Wilders acquitted

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

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

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

Gay bishops? No problem! But …

It’s the old, old story. We don’t mind – well some of us don’t mind – if you’re gay, but . . .

Yes, there’s always bullshit before the but, isn’t there?

In this case, it’s the possibility that the good ol’ Church of England may allow gay clergy to become bishops. But there’s a catch.

And the catch is . . .? You’ve guessed it.

You can’t have nookie.

Once again, men in frocks seem to think they know the mind of God – even know that there is a God – and pronounce on what other men in frocks should do with their wiggly things.

UK gay humanists welcome new UN resolution on sexual orientation

The UK gay humanist charity – and this blog’s owner – the Pink Triangle Trust has warmly welcomed the passing by the UN Human Rights Council of a resolution concerning sexual orientation.

It expressed “grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity”. It also established a formal UN process to document human-rights abuses against gays, including discriminatory laws and acts of violence. It was passed by a narrow majority of 23 to 19, with 3 abstentions.

Nigeria claimed the resolution went against the wishes of most Africans. Mauritania called the resolution “an attempt to replace the natural rights of a human being with an unnatural right”. Speaking on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, Pakistan’s envoy to the UN in Geneva said: “I am seriously concerned at the attempt to introduce to the United Nations some notions that have no legal foundation.”

Commenting on the resolution the PTT secretary and my fellow blogger George Broadhead said: “This marks a major step forward in the worldwide campaign for LGBT rights. Congratulations are due to South Africa for proposing it and the twenty-three nations who voted for it.

“It is highly significant, however, that the main opposition to the resolution came from African counties like Nigeria and Uganda, in which religious-based homophobia is rife and Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Bahrain, Djibouti, Jordan, Maldives, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

“This is reminiscent of the staunch opposition of Muslim states to the repeated attempts made by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association to be granted NGO consultative status at the UN, and clearly demonstrates the serious obstacle that Islam puts in the way of LGBT rights.”

How to adopt a homophobe

My fellow blogger Stuart Hartill of Clinging to a Rock has passed on a nifty idea for Father’s Day, which is tomorrow. He was one of the recipients of an emailed request from John Becker of the US organisation Truth Wins Out (“Fighting anti-gay lies and the ex-gay myth”) about “adopting” a homophobic religious leader by making a donation to TWO in his (yes, it will usually be “his”) name.

“A few years ago,” writes Becker, “Father sat me down for the talk. ‘John,’ he said, ‘your voice is beautiful. Even so, it would be inappropriate to have you sing at the Cathedral anymore. I’ve been informed that you’re married to a man, and so your continued presence in this church would cause a scandal.’”

Married to a man? Utterly disgusting! Becker continues:

Not the talk I expected from Father. “Father,” of course, was how this particular anti-LGBT religious leader preferred to be addressed, and many still call him “father” today. As we approach Father’s Day, I’m thinking about this man, and about many others who promote religion-based bigotry against LGBT people while purporting to call themselves spiritual “fathers”.

For example, this week as momentum in New York surged toward the passage of the Marriage Equality Act, Archbishop Timothy Dolan compared allowing same-sex couples the freedom to marry with North Korean-style Communist dictatorship. Minneapolis-St. Paul Archbishop John Nienstedt used his bully pulpit last week to endorse a proposed anti-gay amendment that would write marriage discrimination into Minnesota’s constitution, throwing the scientifically-discredited “kids do best with a mother and a father” meme into the mix for good measure. And it’s not just Catholic “fathers” who engage in this type of spiritual violence – evangelical preacher Damon Thompson, who claims on his website that he “fathers spiritual sons and daughters”, spews disgustingly vile anti-gay hate speech, all in the name of Jesus.

I’ve got a challenge for you: this Father’s Day, “adopt” an anti-LGBT religious leader by making a tax-deductible donation of any amount, in his honor, to Truth Wins Out. After you donate, email me at john@truthwinsout.org with his name and location, and I’ll send an email to your adopted Pop to let him know about the thoughtful gift you made on his behalf to fight anti-LGBT religious extremism. (You can even make your donation anonymous!) It’s a surefire way to bring a Father’s Day smile to Pop’s face.

What a good idea! You could extend it, of course, by simply doing it yourself if you fancied donating to, say, a UK organisation. Just make the donation and write to the bigot in question and say, “You’ll be dead chuffed to know that I’ve made a donation in your name to Gays R Us” (or whatever).

