Why religious schools are divisive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite!

On the edge

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

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

A news release from the group says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian bigots may not get their way after all

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

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

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

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

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

Going with the flow

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

Twilight of the gods?

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

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

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

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

Great. Bring it on.

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

Amen to that!

Go on. Read the story. Have a laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pillocks!

No sharia here! One Law for All rally in London

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

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

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

In an emailed bulletin, the campaign says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some more thoughts on “Thought”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The festering hatred that is the Catholic Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support for Islamic bigots diminishes

It looks as if support for a dangerous idea by Muslims to try to get the UN to outlaw “defamation” of religion – as if defaming it could make it look any worse than it is in many areas – is losing support.

Good.

You can read about it in the Abu Dhabi paper The National here.
__________
Related links:
When one religion wants it all its own way
Human rights – on our terms, says Muslim

Ungandan church dithers over evil antigay Bill

The Anglican Church in Uganda says it doesn’t have “an official position” on the new Bill that would criminalise homosexual acts to such an extent that some gay people would be put to death.

Why are we not surprised?

OK, it may come out and condemn it, but why is it dithering?

The think tank Ekklesia tells us:

In a statement last week, the Church of the Province of Uganda repeated its assertion that “homosexual behaviour is immoral and should not be promoted, supported or condoned in any way” but said that it did not have a stance on the bill itself.

However, the secretary of the Church, Mwesigye Kafundizeki, said that the death penalty clause should be removed from the bill, proposing “another punishment instead of death”. He appears to support the bill overall.

The Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi, is well known for his anti-gay views. He has backed allegations about “homosexual recruiting in our schools”, suggesting that young people were being bribed “to become gay”. He did not explain how a bribe could enable a person to alter his or her sexual orientation.

Quite!

Meanwhile, the Archbishop of York, himself raised in Uganda, has also said he will remain silent on this shocking state of affairs. He should be ashamed of himself. The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement tried to contact the Archbishops of both Canterbury and York. York says he will not be making a statement on the issue, while Canterbury has not so far responded.
__________
Related link: The inconvenience of human rights

Bigots out in force

Hate crime, I know, can open a whole can of worms – not the crime, but the idea. What constitutes a hate crime? Shouldn’t all crime be treated equally?

However, if this writer is correct, then religionists want the idea of hate crime to apply to all but one particular community.

You’ve guessed it. Gays.

And this is due to happen today, when, writes Carrie Poppy, “pastors and other clergymen (yes, clergyMEN. Get your feminist head out of the gutter.) will be congregating at our nation’s [the USA’s] capitol to publicly defame homosexuals, in order to ‘challenge’ the Matthew Shepard Act, a congressional act which protects citizens against hate crimes committed because of the victim’s perceived sexuality”.

“The pastors don’t have a problem with hate crime legislation itself,” says the writer, “but specifically with this hate crime legislation, which limits their god-given rights to incite violence against gay people”.

Poppy’s piece continues:

Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation League (oh, yes) had this to say about what happens when hate crime laws include homosexual victims:

"Christians are singled out for prosecution, with threats, imprisonment and fines simply for refusing to stop doing what Christ commands: proclaiming the truth."

In the interest of sympathy, let's put ourselves in these Christians' shoes. How tragic it is, that so many people devote their lives to spreading hatred, not because they are hateful people, but because they have been indoctrinated – brainwashed – with a bronze age story about the origin of the universe. When someone asks you, "Yeah, but what harm does religion do?" point them to examples like this.

Whenever we teach our children that groundless faith is a virtue, we pave the way for groundless violence.

Rest in peace, Matthew Shepard.

We second that.
__________
Related links:
Remembering Matthew
Ten years on, but more to be done, says Matthew’s mom
A law for Matthew

It was God wot done it

It’s so amusing to hear members of the Deluded Herd crow about how God did it for them.

This time it’s a wacky British organisation called Christian Concern for Our Nation (CCFON), which is going on about an amendment in the UK’s Coroners and Justice Bill that would protect free speech when it came to Christians who wanted to have a go at their favourite target: the LGBT community.

The Christians wanted to be able to continue to criticise gays; the government wanted more protection. This Bill has been to the upper house a couple of times, but the lower house has now admitted defeat.

Christians will be able to talk critically about homosexuality.

And that’s fine, as long as they’re not risking a world war or inciting people to beat gays up in the street. It’s unfortunate, and it means that these bigoted twassocks can use speech that could conceivably lead to more bullying of gay people. That’s why the pro-gay lobby wanted the restriction.

It’s always a toss-up. Do you deny free speech to one group because a given thing might be the consequence of allowing it, only to permit free speech on another issue, giving critics the opportunity to draw comparisons and cry inconsistency?

