that this seems on the surface to be more interference in people’s lives by a government that seeks to control everything we do.

If abuse occurs in kids’ homes – as the Badman Report seems to fear – social-services departments should be there to investigate, with police help if necessary. Forced marriages are an abomination, as are sexual abuse and forced labour. We need mechanisms to root out these evils. Perhaps the home-schooling thing is a way for the government to do it by the back door, rather than confront the fact that much of the abuse being talked of is likely to be among families whose culture is not indigenous – especially forced marriage and child labour. It would be very non-PC to suggest that, wouldn’t it?

All the government really needs to ensure is that kids are learning what they’re supposed to learn, and that there are examinations and other procedures to ascertain that.

I’d feel put out as a parent if a jumped-up tosser from some bureaucracy or other demanded to interview my kid without my presence, as seems to be one recommendation, and he or she would probably get some mouth from me and little by way of cooperation – in fact, hindrance stopping just short of illegal.

But if that official merely wanted to inspect the home-class work that my kid had produced in order to ensure that educational standards were being met, that would be another matter. And I’d expect him or her to frown hard on parents who stuffed their kids’ minds with gentle Jesus at the expense of subjects that will prepare them for life (life, note, not just the world of work and consumerism).

It’s an area fraught with problems, I suspect. How much “right” does a parent have over a kid’s education? How much “right” does the government have to impose a curriculum that merely grooms a kid to accept the status quo that sees powers beyond our understanding running our lives, never to question, never to challenge, never to rebel?

Education breeds good little consumers, just the way our politicians’ friends want them to be. Excesses of prescription and proscription can only turn kids into automata rather than freethinking individuals (yes, some of whom may grow up to embrace religion, but that’s life).

But automata are what politicians want us all to be, and – while I can see some possibly skewed reasoning in Christian Voice’s concerns, and know the organisation to be a big bag of nuts – I don’t believe we should be too hasty to try to turn home schooling into something that takes away its very purpose.

Must leave you with this, though: the Christian Voice email, from Stephen “Birdshit” Green, can’t restrict itself to talking about education and reports and petitions: it has to have as a valedictory, alienating many who might otherwise take the alert seriously, that reads, “Yours in our gracious Lord’s mighty name”.

Creepy!
__________
Hat tip to Stuart Hartill over at Clinging to a Rock.

Why religious schools are divisive

Someone in Bolton, Lancashire, going under the moniker “Name and address supplied” makes some sense (apart from withholding his or her name and address, for which I can’t see the point here) with an argument about how divisive religious schools are.

She (let’s call him/her she) cites an application by Muslims to open what they like to call an education centre, but claim that it will be open to other faiths.

Ah, yes, says “Name and address supplied”, but Christians won’t wish to send their kids to a Muslim “education establishment”, any more than Muslims would want to send their kids to a Christian “faith school”. She writes:

It seems that every time there is a planning application from the Muslim community to convert a building into a school, education centre, or whatever they choose to call it, one of their arguments is that it will be open to anyone. Christian education establishments claim to have the same policy.

Christian families, however, would not want their children to go into such a centre/school any more than Muslim families would want to allow their children into a Christian school.

Real integration of the communities will never be achieved while we continue to allow religious schools to exist, and that includes Church of England and Catholic schools.

There is no reason why all religions should not be taught in all schools. The teaching of a particular religion and the practice of it, however, should be undertaken in the home or in a church, mosque, temple, synagogue, etc.

Turning an ordinary house into an education centre of any religious denomination creates a dangerous precedent.

Quite!

On the edge

A “unique coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered groups, political social justice activists, people of all faiths and none, trades unions and professional associations”, will be launched at the House of Commons in London today.

The organisation’s called Cutting Edge, and it will be “inviting all Parliamentarians to be briefed on why it believes faith opt-outs from the Equality Bill must be rejected, as the Bill makes its way to the House of Lords”.

