An Irish cardinal reckons it’s religious parents’ right to have religion pumped into their kids at schools that are maintained at taxpayers’ expense, according to the Irish Times.
“The Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland [Seán Brady] said parents had a right to have their children educated in accordance with their philosophical and religious convictions,” says the story, “and the State had a duty to support this with public funds.”
Oh, yes? And how does this berk work that out? He seems to be just stating it, hoping that people will take it as fact.
He’s quoted as saying, “Those parents who choose and value the Catholic education provided for their children are taxpayers in exactly the same way as parents who send their children to other types of schools. To disadvantage any group of parents because of their faith is completely contrary to the principle of equality and pluralism”
So gay parents should expect a good dollop of same-sex-relationships education, then, because they, too, are taxpayers? I don’t think this deluded idiot would support that, somehow.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Friday, 29 January 2010
The savagery of Islam
We shouldn’t absolve Islam of the crimes committed in its name, says the headline above Rod Liddle’s article in the Spectator.
He then provides a litany of examples of the savagery of even those Islamic states that are considered more progressive.
It makes for sick reading. He talks, among other things, of how a girl was given 101 lashes in Bangladesh for daring to be raped against her will by a barbarous, bestial subhuman who was then pardoned by the village elders. To add insult to assault, the girl’s father was forced to pay a fine.
He points then to Malaysia as a progressive Islamic state, but adds:
He instances non-Islamic countries that are barbaric in many respects, such as Uganda for proposing the death penalty for some acts of homosexuality.
As a consequence of the barbarism to be found in some Islamic states, individual Muslims “are being punished as a result of this confused dichotomy”, he says, adding:
Yes, it makes them savages, too, in thought if not in deed, but they should be allowed to believe that. You can’t legislate against the fact that some people are plain shitty. And, anyway, who can tell what they think?
However, Liddle adds:
The actions of the pitiless, sadistic animals we read about in these countries are, we must never forget, an interpretation of an ideology. And it’s an ideology that seeks to be seen as cuddly-wuddly in Western countries.
We should be very suspicious, and stop giving in to religions that demand ever more state recognition and social recognition for this or that.
He then provides a litany of examples of the savagery of even those Islamic states that are considered more progressive.
It makes for sick reading. He talks, among other things, of how a girl was given 101 lashes in Bangladesh for daring to be raped against her will by a barbarous, bestial subhuman who was then pardoned by the village elders. To add insult to assault, the girl’s father was forced to pay a fine.
He points then to Malaysia as a progressive Islamic state, but adds:
But try renouncing Islam in Malaysia and see how far you get: interminable court proceedings and the likelihood of a jail sentence at the end. Try, if you are a Christian, uttering the word “Allah”, meaning the Christian God, and count the seconds before your house is firebombed. Try being an overt gay. Malaysia is about the best Islamic democracy has to offer and it is a hugely admirable country in many ways – and indeed, some of the things which make it admirable have been devolved from Islam. But there are still sharia courts which will punish sexually abused women under the proximity laws and issue vicious prohibitions against homosexuality and apostasy.
He instances non-Islamic countries that are barbaric in many respects, such as Uganda for proposing the death penalty for some acts of homosexuality.
But by and large you cannot escape the conclusion that the most repulsive invasions of human rights that we see in the world today take place in countries where the national ideology is devolved from Islam. And the more directly or purely it is so devolved, the more primitive and savage it is.
As a consequence of the barbarism to be found in some Islamic states, individual Muslims “are being punished as a result of this confused dichotomy”, he says, adding:
They should not be. They should be allowed to believe whatever the hell they like, even up to and including the belief that primitive savages in some Bangladeshi village are within their rights to sentence a raped girl to 101 lashes, or that village elders in Somalia are within their rights to stone adulterous women to death.
Yes, it makes them savages, too, in thought if not in deed, but they should be allowed to believe that. You can’t legislate against the fact that some people are plain shitty. And, anyway, who can tell what they think?
However, Liddle adds:
But the government should not give credence to them by enacting legislation which says that Islam is tickety-boo and thus demanding of our respect. Nor, I would argue, should state schools accede to the views of local elders, who decree that Muslim girls should be dressed in headscarves, which are perhaps a gentle nod towards the subjugation which ends in some pit in Somalia with a woman pleading for her life and the rocks beginning to fly. In private, let them wear what they want, and it would be an infraction of human rights if, à la Jack Straw, we were to complain about the dress code of Muslim citizens. But we should not permit them in a place which has the imprimatur of the state. We should not say, in quasi official terms, we think this is OK.
The actions of the pitiless, sadistic animals we read about in these countries are, we must never forget, an interpretation of an ideology. And it’s an ideology that seeks to be seen as cuddly-wuddly in Western countries.
We should be very suspicious, and stop giving in to religions that demand ever more state recognition and social recognition for this or that.
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
White lies
A theatre company is advertising for a white man to portray Jesus in a play to be shown in Trafalgar Square, London, on Good Friday.
This is ridiculous, but not for the reasons some antiracism groups might give.
It’s ridiculous because Jesus was no doubt a Palestinian by descent, if he existed at all. Even if he’s an amalgam or something imagined, a dark skin and dark hair are going to be par for the course.
What a story in the Daily Telegraph tells us, though, is that some companies have a colour-blind policy on recruiting actors, “with the National even having a group of white colonialists played by black actors in Death and the King’s Horseman last year”.
And that, too, is ridiculous (unless I’m missing some underlying artistic device, because I can’t claim to have seen the play or to have read the programme notes). Colour-blind casting is a good thing, the only right thing, when the appearance of the character isn’t important. If you want an ordinary detective sergeant, say, or a teacher or a lawyer you should choose who does the best audition.
If you want a white supremacist, you choose a white actor. If you want someone to play a plantation slave in Gone with the Wind, you choose a black actor.
So the National are probably guilty of a ridiculous amount of political correctness there.
This has been going on for years. I saw a Theatre in Education play in the Midlands some twenty-odd years ago, which portrayed a family who were white except for one daughter. She was Afro-Caribbean. Fine if there’s a suggestion that she was adopted into the family at some stage, but there was no such suggestion.
There should be plenty of scope for actors who are black, brown, yellow, white or green (don’t laugh: they have them on Mars), and it’s clearly unethical to cast according to colour prejudice.
But it’s silly to cast colour-blind when you need someone to play a character who has a particular appearance. You might as well not be ageist, and say you’ll cast a 16-year-old as an old woman or an 80-year-old as a schoolboy. You might as well say you’ll cast someone who’s wheelchair-bound as a Manchester United forward. Or you might avoid sexism and cast Jordan as a gravel-faced, 50-year-old miner in How Green Was My Valley. Try taking on Gabby Hayes to play Anne of Green Gables (apart from the fact that he’s dead, but you get my drift).
