Imagine no censors

The religious types in the USA really do like freedom of speech – provided it’s only their own.

A billboard containing an atheist message has been taken down in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino county, California, after complaints (from what we can only assume are rabid religionists), according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

The sign says, simply, “Imagine no religion”. The Tribune tells us:

The General Outdoor sign company took down the Freedom from Religion Foundation billboard after the city said it received about 90 complaints and asked whether there was a way to remove it.

The Madison, Wis.-based foundation, which advocates separation of church and state, has billboards in eight states that include such messages as “Reasons Greetings” and “Beware of Dogma”.

The foundation’s co-president, Annie Laurie Gaylor, said the billboard is meant to encourage a debate about religion by evoking lyrics from a John Lennon song.

“The city has no business suggesting our billboard be censored,” Gaylor said. “They’re not allowed to interfere over religious controversy.”

Hard to add anything else, really. The attitude of these people speaks for itself.

Be nice to gays, Catholics told (tee-hee)

The Daily Mail would have us believe that Roman Catholic priests have been banned from using what it calls “heterosexist” language in their churches lest they offend the gay.

No, don’t laugh!

“They have been told by their bishops not to assume that every churchgoer is a heterosexual and to reflect this ‘in language and conversation’,” the paper says, and continues:

Priests are also encouraged to put up posters advertising “support services” for homosexuals, a move bound to infuriate many Catholics who believe gay sexual activity to be sinful.

The advice was welcomed by gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell as a “positive initiative which will bring great comfort to gay Catholics and their families”.

He said: “Its sympathetic, understanding message is a big improvement on the past homophobia of some Catholic pronouncements on homosexuality.”

However, he said the “laudable change of tone” was undermined by the “homophobic content of the Catholic Catechism” and by Pope Benedict XVI’s opposition to gay marriage.

Well, yes, there is just that tiny consideration.

And there is some dissent, of course.

“The advice was criticised by Lynette Burrows, a Catholic commentator [whatever one of those is], as ‘pitiful’,” says the paper.

She said it was ridiculous that Church leaders appeared to be “grovelling” to a secular agenda.

“It is things like this that are enfeebling the Church at the moment – the concentration on things that don’t matter and missing the things that do,” she said.

“What is pitiful as well as demeaning is that the Church is running after homosexual opinion but nothing is going to make homosexuals like the Catholic Church.

“This is because the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder and whatever the bishops say will not change that.”

Well, yes. She has a point, of course. The only way to make gays like the Catholic Church is for the Catholic Church to get used to the idea that God (if you wish to see it this way) made some people gay. Well, lots of people gay, actually.

And what does she mean by grovelling to a secular agenda? Why is being nice to gays and lesbians just a secular thing, if there are Catholic gays and lesbians and said gays and lesbians are part of the “flock”? Is wanting to be nice to the Catholic Ladies’ Guild or the recipients of Catholic charities or pregnant women or the church cricket team “grovelling” to a secular agenda?

Relate cousellor who didn't relate to gay clients

The case of Gary McFarlane (47), the Relate counsellor  (pictured) who didn’t like the idea of ministering to same-sex couples is due to be heard on 1 and 2 December, we’re told by the Christian Weekly News email that comes from Christian Concern for Our Nation (CCFON).

We carried a post on 26 October about it, but, briefly, he claims he was fired because he admitted that his superstitious beliefs could prevent him from administering sex therapy. McFarlane had worked for Relate since 2003.

He said that, while he had the attitude “each to their own”, he felt uncomfortable doing anything that would directly encourage gay sex. He says he hadn’t thought he’d have to confront these issues until he faced the prospect of providing therapy for a gay couple. That was when he planned to discuss them in confidence with his supervisor.

Some fellow counsellors had complained about McFarlane’s views, claiming he’s been homophobic.

The Christian Legal Centre carried a piece on the issue on 17 October.

Life blood

A four-year-old child who might have died because of her parents’ twisted beliefs may now get the blood transfusion she desperately needs.

A High Court Judge in Dublin has ruled that a hospital can give the lifesaving blood if it’s absolutely necessary.

Today’s Irish Times tells us:

The court heard the child was admitted to the hospital last Sunday suffering from pneumonia and an X-ray had revealed she needed to have fluid drained from her lung. It was possible the draining procedure would lead to severe loss of blood and the child would need a transfusion.

