Sergeant in arms

Five months after the US military's ban on openly gay service personnel expired, a heartwarming photograph showing a marine kissing his male partner at his homecoming in Hawaii has gone viral.

On his Facebook page, Sgt Brandon Morgan posted the picture (left) – which shows him embracing and kissing his partner, Dalan Wells – and, in a very short time, it went viral. Already the photograph has received going on for 20,000 likes on Facebook and almost 4,000 comments.

Sgt Morgan says he and his partner are overwhelmed at the response they've received. Writing earlier, he said:

I wanted to make one post for all of the great people i have made friends with after the picture of my partner and I went viral. I have gotten so many emails, messages and friend requests I can barely keep up with it all. I wanted to say thank you for all the comments and inspirational messages I have received. [...] Also, and this is important. For everyone we have inspired through the picture, know this. I am honored you view as a hero. My partner and I are overwhelmed to be such an inspiration. Remember though, that you being who you are is an inspiration to others as well. Heros are made when you make a choice [...] remember you paved the way for me to be able to post the picture in the first place. While I might be your hero because I have made the media. You have been my heros all along.

Up until September 2011, openly gay men and women were banned from serving in the US military.

Don’t like praying? Then don’t be a councillor!

A councillor who walked out of a meeting to avoid the obligatory prayers was told by members of the public present that he shouldn’t have become a councillor if he didn’t want to say prayers.

This is according to Britain’s National Secular Society (NSS), which has been fighting to get this nonsense stopped for ages now. It doesn’t, as far as I can tell, object to prayers per se, but not as part, albeit that they come at the start, of meetings, which should be secular.

And that makes sense of course: it allows people who don’t wish to say Christian prayers, for a variety of reasons, not to have to take part in this pointless ritual; it means a meeting can get going at three o’clock sharp (or whatever) without having some babbling idiot spout mumbo-jumbo.

And prayers, for those who want them, could be said at 2.50 in an anteroom, or several anterooms to cater for those of different religious persuasions. No problem.

The latest story concerns Sandbach Town Council in Cheshire. Cllr Richard Hoffman walked out, and told the NSS: “As I was leaving the room I was verbally abused by three members of the public saying I should be ashamed of myself, and that I shouldn’t have stood for the council if I didn’t want to say prayers.”

So there are people who actually believe you must be religious if you want to serve your community as a town (or county) councillor.

The NSS report continues: “The town mayor Dennis Robinson is reported to have told the local Crewe Chronicle that removing traditional prayers would be an ‘attack on Christianity’. He opened Thursday’s meeting by saying: ‘Anyone who wishes to leave may do so now.’”

And Hoffman duly did, it seems, and got a bollocking for it from members of the public.

A neighbouring authority, Middlewich Town Council, says it’s taken prayers off the agenda and will hold them five minutes before meetings officially starts.

So it can be done, see?

Gays are paedophiles? Yeah, yeah …

Someone in Australia has been a very silly boy. A young politician, 19-year-old Peter Watson, has been expelled from the Aussie Labour Party there for homophobic rants – including linking homosexuality with paedophilia – on the Internet.

This is how ABC News, linked to above, quotes this naïve chappie:

“I said that homosexuality and paedophilia were linked because there’s been some research done … and it’s been published by the Catholic Church, that suggests that 30 per cent of male paedophiles are homosexual.” (Which means that 70 per cent are heterosexual, presumably. And published by the Catholic Church, no less! Right, bound to be bang on, then.)

“I made the comments, so I do agree with it.” (But of course you would.)

“These comments I made about homosexuals were made when I was like 14, 15 years old, so we’re talking about four, five years ago.” (Oh, are you now backing away from the comments, then?)

“[But] I do agree in some sense.” (Ah, just some sense now. Which sense would that be, then? Not common sense on your part, that's for sure.)

He’s been talking to ABC Radio’s AM programme, in which he says, among other things, that homosexuality devalues society, and you can hear the interview here and read a transcript.

And there’s a video on the first link above. Go and hiss and boo.

Right-wing nutjobs go on and on about gay marriage – again

The Christian homophobes are a real hoot. They’ve launched a new organisation today called the Coalition for Marriage (read “Coalition for Traditional, Man–Woman, Normal, Proper, Good, God-approved, Bible-approved, Decent, Seemly, Acceptable-To-All-Right-Thinking-People Marriage”).