Peter Hutley, the producer with the theatre company staging this play, the Wintershall Charitable Company, says, “Jesus was white. If I was advertising for an actor in Sanders of the River I would specify a black man. We want a cast that is appropriate to Trafalgar Square in 2010. When we perform it in a black prison in Alabama or in Uganda we will have casts appropriate to the area.”
Not sure what he means there. Is he saying Jesus was definitely white or not? First he does, then he says he would cast according to where they perform. He seems to be contradicting himself – assuming he’s been quoted correctly. Perhaps they’re setting the Passion in modern Britain, but it does’t say. And even then you could use a black or Asian man without losing credibility. Hutley is right about the Sanders of the River part, though. Of course you would cast a black actor.
There’s been prejudice among TV casting directors and those in theatres, and stories have appeared from time to time over the years pointing this out. And it shouldn’t be so. If casting directors were truly colour-blind when the part demanded no particular racial type, they could then choose black, white, yellow, brown (or green) when it was appropriate, without criticism. If there hadn’t been racism in the first place, casting directors could cast as appropriate without fear of being branded racist.
This is ridiculous, but not for the reasons some antiracism groups might give.
It’s ridiculous because Jesus was no doubt a Palestinian by descent, if he existed at all. Even if he’s an amalgam or something imagined, a dark skin and dark hair are going to be par for the course.
What a story in the Daily Telegraph tells us, though, is that some companies have a colour-blind policy on recruiting actors, “with the National even having a group of white colonialists played by black actors in Death and the King’s Horseman last year”.
And that, too, is ridiculous (unless I’m missing some underlying artistic device, because I can’t claim to have seen the play or to have read the programme notes). Colour-blind casting is a good thing, the only right thing, when the appearance of the character isn’t important. If you want an ordinary detective sergeant, say, or a teacher or a lawyer you should choose who does the best audition.
If you want a white supremacist, you choose a white actor. If you want someone to play a plantation slave in Gone with the Wind, you choose a black actor.
So the National are probably guilty of a ridiculous amount of political correctness there.
This has been going on for years. I saw a Theatre in Education play in the Midlands some twenty-odd years ago, which portrayed a family who were white except for one daughter. She was Afro-Caribbean. Fine if there’s a suggestion that she was adopted into the family at some stage, but there was no such suggestion.
There should be plenty of scope for actors who are black, brown, yellow, white or green (don’t laugh: they have them on Mars), and it’s clearly unethical to cast according to colour prejudice.
But it’s silly to cast colour-blind when you need someone to play a character who has a particular appearance. You might as well not be ageist, and say you’ll cast a 16-year-old as an old woman or an 80-year-old as a schoolboy. You might as well say you’ll cast someone who’s wheelchair-bound as a Manchester United forward. Or you might avoid sexism and cast Jordan as a gravel-faced, 50-year-old miner in How Green Was My Valley. Try taking on Gabby Hayes to play Anne of Green Gables (apart from the fact that he’s dead, but you get my drift).
Peter Hutley, the producer with the theatre company staging this play, the Wintershall Charitable Company, says, “Jesus was white. If I was advertising for an actor in Sanders of the River I would specify a black man. We want a cast that is appropriate to Trafalgar Square in 2010. When we perform it in a black prison in Alabama or in Uganda we will have casts appropriate to the area.”
Not sure what he means there. Is he saying Jesus was definitely white or not? First he does, then he says he would cast according to where they perform. He seems to be contradicting himself – assuming he’s been quoted correctly. Perhaps they’re setting the Passion in modern Britain, but it does’t say. And even then you could use a black or Asian man without losing credibility. Hutley is right about the Sanders of the River part, though. Of course you would cast a black actor.
There’s been prejudice among TV casting directors and those in theatres, and stories have appeared from time to time over the years pointing this out. And it shouldn’t be so. If casting directors were truly colour-blind when the part demanded no particular racial type, they could then choose black, white, yellow, brown (or green) when it was appropriate, without criticism. If there hadn’t been racism in the first place, casting directors could cast as appropriate without fear of being branded racist.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Dearly beloved, gathered in the sight of God
Regular PT readers would probably not wish to have a religious element to their splicing, but, nonetheless, if it’s there for hetties, it should be there for homos, too.
Now, the British government is showing signs that it may make this possible.
Civil partnerships, as well as currently being denied to opposite-sex couples, are not permitted to be held on religious premises or use religious language. This is clearly unfair, and shows up the British government for paying lip service to unions for gay people while keeping them firmly in the second-class compartment.
This was largely so as not to upset the Deluded Herd, of course, who get very twitchy about such things.
Now, the think tank Ekklesia tells us, “The government has agreed to consider measures to give legal recognition to religious same-sex partnership ceremonies, after the proposal received significant support in the House of Lords.”
This can only be good news to those who feel it’s important to have their union recognised in a religious setting. There’s nothing wrong with this. It’s just not everyone’s bag.
Ekklesia’s report continues:
The debate on the Equality Bill led to a victory for bigotry over compassion and common sense, as you can see from our earlier report.
Now, the British government is showing signs that it may make this possible.
Civil partnerships, as well as currently being denied to opposite-sex couples, are not permitted to be held on religious premises or use religious language. This is clearly unfair, and shows up the British government for paying lip service to unions for gay people while keeping them firmly in the second-class compartment.
This was largely so as not to upset the Deluded Herd, of course, who get very twitchy about such things.
Now, the think tank Ekklesia tells us, “The government has agreed to consider measures to give legal recognition to religious same-sex partnership ceremonies, after the proposal received significant support in the House of Lords.”
This can only be good news to those who feel it’s important to have their union recognised in a religious setting. There’s nothing wrong with this. It’s just not everyone’s bag.
Ekklesia’s report continues:
Religious language and religious premises have not been allowed in same-sex civil partnerships since they were introduced in 2005. But yesterday (Monday, 25 January), government minister Glenys Thornton said that she was “not unsympathetic” to the idea. She added that the government would explore the matter further.
Her comments, which mark a change to the government’s previous position, were made in response to Labour peer Waheed Alli, who moved an amendment to the Equality Bill to allow religious elements in civil partnerships.
Alli agreed to withdraw his amendment following the government’s commitment. But he pointed out that nearly all the speakers in the debate had accepted the idea in principle.
“Can the front benches listen very carefully to what the House is saying to them?” he asked.
“This is not meant to be an attack on the tenets of religion,” said Alli, who is a gay Muslim. “It is the Quakers, the Liberal Judaism, the Unitarians, who want this provision.”
Thornton said that the government accepted “the fundamental importance of this issue to many same-sex couples” and to “those churches and organisations who do wish to perform same-sex unions”.