A news release from the group says:

The Cutting Edge Consortium, building on ground-breaking 2007 & 2009 Conferences on Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia & Human Rights, will hold an open meeting, EQUALITY BILL: OPT IN vs OPT OUT, to discuss religious exemptions to legislation on sexuality and gender identity in the Equality Bill. Creating a cutting edge by opening up new possibilities of dialogue between a huge diversity of interests and activist position, CEC has carved out a challenging space to voice support for the Equality Bill.

Hosted by Clare Short MP, speakers will include Sarah Bourke (Tooks Chambers), Andrew Copson (British Humanist Association) Maleiha Malik (Muslim Women’s Network), and Michael Rubenstein (Equal Opportunities Review). The event takes place 19.00–21.00, Tuesday, 24 November, in Committee Room 5, House of Commons.

Founder-member Maria Exall said: “It is vital that progressive faith and secular voices are heard loud and clear supporting the Equality Bill and equal rights for LGBT people.”

CEC continues the debates from its 2009 conference, grounded in its 2007 Conference Statement: “The Faith, Homophobia, & Human Rights Conference, gathered in London on 17th February 2007, calls on all people of goodwill, of whatever faith or none, to affirm and celebrate human equality in all its dimensions and particularly to work for the elimination of any faith-based homophobia and institutionalised prejudice towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.

“We reject the activities of certain religious leaders, seeking exemptions from equality legislation, and attempts to base this on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, such a right being for all, not just for some. We deplore the internalised homophobia within religious institutions that fails to confront prejudice and hate. We encourage and support those faith organisations, which express their commitment to diversity and equality in practice and policy. We believe that full civil rights for LGBT individuals are not only consistent with the right to religious freedom, but are rooted in the best and fundamental teachings of all major faiths; love, justice, compassion, and mercy, such values being shared by all who seek the common good.

“We call for further progressive public policy that will deliver comprehensive and effective anti-discrimination legislation, including positive duties, on the basis of race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, and belief. We call on the newly formed Commission for Equality and Human Rights to listen to the experience of LGBT faith networks and those who have suffered homophobia from and within religious organisations.

“Today, the alliance of over fifty faith and secular organisations supporting this conference affirms and celebrates the values of human equality and social justice, rooted in the best of faith traditions, and shared by all who are committed to a fully human vision of a transformed society.”

The Cutting Edge Consortium includes the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement, Interfaith Alliance UK, British Humanist Association, Muslim Education Centre Oxford, Liberal Judaism, Trades Union Congress, and A:Gender, Centre for the Study of Christianity & Sexuality, Progressive British Muslims, Ekklesia, Inclusive Church, LGBT Consortium of Voluntary & Community Organisations.

Christian bigots may not get their way after all

So Christians who can’t get sex – i.e. other people’s sex – off their minds maybe won’t be getting their way on the question of freedom to discriminate against gays, if this story in Pink News is anything to go by.

The European Commission is now putting pressure on the UK government to drop planned exemptions from equality legislation.

As I’ve said ad nauseam, I’m iffy about denying freedom of speech (I leave that sort of thing to others who call themselves humanists), but, as we said recently, if these damnable people didn’t kick up such a stink about what others do with their private bits and pieces, there would be no need even to discuss discrimination and exemptions and the like.

The exemptions in this case would have allowed churchy types to refuse employment to gay people in order to avoid conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs. This is just bollocks! Why are religious beliefs always said to be deeply held while other beliefs are just beliefs?

Don’t gay people have deeply held beliefs that they should be employed by anyone, provided they can do the job?

Going with the flow

I was alerted to the chart above by fellow Gaytheist (discussion group) member John Hunt (thanks, John). It’s not new, but it’s well worth sharing with you. You can see it at the blog it first appeared on in October here. I hope they will accept our thanks.

Twilight of the gods?

First it was Harry Potter, now it’s Edward Cullen and his fellow vampires in the Twilight series of films.

The two films so far – of the books by Stephenie Meyer – have been Twilight and New Moon, the latter of which opened in the UK on Thursday night. The third book, Eclipse, is being filmed with a pencilled-in release date of June 2010.