The parents, whose religion prohibits blood transfusions, had objected to any transfusion and the father had said he would go to court to stop it, it was stated.

However, that was when the hospital decided to take proceedings and seek permission for the blood to be administered.

It’s absurd in the extreme that hospitals need to seek permission to administer blood in a life-or-death situation.

It’s one thing if an adult Jehovah’s Witness wants to refuse a blood transfusion for him- or herself, but visiting their own wacky beliefs on another human being, especially when they could well kill that human being, is just not on.

The child is not a Jehovah’s Witness (even if the parents claim she is, and I don’t know whether they make such a claim, but it wouldn’t surprise me). At four, she can hardly have stacked up the cognitive wherewithal to formulate ideas on such matters.

All she needs is for her young life to be saved.

Cop out

The Norfolk policeman who bombarded colleagues with Christian emails concerning sexuality has now been fired.

PC Graham Cogman just couldn’t get used to the fact that some people are gay.

See the background here.

He got his comeuppance at a disciplinary tribunal.

Let's all do sharia!

A barrister reckons sharia law should be incorporated into UK secular law.

What?

Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council, has reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of this Dark Ages Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced.

The story is carried in today’s Daily Telegraph, which quotes the Daily Express. The Telegraph says:

After speaking at an event organised by the website Islam4UK at the National Liberal Club, Whitehall, Mr Hockman reportedly told the Daily Express: “Given our substantial Muslim population, it is vital that we look at ways to integrate Muslim culture into our traditions. Otherwise we will find that there is a significant section of our society which is increasingly alienated, with very dangerous results.

Hang on. We are the host culture. Those of other cultures need to integrate into ours, albeit that some things rub off and we benefit from cultural gifts such as food and entertainment. But food and entertainment are what we can choose to partake in, and they are not the law of the land, which we are all subject to.

And “dangerous results”? Are we to go entirely Muslim, then, before we can stop whatever “dangerous results” Hockman has in mind? When we give one thing, how long before we can expect “dangerous results” if we don’t give another?

Remember the Danegeld.

God is half good

Stephen Green of Christian Voice is being thoroughly entertaining again. He’s got half his costs waived in the court case that threatened to bankrupt him – the one he lost against the BBC and producers of Jerry Springer: The Opera.

But it’s not an earthly phenomenon, this deal to settle for half the costs. Not something that’s been brought about by, you know, people. Oh, no. It was the Lord wot done it.

Stuart Hartill of the Clinging to a Rock blog tells me that Green has emailed him thus:

I am pleased to tell you I was able to do a deal with them, in which I settled for half their total costs, and the Lord graciously provided the money. To Him be all the glory. That leaves [producer] Jonathan Thoday, but I owe him less money, and I am praying for a good resolution there as well.

Funny how the Lord graciously provides the money for Stephen Green, but doesn’t quite manage it for the starving and destitute the world over, isn’t it? The gracious Lord doesn’t dip into his heavenly pocket for hospitals and schools, for facilities for the disabled, for the million and one other things that money is desperately needed for.

Just a bit suspicious, don’t you think? A bit of favouritism, perhaps? Maybe even nepotism, since Green surely believes himself to be the Son of God returned to Earth. And, if the Lord felt Green's case was worthy enough, why didn't he graciously provide the entire costs, rather than just half?

Green, you will remember, was the campaign (or a large part of it) against the Welsh poet Patrick Jones, leading to the bookstore chain Waterstone’s reneging on an arrangement for him to do a signing and reading session in their Cardiff shop.

He’s launched a petition against the decision by Peter Black, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesman in the Senedd, to invite Jones to read the “offending” poem:

Now, we have launched a petition against Peter Black’s invitation to the “poet” Patrick Jones to insult the Lord Jesus Christ in the National Assembly of Wales – and call for churches to be closed! The event is due to take place in the Ty Hywel NAW [National Assembly of Wales] building at 12 noon on Thursday 11th December. Lorraine Barrett, another Assembly Member and also a member of the extremist anti-Christian National Secular Society, is co-hosting the event.

In an earlier press release he calls Jones a “militant atheist”. Funny how no atheist can just be an atheist with these people: they have to be a militant atheist. My impression from Jones’s poems and his emails to me is that he’s just pissed off with religion – especially the way it’s dished up by prats such as Stephen Green. His wish to close the churches stems from that, not from some rabid hatred of religion per se.