However, she argued that any change to the law would need to be more clearly drafted and thought through. A similar stance was taken by the Liberal Democrats.
Alli’s proposal received the support of a number of religious groups, including the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Liberal Judaism and the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches.
However, it seems unlikely that the government will make much progress on the issue before a general election, which must be held by June at the latest.
It is not clear what position the Conservatives would take on the issue if elected to government.
David Hunt, a Tory spokesperson in the Lords, said, “I agree we’ve come a long way [on gay people’s rights], but we have to pause for a moment.” However, he acknowledged that there were many same-sex couples who wished to celebrate their commitment to each other in the context of their faith.
Gillian Ashmore, speaking on behalf of Britain Yearly Meeting of Friends, said that Quakers were “encouraged by the government’s willingness to listen, consult and consider”.
She added, “We are looking forward to entering this dialogue with both government and other faith bodies, with a view to finding a solution together”.
The debate on the Equality Bill led to a victory for bigotry over compassion and common sense, as you can see from our earlier report.
Christians prove that God is a homophobic bigot
God, it seems, has favoured the bigots. Just shows God is not always right.
He intervened – obviously, because nutty Right-wing Christians asked him to – in the House of Lords, the UK’s upper chamber, yesterday and made Their Lordships accept some amendments to the Equality Bill from a homophobe called Baroness O’Cathain.
These will ensure that religious types get unfair exemptions when it comes to employing gay people.
The Christian organisation that sent out yesterday’s “prayer alert” – Christian Concern for Our Nation (CCFON) – are crowing about it, of course. In the email alert I received today, the word “Victory” is up there where “Prayer alert” was in the one I got yesterday, in nice blue script with a little blue square next to it.
This is the rest of their breathless prose:
Yeah, Andrea and co., but you don’t say he’s a shit God when things don’t go your way, do you, you homophobic pillock? However, since the entire faith system – certainly the metaphysics of it – is based on illogical thinking, anyway, what else can we expect?
So churches – who should, as employers, be subject to the same employment laws as the rest of the country’s employers – can now get away with being beastly to gay people by not employing them, no matter how well qualified they are for the job.
There’s some background in this BBC story.
He intervened – obviously, because nutty Right-wing Christians asked him to – in the House of Lords, the UK’s upper chamber, yesterday and made Their Lordships accept some amendments to the Equality Bill from a homophobe called Baroness O’Cathain.
These will ensure that religious types get unfair exemptions when it comes to employing gay people.
The Christian organisation that sent out yesterday’s “prayer alert” – Christian Concern for Our Nation (CCFON) – are crowing about it, of course. In the email alert I received today, the word “Victory” is up there where “Prayer alert” was in the one I got yesterday, in nice blue script with a little blue square next to it.
This is the rest of their breathless prose:
Three amendments tabled by Baroness O’Cathain were passed by the House of Lords tonight [Monday]. The first amendment was voted through 216 votes to 178, the second was conceded by the Government and the third was voted through 177 votes to 172.
The Government also tried to pass an amendment which would have further restricted the freedom of Churches. Thankfully this amendment was defeated by 195 votes to 174 and the law has not been narrowed any further.
We at CCFON are delighted with the result and are thankful to all of you for your prayers and action in writing to peers and signing the petition. We are also thankful for the many Peers who supported Baroness O’Cathain’s amendments and spoke in favour of religious freedom throughout the debate.
Although the Government has consistently maintained that the effect of their provisions would not alter the current situation, it is the opinion of CCFON and many other Christian organisations that the proposed Governmental provisions contained within the Equality Bill would have further reduced the freedom of Churches. We are therefore grateful that the status quo has been maintained and the law has not been narrowed any further.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of CCFON said:
“This is a great day for religious liberty in the UK. We are thankful that the law has not been changed and the freedom of Churches to control their own affairs has not been restricted any further. The results show what can happen when Christians pray and take action. Let us be encouraged that even in an increasingly secular society, the voice of the Church can still be heard.”
Most of all we are thankful to God for answering our prayers. We serve a mighty God!
Yeah, Andrea and co., but you don’t say he’s a shit God when things don’t go your way, do you, you homophobic pillock? However, since the entire faith system – certainly the metaphysics of it – is based on illogical thinking, anyway, what else can we expect?
So churches – who should, as employers, be subject to the same employment laws as the rest of the country’s employers – can now get away with being beastly to gay people by not employing them, no matter how well qualified they are for the job.
There’s some background in this BBC story.
Monday, 25 January 2010
Creepy Christians and the mysterious ways of God
Today, members of the UK's House of Lords will vote on how much control Churches should have over their employment practices.
In other words, churches who are employers may have to toe the line along with other employers, who come under employment law, and not discriminate against gays.
“If the Government get their way,” say the nutty, rabidly homophobic Christian Concern for Our Nation in an emailed “prayer alert” about the Equality Bill, “Churches will have far more difficulty in refusing to employ people who do not live lives consistent with the Bible’s teaching on sexual ethics. The current law is by no means ideal, but the Government’s proposals make the situation even worse by further restricting the freedom of Churches to organise their own affairs.”
They mean restricting the freedom of churches to sidestep employment law – legislation that other employers have to follow.
“Please pray”, they plead, “that this outrageous attempt by the Government to intrude into how Churches operate will be defeated.” They also want fellow headcases to pray that some amendments are accepted and to pray “that God will have mercy on this country and spare us from this terrible piece of legislation”.
OK, let’s say that all the nutty Christians pray. Let’s say the vote goes against them. Given that they believe God is behind everything, does that mean they’ll then accept that God knew what he was doing when he steered that vote, and will they then realise that they’ve been wrong to oppose equality laws?
Nope. Not a chance. God’s role in the unwanted outcome will be quietly forgotten.
That’s the way these psychos think – if you can grace what their brains do with such a word as think.
Some Church of England bishops are also getting twitchy about today’s vote, as you can see from this press release.
See also Simon Barrow’s take on this subject over at Ekklesia.
In other words, churches who are employers may have to toe the line along with other employers, who come under employment law, and not discriminate against gays.
“If the Government get their way,” say the nutty, rabidly homophobic Christian Concern for Our Nation in an emailed “prayer alert” about the Equality Bill, “Churches will have far more difficulty in refusing to employ people who do not live lives consistent with the Bible’s teaching on sexual ethics. The current law is by no means ideal, but the Government’s proposals make the situation even worse by further restricting the freedom of Churches to organise their own affairs.”
They mean restricting the freedom of churches to sidestep employment law – legislation that other employers have to follow.
“Please pray”, they plead, “that this outrageous attempt by the Government to intrude into how Churches operate will be defeated.” They also want fellow headcases to pray that some amendments are accepted and to pray “that God will have mercy on this country and spare us from this terrible piece of legislation”.
