What does biblical wisdom mean? It means no poofters!

What is the big issue for Christians in the UK local and Euro elections? Why, homosexuality, of course!

Millions go to the polls today to elect their Euro MPs and, in England, local councillors, and a rabidly bigoted group of pillocks called Christian Concern for Our Nation (CCFON) want us to vote for a Christian.

Why do they want us to vote for a Christian? Well, “Under this Government,” writes Andrea Minichiello Williams, one of this bunch of tossers, “every safeguard against the promotion of the practice of homosexuality to our children and more generally in society has been removed with the result that it is now Christians who face discrimination for defending the Biblical view on this subject.”

In Euro and local elections, “CCFON urges all our supporters to seek the Lord about where to place our vote and to exercise biblical wisdom in our choice of party.”

Now I know you’re allowed to put your party’s name on the ballot paper, but, strictly, elections are for candidates, not parties. However, that explains why CCFON are criticising Westminster politicians (who, more’s the pity, are not seeking election today) by asking us to vote a certain way (i.e. be careful which party we vote for) in Europe and local councils.

Anyway, that aside, this tells us without a doubt just what’s on Williams’s mind when she wants us to “seek the Lord”.

And what will the Lord say? No poofters! That’s what he’ll say. No poofters!

However, it’s hard to disagree with everything a perceived enemy says. That would be a very black-or-white, for-us-or-against-us way of thinking. And CCFON go on in their emailed bulletin, to which I’m signed up, to say:

[N]one of the political parties are willing to take a robust stand against extreme elements of Islam that seek to impose sharia law on society and so seriously infringe on [sic – she means either “impinge on” or “infringe”] the rights of women and those who wish to change their faith.

Just as you find yourself agreeing (while adding that sharia law would also be bad for gays, which doesn’t seem to bother CCFON, of course), you come across this, in the same paragraph:

While there is talk about the need for change none of the political parties are willing to embrace the root cause of our problem which is the rejection of our biblical heritage.

So is the fear of sharia law just a rejection of our biblical heritage, or are they genuinely pissed off with creeping Islamisation? Hard to tell. Still in the same paragraph, they then say, “Our leaders have forgotten that while righteousness exalts a nation, sin is a reproach to any people (Prov 14:34).”

So, in spite of her paragraphing it all together, I suspect we’ve moved off sharia and on to something called “sin”.

And Williams’s solution to the problem of “sin” is “voting for those who are standing on a platform of Christian values[,] which is what this nation and the whole of Europe so desperately needs, for without a vision the people perish (Prov 29:18).”

And with that vision, the freedom of lesbians and gays to express their natural sexuality in the way that is open to – and encouraged of – straights will be crushed under “biblical wisdom”, in spite of the fact that, in your view, Ms Williams, it must be your sky fairy who gave lesbians and gays that natural sexuality.

What a sick bunch of fuckwits these people are! It’s just as well few will be heeding her words.

Obama the gay champion?

Now there’s a thing!

“The President of the United States yesterday issued a proclamation in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans Pride month,” announces Pink News.

“Barack Obama called on ‘Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity’ and ‘turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists’ ”, the online source says.

Bit of a change from his predecessor. There’s hope yet.

But when you read on you get this:

“I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans,” says the President. OK so far. But . . .

“These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and . . .” (my emphasis)

Hang on a minute! Since when did giving gay people civil unions while allowing marriage for straights amount to a “full spectrum” of equal rights?

Who is my neighbour?

You’d think God, Allah and Yahweh were three different creatures, wouldn’t you, the way the monotheistic religions bicker? One is vengeful and cruel; another is gentle and loving and, through his “only begotten son”, urges us to love our neighbour.

There’s this geezer who used to be a Muslim (therefore followed the god known as Allah: vengeful, hateful, if you believe some verses in the Koran) and is now a Christian (following the god called God: loving, all-knowing) who’s slamming Muslims for wanting to build a mega-mosque in London.

Pastor Jonathan Oloyede is convener of the Global Day of Prayer in London, and has just said, “I used to be a Muslim. The Muslims don’t just want to build a mosque. They want to take over.

“If you want to roll over and play dead while the legacy of your forefathers is thrown in the dust and you can’t stand up and say enough is enough then you are not fit to be a Christian.”

He said the plan to build a huge mosque on the site of the London Olympics was “ungodly”.

“All that stuff about not offending anyone is nonsense,” he’s said. “I used to try to be nice to everyone but God said to me, ‘You cannot be my messenger by being nice to everybody. So are you going to just play nice or are you going to be a follower of Christ?’ ” he said.

Shades of the enemy-smiting Old Testament God there.

Ray Brocklesby, owner of the Bahá’í website linked to above – which relates this story – asks, “Whatever happened to the message of loving one’s neighbour?”

Well, quite, if you’re going to criticise the way this chap is talking (pitting Christian against Muslim, allegedly worshippers of the same god but of different names).