Talking of Father’s Day, sorry, Dad. I sent you a card the other day and forgot to put a stamp on the envelope.

Poor Mr Armitage, somewhere in the Northwest of England, will be facing a surcharge.

Oops! I’m in for a bollocking.

Atheist Nexus

In case you haven’t heard of it, why not give Atheist Nexus a try? I joined it a year or so ago and find it full of interesting material. Rather than explain what it’s about (although the name is a clue), I’ll quote directly from the newsletter of its founder, Richard Haynes, which I received over the weekend.

It has been more than a year since I wrote to you about the organizational progress of Atheist Nexus. This was primarily due to my waiting for our previously discussed projects to be fulfilled. I am happy to report that many of our goals have been accomplished, but we have barely scratched the surface.

Where We Stand

As I write this, we have nearly 23,000 active members. On top of that, there are a few hundred thousand individuals who visit Atheist Nexus regularly who have not joined. We are also more diverse than ever before. We have hundreds of members in all 50 United States and member representation in every country of the world. Our subgroups now total 850+. These include numerous “official” groups for local and international organizations.

Most of this has been accomplished by you sharing Nexus with your friends. Other than that, we have a couple part-time volunteers and me as the sole staff member. Thanks to a handful of advertisers and a group of small donors, we have been able to keep afloat. I have paid most of the financial obligations myself, and I have no complaint in doing so. However, we have reached a plateau, and for us to go further, we must expand our horizons.

Our Mission

From the very beginning, our vision has been to be much more than simply a “Facebook” for nonbelievers. To be honest, social networking sites are a dime a dozen. They easily come and go. Some do things better, some worse. Our success in becoming the world’s largest community of nontheists has been our strict adherence to our mission.

The first part of our mission has been to make Atheist Nexus a resource to empower nonbelievers to “come out” of their nontheist closets. In my travels you have humbled me with your powerful stories. Many of you have found the courage and strength to be honest with your families through Atheist Nexus, and the new friends you have met have provided ongoing comfort and support.

None of this has happened in a vacuum either. Many media outlets have taken notice and featured Atheist Nexus and our members. Stories have been reported in: the New York Times, USA Today, NPR, CNN, Fox News Radio, Wired, and a handful of books. I am contacted almost daily by reporters asking to speak to members from a particular area.

The second part of our mission is the most crucial. My assertion has always been that Atheist Nexus would be useless if it did not provide a stepping stone for members to get involved in local communities and national organizations. In the beginning I was surprised that many of the “newer” atheists were not aware of the great groups that existed.

So far, we have had tremendous success. Many national leaders have told me their membership numbers, and attendance at their conventions, have increased because of Atheist Nexus. Also, many local groups (some quite large) have been formed by individuals who met on our site. I know of two weddings between members who met on Nexus, and I was told by one individual that they lost their virginity because of us. (I’m not sure, but that might make a great billboard)

I cannot give much detail, but during the recent uprisings in Africa and the Middle East, I was fortunate enough to assist our members in these countries to communicate and coordinate their activities with each other. If nothing else, this has made the whole Nexus experience worth it.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I have faith (pun intended) most of you are proud of what has been accomplished. And while not perfect, I think most of you would agree the usability of the Atheist Nexus website has improved greatly. We have planned many more improvements, but they cannot be accomplished without your help.

He then goes on to tell you how you can help the site improve and thrive, and you can go to its “Chip-in” account to donate.

Find Atheist Nexus here.

Oh, gay marriage is so evil

"A secret recording has emerged on YouTube in which Missouri congresswoman Vicky Hartzler is seen comparing gay marriage to incest, paedophilia and allowing three-year-olds to drive," Pink News reports.

One day someone'll do a survey on just how many ways prejudice against gays can be dressed up. And it's not all religionists – indeed, some of whom are really rather OK – but it often is. And it is so in this case: she's an evangelical.

Are all atheists humanists? Nope!

We don't often get articles looking at atheism that is not also humanism. The words "humanist" and "atheist" seem to go hand in hand these days. Not all atheists are humanists, however, and it's a standpoint worth exploring.

Start with Giles Fraser in this Guardian article.