Anyway, there’s Mr Green's petition to sign. It’s here. What are you waiting for? Better still, though, try this one – it's a counterpetition set up by Barry Duke of the Freethinker.

Thanks, Stuart, for the tip-off.

On the road to more blasphemy laws?

The UN General Assembly has adopted a draft resolution calling on all countries to alter their legal and constitutional systems to prevent “defamation of religions”.

This was carried by a vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstaining.

We know just which religion is behind it, of course. The Assembly is asserting that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”.

It is true that Islam is frequently associated with these things – too frequently at times. It is not so that it is always wrongly associated with these things. It’s just a fact of life. Not all Muslims want to bomb the hell out of people – but some do. If more of those who don’t do so spoke up against those who do, we might see changes that don’t necessitate this gagging.

As for human rights, well, this blog and others and commentators the world over have rehearsed that argument many times. Women under Islam? Gays under Islam? Go figure.

We know what will happen. The nuttier religions and sects – not just Islam – will be using this to try to stamp on freedom of expression. They do it now; they’ll do it all the more with this sort of nonsense in place.

“This is just the latest shot in an intensifying campaign of UN resolutions that dangerously seek to import Islamic anti-blasphemy prohibitions into the discourse of international human-rights law,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, an independent human-rights monitoring group in Geneva.

“Human rights were designed to protect individuals – to guarantee every person free speech and free exercise of religion – but most certainly not to shield any set of beliefs, religion included. These resolutions legitimise the criminalisation of free speech in countries like Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia,” Neuer continued. “Muslim moderates, bloggers, women seeking basic freedoms – all of these will be the first to suffer from the worsening climate of state repression in the name of state-supported Islamic orthodoxy.”

It remains to be seen how those who find themselves criticising religious privileges and religion’s attempts to gain unfair advantages in society – I’m thinking of the blogging community, journalists, other commentators, comedians and satirists who poke fun at religion, thinkers who do scholarly analyses of religion – will react to this.

I know a few bloggers who will raise a stiff middle finger to the UN’s General Assembly and its ridiculous attempt to gag us in the name of superstition. And it will be interesting to see which countries do alter their laws.

Ad watchdog knocks church's homophobic protest

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that an ad in a local paper in Northern Ireland – placed by Sandown Free Presbyterian Church ahead of this summer’s Pride event in Belfast – breached its code.

The 540-word ad was inserted in the Belfast News Letter on 1 August, calling gay people perverts and urging “religious” people publicly to oppose gay rights and Pride events.

Pink News cites a BBC reports that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has “ruled that the ad breached decency codes”.

The story continues, “It reportedly said the advert must not appear again and in future ‘particular care should be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of sexual orientation’.”

The ASA has refused to comment on the BBC report.

The offending ad read:

The act of sodomy is a grave offence to every Bible believer who, in accepting the pure message of God’s precious word, express the mind of God by declaring it to be an abomination.

This unequivocal statement clearly articulates God’s judgment upon a sin that has been only made controversial by these who are attempting to either neutralise or remove the guilt of their wrongdoing.

The issue of human rights is no longer a basis for this parade, as successive governments have legislated for the lowering of the age of consent, the authorisation of civil partnerships and the inheritance rights of a nominated partner.

This parade is not a welcome addition to our city, neither is it a positive celebration of a profitable lifestyle flaunting a form of sexuality that generations of men and women have righteously resisted and by gods grace will continue to resist.

Yeah, right.

Pink News tells us that the News Letter has said that it will examine the ASA adjudication, which has not been made public yet.

It was the Rev. Ian Paisley Sr, a former First Minister of Northern Ireland and noted homophobe who shouts a lot, who founded the Free Presbyterian Church 56 years ago. The church mounts an annual protest against Belfast Pride.

“Last year,” says Pink News, “veteran politician Paisley resigned as leader of the Church after coming under pressure from its members over gay rights issues.

“The fundamentalist Christian sect were outraged that Mr Paisley and other members of his Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) ignored their objections to government financial support for Pride marches, which they called a ‘celebration of sodomy’.”

Cop who sought a cop-out

A police officer who, according to the rabidly homophobic Christian Institute, has been “discriminated against for traditional beliefs” is due to have his case heard this week at a disciplinary tribunal.