But I’d also add that loving your neighbour is something you can’t do if, by “neighbour”, you mean everyone – symbolised by the unknown chap from a perceived “enemy” religion whom the Good Samaritan of the parable helped – because the “neighbour” to whom Brocklesby is alluding by citing a Christian message is the neighbour cast in that much wider context by Jesus when he allegedly told this story.

You can’t allow a mega-mosque of these proportions to stick out like the proverbial carbuncle and at the same time love your culture and, by extension, the people who value it (your neighbours in the more conventional, geographical context).

I agree with Oloyede that there’s an element of taking over involved, and we’ve carried a fair few posts on this blog that would give that impression. Every kowtowing appeasement we make when Muslims moan, every concession we allow, the more Islam encroaches.

But it’s less to do with being Christian than with just being neighbourly to oppose this mosque (although Christianity is relevant in this case, since we’re nominally a Christian country if we ally ourselves culturally with any religion at all).

We’re certainly not a Muslim country, although that could be only a matter of time, since there seem to be many who’d like us to become one – including many non-Muslims.
__________
Related links:
You’re having a mosque whether you want one or not
You’ll learn about Islam whether you want to or not
Sharia: creeping ever closer
No sharia here

Charity slams Scottish government connivance

The gay humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) – owner of this blog – has condemned Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond’s SNP government for its apparent connivance with the Catholic Church over its attempt to get exemption from legislation on gay adoption.

The PTT’s secretary George Broadhead says in a press release:

We understand that the SNP government has been secretly working with the Catholic Church to defy legislation on gay adoption. It seems that Fiona Hyslop, the SNP education secretary, has lobbied Whitehall for Catholic adoption agencies to get an “indefinite” exemption from the legislation, and has told the Church she was “comfortable” with plans by a Glasgow-based Catholic adoption service to refuse same-sex couples.

It seems that Hyslop has had meetings with Church representatives about how to turn away same-sex couples. She and the St Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society have discussed plans to reword the charity’s constitution in order to allow the agency to provide its services solely to heterosexuals.

Given that the SNP is officially in favour of gay equality, this a highly retrograde step. It is quite unacceptable that any publicly funded service should be allowed to discriminate against gays or any other part of the population.

The PTT welcomes the intervention of the Humanist Glasgow MSP Patrick Harvie, who is said to be tabling questions to the government next week on this matter and has declared, ‘Any attempt to get around the law should be stopped.’ ”

Comparing the incomparable

“What happened at some schools cannot be compared with the millions of lives that have been destroyed by abortion.”

These are the words of a senior Vatican official, Cardinal Antonio Canizares, who was talking about the suffering of thousands of Irish children at the hands of abusive priests and nuns.

It beggars belief. I just can’t get my head around how anyone could make such a comparison, when living, breathing, knowing, sentient beings are beaten and shagged by those who have a duty of care, and this is ranked below the surgical destruction of embryos and foetuses that are aware of nothing.

Well this headcase has now been criticised for this downplaying of the Ireland scandal. Spain’s Health Minister, Trinidad Jimenez, has said it was “very serious” and “irresponsible” by the cardinal to make an “inadequate” comparison between “two completely different things.”
__________
Related link:
Why should we pay? say abusers

A kiss not to miss

Uh, oh! The BBC are sorely testing the Religion of Peace™.

According to Pink News, it’s going to show another gay kiss in its nightly soap, EastEnders. Shock, horror!

But this time – double shock, horror! – it’s going to be a gay Muslim.

Omigod! Prepare for the streets of London to be marched through with radical idiots wanting to behead BBC producers.

“New character Syed Masood, a Muslim property developer who has a girlfriend, is to fall for openly gay Christian Clarke,” the online sources tells us. That’s a character called Christian Clarke, not a Christian called Clarke. (I had to look it up!) Oh, and Syed Masood is quite a dish. Pink News carries a pic.

It’s bad enough when a gay kiss gets Christian bigots going. But getting bigoted Muslims going is going to be – well, it’s enough to make me want to start watching EastEnders.

As you would expect, Muslims are against it. “[T]he Muslim Public Affairs Committee say that the BBC should have a ‘normal friendly Muslim character’,” says Pink News. Whatever “normal” is! And are gay people by default not friendly?

It just goes to show what sort of world these crazy Islamic tosspots are living in.

Asghar Bokhari of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee has said, “The Muslim community deserves a character that represents them to the wider public because Islamophobia is so great right now.”

Is it any wonder when the “Muslim community” is so homophobic, demanding and whining? Put “Islam” into our search box at the top of this page, and see how many stories this blog alone has carried about how Muslims love to demand special treatment because they don’t like the culture they choose to live in.

This is just the latest. And, if they wanted to try to refute my accusation of homophobia, why should it matter whether a featured Muslim character is gay or straight? If it matters, then the “Muslim community” are homophobic.

They can’t have it both ways.

