Spaghetti Berlusconi

Silvio Berlusconi makes as much sense as alphabetti spaghetti. Take a look at this:

We are on the Church's side: we believe in the Christian tradition, in the undeniable value of life, on the role and the value of the family, on the defence of human rights, on solidarity, justice, tolerance. We respect the weaker members of society: the ill, children, the elderly, the marginalised. We are on the same wavelength as that on which the Church is active" affirmed Italy’s Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, just before his meeting with the Pope, scheduled for 11 a.m. [yesterday].

First, the Church. We know he means the Catholic Church. Then we get "value of the family" quickly followed by "defence of human rights". Now we know what "value of the family" means in Catholic terms, and it doesn't just mean four or five people in close relationships of one sort and another in a household: it specifically means a man and a woman and some children that the man and the woman have made by putting their things together. Anything else is short of the ideal. So a family that might consist of a man and a man is a definite no-no, as is one that consists of a woman and a woman.

Given that, how does he defend human rights, because in most tolerant people's eyes human rights extend to the rights of humans to live together in loving harmony whether they're of the same or opposite genders?

Then we see the words justice and tolerance and he talks of "the marginalised" and how they respect that group. No need for me to go on. Read the piece from AGI News and make up your own mind.

The intolerance of tolerance

He was doing his thing for tolerance, but the mob from the "religion of peace" decided he deserved a beating.

So this gang of ten Muslims dragged model Mike Du Pree from the Amsterdam catwalk – on which he was taking part in a fashion show to promote tolerance towards gay people – and set about him.

A Dutch MP now wants the Islamic yobs to be deported.

The UK's online Pink News says the incident was reported in Gay Krant, and "Fashion show organiser Jennifer Delano told the paper that the atmosphere at the event was tense, and that the violence shows Amsterdam is no longer a tolerant city."

Perhaps it would be a damned sight more tolerant towards gays if it weren't for Muslims. They are not the only gay haters in Holland or elsehwere, but they are the chief ones, as we see in this Expatica.com article, which says:

There are almost a million Muslims living in the Netherlands, many of whom are immigrants from Morocco and Turkey. Amid a culture clash with the predominantly Christian ethnic Dutch, immigrant Muslims have been reported to view homosexuality with disdain.

The Pink News story says MPs have raised the incident in Parliament.

"This shows how strong the Islamic gay bashers feel they are," said Party of Freedom MP Martin Bosma. "Even at daylight, on Queen’s Day, in the heart of Amsterdam, they strike. Only the hardest measures could turn this sick trend.

"The Dutch nationality of the gay bashers of Rembrandt Square should immediately be taken from them and they should be expelled from the country today.

"The Netherlands can show no mercy for these people who damage our society in this way. Either they will win, or we will win."

Dad could die because of religion

Two young men could be without their dad soon, because their parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and Dad is critically ill, according to Britain's Daily Telegraph.

Fifty-seven-year-old John Edwards's wife Sheila is refusing to allow doctors to save her husband's life because their beliefs forbid blood transfusions. They often cite health hazards connected with transfusions, but, in almost any article you read, biblical verses are cited.

Ewards Suffered severe injuries when hit by a car while walking near his home in Southall west London, on Tuesday. Medics have warned he may have only days to live without a transfusion. The Telegraph says the couple's sons, Jonathan (36) and Tom (29) "do not share their [parents'] beliefs and it was unclear last night whether they supported their mother's decision".

It's not the first time in recent weeks that doctors have pleaded for a patient to be allowed blood. In this case, two people could be deprived of their father through the selfishness of both parents in sticking to beliefs based on biblical bollocks.

Let us all hope Sheila Edwards sees sense – if only for the sake of the couple's sons.

Police at prayer

This is creepy. It was reported yesterday, and took place earlier in the week, and at first I thought, What the hell! But the more I look at it the more I don't like it.

Here's a quote: "By working and praying together to reduce crime and disorder we not only change the physical circumstances that affect people's everyday lives but we change the spiritual circumstances."