Behind it are a pair of the usual suspects: the former Archbish of Cant, George Carey, and the Christian Institute.

You can read about Peter Tatchell’s views on the new coalition here.

And in the Daily Mail today, Carey says – get this – “The state does not own marriage . . .”

Quite. And nor does the church. Oh, hang on a minute . . .

“The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.”

OK, so who does own marriage, then, apart from the couples concerned?

As for ownership – or lack of it – by the state, you seem to have been happy for centuries for the state to legitimise marriage by recognising opposite-sex unions in law. If the state doesn’t own marriage, why have you not objected to the state’s interference in what should be an arrangement between one person and another (and, you would no doubt wish me to add, God)?

And Colin Hart of the right-wing Christian Institute says in the same article: “The word marriage is woven into the fabric of our national laws. That can’t be just unpicked in a single stroke.”

But it can, Mr Hart, it can. Governments “unpick” all the time when one piece of legislation overturns another – whether it’s been there for centuries, years or months.

Let us pray! Will those in favour say aye …

If the UK government doesn’t like something that the courts have ruled on, in spite of often championing the justice system here, it will just trample all over it.

It makes a mockery of the justice system if all it takes when, in this case, God-bothering idiot ministers can just – effectively – reverse a decision of the High Court.

We reported on 10 February how the National Secular Society had scored a victory against a Devon town council – Bideford – which insisted, along with so many other local authorities, on having Christian prayers as part of the meeting, whether members present were Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jedi or of no religion whatever.

Let’s be clear first about what the NSS wanted: no prayers as part of the meeting (they’re usually held just before business begins, but nonetheless as part of the official proceedings). The NSS seems to have no objection to prayers held elsewhere in the council offices before the meeting begins.

Not only does this get over inflicting this mumbo-jumbo on people who don’t want it – or forcing them to come into the meeting late, and get a raised eyebrow from the mayor or chair – but it simply allows those who wish to pray to do so, among like-minded people, without knowing there are others in the meeting who are quietly mocking this quick chat with sky fairies.

Now, after that victory, our bloody government has decided to hurry forth a measure – part of the Localism Act – that will let councils ignore the ruling and just get on with the prayers, and anyone who finds it an embarrassment can just put up with it.

This measure is being fast-tracked by Eric Pickles, laughingly called the Communities Secretary – although, being a lard-arsed Tory, would not really know much about genuine community (the very word community would probably smack too much of socialism).

This is what the idiot Pickles says about it: “By effectively reversing that illiberal ruling, we are striking a blow for localism over central interference, for freedom to worship over intolerant secularism, for Parliamentary sovereignty over judicial activism, and for long-standing British liberties over modern-day political correctness.”

The italics are mine. Just ponder on the adjectives, the clichés, the sleight of mouth with such terms as “central interference” (what’s he doing now but using central interference?). Then there’s intolerant secularism. Is any form of secularism not intolerant in his mind?

As for “illiberal”, if Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, on which the judge based his judgment last week, is illiberal, why has it been allowed to remain on the Statute Book for 40 years?

These bozos won’t be happy till we’re living in a virtual theocracy.

Freedom to be dotty

A street preacher from Taunton in Devon, UK, has been found not guilty of verbally abusing a couple of gay guys after he told them they’d burn in hell.

“The couple claimed he deliberately targeted them after a previous altercation with them in 2010 when they walked past him holding hands led to [his] being spoken to by police,” says the Huffington Post.

“But the 47-year-old born-again Christian and former paratrooper denied abusing them, arguing that he was using his freedom of speech to air his beliefs in the centre of Taunton, Somerset, when he told the pair: ‘Even these two dear men whom I have met before, caught in the sin of homosexuality, can have the forgiveness of the sin, should they so repent.’”

I hate to be agreeing with the dotty Stephen Green, he of the tinpot Christian Vice – sorry, Voice – when he says this is a victory for freedom of speech, but it is.

Once we start telling people they can’t disagree with others and tell them they’re wrong, it won’t be long before our lords and masters begin to use precedent to deliver all kinds of draconian legislation concerning what we can and can’t say.