Many teachers think the detested Section 28 is still on the statute book – claim

Incredible though it sounds, it seems that the hated piece of British legislation known as Section 28 is still in force in the minds of some teachers – people who ought to know better.

Section 28 of the Local Government Act of 1988 sought to outlaw the “promotion” of homosexuality by local authorities, and was widely interpreted as prohibiting discussion of the subject in schools. No prosecutions were ever brought under the hated measure, which was eventually repealed.

As part of its work in support of the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO), the British Humanist Association chaired an event exploring issues of religion, sexuality and education. And it was here that the extraordinary claim was made.

The event was organised by the Cutting Edge Consortium, which brings together religious and non-religious groups, including the BHA, human rights campaigners and trades unions, to work for the elimination of any faith-based homophobia or transphobia and institutionalised prejudice towards gay and transgendered people.

The event, led by Naomi Phillips, head of public affairs at BHA and a trustee of the Consortium, kicked off the meeting with the wider context, criticising in particular the religious lobby, including the Church of England and the Catholic Church in England and Wales, which seeks even wider exceptions from law to allow them to discriminate against employees and service users, including on grounds of sexual orientation, than they already have.

Elly Barnes of Schools Out warned that “lots of teachers don’t know Section 28 has been repealed”. That was a sentiment echoed by Jennifer Moses from the NASUWT teachers’ trade union, who said that the legacy of Section 28 was “ingrained in the minds of senior school leaders especially”.

Sharon Ferguson of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement spoke about their new online resource which aims to support Christian, Jewish and Muslim gay young people, and Martin Pendergast, chair of the Centre for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality, spoke on sexuality and theology.

Alison Ryan, who sits with the BHA on the steering group of the Accord Coalition, said that there was a higher incidence of homophobia in “faith” schools and that the “privileging of traditional religious views over the rights of other groups” is a contributing factor to this.

Archbishop’s ‘appalling hypocrisy’

Gay humanists have hit out at the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, for his “appalling hypocrisy” over Uganda.

According to his website, Williams is very concerned at the news that the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill is once again under consideration by the Ugandan Parliament.

Williams wishes to reiterate his views, first expressed in December 2009 and has issued this short statement on Uganda’s pending Anti-Homosexuality Bill: “Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades. Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers.”

Commenting on behalf of the UK gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust – owner of this blog – its secretary George Broadhead commented: “What appalling hypocrisy! Why is Rowan Williams ignoring, or refusing to condemn, the damaging role in this played by a branch of his own Anglican Church – the Church of Uganda – whose website makes it clear [PDF] that it is supportive of the Bill?”

Gay humanists shocked at prospect of legalisation of Uganda Anti-Homosexual Bill

The gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) – owner of this blog – has expressed shock at reports that a viciously anti-homosexual bill is shortly to be introduced in Uganda.

The Anti-Homosexual Bill was first introduced as a private member’s bill by MP David Bahati in October 2009. Bahati is an Evangelical Christian and a member of the Fellowship Foundation, also known as the Family, a US-based Christian and political organisation that arranges the annual prestigious National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.

The Anti-Homosexual Bill was ostensibly “shelved” by Uganda’s president Yoweri Musveni following an international outcry. However, it seems that public hearings on the bill have recently taken place in the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee and the remaining stages of the legislative process could be completed soon.

If enacted, the bill would greatly broaden the criminalisation of homosexuality by introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions, are HIV-positive, or engage in same sex acts with people under 18. The bill also includes provisions for Ugandans who engage in same-sex sexual relations outside of Uganda, asserting that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda, and includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organisations, or nongovernmental organisations that support LGBT rights.

The PTT’s secretary George Broadhead said: “We are shocked that after such a long time this heinous piece of legislation may still become law. Much of the homophobic bigotry which is rife in Uganda and other African countries emanates from religious sources, including US Evangelical Christians.

“It certainly emanates from the Anglican Church of Uganda which states on its website: ‘The Church of Uganda appreciates the spirit of the Bill’s objective of protecting the family, especially in light of a growing propaganda to influence younger people to accept homosexuality as a legitimate way of expressing human sexuality. We particularly appreciate the objectives of the Bill which seek to provide for marriage in Uganda as contracted only between a man and woman; prohibit and penalize homosexual behaviour and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family; prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act; prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality.’

“Unfortunately,” Broadhead continued, “the vast majority of the population are Christian and clearly greatly influenced by these malign Bible-based policies.”