It comes from Chief Superintendent Neil Wain, Stockport divisional commander of Greater Manchester Police and a self-confessed Christian, after a mammoth pray-in attended by police chiefs and politicians at the Manchester Velodrome.

Now, it's one thing bringing the "faith" (ugh!) communities and police together to look at crime and ways of combating it, as long as said "faith" (ugh!) communities are given no more of a say than other interested groups. But this was a pray-in!

"More than 6,000 Christians have met for an evening of prayer focusing on gang crime in Greater Manchester," says the intro to the BBC story of an event organised by a religious group called City Links.

"They were asked to pray for police forces and the reduction of gang crime," it continues. Gang crime will not be reduced by swivel-eyed loons praying to invisible people. It may make them feel better, but it will not have an effect on gang crime. The cost of the police's attendance could well have gone to initiatives a little more Earth-based. Even if they attended in their own time, then perhaps that time could have been better spent back at the station on solid policing or reaching out to the criminals and would-be criminals they wish to curtail. Sitting in a stadium praying will just leave the criminals laughing.

Now get this: "Debra Green, director of City Links, said: 'Persistent prayer, over many years, has opened the way for a huge number of effective initiatives delivering benefits to people and communities far and wide.' "

Unfortunately, the story does not tell us how this has worked. What is meant by "opened the way"? It's vague. Just how has "persistent prayer" achieved this? Was it some sort of energy that has emanated from people who pray? Is it magic? Who persistently prayed? How many did so? Did they do this at special meetings? How many meetings were held? How many were specifically prayer meetings and how many just meetings at which people were asked to pray? How many prayed at those latter meetings? What form did this prayer take? Who was prayed to – God, Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Zeus? Who paid for all of this? What is the "huge number" of which you speak? Where? What were the initiatives (or some examples)? What do you mean by "effective"? How effective? Were the prayers answered to the letter? If so, or even only half so, why weren't the news media full of it? Quite a story, I'd say. Even Derren Brown couldn't pull off that sort of thing!

Wain said, "There are significant benefits from initiatives which involve faith communities working with the police and local agencies, including improving community confidence and trust, increased understanding and not least reduced crime."

Well, yes, as I said, there's room for all sorts of interested groups, but it's this creepy idea that praying has brought it off. As they mumbled to the Almighty, did a ghostly hand come from the sky in the streets and stay the hand of a would-be knife attacker? Did an angel appear to a gang of young thugs and say, "That is so not cool, man"?

I used to attend police stations a lot as a radio journalist, and one police PR man in Wales – he was known as Dai Press – once told me, "You can't see [Chief Inspector So-and-so] till half past ten. They'll still be at prayers."

What?

I needn't have worried. It was their slightly irreverent term for their morning conference for senior officers. The way the police are going these days (especially with their propensity for favouring religious nutters over sensible investigative journalism), it wouldn't surprise me to see police stations all over the country build a one-hour multifaith service into their daily timetable.

And who will pay for their time? Well, presumably the people who pay for their time when they go to big pray-ins. The public.

Liddle at large

I don't always agree with Rod Liddle. I think he's talking some sense in a piece in The Spectator, though, when he lays into West Midlands police for being plonkers of plods over this Muslims-versus-Christians nonsense.

He talks of how his daughter has come home from Sunday School, or from having listened to her gran too intently, and told him she was covered with Jesus's blood and that he, her dad, was sad since he lost Jesus.

He was a bit taken aback, but observes, "But disquieting though all of this was, it didn’t occur to me to have my daughter arrested."

Then he gives the background to how a Muslim community support officer employed by West Midlands Police told two Christian evangelisers to piss off or they'd get beaten up. Not by him, it seems. Not as specific as that, you understand. But they just might find themselves on the wrong end of a few fists and boots.

The overzealous officer "is pretty well established within the National Association of Muslim Police. He has addressed government ministers and read to them from the Koran, apparently. Lucky government ministers."