I reckon that, if it weren’t for these toxic people in the first place, and many like them – and, of course, society’s seeming willingness to give credence to their rantings – there’d be less hatred for gay people and the considerations about free speech just wouldn’t be high on the agenda. People wouldn’t bully gays just because a nutjob had said something.

But they’ve created a climate, a series of expectations, and it’s within the context of that climate and those expectations that all kinds of skewing of what should be straightforward and unproblematic takes place. In other words: no religious bigotry would mean less need for special protection; therefore there would be no need for opposition to special protection, and the whole thing wouldn’t be an issue. But it is.

The nice people at CCFON send me emails. They probably wouldn’t if they realised that I think they’re a bunch of right-wing, bigoted lunatics, but, for the moment, I’m on their list. Of this issue, they say in their latest bulletin, addressed to their “Dear Friends and Supporters”:

We are writing with wonderful news of deliverance from the pernicious attempt by the Government last night (11th November) to remove Lord Waddington’s free speech shield from the face of the laws of this land.

In a remarkable debate the House of Lords stood firm against the Government’s fourth attempt to impose its will upon them. Thanks to their steadfastness the vital democratic right to free speech was upheld, the police will have clarity about cases they do not need to investigate and ordinary, peaceful Christians and others who wish to be free to express orthodox Christian views on sexual ethics will not have their freedom so to do unreasonably interfered with.

A short time ago Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor Jack Straw MP, announced that the Commons will not attempt to send this particular question back to the Lords yet again under this Bill. On this basis it would seem that the immediate danger to our vital freedom has passed. However[,] you can be assured that we will be vigilant and will let you know if another assault comes to light.

For now at least though we can thank God for this wonderful victory for Christian freedoms, free speech, democracy and common sense. Thank you all for your prayers on this vital issue. We believe they have availed much. [My emphasis.]

God bless you all, and thank you for your concern and your support.

Oddly, when they do a lot of praying and wringing of hands and lose on an issue, they don’t blame God for not listening to, or at least not acting on, their prayers. Now, if they think God is infallible and listens to their prayers, they have to accept that, on occasions when he’s not gone in their favour, they were wrong.

But they wouldn’t admit that, would they? It just gets swept under the carpet of dusty obfuscation, along with all the other uncomfortable niggles that prevent religionists from squaring their nutty beliefs with reality and logic.

But there you go. They must be a bit touched to believe in all that shit in the first place.

In praise of heroes

Let’s hear it for the heroes. You can celebrate heroes if you’re in Scotland on 28 November.

Because Edinburgh Gay Men’s Chorus (EGMC) will be celebrating “Heroes” at their winter concert, to be held in St George’s West Church, Shandwick Place, that evening at 8 o’clock.

“In these desperate times when economies are failing,” says their news release, the” King of Pop is dead and John and Edward have got into The X Factor live shows, who can people turn to?” It goes on:

The forty-strong EGMC have the answer: what we need is a band of Heroes to lift the gloom, add some sparkle and camp it up for the sake of the nation. The Chorus intends to save you from Strictly [Come Dancing] and High School Musical with an action-packed evening of songs about all things heroic. If you’ve been holding out for a hero, look no further.

So here’s Pink Triangle’s free plug: tickets cost £7 (£5 concessionaries) and are available by clicking here. Or you can call 0131 473 2000.

“Also”, the press release adds, to give you every chance possible to be there, “from Chorus members and at the door.”

We’re not told whether they’ll be wearing kilts or what they’ll have on underneath. But guessing is half the fun.

Bankers (spelled with a “w”) are doing God’s (dirty) work

Bankers are doing God’s work. It’s true, I tell yer. How do I know this? Well, a banker told me.

Well, he told the Sunday Times, actually, and, because I rarely read about these people – bankers, that is, spelled with a “w” – I missed it.

But Ekklesia has picked up on it, and the fact that the parasite concerned, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, has come in for some stick.

Now we all need banks, yes. Why? Because the world has been created that way. We’ve been funnelled into an existence whereby we can’t do without them, by politicians who have big business – the bigger the better – at heart, politicians who can sanction the decanting of billions of pounds from taxpayers’ funds into these monstrous institutions at the drop of a crocodile tear from . . . well, from bankers (spelled with a “w”), yet won’t fund socially cohesive institutions such as the Post Office.

But to say bankers (spelled with a “w”) are useful in a useful sense of the word “useful” is just useless. They produce nothing, but move money around, create money out of people’s debt and don’t have to have actual funds to match the stuff that’s owed to them. They decide to pay themselves obscene bonuses, and then claim that what they are doing is God’s work.

Well, this raving idiot claims it, anyway.

“We’re very important,” the pompous arsehole tells us. “We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth.”