Ratzo and Mugabe – perfect bedfellows

The gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (owner of this blog) has noted without surprise that the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, has attended the beatification of John Paul II, which was held in the Vatican on 1 May.

An EU travel ban forbids Mugabe from visiting member states, but the Vatican is a sovereign state and not in the EU. The ban was imposed in 2002 on account of Mugabe’s gross human-rights abuses but Italy, a founder EU member, granted Mugabe an exemption to transit through the country. A Vatican spokesman said Mugabe had not been personally invited but as the head of a state with which the Vatican has relations he was entitled to attend.

Commenting on behalf of the Pink Triangle Trust, secretary George Broadhead said: “Mugabe’s attendance at the ceremony comes as no great surprise. As a fellow Roman Catholic, he shares at least one trait in common with both the late beatified pope and the present one – an entrenched homophobia.

“He is viciously hostile to homosexuality, declaring on one occasion: ‘I find it extremely outrageous and repugnant to my human conscience that such immoral and repulsive organisations, like those of homosexuals, who offend both against the law of nature and the morals of religious beliefs espoused by our society, should have any advocates in our midst and elsewhere in the world’; and on another occasion: ‘It [homosexuality] degrades human dignity. It’s unnatural, and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs. If dogs and pigs do not do it, why must human beings? We have our own culture, and we must re-dedicate ourselves to our traditional values that make us human beings . . . What we are being persuaded to accept is sub-animal behaviour and we will never allow it here. If you see people parading themselves as lesbians and gays, arrest them and hand them over to the police.’

“Only last month at the funeral of his deputy intelligence chief,” Broadhead continued, “Mugabe described Britain’s tolerance of gay rights ‘unnatural’ and ‘filth’.

“Though rather more restrained in his choice of words, the present pope has shown himself to be equally homophobic, so Mugabe will have found himself in good company. It seems that the Vatican has chosen to ignore Mugabe’s gross human-rights abuses, just as it ignored those of the Roman Catholic fascist dictators Adolf Hitler, with whom Mugabe has compared himself, Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet. By granting an exemption to the travel ban it seems that Italy has also chosen to ignore the human-rights abuses.”

Scotland’s Catholic head honcho tries to out-Pope the Pope

The Pink Triangle Trust reckons the nutter who leads the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland – Cardinal Keith O’Brien – is trying to out-Ratzo Ratzo.

O’Brien has said on the BBC: “Perhaps more than ever before there is that ‘aggressive secularism’ and there are those who would indeed try to destroy our Christian heritage and culture and take God from the public square. Religion must not be taken from the public square.”

PTT secretary George Broadhead said: “It seems as if O’Brien is trying to outdo his boss in the Vatican with his anti-secularist and anti-gay rhetoric. When referring to the enemies of the Christian faith in Britain, he no doubt has in mind organisations like the National Secular Society, which campaigns for a society where everyone is free to practise their religion, change it or not have one, but asserts that religion must not have privileged influence in the public and political arenas where it can so easily become an excuse for conflict, inequality and injustice. The National Secular Society provides some of the most vociferous support for LGBT people and their rights.”

Doctor Who’s Sarah Jane is dead

Elizabeth Sladen: 1948–2011

Those who aren’t Doctor Who fans can look away if they wish, but there are many gay people who are fans (a disproportionate number, some have said), so it’s sad news that Doctor Who companion Elisabeth Sladen, who played Sarah Jane Smith, has died of cancer.

She was one of the early companions when she was young, but a spin-off series called The Sarah Jane Adventures came about only a few years ago and was shown on the BBC kids’ channel, CBBC. Although an adult approaching my prime (ahem!), I watched it, because I loved her character (and it was part of my longstanding loyalty to the Who franchise). As well as being, for me, a wonderful actress in this role, she was very attractive, and didn’t look her 63 years (probably 59 or 60 when she began in The Sarah Jane Adventures).

Sometimes, the death of one person you didn’t know affects you more than that of another person you didn’t know. It’s subjective, but there it is.

One scene sticks in my mind. When the older Sarah Jane met the Doctor again for the first time in years (it was the David Tennant Doctor, the tenth), there was a kind of electricity between the two actors’ faces. She knew who he was, of course (probably his having just stepped out of the TARDIS was a bit of a giveaway), but that brief moment displayed in a few facial expressions something of her power as an actor – something maybe not as easy to achieve in the clinical, stop-go environment of a studio as on a stage, where an actor is very much immersed in the character from 7.30 to 9.30.