PC Graham Cogman, who’s 49 and comes from North Norfolk, has been a copper for about 15 years.

But, says the CI of Cogman’s intention to take his employers to an employment tribunal on the issue:

PC Cogman is taking the unprecedented action as a serving policeman after a series of complaints and investigations suggesting he is “homophobic” – something he strenuously denies. He says that the “over the top” promotion of homosexual rights within Norfolk Police makes being a Christian policeman, or an officer with traditional family values, extremely difficult, unless a person is prepared to ignore his or her conscience.

It then goes on to tell Cogman’s story:

In 2006, PC Cogman was working at the force’s Great Yarmouth headquarters when gay liaison officers put “politically correct” pressure on all colleagues to wear a pink ribbon supporting Gay History Month. PC Cogman claims police stations were flooded with homosexual literature, posters, including the promotion of a gay quiz night in pubs. As a member of the Police force, an organisation which he feels is charged with upholding traditional standards of freedom of speech and association, he emailed colleagues with an alternative view on the subject, stating his Christian views and reminding them that Christians, and other members of society, whom they serve as officers, believed homosexual acts were wrong in God’s eyes.

PC Cogman was subsequently accused of failing to be tolerant and banned from using the force’s internal email system. When the event re-occurred 12 months later, PC Cogman again protested, especially when the promoters wanted to use the Rainbow Symbol, which has special significance for many Christians. The officer was summoned to a full disciplinary hearing. On the strong advice of lawyers, and because he was told he would lose his job otherwise, he pleaded guilty to a breach of the police code of practice and was fined the maximum, £1,200. When PC Cogman then added a Christian text to his computer screen saver, he was questioned again and in April 2008, he was interviewed about his faith and beliefs. He now faces a further full disciplinary hearing and is in fear of losing his job.

Perhaps no one should be forced to wear pink ribbons, but he didn’t have to do the cyber-preaching to his colleagues. Then we get, “As a member of the Police force, an organisation which he feels is charged with upholding traditional standards of freedom of speech and association . . .” What does he mean? That only “traditional” ideas should be talked about? Just what are “traditional” standards of freedom of speech? His standards? Just his conservative Christian standards? Are only “traditional” standards of freedom of speech acceptable within the police force?

He sent homophobic emails out. The rules say no homophobia.

The Daily Telegraph said back in July:

PC Cogman, a father of two, said reconciling his religious beliefs with his job was becoming more difficult because the force’s stance on homosexuality was at odds with his religious views.

“The blatant support for homosexual rights in Norfolk Police makes being a Christian officer extremely difficult,” he said.

Well, things change. Gays have fought long and hard to be recognised as equal to straights, and people in positions of authority should be ready to deal with that. Religion, after all, is something that can be ignored. One’s sexuality isn’t.

Let's hear it for the heroes

The Sunday Times:

The Centre for Social Cohesion has produced a publication which details the cases of almost 30 Europeans born to Muslim parents who are risking their lives to speak out against aspects of their faith and culture. The most important rarely receive more than passing attention. But they deserve our focus. For the risks that they – and many other reformers – are taking will in the end be for us all.

But our government is far too keen to bend over backwards to appease those who whine and bleat, not realising that by so doing they’re inviting Islamisation of the UK to creep further and further into the host culture. Once it reaches a critical point, it will be too late, and gays and women can kiss goodbye to whatever freedoms they have.

We’ve seen how sharia courts are operating in Britain, with the government’s blessing. Some hope for justice for women there.

And, yes, it is time we gave credit to the brave ones who stand up as ex-Muslims or as those who speak out against aspects of their benighted “faith”.

The Sunday Times piece – written by Douglas Murray – is praising of those who stand up:

The individuals profiled range from cabinet ministers to journalists, writers, academics, artists and even pop singers. Most are in trouble for having criticised elements of what they see in Europe’s Muslim communities, particularly the treatment of women. Nyamko Sabuni, the Swedish minister for integration and gender equality, has been the subject of death threats since speaking out against female genital mutilation and proposing that all Swedish schools should have mandatory gynaecological examinations to discourage the practice.

In Denmark, Manu Sareen, a city councillor and social worker who helped victims of “honour violence”, was forced to give up his job after being approached on the way to his office by two men who told him that if he helped more of their women he would be killed.