The Beeb got 150 complaints last year when there was gay kiss – from people who think it’s OK to show a man and a woman snogging each other rotten before the 9 p.m. watershed, but not a kiss between two people of the same sex.

Well, I’m sure I don’t need to tell readers of this blog how ridiculous that attitude is.

Love it or hate it? I hate it!

Oh, God! Not another one!

Faces of Jesus and Mary crop up all over the place – as if anyone had any idea at all what either of these historical characters (if, indeed, they existed) looked like.

This time it’s in South Wales, and it’s in the lid of a jar of Marmite.

Can you see the face of Jesus in that sticky mess? Well, you can make out just about anything you like, really.

And this picture by Wales News Service appears in a story in the broadsheet Telegraph, supposedly a paper intelligent, thinking people read. This is the paper that will win awards very soon for its protracted campaign on thieving MPs and their immoral expenses claims.

Well, it must be a light news day if this is counted as a story. Of course stuff such as Marmite – the salty, yeasty spread with the “Love it or hate it” marketing slogan – is going to form shapes when it’s been in contact with a surface.

And of course people will look at those shapes and see things. It happens all the time: with clouds, ink blots. Remember our recent story about the so-called Virgin Mary, whose “image” was found (or manufactured) on a griddle?

I expect this sort of “story” in the Sun or the Daily Mirror, but not in the Telegraph.

BNP supporters are berks, not bogeymen

You can tell that we are nearing local and European elections, because suddenly there's an eruption of scare stories about the BNP all over the newspapers. This festering boil on the nation's political bottom would just shrivel up and die if we all just ignored it – like we generally do for the other 11 months of the year. Political pundits, puffed up with self-righteousness, are also appearing regularly on political TV programmes, warning us about the "fascist" BNP, the "Nazi" BNP, the "neo-Nazi" BNP and the "I-can't-believe-it's-not-butter" BNP.

Not one of these descriptions is accurate. The BNP is officially an "anti-immigration" and "pro-family" party, not a "racist" or "anti-gay" party, though these important distinctions undoubtedly mask some pretty nasty, un-reconstituted racism and anti-gay prejudices amongst its sweaty-arsed rank and file.

One of their tacky leaflets recently dropped onto my doormat. A riot of clashing colours, type-faces and ugly graphics, it looked like one of Sir Alan Sugar's apprentice wannabes had knocked it up in five minutes at the end of a hard day. Full of pictures of chavvy-looking dullards, it reeks of red-top populism aimed at the kind of disgruntled, pessimistic cynics who feel besieged by modern life, that the whole world is against them, that everyone else is getting a free ride at the expense of "decent ordinary folk" like themselves.

The policies are all built on banal prejudices, myths that masquerade as common sense and the kind of snap judgements dull people make about complex issues when they are too lazy or stupid to trouble themselves with facts or analysis. The iconography of Churchill and World War II is pressed into service, alongside a knee-jerk opposition to the European Union. Other than that, there is support for the Anglican Church, the monarchy, traditional family life and – bizarrely – green issues.

I think there are three main reasons why the main parties are crapping themselves over the perceived BNP threat at the forthcoming local and European elections on June 4th. The first is that our Westminster politicians – even the decent majority of them – are now indelibly associated with corruption and greed, in the wake of the mushroom cloud of anger that erupted over the scandal of MPs' expenses. For those of us who are, or were, "natural" Labour Party supporters, it is disheartening and maddening to discover that so many high profile Labour MP's have busied themselves, not with making our society fairer and a decent, safe place to live in, but feathering their own luxuriously-appointed nests at the tax-payers' expense.

The Conservatives are no better, but you kind of expect it from the "Alan B'stard" type of Tory, while David Cameron's vision of a progressive, reforming Conservatism, is exactly what the country needs right now. The BNP may well reap protest votes among the disaffected and misguided as a result of all these venal "public servants" caught with their snouts in the trough – Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, certainly seems to think so (Times, 9th May). Her cabinet chum, Hazel Blears, has been a marvellous, if unwitting, recruiting agent for the BNP, no doubt.

The second reason is that the BNP is not run by the knuckle-headed morons of popular imagination, but by shrewd and clever people like Nick Griffin. Look past his comical Harry Potter haircut and and you'll see he is a calculating Oxford-educated lawyer. The BNP leadership has cleverly manoeuvred the party into the position where it actually articulates a lot of common sense that everybody knows to be true, but which political correctness stops most mainstream politicians from admitting.

Yes, immigration is out of control and far too high. Yes, we should do more to secure our borders. Yes, undiluted Islam is problematic and often runs counter to western values. No rational person would disagree. Agreeing with those statements does not mean you agree with the BNP – it means the BNP has cleverly repositioned itself so that it appears to agree with you. No one should be fooled by this cynical ploy, but some disgruntled simpletons will be.