Quite!

The two evangelists have lodged a complaint, but Liddle doesn't think much will come of it. "So far the police have steadfastly refused to apologise and merely mentioned that one of the officers involved will be given a refresher course in ‘hate crimes’. Of course, the officer should be sacked immediately." He goes on:

[I]t is from our admittedly rather wishy-washy form of Christianity that we draw our fervent belief in the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience. And that following from this, it is the job of a police officer to protect that freedom of speech (so long as it is not inciting violence against one or another group or individual). It is no use attempting to curry favour with our Muslim minority by employing extravagantly bearded police officers if they won’t sign up to some of the most important laws on the statute book. A Muslim police officer is not at liberty to ignore the laws which do not accord with his faith; if he does that, he is no better than a semi-official vigilante, a uniformed gangster. What would be his reaction if a local bookshop started selling the works of Salman Rushdie?

Quite! There would probably be a riot of MoToons proportions if that book were to be sold in a "Muslim area". It would be interesting to test it, though.

No stay, so they stay

California Supreme Court has refused to stay its decision legalising gay marriage in the state. This means the final hurdle has now been cleared for same-sex couples to start tying the knot this month.

"Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the [. . .] Court to stop its May 15 order requiring state and local officials to sanction same-sex unions from becoming effective until voters have the chance to consider the issue in November," says a report from Associated Press. "The justices' decisions typically become final after 30 days."

California's voters get a chance to make their views known in a ballot on 4 November. It could overrule the court's decision by amending the state constitution to limit marriage to the heterosexual variety.

The AP story points out:

The four justices who denied the stay request were the same judges who joined in the majority opinion that found withholding marriage from same-sex couples constituted discrimination. The three dissenting justices said they thought a hearing on whether the stay should be granted was warranted.

The majority did not elaborate on its reasons for denying the stay, but simply issued a one-page order saying its original ruling on marriage would be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

For the moment, gay couples in the nation's most populous state can get married starting 17 June, when counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licences.

Reason and Catholicism

People who can't give reasons for their Catholicism fall foul of other religions that might lure them away, according to some chap who's supposed to be well known.

"Father Jorge Loring, the famous Spanish Jesuit apologist, said this week Catholics who are not able to give a reason for their faith fall easy prey to religious sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses," says the Catholic News Agency.

Talk about the pot that called the kettle black! Jesus bloody Christ! What are these people on, for goodness' sake?

"Therefore," he continues, "it is very important to have roots in the faith, to have a strong faith that stands up to the winds of the anti-Catholics."

Many Catholics are so only in name, he says. Good job, really, or, with each one of them obeying to the letter the rules on birth control, there would probably be twice as many of them taking up valuable resources on our overcrowded planet.

I doubt this "famous" Jesuit apologist is famous for precision in his words, when he says, "Moral relativism is the ideological cancer of our times", as "people are fooled by the media because everything goes”.

Er, can you be a bit more precise? Which people are fooled by which media? Where is your evidence that all moral relativism is an ideological cancer? Only someone whose faith allows him to believe in the unbelievable would say that with such conviction. And, while you're at it, define your terms: what is "moral" in your book?

It's OK, Father. Don't answer that. I think we know what Catholic morals are. We've seen them in action, as people are told condoms will let HIV through the microscopic holes; as people are told to multiply exponentially, and bugger the planet; as gay people are made to believe they're evil. Catholic morals? Is that not a contradiction in terms, Father?

"On TV," he says "we see debates where some say one thing and others say another."

Get away! You don't say!

"Who has the truth? The truth is not clear, each person has their truth, but not everything is true."

Really? Well I never! Come on, Father, hit me with some more of this coruscating insight.

"There are some things that are true and others that are false."

Fuck me, Father, you're a born philosopher! I'd never have thought of that.

Testing the "no-go" areas

Much as I find Stephen "Birdshit" Green of Christian Voice a pain in the arse, I hope he further exposes West Midlands police for the prattish plods they are showing themselves to be at the moment by upholding religious privilege.