Governments across Europe, including our own [UK], make regular pronouncements about helping moderate Muslim voices to emerge above the din of radicals and radical-affiliated groups who have such a knack of grabbing the headlines. But the truth is that many of the individuals detailed in Victims of Intimidation either never had, or took a long time to get, the support they deserved.

As an example of someone who wants to doff the shackles of a conservative (I would say Dark Ages) belief system, at least as far as women’s right to self-expression is concerned, Murray cites Deepika Thathhaal (or Deeyah), a Norwegian-born pop singer based in London, who was attacked on stage at a concert in Oslo and “has had her life repeatedly threatened. She has been criticised for her dress, dancing, music and her music video ‘What Will It Be?’ which highlights the victims of ‘honour killings’.”

As Deeyah has said herself: “What’s been a hard and sad thing for me to realise is how not one single person from the religious establishment within the community has shown any support.” Earlier this year she launched a project called Sisterhood to support female Muslim rappers and singers. Daud Abdullah, deputy secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (who both the government and the Conservative Party continue to deal with) responded to this modern woman’s right to self-expression by saying: “The moral framework of Islam has already been laid down and women should not push beyond its boundaries for the sake of commercial gain.”

Islam has a job recognising that women might wish to push beyond the boundaries for any gain, it seems, including basic equalities.

But when did Gordon Brown or any of his Cabinet stand up and unequivocally denounce this sort of attitude, and say they will not deal on a formal basis with an organisation that holds these views? If it were a nonreligious organisation it would be denounced by equalities ministers and PC do-gooding organisations throughout the country.

If it’s religious – and especially if it’s Islam – it must be tiptoed around on eggshells.

Keeping up with the Jones saga

Here's another update on the Welsh poet Patrick Jones and his book of poetry, which Waterstone’s book chain would not let him sign and read at its Cardiff store, in spite of an agreement.

You’ll remember from our posts (this link will harvest them all, including this one) that the Welsh Lib Dems invited Jones to read some of the poems – including, we assume, the “offending” one that has got some Christians, led by well-known pillock Stephen Green of Christian Voice, twitching and threatening hellfire – in a room at the Senedd (Parliament building).

A couple of AMs (Assembly Members) have now objected, though, it seems. An independent, Trish Law, thinks the poems “blasphemous” (although there is no longer a law of blasphemy) and is seeking to ban the reading.

Jones has told the New Humanist blog the that the AMs are now trying to get the reading cancelled due to “blasphemy and profanity”.

The BBC’s correspondent Betsan Powys tells us on her BBC blog that Trish Law, the independent AM for Blaenau Gwent, has written to the Assembly’s presiding officer, Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas, whingeing about the reading. Oddly enough, Law upholds the freedom of speech, she says. And yet,

While I uphold freedom of speech I cannot condone the reading of blasphemous, obscene and perverted poems in the National Assembly. We are still a Christian country, yet one that acknowledges and readily accepts other religious beliefs and values. So while we would not tolerate other religions and religious leaders being insulted through verse or deed neither should we expect Christ and Christianity to be subjected to a tirade of anti-Christian rhetoric and profanity.

I implore you to put a stop to this reading on December 11 in the name of decency and humanity.

We’re a Christian country? Speak for yourself, Trish. There are a fair few Christians in it, and lot of sceptics, too. But those who give more than a bit of lip service to it are in a minority in the UK, and I suspect Wales, too. And who says we “would not tolerate other religions and religious leaders being insulted through verse or deed”? All belief systems are fair game. Therefore so is any religious leader.

Meanwhile, a Conservative AM, Jonathan Morgan, is also seeking to censor, but for slightly different reasons:

Patrick Jones seems to think that the freedom of speech is a convenient shield to be used when under attack for being offensive. In exercising that freedom, and in respecting it, we should do so responsibly. I do not believe that AMs should be wading into the debate by hosting a reading. It is a mistake and opens up the institution to the accusation that it is siding with one opinion without giving the other the same chance of expression.

__________
Hat tip Freethinker

Court will hear the opposition to the Proposition

Some good news reaches us from the Golden State. The California Supreme Court has said it will hear a case against the passing of Proposition 8, the vote (held on the same day as the presidential election) that proposes a change in the State Constitution to make marriage strictly a man–woman affair.