The third reason is that the BNP can now claim the kind of "victim status" that Muslims and other minorities have traditionally manipulated so effectively to their own advantage. Earlier this year, the BNP went bleating to the police after the feminist comedian, Jo Brand – in response to the leaking of the BNP members' list – quipped, live on stage: "Oh good. Now we know who to send the poo to!" At the Royal Mail, the Communication Workers Union is currently backing some of its members who are refusing to deliver the BNP's election leaflets in Bristol (Times, 15th May). One trade unionist is quoted as saying: "Although there isn't anything racist or fascist on it, it does say no to immigration." In other words, the leaflets are perfectly legal and in line with the Representation of the People Act, which stipulates that the Royal Mail has a duty to deliver electoral materials for all political parties, without favour or discrimination.

This follows an unusually forthright condemnation of the BNP from our normally mealy-mouthed Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, after a soppy-looking Jesus appeared on BNP hoardings lending his weight to BNP claims of social and electoral martyrdom. Meanwhile, Nick Barnbrook, the BNP's sole representative at the Greater London Assembly (GLA), has also been "persuaded" not to take Nick Griffin along to the Buckingham Palace garden party, as is his right, as an elected GLA representative. Nick Griffin is portraying this climb-down as "sparing Her Majesty any embarrassment" but, elsewhere, the BNP is already claiming it has been victimised, yet again, by our corrupt liberal-left establishment. They do have a point.

Democracy requires a full spectrum of opinion, including barking mad right-wingers like the BNP and their equally barking mad left-wing counterparts. If extremists want to put up candidates, then that is their right and we have the right to vote for them (or not), as well as demonstrate against them (or not). We don't need limp liberals or shrill left-wingers telling us what we must think and do.

Two years ago, I remember seeing the former London Mayor, "Red" Ken Livingstone, on the TV. He was touring Barking (appropriately), where the BNP was hoping to win some council seats. Collaring a Vicky Pollard look-alike who was considering voting for the BNP, he tried to remind her that the parents and grandparents of today's Londoners "fought against fascism and being taken over by people like the BNP". Of course, that is nonsense-on-stilts. What the parents and grandparents of today's Londoners were actually fighting for was to protect their neighbourhoods from – oh dear! – being invaded by foreigners. Thanks to decades of mismanaged immigration, a lot of those parents and grandparents must look around those same neighbourhoods and wonder why they bothered.

After Ken Livingstone's monumentally ineffectual visit, the citizens of Barking & Dagenham went on to elect 10 BNP councillors (more than any other London borough), while the out-of-touch socialist grandee was swept out of office by London's electorate just a year later.

In fact, our society is perfectly well-equipped to deal with bunk from all sources, including the BNP, without the efforts of self-regarding socialists and other tiresome do-gooders, because we have a free press and other vigorously independent institutions. Independence of mind is, ironically, part of the collective British psyche, together with a huge dollop of tolerance and feisty good humour (nothing is more un-British, in a sense, than the narrow-minded British National Party). We Brits, diverse as we are, have a collective nose for people who are either intolerant, greedy, or fraudulent and we don't suffer fools gladly either.

However, most fair-minded people also recognise that the BNP has no terrorist wing, unlike, say, Sinn Fein, while it also eschews, or at least disassociates itself from, other forms of violence – unlike some parts of the Muslim community. As long as the BNP operates within the law, genuine freethinkers and democrats, gay or straight, must defend its right to participate in the democratic process, while campaigning, legitimately, against a lot of what it stands for.

On June 4th, we can be confident that the BNP will be the huge electoral flop it always has been, even in working-class boroughs like Barking & Dagenham. Let's not dignify BNP members' thinly disguised racism and anti-gay prejudices by denouncing them with yet more hysterical left-wing wank. That just plays into their hands. These people are just berks and jerks – not the big bad bogeymen of liberal imagination.
__________
Related links:
When is right wrong?
Behind closed doors

Copulation without population

Some of the world’s richest people have been discussing how to improve things.

One thing that’s exercising them is the size of the population, and the planet’s ability to sustain it.

In my humble opinion, one way of doing that is to force the Catholic Church to reverse its ridiculous ideas on birth control. It influences millions of people worldwide, and, while a lot of Catholics stick two fingers up to the Vatican’s views on birth control, many more go along with them.

How “educated” cardinals and a pope can honestly believe their sky fairy wants this planet to continue to groan under the weight of a population that’s set to peak at more than 9 billion, goodness only knows.

When their god told people to “go forth and multiply” it was a time when Earth had a very small population, and most of the planet was not even within the consciousnesses of the people who, for political and survival reasons, made that up and told their people that God had said it.

It’s time the Catholic Church felt enormous political pressure to tell its people to stop breeding in such large numbers, to use condoms or whatever family planning is available.

That is not a plea for abortion. That, too, has its place, but shouldn’t be used willy-nilly as a means of contraception.

No, it’s a plea for sanity and for Catholic leaders to stop using their unfair, ridiculously excessive influence to hurt those who would rather see a planet capable of sustaining its population, rather than one that’s going to be crushed by it as more and more chase less and less, leading to all kinds of unrest.