The Catholic Church – but of course – are getting twitchy about it, according to a story in the Daily Mail, and think the saga is “a deviant moral vacuum”.

The second film opened only this week in the UK, but, according to some prat from the Vatican, it is “a mixture of excesses aimed at young people and gives a heady esoteric element”.

Great. Bring it on.

A few years ago, Pope Ratzinger was saying of the Potter series that it has “subtle seductions” and could corrupt the Christian faith?

Amen to that!

Go on. Read the story. Have a laugh.

Oh, by the way, your humble blogger has tried to close his eyes to the fact that Meyer is a Mormon – reasoning, he guesses, that other religions have wacky elements, too, and it’s hard to know whether one is reading a book by one of them – and is reading New Moon, having polished off Twilight a few weeks ago.

Good stuff, romance with a bite, well told by a good writer who has one or two annoying writers’ tics, but otherwise provides some good character development and almost makes the vampires and werewolves believable in the way these concepts are introduced into the stories.

Perhaps Potter and Cullen and many other books of this genre that are springing up will simply take the place of a need to believe in what religion claims, and this is what’s worrying the likes of Catholic nutcases. Perhaps they’re worried that this is the Twilight of the gods.

Bye-bye, Christmas? We don’t think so!

Oh, dear! Christmas could be banned, shock, horror! And gay “rights” may have to be upheld (the quote marks are deliberate – read on).

The wacky UK Christian organisation Christian Concern for Our nation (CCFON) are worried about the Equality Bill, which is “so complex that interpreting it could lead to bizarre decisions by town halls and other organisations”, and are quoting bishops who have voiced this very fear.

Basically – and you can read CCFON’s concerns here – they feel that equality will mean a council, for instance, won’t be able to favour Christianity above, say, Islam or Hinduism, and so will be reluctant to call something Christian or Christmas, but wil have to bow to the other religions, too, and come up with something else.

If this really is the case, and councils will ban the use of the word “Christmas”, then that would, indeed, be a shame, because that’s what we call it. We don’t have to believe in what it means to Christians, and many people don’t understand the significance of it, anyway. It’s just a time for overeating, getting pissed and receiving presents. And, whether we like Christianity or not, it applied the name “Christmas” to this time of year centuries ago, and that’s our tradition.

We don’t complain that days of the week are named after gods such as Odin and Thor and Frigga (or Fricka, take your pick).

Even among those for whom Christmas is a more reflective time, there will be many who see it as a time for family and friends, concerts and just doing different things, but won’t “celebrate” the birth of guy two thousand years ago who may or may not have existed at all, and almost certainly not in the clinical way he’s portrayed.

But historically it’s still called Christmas, and I, for one, don’t even mind the odd carol. See my article in G&LH of last December on why I wouldn’t want to take the Christ out of Christmas – but see it only as a syllable.

However, it’s a syllable that’s part of the word that we’ve come to use historically for a time of the year when we begin the climb to spring and punctuate the darkness of winter with mirth and joy, however we decide to do it.

I do wonder, though, whether these Christians are overstating things. Quite often, tabloids come out with all kinds of horror stories about how Christmas is being banned, and it turns out they’ve got the story arse about face or are just stirring it for ethnic minorities.

CCFON also obsess, as you would expect, about sexuality, of course:

Under the provisions of the Bill, public bodies could also be forced by law to promote homosexual and transsexual “rights”. Also, churches and other Christian groups could be forced to employ practising homosexuals, transsexuals and civil partners.

Note the scare quotes around “rights”. If atheists put quotes around the word when talking of Christian “rights” (oops, I just did it!) they’d be moaning. They refuse to see that it’s not a question of rights above others’ rights, just rights to be treated equally and have relationships recognised in the way hettie relationships are recognised. What’s wrong with that?

Pillocks!

No sharia here! One Law for All rally in London

The One Law for All campaign against silly and potentially dangerous Muslim laws is holding a rally in London on Saturday.

The campaign is against the setting up of sharia courts and other religion-based tribunals in the UK.