Fifty-two per cent of voters polled in favour of Proposition 8, causing heartache and disappointment to those who planned to marry.

Around 18,000 gay and lesbian couples tied the knot between June, when the court struck down the ban that was in place, and November, when it was put back again, prompting some spirited opposition.

“If permitted to stand,” says a story in Pink News, “Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights.”

Animals suffer to appease Muslim prisoners

News of yet more creeping Islamisation and kowtowing to unreasonable religious demands comes to us from Scotland, where it’s reported that the entire population of a young offenders’ institution have to eat cruelly slaughtered meat because there are some among them with religious sensitivities.

Yes, it’s Muslims again. The institution concerned is Polmont, whose managers have been told not to source all their meat from halal butchers, but have continued to do so, according to the Daily Express, “to avoid ‘prejudicing the position’ of the handful of religious inmates”.

The point is that animal suffering should not be condoned, no matter how many Muslim prisoners there are. If they don’t like non-halal meat, let them take the veggie alternatives. It’s bad enough that our supine, kowtowing government has allowed ritual slaughter at all, in spite of a damning report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) in June 2003, which said ritual slaughter should be banned forthwith.

“FAWC said it wanted an end to the exemption currently allowed for Kosher and Halal meat from the legal requirement to stun animals first,” says the BBC report linked to above, which continues:

It says cattle can take up to two minutes to bleed to death – amounting to an abuse of the animals.

“This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn’t suffer is quite ridiculous,” said FAWC chairwoman, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark.

Compassion in World Farming backed the call, saying: “We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter.”

But oh, no: that would hurt the itty-bitty sensitivities of cuddly-wuddly Jews and Muslims, wouldn’t it, and we wouldn’t want to hurt their special ickle sensitivities, would we? It’s religion, after all, cuddly, lovable religion, and that trumps everything – even ending barbaric cruelty to animals.

Anyway, these inmates wouldn’t know if the meat were not halal, would they? They could just take their choice and hope that it is. If they suspect that it’s not, tough. There are alternatives.

And this is nothing to do with prisoners’ rights. We acknowledge those. It’s to do with a society’s right to ensure that the animals it uses for food are treated as humanely as possible, and to demand that its government act with compassion, instead of bowing to religious pressure. The meat industry is bad enough in its conventional dealings with the domestic animal kingdom. Adding the stress of allowing an animal to watch itself bleed to death is something else.

British “justice”

For an interesting analysis of Britain’s kowtowing to a primitive, foreign and unfair court system, which it allows to run alongside its own secular system, disadvantaging women, turn to the International Herald Tribune.

Perhaps it can look with a little more objectivity at the issue. But anyone reading the article cannot help but think we’re heading for disaster by allowing incomers and their descendants just to set up courts according to their own religion and expect the host country to sit back and see British women – for that is what these Muslim women are – being treated like shit in deference to Dark Ages “justice”.

We’ve seen how violence is treated, too, in a case we’ve reported on this blog (see second indented extract quoted there) that told how violent assailants had just been told to go away and have counselling and consult the odd mojo man – sorry, imam. All to the detriment of the women victims.

The fact is that these “judges” have no specialist knowledge of British jurisprudence, by which all citizens should be judged, not just those who aren’t Muslims, and the British government is lying supine and allowing yet more creeping Islamisation because it is too gutless to take decisive action and say enough is enough, this is Britain, this is our system, you will abide by it or go elsewhere.

See Pink Triangle’s last post on the issue here.

Poetic justice, Part II

More poetic justice for the Welsh poet Patrick Jones has come from the book chain Borders, who say they’re organising a signing and reading for 11 December – the same day Jones is due to read his “blasphemous” poem to the Senedd (the Welsh Parliament).

The story so far is that Waterstone’s cancelled a reading and signing at their Cardiff shop after bully tactics from some pathetic little outfit called Christian Voice, based in West Wales, where a large percentage of its membership, Stephen Green, lives.

The latest news comes from New Humanist’s blog, which tells us that Jones has emailed it to say:

Welsh AMs [Assembly Members] are now trying to get the reading cancelled at the Welsh Assembly due "to blasphemy and profanity in the poems" and that "the UK is a Christian country" and "believe in freedom of speech . . . but" – and I promise I have not sent an email or invited them or anything!!! I think it goes to show the knee jerk reactions that abound.