But don’t hold your breath. They’re Catholic leaders, after all. Read “morons”.

Governments should also use fiscal measures to encourage people to have fewer children. They should then tell any religious objectors to go and stuff themselves.

But they won’t. They’re so afraid of the religious, whether it’s out of a sense that religion is somehow “good” by default or a recognition that there are a lot of votes there. However, if all political parties agreed that this was something that was urgently needed, there would be no religious votes for one party over another.

It takes imagination, political will and balls.

Losing face

How far should we tolerate women who hide their faces and say it’s their religious duty?

Matthew Parris writes in The Times today under the headline, “Please uncover your face. It’s our custom”. That says it all, really.

He talks of how he would not knowingly offend someone. He took off his shoes when visiting Middle Eastern mosques. Fair enough. There’s a Chinese custom of spitting in public, but we in the UK (most of the West, I suspect) consider that unacceptable behaviour (although you see yobs doing it often).

He says further that he wouldn’t knock back booze in the streets of a Muslim country or walk about skimpily dressed.

So why is it that he sees “more women with their faces covered in Tower Hamlets than I did in Damascus”?

He goes on:

Would it be wrong to try to convey to communities in Britain who adopt the full hijab that, though it is a woman’s legal right to dress as she chooses, she should recognise that she’s in a country where many people will find a masked face disturbing, and that (without meaning to) she is acting in a culturally inappropriate manner, which may offend? Do the masked women I see in the street in Whitechapel actually know this? I cannot say, because I’ve never spoken to them; or, rather, when I do, they look away and walk away.

This too, in Britain, is rude. Do they know? Shouldn’t they?

In a word, “Yes”. Of course they should know. And, yes, the thought of having to try to communicate with someone whose face is hidden behind cloth is rather disturbing, and I for one, if wanting to ask directions, say, would shun that woman in favour of the one whose face is not covered.

But, then, that’s the point, I guess. The former woman would not wish to have any conversation with me (or would feel religiously or culturally prevented from doing so).

The point is, however, that, in our culture, we should not be made to walk streets where a large percentage, in some areas, have their faces hidden. If I wore a mask I might be stopped by the next cop who happened along.

We even get Muslims demanding the “right” to hide their faces in court – and misguided civil-libertarians supporting that demand.

BNP bishops

Earlier this week, as editor of the UK’s only gay humanist magazine, Gay & Lesbian Humanist, I weighed into the debate over calls by two of the country’s leading churchmen for people not to vote for the British National Party (BNP).

The Archbishops of both Canterbury and York, Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, say voters should not let the current scandal over MPs’ expenses drive them to vote BNP.

In recognising the public’s anger over the Westminster expenses debacle, the two churchmen warned, “This is not a moment for voting in favour of any political party whose core ideology is about sowing division in our communities and hostility on grounds of race, creed or colour.”

However, I deplore the hypocrisy of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, warning the public of the socially divisive doctrines of the BNP on the grounds of “race, creed or colour”, and imploring the public not to vote for this political party.

What the archbishops forget to mention is that the church has a great deal in common with the BNP, as both the BNP and the Christian church are vehemently homophobic and cast gay people as sinners, second-class citizens and perverts who should keep their distasteful predilections in closeted privacy.

Indeed, people should be aware of the socially divisive evil of BNP doctrine, but equally they should be aware that the Christian church shares some of the most repugnant beliefs of the BNP.

Decent people who care about equality and fairness in our diverse and complex modern British society should shun the BNP and the church – for the same reasons.

Proposition Hate – it's here to stay

California – the state we Brits tend to associate (rightly or wrongly) with free love, freedom of choice, sunny smiles, easy lifestyles, liberal attitudes and all the rest – has said same-sex marriage is wrong.

The state’s Supreme Court has decided that Proposition 8 is to be state law, thus banning same-sex marriage in the state.

The judges decided 6–1 that the ban was constitutional. However, those already married will stay married.

Tellingly, the only judge who wanted Proposition Hate struck down was both gay and the only Democrat.

The ruling says:

In a sense, petitioners’ and the attorney general’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it.

Gay marriage was legalised in California in May 2008, but then along came Proposition Hate, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, completely ignoring the natural phenomenon of same-sex couplings. That such a notion is Bible-inspired cannot be refuted.

Watch now for the crowing of the religious right.


Update: We learn that some churches in California have condemned the decision.
__________
Related links:
How Brown brown-nosed gays
How to rub it in
Proposition 8's terminator
Interesting times

Why should we pay? say abusers

You wouldn’t think it could get much worse in the Irish priestly sex-abuse scandal. But The Times (UK) reports today that religious orders are refusing to hand over more cash for compensation – happy, presumably, to let the Irish taxpayer foot most of the bill.

The leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland has clashed with the religious orders involved in child abuse over the amount they are willing to contribute towards compensating victims. Eighteen Catholic congregations defied calls from Cardinal Sean Brady to be more generous in their dealings with those who suffered abuse.