West Midlands Police, you may remember, showed their appeasement credentials when they tried to take on Channel 4 for their excellent and revealing Undercover Mosque documentary, and were then forced to apologise.

Since then there's been the ejection of a pair of Christian preachers from a Birmingham suburb by the same police force in the guise of one of their Muslim community support officers, because it was a predominantly Muslim area.

The last time I checked I thought Brum was a place for British people of whatever religion (or none) and any visitors to this country who happen to be there, not an area that belongs to Muslims. Perhaps I've been wrong all along.

Anyway, off they went, these two American preachers, with their tails between their legs. I might think them nutters, but they have a right to leaflet, just as you or I do. And I support their right to do so – even if they're spitting bile against gay people or other minorities. Provided they're not directly inciting violence or barring minorities from services that are rightfully theirs, they have every right to say that their chosen belief system believes this and that.

The UK's Daily Telegraph said on Monday:

The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime" and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities . . .

These guys, Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, both full-time evangelical ministers, have now launched a legal action against West Midlands Police, claiming the officer infringed their right to profess their religion.

It happened at Alum Rock, an area that has a disproportionate number of Muslims living in it, to the east of Birmingham city centre. Cunningham tells the paper that the police community support officer (PCSO) said they "were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message". He continued, "He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station."

The paper doesn't tell us that the uppity prat of a PCSO was a Muslim, but he's named by Christian Voice and others (including the Daily Mail), as Naeem Naguthney.

The paper concludes:

The ministers claim he also advised them not to return to the area. As he walked away, the PCSO said: "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned."

West Midlands Police, who refused to apologise, said the incident had been "fully investigated" and the officer would be given training in understanding hate crime and communication.

Now, Christian Voice are getting in on the act. Members will be gathering at Alum Rock on 14 June at 10 a.m. Green says in a press release that, although West Midlands Police have said the officer would be given training, Naguthney had "summoned two other officers, one of whom, a full constable, is said to have told the preachers not to return to the area, [so] an anti-Christian attitude could be prevalent in the force."

Green would say that. He's a rabid Christian of the frothing born-again variety. What is more likely is not so much an anti-Christian attitude as an appeasing-Muslims attitude.

No doubt there'll be a fair smattering of media at Alum Rock on 14 June.

Gearing up for gay marriage in the Golden State

Wedding frenzy is already hitting California after the state's Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage, making California the second US state to marry same-sex couples. But this may not be where the story ends.

Three weeks of today, at 8 a.m., couples will be able to pay $155 for a marriage licence. But officials are, according to the Ventura County Star, now fretting over "whether people just married should be pronounced as spouses instead of husband and wife".

The paper says gay couples are now making frenzied calls to florists and caterers. Actually, given that gay people must on average know five florists, twenty hairdressers and several caterers, not to mention people to provide the entertainment, planning a gay wedding should be a cinch.

Well, the betrothed same-sex couples of California may have to get in early, because on 4 November state citizens will be able to go to the ballot box to vote on a constitutional amendment that seeks to define marriage as only of the straight variety. What would happen to those already married, who knows? But, if same-sex unions are simply not recognised, they would, we assume, simply cease to have any legal meaning. What the state giveth, the state taketh away.

As you would expect, nutty Catholics and some evangelicals are opposed to the new law. The paper says:

The Rev. Rob McCoy of Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks wants more than approval of another ban. He's part of a grass-roots citizens group that is working to oust the four state Supreme Court justices who ruled for gay marriage, overturning a ban overwhelmingly approved at the polls eight years ago.

McCoy said the judges willfully ignored the will of the people in a ruling that he thinks should alarm more than faith groups and conservatives.

But judges are appointed and/or elected (appointed would be better, of course, if you wish to avoid the tyranny of the masses) because of their expertise of jurisprudence (in theory, at least) and their wisdom in deciding on how people should be treated by the law – and the consequences of one law can well impact on how they decide on another.