OK, let’s say that all the nutty Christians pray. Let’s say the vote goes against them. Given that they believe God is behind everything, does that mean they’ll then accept that God knew what he was doing when he steered that vote, and will they then realise that they’ve been wrong to oppose equality laws?
Nope. Not a chance. God’s role in the unwanted outcome will be quietly forgotten.
That’s the way these psychos think – if you can grace what their brains do with such a word as think.
Some Church of England bishops are also getting twitchy about today’s vote, as you can see from this press release.
See also Simon Barrow’s take on this subject over at Ekklesia.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
Waiting for tongues of fire
I’ve just learned that being a lawyer, politician, journalist or civil servant means knowing about “vital issues such as life, liberty and the family”. On the surface, it sounds OK.
But there’s a contradiction in there somewhere. To Right-wing Christians such as the bunch who are advertising a residential weekend course, how can “the family” and “liberty” be meant to live side by side – not just in one sentence, but in reality?
Because “the family” to the likes of the Christian Legal Centre – which is urging people to join this course in late March in Oxford, UK – is man, woman and some kids, and definitely no poofters (to quote an old Monty Python sketch).
This is the thrust of their pitch to deprive people of some money (I assume) in exchange for what looks like dogma:
Why “Wilberforce Academy” is in quote marks makes you wonder. And where is the capitalised “Passionately Demonstrate Truth” quoted from? Or is it quoted from anywhere at all? Are they using capitalised initials and quote marks as mere decoration, as so many do?
The sceptic will wonder whether they are really confident in their ability to deliver, if they have to put stuff in quotes, which, unless you’re actually quoting, usually means, “I’m distancing myself from this; I’m not really meaning this, but this is the phrase I’m using, ha, ha.”
They then have three bulleted items, telling you that you can:
In one weekend? Perhaps they’re hoping for a holy miracle, for tongues of fire, a Pentecostal moment, the Holy Spirit descending from above and saying, “Go forth and multiply the misery of gays and others you don’t happen to like throughout the land, you bunch of sad bastards.”
What links the hysterically homophobic Christian Legal Centre (a sister organisation to the equally rabid Christian Concern for Our Nation) and the “Wilberforce Academy” (got to keep the quote marks going) I don’t know. A banner at the top of the email alert in which this invitation comes to me (with a subject line that gasps, “Amazing Opportunity for Students and Young Professionals”) announces:
The ellipses are theirs, not mine. More punctuational furniture?
As for the Alliance Defense Fund, as you can see from the spelling, it’s American, and says of itself, “The Alliance Defense Fund is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.” For Truth (note the capital T) read bigoted, family-oriented, antigay, redneck and all the other adjectives we usually associate with the kind of muscular Christianity that emanates from the wackier end of the religion.
Anyway, the e-flyer continues:
Well, I’m all for confronting conventional wisdom (why didn’t they put “wisdom” in scare quotes, since it would be more appropriate?), because a lot of conventional “wisdom” is anything but. Anything but wise, I mean. It’s conventional all right.
But I digress. Their idea of confronting conventional wisdom is saying that there’s no place in society for gay people. That Christians should occupy a privileged position by being able to bunk off doing part of their job because it goes against their weird and often dangerous beliefs.
But there’s a contradiction in there somewhere. To Right-wing Christians such as the bunch who are advertising a residential weekend course, how can “the family” and “liberty” be meant to live side by side – not just in one sentence, but in reality?
Because “the family” to the likes of the Christian Legal Centre – which is urging people to join this course in late March in Oxford, UK – is man, woman and some kids, and definitely no poofters (to quote an old Monty Python sketch).
This is the thrust of their pitch to deprive people of some money (I assume) in exchange for what looks like dogma:
The inaugural “Wilberforce Academy” takes place March 21st to 26th 2010 and we are asking all students and young professionals who have a passion for defending and proclaiming the Truth to consider applying. For one week you will be taught by some of the world’s leading thinkers on vital issues such as life, liberty and the family. You will learn how to make a difference to a society which has turned away from God. You will meet like-minded people from across the country that share Christian conviction and the desire to serve God’s Kingdom. In short, you will learn how to become a generation of men and women who “Passionately Demonstrate Truth”.
Why “Wilberforce Academy” is in quote marks makes you wonder. And where is the capitalised “Passionately Demonstrate Truth” quoted from? Or is it quoted from anywhere at all? Are they using capitalised initials and quote marks as mere decoration, as so many do?
The sceptic will wonder whether they are really confident in their ability to deliver, if they have to put stuff in quotes, which, unless you’re actually quoting, usually means, “I’m distancing myself from this; I’m not really meaning this, but this is the phrase I’m using, ha, ha.”
They then have three bulleted items, telling you that you can:
– Learn natural law principles and the foundation of law.
– Lead driving change in the legal system.
– Defend religious liberty, the sanctity of life and traditional family values.
In one weekend? Perhaps they’re hoping for a holy miracle, for tongues of fire, a Pentecostal moment, the Holy Spirit descending from above and saying, “Go forth and multiply the misery of gays and others you don’t happen to like throughout the land, you bunch of sad bastards.”
What links the hysterically homophobic Christian Legal Centre (a sister organisation to the equally rabid Christian Concern for Our Nation) and the “Wilberforce Academy” (got to keep the quote marks going) I don’t know. A banner at the top of the email alert in which this invitation comes to me (with a subject line that gasps, “Amazing Opportunity for Students and Young Professionals”) announces:
The Christian Legal Centre introduces the . . .
Wilberforce Academy
in association with the . . .
Alliance Defense Fund
The ellipses are theirs, not mine. More punctuational furniture?
As for the Alliance Defense Fund, as you can see from the spelling, it’s American, and says of itself, “The Alliance Defense Fund is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.” For Truth (note the capital T) read bigoted, family-oriented, antigay, redneck and all the other adjectives we usually associate with the kind of muscular Christianity that emanates from the wackier end of the religion.
Anyway, the e-flyer continues:
Successful applicants will gather at Oxford University for a residential week of lectures, seminars, worship, devotions, and interactive discussions designed to confront conventional wisdom in legal education and present a principled, analytical framework and Christian viewpoint. You will leave not only with increased knowledge and conviction, but also with connections to other interns and faculty that will assist you throughout your education and career.
Well, I’m all for confronting conventional wisdom (why didn’t they put “wisdom” in scare quotes, since it would be more appropriate?), because a lot of conventional “wisdom” is anything but. Anything but wise, I mean. It’s conventional all right.
But I digress. Their idea of confronting conventional wisdom is saying that there’s no place in society for gay people. That Christians should occupy a privileged position by being able to bunk off doing part of their job because it goes against their weird and often dangerous beliefs.