Read about the rally here. There are details of where, and a list of speakers, including Maryam Namazie and A C Grayling, Taslima Nasrin and the excellent columnist Johann Hari of the Independent.

In an emailed bulletin, the campaign says:

The rally aims to oppose religious laws in Britain and elsewhere, show solidarity with people living under and resisting Sharia, and to defend universal rights and secularism.

Simultaneous acts of solidarity and support for the rally and its aims will take place in countries across the world including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Nigeria, Serbia and Montenegro and Sweden.

Moreover, winners of the campaign’s art
competition exposing the discriminatory nature of religious law and promoting freedom and equal rights will be announced at the event.

One Law for All Spokesperson, Maryam Namazie, commented, “Sharia law is becoming a key battleground, particularly because it is an extension and representation of the rising threat of Islamism. Sharia matters to people everywhere because it adversely affects the rights, lives and freedoms of countless human beings across the world. Opposing Sharia law is a crucial step in defending universal and equal rights and secularism and showing real solidarity with people living under and resisting it everywhere.

“November 21 is yet another important day for further strengthening the mass movement needed that can and will put a stop to Sharia once and for all.”

_________
Related links:
Sharia: creeping ever closer
How do you solve a problem like sharia?
Creeping ever closer! When will they ever learn?
Sharia in the workplace
Sharia – the disturbing story continues
The danger of sharia courts
Sharia – a waste of time

Some more thoughts on “Thought”

It’s hardly surprising that the religion-soaked BBC has effectively rejected a call for its “Thought for the Day” slot (within the flagship news programme Today) to be open to those who are not part of the Deluded Herd.

The BBC Trust has said that the slot – usually full of platitudes and meaningless drivel, with the occasional gem of wisdom that doesn’t need a religious perspective, anyway – “is religious output and that it is a matter of editorial discretion for the BBC executive and its director general as editor-in-chief as to whether the BBC broadcasts a slot commenting on an issue of the day from a faith perspective”.

What does it mean by “is religious output”? That implies that it has to be religious output. It doesn’t. It could be called something else. So that’s a non sequitur.

Then the chairman for the Trust’s editorial standards, Richard Tait, says having it as a God-bothering slot doesn’t breach BBC editorial guidelines.

This is another specious argument, since there’s really no need to argue over whether editorial guidelines have been breached as such, but merely to argue from fairness and from the premise that speaking as if there were sky fairies, with no challenge from an interviewer, is rather silly during what is mainly a hard-news programme (not that you should believe all that news programmes contain, but that’s another story). But it was editorial guidelines on which complaints were raised.

Notwithstanding, if editorial guidelines haven’t been breached, but we’re still left with only God botherers doing “Thought for the Day”, doesn’t that argue the case for changing the editorial guidelines?

UPDATE: However, we learn from the ever-helpful Ekklesia that the BBC Radio 4 Controller, Mark Damazer, has given the strongest indication yet that the BBC may eventually open up the slot to a wider range of contributors. So God knows what’s happening!

The festering hatred that is the Catholic Church

If you want to see just how low religionists can sink, take a look at this.

They’re Catholics, of course – some of the most pernicious and spiteful God botherers on the planet. They’re willing to pull the welfare rug out from under the poor in the USA, and all because they continue to obsess about what people do with their choice portions and dangly bits.

The AlterNet site I’m linking to above puts it like this:

They lead a church that claims to stand on the side of the sick and the poor, the meek who shall inherit the earth. But in the course of a single week, the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed themselves willing to see health-care denied to millions of uninsured Americans, and to yank the social-service rug out from under the feet of tens of thousands of urban poor in the nation’s capital – all to serve the bishops’ obsession with the sex lives and reproductive organs of others.

Yet our great and good continue to listen to the Catholic bloody Church and its heartless prelates who make such a fuss about loving the sinner while hating the sin, whereas by doing the latter they simply ensure that the so-called sinner is shafted. Quite how that is classed as loving the sinner beats me.

Go and read it – and be very annoyed.
__________
Related link: How the Pope kills Catholics