It’s not the only model, you know, but it’s the model you would support because it keeps you in more money than most people would have space to store it if it were given to them in large-denomination notes.

If he cared about helping companies to grow, really cared, banks would make it cheaper. They have to make a living, but do they have to make so much? Get real for a moment: who needs that sort of money? Only pompous arseholes such as Mr Lloyd Blankfein.

“Goldman Sachs last month announced that its top staff would receive combined bonuses of £13.4 billion, a record sum,” says Ekklesia, adding, “The resulting criticism led to suggestions that the bank would donate around £600 million to charity.”

Church Action on Poverty have declared themselves “puzzled and offended by the assertion that the continual creation of more wealth – concentrated in the hands of those who are already wealthy – is somehow ‘God’s work’ ”.

Mind you, didn’t Jesus say the following?

Matt 13: 12: “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.”

Matt 25: 29: “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”

Mark 4: 25: “For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.”

Familar scenario, that.

Gods move in mysterious ways

Terry Pratchett, eat your heart out! Visitors have flocked to the temple in the Indian coastal district of Kendrapara, eastern Orissa, bearing rice and fruit to pay homage to . . . a turtle

And the villagers have refused to hand over the creature, even though it’s illegal to keep turtles in captivity.

Just as a god was trapped in the body of a turtle in Pratchett’s Small Gods, the villagers believe the god Jagannath is the turtle-incarnate entity.

The priest of the temple, Ramesh Mishra, told reporters, “Lord Jagannath has visited our village in the form of a turtle. We will not allow anybody to take the turtle away.”

Religion isn’t working

Islam is trouble. There’s no getting away from it. Just ask employers in France.

According to Europe News:

A third of French companies say they are concerned by demands from their employees regarding wearing the headscarf, holidays and prayers. “Managing Eid [a Muslim religious festival] is a real headache,” says the manager of a transport company. “Half of the bus-drivers are Muslim. When they all ask to be absent on that day, how do you assure 100% service?”

Quite. All the more reason why religion should be given the same status as stamp collecting or trainspotting. The fact that some people really get off on it is neither here nor there. They’re being a bloody nuisance to the rest of us by insisting on special arrangements for their ridiculous superstitions.

Whether it’s an insistence on wearing clothing that’s inappropriate because of hygiene or safety concerns, demanding days off or refusing to handle certain goods or perform certain services, religionists in general, and Muslims in particular, are letting other people down, and it’s only out of political correctness that employers let them get away with it, and a combination of political correctness and grubbily grabbing votes that prevents politicians from legislating against this nonsense.

Dead man cures backache

A Catholic deacon in the USA claims that praying to dead Cardinal Newman cured his backache.

He’d been suffering agony, and he prayed, “ ‘. . . please, Cardinal Newman, help me to walk, so that I can return to classes and be ordained [as a deacon]’. Suddenly, I felt a tremendous sense of heat, very, very warm and a tingling feeling all over my entire body. It was very strong and lasted for a long time.”

Yes, it’s called a placebo effect; it’s psychosomatic. The mind is very powerful, you know. It doesn’t have to be the intercession of corpses – not that there’s anything left of Cardinal Newman (see “Dem bones, dem bones, dem gone bones”).

One wonders whether this deacon chappie would have been praying to Newman if he’d known, or at any rate believed, that he really did have a boyfriend.
__________
Related links:
Dem bones, dem bones, dem gay bones
Dem bones, dem bones, dem bones of contention

PC in the US of A

Political correctness is alive and well and living not only in the UK but in the USA, too.

A hard-hitting piece in the New York Post has the headline, Call this horror by its name: Islamist terror.

It concerns Nidal Malik Hasan, the radicalised Islamist army officer who last week went on the rampage at Fort Hood, killing and wounding several fellow army personnel.

Ralph Peters, writing in the Post, says no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam:

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act [his emphasis]. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as “Palestinian” in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit – well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an “Islamist terrorist.”

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as “Islamist terrorism” in ObamaWorld.

There were a lot of warning signs, says Peters, and it’s “appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy”.

Islam in action

Islamists in southern Somalia, reports Scotland on Sunday, have stoned a man to death for adultery but spared his pregnant girlfriend.

Spared his pregnant girlfriend, that is, until she gives birth. Then they’ll stone her to death.

“Extremist group Al-Shabaab, widely seen as the Taleban of Africa, executed 33-year-old Abas Hussein Abdirahman in front of a crowd of around 300 in the port of Merka,” the paper says, continuing:

An official from the group, which is officially regarded as a terrorist-supporting organisation by US authorities, said the man’s unidentified lover would face the same fate after her child is born. The infant will be given to family members.

Al-Shahaab have already stoned two other adulterers to death this year.

And all in the name of loving, peaceful Allah.