I highly recommend this post on the Gatheist Agenda blog, which we link to on the sidebar. Among other convincing arguments, it says this of judges:

It is not the job of the judicial branch to uphold the wishes of the majority. There is a very good reason why very few states and virtually no civilised nations elect judges and that is because it would open them to the same pressures as politicians face. Judges are deliberately insulated from the political process to ensure that they don’t have to follow “the will of the people”. The judges were asked to rule on whether the state’s ban on same-sex marriage conflicted with the state constitution’s ban on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. They decided it did.

So now you know. We'll see what happens on 14 November.

Don't mention the C-word!, Part II

This Scientology fiasco is getting worse. Before we know it, the word cult will be banned nationwide.

The anti-C-word fever has spread to Birmingham in the West Midlands now, it seems, after what happened in Glasgow and London.

Four demonstrators have been given £50 fixed penalties for leafleting, according to the first link above, under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act. The poster on that forum seems to think freedom of expression is protected, in that the Act was aimed at commercial flyers and the like.

That's as may be, but, if the authorities and the police want to find some way of protecting religious and big-business interests (these are conflated in the case of the DANGEROUS CULT of Scientology, of course), they'll do it.

This one, for instance, is too much of a coincidence. Would they confiscate the leaflets if they were pleading the cause of the local mosque or parish church? Doubt it. Go figure. There's something afoot, and it stinks.

Muslims and squiggles, Part II

It's not certain, but seems likely. They're at it again, it seems, Muslims who don't like squiggles. Someone's let a bomb off near the Danish Embassy in Islamabad, killing eight people and hurting more than a dozen.

Threats have been made at other Danish embassies, too, according to this BBC report, since those 2005 Jyllands-Posten cartoons were republished in several newspapers earlier this year.

"The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says suspicion has fallen on al-Qaeda, as a video released by the network in recent weeks denounced the cartoons," says the story. It adds, "The cartoons, deemed offensive to Islam, led to worldwide protests when they were first printed in September 2005."

What these nutters don't realise is that, every time they protest, someone else, sometimes a newspaper, more often a blogger, reproduces one of the cartoons, and it's usually the one we have reproduced here: the one that's been dubbed the "turbomb".

If these Allah-soaked madmen stopped their mayhem, the cartoon issue might just go away.

Thinking about thinking

Philosopedia is a fantastic free web resource providing a comprehensive index of the world’s nonbelievers.

The writer and encyclopaedist Warren Allen Smith (left), who describes himself as “a missionary for nonbelievers”, is the mastermind behind the project, and has so far contributed several thousand entries to the project.

Philosopedia (a name coined by Peter Ross) began in October 2005, and was trademarked by Smith in December 2005. The site describes itself thus:

Philosopedia's major purpose is to provide a resource for those whose interest is "thinking about thinking". In addition, Philosopedia proposes being a primary source for finding names not only of the eminent but also of the not-so-well-known individuals whose philosophic viewpoints have been expressed over the centuries as well as to date.

To date – and all since his eightieth birthday! – Smith has published four books: Who’s Who in Hell – 1,237 pages covering freethinkers and freethought, with more than 10,000 terms and names listed; Celebrities in Hell; Gossip from Across the Pond; and Cruising the Deuce.

Take a look at his official website, which has some very interesting biographical information about him, as well as details about his support for the Bangladeshi physician, writer, human-rights activist and secular humanist Taslima Nasrin.

For many years, Smith has written articles for British humanist publications, including his popular "Gossip from Across the Pond" column for G&LH.

Don't mention the C-word!

The human-rights lawyers are not going to let it go. It's that C-word again. Cult. You can't use it in Glasgow now after the recent fiasco in London. After Strathclyde Police banned its use a week ago, they're now coming under attack for trampling on human rights, according to the Sunday Herald.

"Officers banned the placards," says the Herald, "during a demonstration against the self-styled church in Glasgow city centre last weekend. Civil liberties campaigners have warned a dangerous precedent is being set for the suppression of free speech."