Friday, 22 January 2010
Invisible Islam
Funny how Islam’s connection with violence is often conveniently forgotten.
We reported on the Fort Hood massacre in November 2009, referring to a New York Post article with the headline, Call this horror by its name: Islamist terror.
Now we learn from the Cafferty File blog that “The Pentagon report into the massacre at Fort Hood that left 13 dead is a joke. There is no mention of the suspect’s views of Islam. None.”
When will they ever learn?
If you want to read how, by various means, Islam is creeping up on us, you could do worse than read the stuff on Citizen Warrior, which is one of the “Further reading” links on our sidebar.
We reported on the Fort Hood massacre in November 2009, referring to a New York Post article with the headline, Call this horror by its name: Islamist terror.
Now we learn from the Cafferty File blog that “The Pentagon report into the massacre at Fort Hood that left 13 dead is a joke. There is no mention of the suspect’s views of Islam. None.”
In fact [says the piece], the 86-page report doesn’t even once mention Major Nidal Hasan by name. It lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs . . . and instead focuses on things like military personnel policies and the emergency response to the Nov. shootings.
This despite the fact that Hasan made no secret of his radical Islamic faith. He allegedly proselytized to his fellow service members and spoke out against the wars the US military is waging in Muslim counties.
When will they ever learn?
If you want to read how, by various means, Islam is creeping up on us, you could do worse than read the stuff on Citizen Warrior, which is one of the “Further reading” links on our sidebar.
Protesting too much
Some Christian campaigners are stirring things up by “encouraging churches to help people to ‘overcome’ their attraction to members of their own sex”, the excellent Christian think tank Ekklesia tells us. “They have been criticised by other Christian groups and human rights activists.”
I bet they have.
The Ekklesia report continues:
The nice people at Ekklesia are far too polite to say it, but regular readers of PT will know that CCFON are a bunch of Right-wing, bigoted, intolerant, prejudiced, dogmatic, hate-filled tossers. They shall surely burn in the eternal fires of hell. Anyway, Ekklesia continues:
They do get rather worked up about sexuality, don’t they? These people protest too much, methinks.
I bet they have.
The Ekklesia report continues:
The campaigners developed their approach at a conference in London yesterday (21 January), entitled What can I possibly say? – Pastoral responses to today’s sexual confusion. It was organised by Anglican Mainstream with the support of other groups such as Christian Concern For Our Nation (CCFON).
The nice people at Ekklesia are far too polite to say it, but regular readers of PT will know that CCFON are a bunch of Right-wing, bigoted, intolerant, prejudiced, dogmatic, hate-filled tossers. They shall surely burn in the eternal fires of hell. Anyway, Ekklesia continues:
Speakers at the event included a number of people who define themselves as “ex-gay”, such as Phelim McIntyre, who says that he is now “happily heterosexual”.
But Sharon Ferguson of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) accused the conference organisers of giving “the impression that all people with a same-sex attraction are desperate to change and cannot find peace with God or themselves until they do so”. She insisted that, “This is simply not the case”.
The organisers say that they were very pleased with the turnout of around 150 people, many of whom were in their thirties or early forties. Issues discussed included the nature of sexuality, legal matters and the role of clergy and parents.
Canon Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream said that a question that had come up often, was why so many Evangelical Christians are now accepting the legitimacy of same-sex relationships.
At a press conference after the event, several of the speakers emphasised their belief that Christians attracted to their own sex should be able to speak to their minister about it. They said they want more clergy to be aware of the “support” and “counselling” available.
However, the speakers are facing strong criticism for suggesting that almost no same-sex couples enjoy exclusive monogamous relationships.
Speaking at the press conference, Phelim McIntyre said that, in twenty years of involvement in these issues, “I have not come across a same-sex relationship in which both partners are faithful.”
His comment provoked criticism from the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who insisted that, “some gay couples are faithful, others are not – just like many heterosexual couples”.
Speaking to Ekklesia about the conference, Tatchell said that, “No affirmative lesbian or gay Christians were invited to attend, to give their perspective. None of the speakers were credible, authoritative psychologists or sexologists with independent, objective expertise in the field.”
The organisers were also accused of one-sidedness by the Evangelical writer Jeremy Marks of Courage UK, which encourages gay and lesbian Christians to “reconcile their faith and sexuality”. He suggested that “diverse opinions or other conclusions from pastoral experience” did not appear to be welcome.
However, several of the speakers insisted that they are open to calm discussion with those who disagree with them. Canon Dr Vinay Samuel said “I welcome disagreement, I welcome dialogue.”
Lisa Nolland of Anglican Mainstream said that they had not publicised the venue due to “fear of intimidation” and added that she had received threats of physical violence.
Nolland said that “gays are pioneers of a new way of doing relationships”. She expressed concern that changing attitudes to homosexuality would lead to the acceptance of sadomasochism, polygamy, polyamory, paedophilia and bestiality.
The conference also discussed chastity before marriage and gender identity. Several speakers promoted “therapy” for transgender people.
When questioned about intersex people (those whose sex is ambiguous at birth), McIntyre said that intersex was a “very unique situation” that was “actually quite rare”.
His approach was criticised by a theologian, Dr Susannah Cornwall of Exeter University, author of a forthcoming book on Christian responses to intersex issues. She said that intersex is “roughly as common” as Down’s syndrome or cystic fibrosis.
“The significance of intersex goes far beyond its statistical frequency, since it forces us to re-examine the whole notion of a binary sex system,” said Cornwall. “It is simply not possible to say with any certainty where the line between maleness and femaleness lies.”
They do get rather worked up about sexuality, don’t they? These people protest too much, methinks.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
No breakfast for Bahati Boy
I find the very phrase “prayer breakfast” decidedly creepy. Even creepier was the fact that David “Bahati Boy” Bahati (pictured) was going to attend one that President Obama is throwing on 4 February.But Pink News tells us that the homophobic bigot won’t be there. He’s been disinvited. (Is that a word?)
Bahati Boy is the Ugandan MP who wants to kill gays if they commit the “crime” of something called “aggravated homosexuality” or something.
Pink News says:
Bahati told a Ugandan newspaper last weekend he would be attending the February 4th event sponsored by the Fellowship – a secretive conservative Christian organisation which is also known as The Family
But National Prayer Breakfast spokesman Richard Swett confirmed that he would not be attending the breakfast.
He told blogger Warren Throckmorton: “The National Prayer Breakfast is an organisation that builds bridges of understanding between all peoples, religions and beliefs and has never advocated the sentiments expressed in Mr Bahati’s legislation.”
Fellowship sources said that Bahati had been invited to Washington DC as a volunteer, rather than to attend the breakfast. They said he was had declined the invitation, which was extended before he had introduced the bill in Uganda’s parliament.