This is one that won’t go away, and the people of Ireland are livid.

The nine-year Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, headed by Mr Justice Sean Ryan, published its conclusions last week, and the Irish Justice Minister, Dermot Ahern, said yesterday that a senior garda officer was examining the report to see whether criminal charges could be laid. “The report identifies about 800 abusers,” says The Times, “among them nuns, priests and monks, principally members of the Christian Brothers. Only a handful have been prosecuted and convicted.”

You’d think there would be a means of seizing all assets. Perhaps there is, but the authorities have not yet shaken off Ireland’s historical sense of misplaced reverence for the priesthood.

And things could get nasty:

Public anger over the deal has increased. Thousands of people have queued to sign a “solidarity” book at Mansion House, Dublin, with some signatories angrily declaring that the guilty priests, nuns and monks who raped and tortured children in their care for decades should be hunted down “like Nazis”.

If this affair doesn’t totally discredit the Christian Brotherhood for ever, nothing will. It ought to be declared an illegal organisation.
__________
Related link:
How not to cooperate with the law

Baying for blood in Bonnie Scotland

The so-called traditionalists within the Kirk have really got it in for gay people.

Although Scott Rennie – the openly gay minister who was accepted by his own parish but not by many of the Kirk's more extremist hatemongers – has now got the approval of the executive body, the General Assembly, there are still bigots who want blood.

A story in the Scotsman tells us:

The Assembly met on Saturday night to consider the legality of Aberdeen Presbytery’s move to call Mr Rennie to become minister of the city’s Queen’s Cross Church. It had been claimed by objecting members of the presbytery that to appoint an openly gay minister was at odds with the Kirk’s current code of ministerial conduct [and] would create a precedent that would force it to take a stance that departed from biblical teachings.

After four hours of debate and evidence, the Assembly voted by 326 to 267 to uphold Mr Rennie’s appointment but also said the decision would not set a precedent affecting any further cases.

A group of evangelical idiots called Forward Together are now speaking of how the Assembly’s decision has brought “great shame” on the church.

The only shame is that there are people like the Forward Together group associated with it. If there were no objection to natural human traits, there would be no shame, because shame would simply not be an issue. The shame is brought by the bigots.
__________
Related link:
Questions of interpretation

The right to criticise

How much should people be able to talk publicly about homosexuality, even if that talk is potentially hurtful? I personally see no reason why it shouldn’t be discussed in churches within a biblical context if that’s what takes the fancy of the priest.

But there are those in government here in the UK who seem to believe no criticism should be allowed. I cite a piece in yesterday’s Observer saying, “Church of England bishops are on a collision course with the government over its plans to amend the incitement[-]to[-]hatred laws, claiming they will stifle what they believe is legitimate criticism of homosexual lifestyles.”

It goes on to quote Andrea Williams, director of the homophobic, Right-wing Christian Concern for Our Nation, as saying, “No reasonable person supports the stirring up of hatred of any kind.

“However, in 21st-century Britain we must find a way of being able to live peaceably alongside one another allowing for free and robust debate around every aspect of life, including reasonable criticism and discussion of all forms of sexual behaviour.”

It’s that word reasonable that’s key. I’m confident enough to know that any reasonable debate about homosexuality between a homophobic Christian (or other religion fan) and a freethinking, intelligent logical interlocutor will see a convincing win for the latter.

I also want a situation whereby I am free to examine and criticise religion fans – or at least their ideas and beliefs – even if they take offence. Provided I’m not inciting actual violence, what does it matter? If they’re sure of their cause, they should be able to take all the knocks dissenters what to deal out.

The trouble with a lot of religion fans is that they like to hand it out but can’t take it when the shit heads in their direction.

By way of explanation, last year an offence of “incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation” was created in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. Then a group of peers successfully got an amendment to that, saying people shouldn’t face prosecution just for saying homosexuality is wrong and trying to persuade gay people to refrain from nookie.

But a new clause inserted in the Coroners and Justice Bill would see this defence dropped, and that’s what’s worrying the God botherers. The Observer tells us:

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, the Right Rev. George Cassidy, told parliament last week “that people should be protected from inflammatory and intimidating behaviour towards them on the basis of their sexual orientation”. However, he added: “Our concern is with the potential application of the law to restrict legitimate discussion and expression of opinion about sexual ethics and sexual behaviour.”

I’m finding myself – some might say paradoxically – agreeing with him. But we must be allowed to knock religion, too, whether that’s in debate or humour – with all the usual caveats about incitement and shouting “Fire!” in a crowded, fire-free theatre taken into account, of course.

It’s probably a storm in a teacup, anyway, if Derek Munn of the gay-rights group Stonewall is correct. The paper quotes him as saying that the threshold for prosecution under incitement-to-hatred laws is set so high that there is no danger that people who criticise homosexuality will find themselves investigated by the police if the clause in the Criminal Justice Act is dropped.