It goes on to remind us of the London incident, in which a 15-year-old boy was told to dump his placard, which said Scientology was a "dangerous cult". Overzealous police subsequently dropped any idea of prosecuting him, on advice from the Crown Prosecution Service – but the threat was there for several days.

John Scott, a human-rights lawyer, says this all suggests the so-called church is receiving preferential treatment. "Scientology is a wealthy organisation with pretty influential people involved. But that doesn't mean it's entitled to any more protection from the police – though it does appear that is the reality of the situation.

"This latest incident sets a dangerous precedent and I hope the police do not have to be taken to court for them to accept the right of free speech."

I hope the police do have to be taken to court, so that this can be settled once and for all. Scientology is as much a cult as any other cult. One dictionary defines a cult as a "system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided or unorthodox".

Especially an informal and transient one, not only such. This makes Christianity a cult, and Islam and Hinduism, too, along with Buddhism and Zoroastrianism.

Strathclyde Police admitted that their officers had stopped activists using the word cult after receiving a complaint. From the Church of Scientology, perhaps? Who else? A myopic old dear who misread the word cult?

A police spokeswoman tells the paper, "The word [cult] is not a breach of the peace in itself. However, in this case it was exacerbating the situation and our stance was that we had to remove that. From a policing point of view, a balance has to be struck between the right to assemble and hold a meeting and other persons' rights to go about their business or demonstrate without being obstructed or hindered."

Bollocks!

Were there any demonstrations against the use of the C-word? Were there threats to life and limb and buildings and policemen's helmets?

There's an anti-Scientology movement that calls itself, simply, Anonymous. This weekend, this leaderless, Internet-based group said it had recovered the banners and would be launching a fight to use the word. "The police have told us that breach of peace is very open to interpretation and there are no Scottish test cases they can refer to," said a spokesman. "We're furious that we're being told we cannot use the word cult – we've got rulings from London, Germany, France saying this is exactly what Scientology is. No one wants to get arrested – our members just want to protest."

Have a look at the vid below: Anonymous's address to Scientology. If you go to the YouTube page this is on, you'll find more.

Beeb backs a loser

In spite of not being religious – or maybe because of it – I listen to Sunday, BBC Radio 4's religious-affairs programme on Sunday mornings at 7.10. Some of the items are interesting, if only for arguments, or excuses for arguments, put up by the religious to justify their belief in this or that.

The interviewing, by the likes of Roger Bolton, Edward Stourton, Alan Little and the odd other locum presenter, is never robust enough, and interviewees are rarely if ever truly challenged.

This morning, an entire item concerned whether people believed God smiled on them and their betting slips when they were at the races, and a former jockey, now a racing journalist with questionable grammar (if this morning's report was anything to go by) on Radio Five Live, went to the races and spoke to people – people who seriously prayed for a win.

My thoughts immediately went to those who pray to God to save them from a disaster, say, and then crow that he did just that; or they failed to get on a plane and it crashed, and it was God who saved them by keeping them off the plane. My question is, Why didn't he save the other people? What had they done to deserve to die?

So why should God bless a betting slip, when he's just causing other people to lose? Why wasn't this question put to one of the punters?

OK, we know, or assume, that there is no God, and so it's a silly question. But why do believers think God would choose them over someone else? And why do radio programmes that see themselves as serious outlets for religious discussion allow a piece like this to go out without posing these pertinent questions? It's not the "and finally" on a news bulletin, after all: it's a programme about and for God botherers.

Silly season, I suspect – although there's enough stuff out there in the minds of the muddled to create programme items from. Bloggers do it every day!

Islamic teacher kills 7-year-old for not learning Koran

A blind seven-year-old pupil at a madrassa (Islamic school) in eastern Pakistan has been killed by his teacher for not learning the Koran.

"Muhammad Atif was hung upside down from a ceiling fan and severely beaten by his teacher, Qari Ziauddin, at the seminary or madrassa in Vihari, near Lahore on Thursday," says Australia's Herald-Sun.