Members of the Fellowship include politicians, religious leaders and corporate executives. It asks members not to publicly mention its existence and publishes no information about its activities.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Segregating kids according to parents’ beliefs is good? We think not!
Muslims in Southampton, UK, say an Islamic school for children is in great demand because many parents feel they are being failed by mainstream education.
Yes, probably because kids are not having the Koran rammed down their throats in mainstream schools.
The Echo tells us:
So separating their children – who are not, anyway, of an age to choose a religion, and need to be exposed to several religions plus the option of none, of course, in order to be able to make an informed decision – from the children who don’t happen to have parents who subscribe to this hideous ideology is a good thing, is it?
How do you explain that, Mr Ahmad?
Yes, probably because kids are not having the Koran rammed down their throats in mainstream schools.
The Echo tells us:
Plans for a private primary school to offer Islamic education for children in the city have been welcomed by parents, according to some of the city’s Mosques [my emphasis].
Zahir Ahmad, secretary of Southampton Central Abu Backr Mosque said parents had been talking about the planned private Islamic school and considering it for their children.
“It has been a talking point for many parents who feel their children would benefit,” he said.
So separating their children – who are not, anyway, of an age to choose a religion, and need to be exposed to several religions plus the option of none, of course, in order to be able to make an informed decision – from the children who don’t happen to have parents who subscribe to this hideous ideology is a good thing, is it?
How do you explain that, Mr Ahmad?
Wilders on trial
It’s being called a heresy trial, and compared to that of Galileo.
It’s the trial of the Dutch politician and filmmaker Geert Wilders, which begins today.
Whatever you think of Wilders’s Right-wing politics, should he not have been allowed to make his film Fitna, which showed verses from the Koran and then depicted corresponding atrocities?
__________
Links:
More publicity for Fitna
Proving Wilders’s point
Wilders set to face trial (you can view the film in this post)
It’s the trial of the Dutch politician and filmmaker Geert Wilders, which begins today.
Whatever you think of Wilders’s Right-wing politics, should he not have been allowed to make his film Fitna, which showed verses from the Koran and then depicted corresponding atrocities?
__________
Links:
More publicity for Fitna
Proving Wilders’s point
Wilders set to face trial (you can view the film in this post)
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Time to make Pat feel a prick
Whether you believe it’ll do anything or not, you can still have a bit of fun at the expense of the nutty televangelist Pat Robertson, who seems to think the Haiti earthquake has something to do with voodoo practices.There’s a voodoo doll (pictured) for sale on eBay.
“They were under the heel of the French – you know, Napoleon the Third and whatever,” Robertson has been quoted as saying. “And they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the Prince.’ True story. And so the Devil said, ‘OK it’s a deal.’ And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another.”
The soul of logical thinking, these televangelists, aren’t they?
“Ever wanted to cause Pat Robertson a massive headache?” asks the eBay entry. “Give him back pain? Jab him in the crotch? Of course you have! Well then BID NOW to own your very own physical representation of the dark, dark soul of Pat Robertson.”
Accessories in the deal, apparently, are “Pat’s very own Holy Bible, and bag of money taken from real Americans!”
Well, it’s said that voodoo works, to which a logical mind might add that the intended victim needs not only to know that a curse or hex has been performed but also must believe in it.
It won’t be long before Pat Robertson knows about the voodoo doll. Who knows? Maybe the buyer will have enough pins to prick the silly sod’s conscience. Then he’ll feel a real prick.
Thank you, God, for being a cruel bastard
It doesn’t matter what God does to people, no matter how arbitrary, no matter how painful, devastating and plain nasty, they continue to worship him, according to CNN.
“A lot of people who never prayed or believed – now they believe,” Cristina Bailey, a 24-year-old clerk, is quoted as saying.
Some comfort!
Bailey is further quoted as saying, “People don’t blame Jesus for all these things. They have faith. They believe that Jesus saved them and are thankful for that.”
So thank you, Jesus for saving me. As for the tens of thousands who weren’t saved, well, um, er . . .
“A lot of people who never prayed or believed – now they believe,” Cristina Bailey, a 24-year-old clerk, is quoted as saying.
In parks and backyards, anywhere a group gathers, the prayers of the Haitians can be heard. Last week, the call-and-response chanting and clapping that accompany those prayers pierced the darkness of night and the pre-dawn hours – sometimes as early as 4 a.m. The singing and praying was particularly intense in Champs de Mars plaza, where hundreds of people have taken refuge. But the scene was repeated throughout the city, with preachers on megaphones exhorting the faithful, who responded with lyrics like “O Lord, keep me close to you” and “Forgive me, Jesus.”
Many preachers are telling followers not to lose faith, that God remains with them regardless of what’s happened.
Some comfort!
Bailey is further quoted as saying, “People don’t blame Jesus for all these things. They have faith. They believe that Jesus saved them and are thankful for that.”
So thank you, Jesus for saving me. As for the tens of thousands who weren’t saved, well, um, er . . .
Monday, 18 January 2010
How religionists fan the flames of hate in Africa
Africa is becoming a battleground for pro- and anti-gay factions, according to the Sunday Times.
A disturbing article by R W Johnson in Cape Town highlights a case in Malawi, where a male couple who dared to want to marry can expect up to 14 years in jail.
And, when Western evangelicals are fanning the flames of hatred, what can you expect? It was Christian missionaries who took the idea that gay sex was bad to Africa in the first place. Now, conservative – read bigoted – African leaders and clergymen say it’s a “disease” imported from the West.
It all goes to show how religious ideas of what’s “right” and “wrong” with sexuality can stoke up those flames of hatred until there’s a conflagration.
The Sunday Times piece continues:
The difference between the evangelicals and gay-rights groups is that the former are motivated by hate, while the latter are motivated by a wish to free gay men and women from the oppression and worse they’re suffering because of ignorance and bigotry.
A disturbing article by R W Johnson in Cape Town highlights a case in Malawi, where a male couple who dared to want to marry can expect up to 14 years in jail.
The trial of a young male couple charged with unnatural practices and gross indecency after announcing their engagement in Malawi was adjourned last week when one of the accused collapsed in court while enduring jeers from the public gallery.
Tiwonge Chimbalanga, 20, was made to return with a mop to clean up his own vomit, even though he has malaria.
He and his boyfriend, Steven Monjeza, 26, have been held in Chichiri prison, Blantyre, for more than a week – in order, the judge says, to protect them from mob violence.
And, when Western evangelicals are fanning the flames of hatred, what can you expect? It was Christian missionaries who took the idea that gay sex was bad to Africa in the first place. Now, conservative – read bigoted – African leaders and clergymen say it’s a “disease” imported from the West.
It all goes to show how religious ideas of what’s “right” and “wrong” with sexuality can stoke up those flames of hatred until there’s a conflagration.