I suspect the Doctor Who fan sites are lit up with tributes. You can make a start, if you’re interested, by going to this one, which gives a roundup of the press reaction to Sladen’s death, and links to obits and tributes galore.

Nifty nuptials

If you really feel you must mark the wedding of two people you don’t know, who are tying their knot later this month in London, where traffic will no doubt be held up for the duration and taxpayer money will be spent on the lavishness of it all, then watch this video instead. OK, it’s an ad for T-Mobile, but you don’t have to rush out and buy one. Just enjoy.

I suspect most will have seen it, anyway, because it’s just about gone viral. However, I’m impressed by the lookalikes they’ve found. Often, not even comedy programmes on the telly get things as close as some of those dancing down the isle of Westminster Cathedral, er, Abbey, er Parish Church, whatever.

Meanwhile, it seems Britons are more sensible than many give them credit for, if this report is anything to go by. There won't be many of us celebrating, it seems.

Why gay kids commit suicide

Suicide attempts by gay teens – and even straight kids – are more common in politically conservative areas where schools don’t have programs supporting gay rights, a study involving nearly 32,000 high school students found.

So says an Associated Press report on 365 Gay.

Hardly surprising, really, is it?

The study focused on the state of Oregon, and “found a higher rate of suicide attempts even among kids who weren’t bullied or depressed when they lived in counties less supportive of gays and with relatively few Democrats. A high proportion of Democrats was a measure used as a proxy for a more liberal environment.”

Wise counsel?

Giving Catholics a contract for sensitive counselling of possibly vulnerable people is like putting a lunatic in charge of the asylum, a paedo in charge of the nursery, a klepto in charge of the shop.

But Richmond Council in England has done just that, and the gay humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust is not a little dischuffed about it.

The silly councillors think the Catholic Children’s Society will handle it better than a secular organisation, Off the Record, which has been providing the service for the past two decades.*

Let’s just clear one thing up: secular doesn’t mean atheist, and a secular organisation will very likely contain religious people as well as atheists and agnostics. But a religious organisation is going to peddle a position, and would you want a gay kid, say, being advised by an active Catholic?

Oh, it’ll be all right, son, you’ll grow out of it; Jesus will help; pray to God; it’s a phase; God meant you to love a woman (et cetera, et cetera, reversing the genders as necessary).

George Broadhead, secretary of the PTT – which is this blog’s parent body – said, “The issues on which counselling service will be provided to teenagers include contraception, unwanted pregnancy and homophobic bullying.

“Given the dogmatic and reactionary stance taken by the Catholic Church on abortion, contraception and homosexuality, which will clearly be strictly adhered to by the CCS, the decision of the Council is outrageous and beggars belief. I hope that young people will be well enough informed about the Church’s stance to give the CCS a very wide berth indeed.”

We have to entertain the possibility that there were other reasons why Off the Record was not chosen this time. That’s something between OTR and the council. But choosing an organisation whose ethos is so anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-contraception to counsel vulnerable people whose problems may well concern these things seems unwise in the extreme.
__________
* Corrected from my original “two years”. Mea culpa. Thanks, George (see comments).

Burning issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is barmy pastor to blame for barmy Islamists’ murders?

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

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

Nope.

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

Homophobe couple still want to adopt kids

Eunice and Owen Johns

A Christian couple from Derby, England, who were at the centre of a row over fostering are reapplying to be able to foster kids, even though their religious principles tell them they can’t talk positively to their charges about being gay.

“Owen and Eunice Johns, together with Derby City Council, had previously made a joint application to the High Court, asking the Court to make a declaration on how the Council should treat an application from potential foster carers who were unwilling to promote the practice of homosexuality to a small child,” says Christian Concern.

Their report continues:

As was widely reported at the time, although the particular Judicial declaration on the balancing of rights that the parties sought was not given, the Judges used the opportunity provided to make a forceful case against the right to manifest Christian beliefs in the face of equalities legislation, stating that homosexual rights trumped freedom of religion in the context of fostering, that Councils can require the promotion of homosexuality and that it would be legal for Councils to reject foster applications from Christians on the basis that they would not promote homosexuality.