Police say the teacher's been arrested on charges of torturing and murdering the boy, and that a postmortem has confirmed physical torture as the cause of death.

A local police official, Akram Nazi (a surname the teacher might be happy with), tells reporters, "Qari Ziauddin, who teaches Koran to boys in Qari Latif Islamic school, hanged Atif upside down with a ceiling fan in the school after beating him with sticks, which caused his death."

Ziauddin also failed to take the boy to hospital after he fell ill and his condition deteriorated, said the official.

It's only one of hundreds of incidents of abuse (not all as tragic, thankfully), as this BBC story tells us. And violence in madrassas has happened closer to home, according to this story in the Manchester Evening News. And, according to The Times in 2006, quoted here by the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, up to 100,000 British kids of Muslim parents are at risk in the UK.

Out with the pervs, says bishop

Today's Tablet – the Catholic weekly – tells us that a German bishop is keen to get the subject of pervy priests into the open.

The subject should be tackled "unsparingly", he has said at a workshop during a festival in Osnabrück. The paper continues:

Bishop Hans-Jochen Jaschke of Hamburg said paedophile priests should not be moved from parish to parish but should be suspended. "The Church should be particularly ashamed when it is guilty in such situations because of the high moral pedestal on which it stands," Bishop Jaschke said after listening to the story of a victim who had been abused for years by a priest. The German Church had reacted far too late and the bishops had not issued guidelines on the subject until 2002, said Bishop Jaschke. He said in the archdiocese of Hamburg the Church was now cooperating closely with the police and the prosecutor's office.

But most of the damage has been done. Why weren't popes and prelates more upfront earlier, instead of covering this scandal up and producing secret documents?

Germany's memorial "mistake"

A prominent Holocaust scholar reckons Germany has made a mistake by dedicating a memorial to the gay men who were victims of Nazi oppression.

"Israel Gutman of the Yad Vashem Institute in Jerusalem said that the Nazis only targeted German gay men, and that they were the victims of political battles within Hitler's National Socialist Party rather than a campaign of homophobia," says a story in Pink News.

Gutman is reported to have told the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, "The location was particularly poorly chosen for this monument. If visitors have the impression that there was not a great difference between the suffering of Jews and those of homosexuals, it's a scandal."

He said the German people "understood the immense scope of the crime of the Holocaust which they had committed, but this time they made an error."

The first openly gay Mayor of Berlin opened the new memorial to the homosexual victims of Nazi oppression earlier this week. Pink News continues:

It is estimated that 45,000 to 100,000 German homosexuals were arrested under Nazi rule between 1933 and 1945.

Up to 10,000 of them died in concentration camps. Many survivors, far from being liberated, were transferred to prisons.

The laws used against gay people in Germany remained on statute books until 1969.

Interfere with Islamic "education" at your peril

A Muslim in Australia is warning that any hostility towards Islamic schools could force that famous oxymoron, religious education, underground. The implication seems to be that, if the kids can't be indoctrinated in a Muslim religious school, they'll learn all the wrong things from extremists.

Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, seems to forget, conveniently, that the kids could be radicalised whether they're at state schools or Islamic schools.

"Muslim children [are] being given their religious education in backyards and garages by teachers whose credentials no one could vet," he says in a story in today's Guardian. "You may have some very extreme imams or religious teachers getting through to the children."

He was commenting on a decision by a council on the outskirts of Sydney to reject a proposal for an Islamic school. The project was turned down on planning and environmental reasons, or so it is said, but the decision has obviously gone down well with the hundreds of residents who opposed it.

Ali Roude, president of the Islamic Council of New South Wales, says that other mosques, Islamic centres and schools are being rejected under a smokescreen of planning problems. "It does not help the image of Australia because we should be taking pride in setting an example to the whole world that we can live together," he says.