The Sunday Times piece continues:
Both sides accuse the other [each side accuses the other, for goodness’ sake!] of being driven by external influences: gay rights campaigners say conservative American evangelists are encouraging homophobia, while the anti-gay side insists that homosexuality is only surfacing openly in Africa because of western encouragement.
Some argue that the African rows over homosexuality are really a proxy skirmish in an American cultural dispute, with both evangelicals and gay rights groups in the US pouring in money and support.
The difference between the evangelicals and gay-rights groups is that the former are motivated by hate, while the latter are motivated by a wish to free gay men and women from the oppression and worse they’re suffering because of ignorance and bigotry.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Still Googling Islam . . .
I’m not going to obsess about this, but it’s more than a week now since I mentioned it, and nothing’s changed.
I refer to our previous post, “Googling Islam”, about typing “Islam is” into the Google search box and seeing what happens.
I’ll tell you what happens. Nothing happens. That’s what happens.
Do it with any other religion followed by the word “is” and you get dropdown suggestions based on either your own previous searches or popular ones of others.
But not with “Islam is”. Nada. Nil. Nix. Nothing. Zilch. (And that’s putting it in alphabetical order!)
The people at Google said they were aware of it and were trying to fix it. The people at Google are clever techie whizzes. The people at Google fix things. It doesn’t take the people at Google more than a week to sort out something like this.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but this looks just a bit, a bit, a bit . . . Well, make up your own mind.
Right, that's it. I won’t mention it again, unless there’s a development. And then only if it’s worth mentioning.
__________
UPDATE (19 January): Well, there now seems to be that development. Google is now doing dropdowns on this, so something has happened between 17 January, when this post was written, and now. Thanks to DavidMWW for pointing this out (see his comment in the comments section).
I refer to our previous post, “Googling Islam”, about typing “Islam is” into the Google search box and seeing what happens.
I’ll tell you what happens. Nothing happens. That’s what happens.
Do it with any other religion followed by the word “is” and you get dropdown suggestions based on either your own previous searches or popular ones of others.
But not with “Islam is”. Nada. Nil. Nix. Nothing. Zilch. (And that’s putting it in alphabetical order!)
The people at Google said they were aware of it and were trying to fix it. The people at Google are clever techie whizzes. The people at Google fix things. It doesn’t take the people at Google more than a week to sort out something like this.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but this looks just a bit, a bit, a bit . . . Well, make up your own mind.
Right, that's it. I won’t mention it again, unless there’s a development. And then only if it’s worth mentioning.
__________
UPDATE (19 January): Well, there now seems to be that development. Google is now doing dropdowns on this, so something has happened between 17 January, when this post was written, and now. Thanks to DavidMWW for pointing this out (see his comment in the comments section).
Saturday, 16 January 2010
Wilders set to face trial
It looks as if Geert Wilders won’t get away without a trial for making his film Fitna – for exercising his claim to freedom of expression, in other words.
Jurist tells us that a Dutch court has ordered him to stand trial “for his video and printed statements against the Quran and Islam, dismissing a motion to drop or reduce the criminal charges”.
Last September, a district court in the Netherlands rejected a bid by the Dutch Islamic Federation to block Wilders’s statements, saying that his comments are protected by the right of free expression and do not constitute speech that incites hate or violence.
In the interests of showing you what the fuss is about, we’ve reproduced the link to the film below, and I daresay some other bloggers will be doing the same, proving that things get to a wider audience whenever someone wants to suppress them.
Jurist tells us that a Dutch court has ordered him to stand trial “for his video and printed statements against the Quran and Islam, dismissing a motion to drop or reduce the criminal charges”.
Last September, a district court in the Netherlands rejected a bid by the Dutch Islamic Federation to block Wilders’s statements, saying that his comments are protected by the right of free expression and do not constitute speech that incites hate or violence.
In the interests of showing you what the fuss is about, we’ve reproduced the link to the film below, and I daresay some other bloggers will be doing the same, proving that things get to a wider audience whenever someone wants to suppress them.
Friday, 15 January 2010
More concern for Igwe
This blog’s parent organisation, the UK gay humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT), has expressed its grave concern about the continual harassment by the police of the Nigerian humanist and human-rights activist Leo Igwe, who has made a staunch public defence of LGBT rights in his country. An updated press release – following the one we reported on on 12 January – reflects the fact that, after being arrested, Igwe has been released on bail. He has also since spoken about his and his family’s ordeal at the hands of Nigerian authorities.
Leo Igwe wrote an article for our sister publication Gay & Lesbian Humanist in December 2009.
Mr Igwe and members of his family have been subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment by police involving multiple arrests on unsubstantiated charges since 2007.
Mr Igwe is the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Humanist Movement. In 2006 he made an impassioned appeal to members of the Nigerian National Assembly not to pass a Bill that would not only criminalise gay marriage, but also impose a five-year jail sentence on anyone who has a gay relationship or anyone who aids or supports a gay marriage or relationship. The Bill had the blessing of the Nigerian Anglican Church and its leader Archbishop Peter Akinola, as well as the Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo who declared that homosexual practice “is clearly un-Biblical, unnatural and definitely un-African”.
In 2008 Mr Igwe and his humanist colleagues were awarded the Rainbow Humanist Award by Nordic Rainbow Humanists “for their courageous defence of LGBT rights and dignity in the face of ferocious attacks from homophobic Nigerian politicians, parliamentarians and religious leaders calling for the imprisonment of those having homosexual relations and those who dare to support such relations, and for reminding fellow countrymen and women in Nigeria of the need to safeguard the spirit of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the need for reason, common sense, thoughtfulness, knowledge, love, tolerance, solidarity and empathy, instead of hate and homophobia”.
Pink Triangle Trust secretary George Broadhead commented: “We are very concerned about Mr Igwe. He is fearless and selfless in fighting for justice for LGBT people. Like the UK’s Peter Tatchell, he is never afraid to challenge the powerful even when he is a lone voice and knows that the powerful may hurt him. It is up to his fellow Humanists and others concerned with human rights to show that he does not stand alone and work together to ensure justice for him.”
The PTT has sent a letter of protest to the Nigerian High Commissioner in the UK Dr Dalhatu Sarki Tafida and asked the European Parliament’s Intergroup on LGBT Rights to issue a public condemnation.
Leo Igwe wrote an article for our sister publication Gay & Lesbian Humanist in December 2009.
Happy clappies can drive up the decibels
If you happen to be a church, you can disturb the peace as much as you like, it seems.
The All Nations Centre in London is an evangelical church – and the happy-clappy evangelicals just love to make noises. Not happy, it seems, with singing in their church, which is OK, enjoyable and all part of the service, the church has to amplify it, for some reason.