Also Borders have stepped in and we will be launching the book on Dec 11th at the Cardiff store with a further reading in London's Borders – which i hope will show the way that it should have been handled and that the issue was not how Christian Voice heard of the book but their reaction and their destruction of free speech. The venues I am reading at (and I could be reading any poem – even Rowan Williams!) are being bombarded and threatened with calls and emails from CV members and some are quite upset and anxious about this

Seems like that book of poems will sell and sell and sell. Christian fundies have got to be good for something, it seems!

By the way, we’ll be running an article in the next issue of G&LH on this saga, and will print the “offending” poem that speaks of sexual relations (tut-tut!) between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Meanwhile, enjoy the background here (where you'll get the first five posts in reverse chronological order) and here.
__________
Hat tip: MediaWatchWatch

Religious bullying

The findings of a survey showing that one in four young people from across all religions is being bullied because of his or her religious beliefs should come as no surprise. Kids whose parents subscribe to different superstitions are often kept in different environments called “faith” schools.

The finding comes from a report by Beatbullying, the UK’s leading bullying prevention charity, published today and reported by the think tank Ekklesia.

“The findings will contribute to concerns that faith schools are fuelling serration on the basis of faith,” says Ekklesia. “The report also addressed the bullying of atheists.”

Ekklesia then quotes the report as saying:

There is little or no support, few outlets and limited provision provided for young people to talk about their faith. Almost half of young people do not talk about religious or faith issues at all.

Religion, faith or perceived faith background arguably mediates peer relationships and interactions. 1 in 5 young people report[s] friendships with people largely from the same religious background, arguably indicating a level of segregation and religious intolerance.

The group that produced the report, Beatbullying, runs Interfaith bullying-prevention programmes, funded by the UK government, to divert the behaviour of those using their superstitious belief systems as a reason to bully their peers.

Proposition 8's terminator?

All may not be lost for the proponents of same-sex marriage in California. As well as a spirited reaction to the vote on 4 November to pass Proposition 8, making marriage something possible only between opposite-sex partners, the state’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, reckons the state Supreme Court will reverse that vote, which effectively overturned an earlier Supreme Court ruling.

“For me,” said Terminator star Arnie, “marriage is between a man and a woman. But I don’t want to ever force my will on anyone,” he said on ABC television’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

“I think that the Supreme Court was right and that everyone should have the right.

“So the Supreme Court, you know, I think ought to go and look at that again. And we’ll go back to the same decision. I think that they will. And I think that the important thing now is to resolve this issue in that way.”

See the full story in Pink News here.

Lord of the dance

Mandy on Strictly Come Dancing? Can you believe it?

But the new UK business secretary Peter (now Lord) Mandelson has indeed hinted that he’d like to appear on the programme, having watched journalist John Sergeant put through his paces on this TV talent show (which leaves me cold, but most people seem to like it).

“It would be nice to be asked,” Mandy said, having admitted that he'd felt some degree of envy watching Sergeant.

Morality does not come from religion

"Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," advertisements will be appearing on Washington, DC, buses starting next week and running through December. The expected responses from infantile religious spokespeople have been prominently reported in the media and, as usual, they have been treated as if their comments are obviously true. (See also our earlier post.)

The Newsmax story said, “Some experts from religious groups criticised the campaign, saying that morality and the intention to do good is based on belief in God.”

Bill Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League, responded in a press statement, saying, “Codes of morality, of course, have always been grounded in religion. We know that militant secularists are busy flexing their muscles these days, but is it too much to expect them to act rationally?”

Such responses are a sad reflection on the education system.

Morality must be, and always has been, distinct from religion. Otherwise the actions of the gods could never be judged as morally right or wrong. One example should suffice even for the likes of Bill Donohue.

The god of the Judaists, Christians, Muslims and Mormons is reported in the book of Exodus in the Bible as having sent an angel to kill the entire first born in Egypt, excepting only the chosen few. The festival of Passover is said to commemorate the event. But does this fable describe a moral action? Anyone who says yes it does, or no it does not, rather than that they cannot say because it was an act of God, demonstrates that actions can be judged as moral or immoral without any reference to religions.

It is necessary to challenge these religious claims because media bodies like the BBC report the comments and give religions status they do not deserve.