“People must be free to express their views in temperate terms,” he says. “We do not accept that people should be able to incite violence or hatred. This risks offering a defence to those who incite hatred.”

Unable her cross to bear

God moves in mysterious ways. He always seems to have it in for those who wear the symbol of his only begotten son’s execution.

The latest is in Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, where a member of the blood-collecting department, Helen Slatter, was warned she’d be sent home if she didn’t remove a Christian cross on a chain.

The hospital says it’s nothing to do with religion. It’s about heath and safety. The gewgaw could harbour germs, and it could be grabbed by a desperate patient, thus causing harm to the member of staff.

Forty-three-year-old Slatter had to be called to a disciplinary hearing on Friday, according to the BBC. It doesn’t say whether she flatly refused to remove the item, but that’s what it looks like.

A hospital spokesman is quoted as saying, “The issue is not one of religion: the [healthcare] trust employs a uniform policy which must be adhered to at all times. This policy applies to all staff employed by the trust and who wear a uniform on duty.

“Necklaces and chains present two problems: firstly, they provide a surface that can harbour and spread infections; and, secondly, they present a health and safety issue whereby a patient could grab a necklace or chain and cause harm to the member of staff.

“As an employer, the trust has a responsibility to ensure that all staff are provided with a safe environment to be able to go about their duty.

“Jewellery is restricted to one pair of plain or unobtrusive studs in the earlobes only and no other facial piercings are permitted, including tongue studs. One plain ring or band is permitted on the ring finger.”

How the ring is exempt from the possibility of harbouring nasties is anyone’s guess, but maybe it’s because it gets a good wash whenever the hands are washed, and isn’t exposed when surgical gloves are worn.

You can bet your bottom, though, that the religionists will be bleating about religious freedoms.

Wilders faces trial

The Dutch politician and filmmaker Geert Wilders has lost his appeal to the Supreme Court, and will now go on trial on charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.

He says, “It is a political trial. I am being prosecuted for saying about Islam what millions of Dutch people think. Freedom of speech is in danger of being sacrificed on the altar of Islam.”

We reported in January that he faced a lengthy legal battle. Now it’s confirmed.

Our friend Monitor over at MediaWatchWatch reckons Wilders is probably secretly quite pleased at the prospect.

He will, of course, be dismissed as just a Right-winger. I’m not too fond of the Right myself, but we must not let emotion cause us to conflate the message with the messenger.

Wilders’s film Fitna – at the bottom of this post – looked at verses in the Muslims’ hate manual, the Koran, and juxtaposed what he took to be matching examples of atrocities and human-rights abuses.

Shamefully, he was banned from the UK by NuLabour, even though he’d been invited by a member of the House of Lords to show and talk about his film.

(You wonder how they can find the time to worry about such things as a banning order when keeping their snouts in the trough and taking advantage of an overgenerous expenses system must take up a lot of energy.)

My gravy train runneth over

Some interesting stats on the British noses-in-the-trough scandal at Westminster come in a poll from the Christian think tank Ekklesia today.

– 78% say independents should stand where MPs have behaved “unethically”

– 63% believe British democracy would be strengthened if there were more independent MPs

– 53% say they would “seriously consider” voting for an independent candidate at the next general election

The poll, says the think tank, has challenged the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent suggestion that democracy will be damaged by the revelations about MPs expenses.

Rather than damage democracy, says Ekklesia, the poll seems to show that the expenses scandal has brought a “new interest in politics and a willingness to back new political initiatives such as independent candidates”. Its news release says:

The survey [. . .]suggests that 78% of the public believe independents should stand where MPs have behaved “unethically”. 63% said that they thought democracy would be enriched if more independent MPs were elected to Parliament.

This compares with just 61% who voted at the last general election.

Ekklesia co-director Jonathan Bartley said: “Rather than turning people off politics, our survey suggests that the expenses scandal has brought a new revival of interest in politics.

“The poll suggests that the real problem has been an old party-dominated system which has been inaccessible. In contrast the fallout from the expenses scandal has clearly brought hope of a new system and new ways of political engagement that people feel they can connect with.”

Ekklesia co-director Simon Barrow added: “It is right to be concerned that an orgy of self-vindicating finger-pointing may detract from the urgent need for radical renewal of public institutions, and from the awareness that the seeds of corruption are not just in one place or in ‘that lot’. But, beyond the intense anger that many rightly feel, there is perhaps more critical awareness than the archbishop credits.

“The gap between governed and governors is the really dangerous one, because it allows both to blame the other while nothing changes. Our poll indicates that the appetite for change is now real, and should not be missed.”

If comments on forums, in TV programmes such as Question Time and in vox pops conducted in the streets of Britain are anything to go by, the public would like to see most of the culprits hanged, drawn and quartered.