In an emailed press release, the Christian Legal Centre – which helped the church to defend itself successfully against a noise-abatement notice from the local council, resulting in an out-of-court settlement – says the church believes the council has got it in for it, that it doesn’t like evangelicals.
“The complaint has nothing to do with the noise and everything to do with our faith,” Pastor Abraham Sackey is quoted as saying. “Lambeth Council are driving us out and we feel harassed.”
Sounds odd to me. Why would a council take against a church, just because it’s a church?
The Christian Legal centre says, “The use of Noise Abatement Notices is an issue of concern as recently it is being used effectively to categorise worship/the singing of hymns as Noise Pollution.”
But the notice was served because the music is being amplified. Otherwise, why are all churches across the land not receiving complaints?
Clearly not understanding the concept of non sequitur, Kate Hoey, the local MP, says, “They have been serving the local community for many years, consistently helping to improve the quality of life and overall wellbeing of people within the local community . . . It was therefore with a mixture of surprise and concern that I learned that they were served with a noise abatement notice.”
They can have been the acme of virtue, but if they’re making a noise they’re making a noise. Their record on what they may or may not have done in the local community is totally irrelevant. But politicians do that sort of thing, and the pity is that most people are taken in. She also wants the votes.
Sackey is further quoted as saying, “The Church believes that the Council’s withdrawal is an attempt to conceal what happened and which has been ongoing for some time, not only in Lambeth but nationally. The leaders of the church maintained from the very outset that the notice had nothing to do with noise but rather was further evidence of the ongoing campaign of religious hatred and intimidation against evangelical Christians.”
So any mere criticism of a church is some kind of victimisation. Come on! We live in a country that still bends over backwards to accommodate religion. Do we yet again have to instance the many religious schools, paid for by the taxpayer, and the religious “advisers” the government is taking on? The 26 bishops in the House of Lords?
That sort of victimisation?
The fact is that, if you’re making excessive noise, it’s only fair to your neighbours if the local authority tells you to pipe down a bit.
Or don’t you follow the “love thy neighbour” principle that somebody or other propounded a couple of millennia ago?
The All Nations Centre in London is an evangelical church – and the happy-clappy evangelicals just love to make noises. Not happy, it seems, with singing in their church, which is OK, enjoyable and all part of the service, the church has to amplify it, for some reason.
In an emailed press release, the Christian Legal Centre – which helped the church to defend itself successfully against a noise-abatement notice from the local council, resulting in an out-of-court settlement – says the church believes the council has got it in for it, that it doesn’t like evangelicals.
“The complaint has nothing to do with the noise and everything to do with our faith,” Pastor Abraham Sackey is quoted as saying. “Lambeth Council are driving us out and we feel harassed.”
Sounds odd to me. Why would a council take against a church, just because it’s a church?
The Christian Legal centre says, “The use of Noise Abatement Notices is an issue of concern as recently it is being used effectively to categorise worship/the singing of hymns as Noise Pollution.”
But the notice was served because the music is being amplified. Otherwise, why are all churches across the land not receiving complaints?
Clearly not understanding the concept of non sequitur, Kate Hoey, the local MP, says, “They have been serving the local community for many years, consistently helping to improve the quality of life and overall wellbeing of people within the local community . . . It was therefore with a mixture of surprise and concern that I learned that they were served with a noise abatement notice.”
They can have been the acme of virtue, but if they’re making a noise they’re making a noise. Their record on what they may or may not have done in the local community is totally irrelevant. But politicians do that sort of thing, and the pity is that most people are taken in. She also wants the votes.
Sackey is further quoted as saying, “The Church believes that the Council’s withdrawal is an attempt to conceal what happened and which has been ongoing for some time, not only in Lambeth but nationally. The leaders of the church maintained from the very outset that the notice had nothing to do with noise but rather was further evidence of the ongoing campaign of religious hatred and intimidation against evangelical Christians.”
So any mere criticism of a church is some kind of victimisation. Come on! We live in a country that still bends over backwards to accommodate religion. Do we yet again have to instance the many religious schools, paid for by the taxpayer, and the religious “advisers” the government is taking on? The 26 bishops in the House of Lords?
That sort of victimisation?
The fact is that, if you’re making excessive noise, it’s only fair to your neighbours if the local authority tells you to pipe down a bit.
Or don’t you follow the “love thy neighbour” principle that somebody or other propounded a couple of millennia ago?
“Here's to you, Mrs Robinson”
Earlier this week, a Facebook group – Here’s to you Mrs Robinson for number 1 – was set up in “honour” of the disgraced Northern Ireland politician Iris Robinson, with the aim of getting Simon and Garfunkel’s “Mrs. Robinson” to number one in the UK singles chart.
People are being urged to purchase the track following revelations that Robinson, a homophobic bigot and self-proclaimed “born-again Christian”, had had an affair with a 19-year-old, Kirk McCambley.
The group has already attracted over 21,000 members, and, reportedly, banners promoting the campaign have been attached to railings outside the Northern Ireland Assembly, Stormont, and other locations around Belfast.
Mrs Robinson made a real nuisance of herself in 2008, while “Mrs. Robinson” was previously a UK Top 5 hit for Simon and Garfunkel in 1968.
The Facebook group description reads:
The 60-year-old is married to Peter Robinson, who temporarily stepped aside as Northern Ireland Assembly First Minister earlier this week following revelations of his wife’s affair and her alleged unlawful lending to McCamberley.
Robinson caused controversy when she labelled homosexuality an “abomination” and recommended that gay people get psychiatric help! Pink Triangle has blogged about Robinson many times. Click here, to see them all.
People are being urged to purchase the track following revelations that Robinson, a homophobic bigot and self-proclaimed “born-again Christian”, had had an affair with a 19-year-old, Kirk McCambley.
The group has already attracted over 21,000 members, and, reportedly, banners promoting the campaign have been attached to railings outside the Northern Ireland Assembly, Stormont, and other locations around Belfast.
Mrs Robinson made a real nuisance of herself in 2008, while “Mrs. Robinson” was previously a UK Top 5 hit for Simon and Garfunkel in 1968.
The Facebook group description reads:
Lets get the iconic song Mrs Robinson – made famous by the 1960’s hit The Graduate – to number 1 in next Sunday’s chart in honour of Northern Ireland’s disgraced first lady, Iris Robinson. The naughty little minx & hateful bigot!!
The 60-year-old is married to Peter Robinson, who temporarily stepped aside as Northern Ireland Assembly First Minister earlier this week following revelations of his wife’s affair and her alleged unlawful lending to McCamberley.
Robinson caused controversy when she labelled homosexuality an “abomination” and recommended that gay people get psychiatric help! Pink Triangle has blogged about Robinson many times. Click here, to see them all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)