The Johnses say in a letter to the council:

You know that we would love and care for any child in our care and you are aware of our views on sexual ethics. However, the National Minimum Standards (NMS) on fostering, the Statutory Guidance, the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010 and the Council’s own Equality and Diversity Policy do not require that “positive attitudes be demonstrated towards homosexuality” (paragraph 101 of the High Court judgment). Such a requirement is not mandatory.

We believe that there is still space in the law for Christians to be accommodated in the fostering process and that the Council can make a “permissible accommodation” which would conform with NMS 7.2 and the Council’s Equality and Diversity Policy and that it can interpret the relevant policies in a manner that balances the rights of the homosexual community and the rights of those who subscribe to biblical views on sexual ethics. The Council can still comply with their duties under the Children’s Act 1989.”

As far as we can see, Christians are not being discriminated against, as these homophobes seem to think. Only homophobes are being discriminated against, because homophobes want to discriminate against gay kids.

It’s a no-brainer, really. They shouldn’t foster unless they could show that they’ll change their ways.

They may well be very loving in all other respects, but, if a kid is showing signs of being gay, it’s up to loving parents to give support, because to refuse to do so could mess up the kid’s mind. And that is not loving.

Let them not eat cake!

A wedding cake

Christians are up in arms over an abandoned scheme to hand out pieces of a huge wedding cake – baked to commemorate the forthcoming royal wedding – to UK citizens.

The massive confection has been baked at a secret location in Scotland, and the intention was to mail out a minute portion of it to every citizen in the UK.

Now it’s emerged that, as part of its comprehensive spending review, the government has scrapped plans to distribute the cake, which would have cost an estimated £40 million.

This isn’t the first time the government has scrapped something that’s already been produced. Earlier this year it emerged that four brand-new Nimrod spy planes were to be dismantled as part of the cuts programme, despite the fact that they’d never been used.

Apparently, the cake – so big that it had to be baked over two weeks in several production runs – will now go into landfill. And this is what’s upsetting Christians. But more on that in a moment.

Anti-cuts protestors are not pleased with the decision even to make the cake in first place, but are even more upset by the decision to throw it into landfill.

“It’s an outrage,” said Jonathan Couper, spokesman for Britain’s newest anti-cuts protest group, NoMoreCutsUK.

Couper told PT: “While we’re suffering welfare cuts and cuts in the defence of our country, this government can afford to throw millions of pounds at producing something as trivial as a wedding cake, and then scrap the idea. It shouldn’t have been baked in the first place, but at least the government ought to sell it off in some way.”

But why are religionists up in arms? Well, since the coalition government’s decision to scrap the huge mail-out plan, it’s been decided instead that the huge cake will be transported to a landfill site in northern England.

However, the right-wing Christian organisation Traditional Marriage Matters is furious, because it sees the destruction of the cake as sacrilege. Its spokesman, Rev. Jonah Wales, says the wedding cake has huge significance for traditional marriage and to put it into landfill would be tantamount to blasphemy.

“It emerged in Roman times, when the bridegroom broke a loaf of bread over the bride’s head to symbolise his dominance in the marriage. And that is as it should be: traditional marriage deems the man to have dominance over the subservient woman.

“Far from breaking it over a bride’s head, tipping this beautiful object into landfill is a travesty, an insult to traditional marriage and all that it stands for. We will be fighting for the cake to be cut up as planned and sold on eBay, so that people all over the UK – even the world – have a chance to partake in the wedding of the century. A traditional wedding, between a man and a woman, as God intended.

“At least that way the government stands to recoup some of the money it spent on this project.”

And Mary Croquembouche, president of the Celebratory Cake Bakers’ Association, said, “This would have been a boost to our members at a time when many of them are struggling to keep their businesses afloat during these austere times.”

Angela Battenberg, a former UK parliamentary candidate, added to the protest: “We hear all the time the government going on about how we’re ‘all in this together’,” she said, “but the great and the good will be getting cake at the wedding, something the rest of us will be denied.

“Even Marie Antoinette was in favour of the poor eating cake,” she said. “But not this mean-spirited coalition government, it seems.”

By the way, we did check out that claim about breaking a loaf of bread over a bride’s head. Seems it may be true.
__________
Update: I see Digital Journal, no less, has now picked up our story about the royal wedding cake.