At the very least, there should be an immediate general election, while the shameful misdeeds are still fresh in the minds of constituency parties and the electorate.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s claim that it would be unwise to have an election while the government is dealing with the economic crisis is just specious bollocks: the world’s biggest democracy, India, has just had one, and so has the USA. If we had strictly regular elections (every four years, say), the government would have to have gone to the country.

As this row has gone on, it’s become clearer and clearer to most of us (I would humbly suggest) that MPs are living in a totally different world. Theirs is a world of the expectation of privilege. Nay, the demand for privilege.

Many landed Tories have it already, and it’s hardly surprising that one Tory MP, Anthony Steen, thought the public had no right to know how he spent their dosh.

“In a breathtaking display of arrogance,” says the Daily Mail, “he said the public had no right to know how he spent taxpayer-funded allowances. ‘As far as I am concerned, and as of this day, I do not know what the fuss is about,’ he said.”

Well, someone with that amount of wealth, the man whose house, on his own admission, looks like Balmoral, the man who claimed about £80,000 in expenses for work at this £1 million mansion, doesn’t have much of an inkling of the real world, it seems, and the man ought to be publicly shamed, thrown out of the party, denied the right to stand for public office for the rest of his life and put into the public stocks every Christmas and twice on his birthday and pelted with rotten tomatoes.

Not for what he did, but for saying that. What an absolutely arrogant, supercilious, self-important, conceited, pompous, toffee-nosed scoundrel! What an utter dick!

This is the man who said , “I have done nothing criminal. Do you know what it’s all about? Jealousy. I have got a very, very large house, some people say it looks like Balmoral [. . .] but it’s a merchant’s house of the nineteenth century. It’s not particularly attractive, it just does me nicely.”

I bet it does!

I single out this reprobate because he exemplifies what the others have been up to, but with more of the toffee-nosed arrogance. Whatever all these snivelling public servants say about being “within the rules”, let’s not forget who wrote the rules.
__________
Related link:
How good the gravy tastes when it’s to your own recipe!

Prepare to seethe

Hats off, folks. We’ve gotta respect religion. Why? The new Arsehole-in-Chief of the Roman Catholic Nuthouse in England and Wales says so, that’s why.

The Telegraph today reports on Vincent Nichols’s installation do.

Under a headline that talks of an attack on secularists by this spaced-out idiot, the paper says, “The new Archbishop of Westminster has launched an attack on secularists, warning that they threaten to undermine society in Britain.”

He called for “a greater respect of religious belief”, writes Jonathan Wynne-Jones, the paper’s religious affairs correspondent.

Of course, anyone with half a brain would say that respect of belief depends entirely on the belief. It’s quite something else to respect someone’s right to hold such beliefs, provided holding them doesn’t lead that person to antisocial acts, violence or other nasty things.

The problem with religious belief in the hands of people in influential positions – people such as Nichols, whom prime ministers will listen to in their willingness to be bamboozled and conned – can be dangerous.

“Let us be a society in which we genuinely listen to each other, in which sincere disagreement is not made out to be insult or harassment, in which reasoned principles are not construed as prejudice and in which we are prepared to attribute to each other the best and not the worst of motives.”

The archbishop played a leading role in fighting the introduction of gay rights laws in 2006, which now make it illegal to discriminate against gay couples when placing children for adoption.

Thank you, Telegraph. You’ve made my point. This arsehole wants sincere disagreement not to be construed as prejudice. Yet he’s happy to encourage prejudice against gay people by pretending there’s a sky fairy who doesn’t like gay relationships.

He talks of “reasoned principles”. Reasoned? From a sky pilot? What is he on for goodness’ sake? (Skunk, probably.)

Anyway, read the piece. Prepare to seethe.

The Right – on rights

You’ve gotta laugh. We think we’ve got it bad in the UK with our religious right – such as the nasty Christian Institute we spoke of yesterday – but this blog is worth a look.

The blog is called Hatewatch, and it keeps an eye on the radical Right.

“Once Again the Religious Right Lies About Hate Crimes Law”, says its headline above a post about the Illinois Family Institute and its wacky claims.

It goes on to talk about a “proposed new federal hate crimes law [that] would allow prosecution of crimes motivated by bias against homosexuality or ‘gender identity’, among other characteristics, and provide funding for the feds to go after hate criminals who local authorities fail to investigate or prosecute”.

But in their alternate universe, religious-right anti-gay groups have seized upon the act’s language protecting Americans of all “sexual orientations” to claim that it’s all a stealth operation aimed at legally protecting people with deviant sexual fetishes, including necrophilia and bestiality.

The legislation says no such thing, says the website. Even after being contacted by a group that keeps a watch on such propaganda, the Illinois nutjobs issued a correction, but did’t take the offending piece off their website, or bother to edit it!

The piece goes on to tear apart the arguments of the hatemongers, and it’s worth reading, rather than that I try to précis it here.

You’ll either laugh or seethe.
__________
Hat tip: Stuart Hartill of Clinging to a Rock.