The best way to live together, chum, is for all kids not to go to segregated schools, but to be educated together, leaving religious differences for the home and the meeting house. But you jut can't tell that to religionists.

No poofters, says Lord Bigot

The Earl of Devon doesn't like poofters. And he's showing his bigotry by banning gay marriages at his stately home, Powderham Castle, one of the oldest family houses in England.

The place is popular for hitching ceremonies of the opposite-sex variety. So, to avoid breaching the 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations, Lord Bigot (who is the 18th Earl of Devon) has banned all civil marriage ceremonies whether they are gay or straight.

But he faces a possible battle with the tax man after he refused a request to allow two gay men to hold a civil partnership ceremony. His stately home gets a conditional exception from inheritance tax because it's open to the public.

A report in the Daily Telegraph says:

Its regulations say that to obtain exemption the new owner must agree to look after the property and allow public access to it and that if the owner fails to fulfil their side of the bargain "the exemption is withdrawn".

Ben Summerskill of the gay-rights lobby group Stonewall tells the paper, "We shall certainly be asking the Treasury about Lord Devon's inheritance tax exemption. The inheritance tax regulations appear to suggest clearly that it should be withdrawn if his premises are not accessible to all members of the public without exception."

And just why is His Lordship so against having gays marry behind his centuries-old battlements? "I am a Christian," he said, "and therefore it [homosexuality] is objectionable to my Christian religion."

Lord Bigot insists that the complaint to the Treasury over the tax issue is unfounded, because he is not banning gays from visiting the house or its grounds but only from celebrating their civil partnerships there.

Interestingly, the 9th Earl (formerly the 3rd Viscount) fled to France in 1811 after being accused of sodomy. The Powderham website says:

The Third Viscount led a rather flamboyant lifestyle. He was a homosexual, and was forced to live abroad in consequence, first of all in the United States where he owned a property on the Hudson River in New York State, and later in Paris where he died in 1835. In 1831 he successfully applied to have the title of Earl of Devon, created in 1553, restored to the Courtenay family and became the 9th Earl. Despite having lived abroad for so long, he was dearly loved by his tenants who insisted that he be buried in stately fashion back at Powderham.

One of the stately homos of England, you might say.

The man who lied to take us into war says religion is a good thing. Do we believe him?

Father Tony launches his Faith Foundation in New York today. This is the man who became a Catholic last year and now "wants to spend most of his remaining years ensuring that religion is seen as a force for good in the world", according to The Times. Yeah, right.

The new organisation, for which he is seeking hundreds of millions of pounds of charitable funding, will focus on developing better understanding between faiths as well as fostering concrete action on fighting poverty and disease. “In the end, this will be what I dedicate a very large part of my life to,” he told The Times yesterday.

This bit is interesting from the man whose spinmeister, Alastair Campbell, once said, "We don't do God":

Mr Blair insisted that it would be wrong to interpret his decision to launch the foundation at the headquarters of Time Warner in New York as evidence that America, with its strong religious base, was more fertile territory for his message than a home country where he was forced out of office amid mounting unpopularity a year ago.

Are we supposed to believe that? Is this not the man who lied, or at the very least allowed himself to be misled, to get us into a war in Iraq? Is this the man who has so much faith in "faith" that he didn't like his relationship with his imaginary friend to be talked about too much, lest people thought him the fruitcake that he now shows himself to be?

Yep. He's the one who thinks religion is going to solve all the world's problems.

If the no doubt large part of the expected dosh that is being used to create this understanding between "faiths" were put to the charitable part of his organisation, it might do better. Of course, there will be some practical good coming from it if it does what he says it will do, and helps to ease poverty. But his insistence on doing it through religion, which is the most destructive force on the planet, is wacky.

Yes, there are nice religious people and all that, such as Desmond Tutu and the sweet lady who makes tea at the church bazaar, but we're talking about it as a phenomenon. It's destructive and causes war and strife – and human-rights abuses and untold misery are caused in its name.

It's frightening to think this man once led the UK. He's seriously creepy.