Let’s be happy that nutters can call us sinners if they wish. We then continue to be free to call them nutters. Along the way comes debate – as here, and in other outlets – and eventually people begin to think. It’s probably only because debate has been more freely entered into over the past few decades that gay people have gained the freedoms they have in the UK (and what it can do to benefit politicians, of course, who could take away our newfound freedoms when it suits them, but may find it harder now than, say, two decades ago, because there’s more public opinion to reverse).

The gay couple are thinking of going to the European Court of Human Rights, saying (according to the Huff): “We tried to stand up for our human and gay rights and we have been let down.”

Is that so? Well, it’s unfortunate that some nutjob decides to invoke hell and all that biblical bollocks, but there are millions of opinions out there and we can’t just stop people from voicing them. If he incited others to violence against the couple, that’s another thing. If he followed them down the street and wouldn’t stop haranguing them, that, too, is another thing. Seems he didn’t do that.

Dawkins on militant secularism

Further to yesterday's post about Baroness Warsi and her trip to La-La Land, her encouragement to us all to embrace religion and her talk of so-called militant secularism, there's an interview with Richard Dawkins embedded below that you might like.

The main point he makes – for me, at any rate – is this: secularism is not atheism. He emphasises that there are religionists among secularists. All secularism seeks to do is kick religion out of the pubic square.

Its inclusion, big time, is exemplified in this country, the UK, of course, by the fact that we have an established church in the form of the Church of England, and it gets included in all kinds of aspects of public life, be it a coronation, a state funeral, a memorial, even the opening of each day's session of Parliament.

Only this week have we seen a victory by secularism over having religion forced on us when a judgment ruled that it was illegal for local councils to hold prayers at the start of – and that means as part of – council meetings.

The religionists began to beat their chests, and their drums, and possibly the nearest secularist, of course, saying Christianity was being sidelined. The National Secular Society was quick to point out that it has no objection to prayers, just not those that are part of an official meeting of an official secular body whose membership is likely to include people of other religions and of none.

By all means pray, it said, but do it in an anteroom before the council meeting begins, and people can then decide whether or not to join in.

That is what is meant by taking religion out of the public square, not damning it to obscurity, not telling others they can't practise it. People should be free to practise whatever religion they wish to, and many of them, fortunately, recognise that some of us don't wish to, and that we should not have it rammed at us from all sides when we wish to go about our secular business.

So, when religionists try to tell you that secularists are attempting to outlaw religion, or at least marginalise it, you can tell them where to stuff their religion. If they don't try to tell you that, you can wish them all happiness in their beliefs as long as they don't try to inflict them on you.

Poor, poor religion!

So religion is under threat from “militant secularisation”, is it? It’s being “sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere”, according to the Conservative co-chair Baroness Warsi, in an article in the Daily Telegraph.

This Muslim peer is off to La-La Land – sorry, the Vatican – to give a speech there. I bet she’s happy to be meeting the Pope, coming, as she does, from a religion that eschews any other religion and considers all but Muslims to be infidels.

But what’s this nonsense about religion being under threat? How? Well, obviously, she means its special status is under threat. Secularism is no threat to religion itself. It just wants to see it kicked out of privileged positions.

The only threat to religion is that it’s had its day and is in its death throes in many areas, because people don’t believe the fairy stories. So don’t worry your pretty little head about it, dearie. Go and find another plaything.

She says in her Telegraph piece: “I will be arguing [in the Vatican meeting] that to create a more just society, people need to feel stronger in their religious identities and more confident in their creeds.”

Illogical. That implies that, without religion, society cannot become more just.

Try taking from society the rampant capitalism you and your party and every other mainstream party espouse to the detriment of ordinary people and a just society, and you might just get that just society.

She gives examples of what she calls “militant secularisation”: “when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won’t fund faith schools; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere”.

But that’s just putting religion in its place, dear. Why should religious schools be funded by the taxpayer? Why should government buildings favour one religion over another in what they display for all visitors to see?

As for what people are allowed to wear, this seems to vary from one situation to another. A nurse was told a couple of years ago to remove a cross or crucifix hanging from her neck by a chain. It wasn’t because it was a religions symbol but because it could represent a danger if a desperate patient made a grab for it during a sudden spasm or movement. There are dress codes in some jobs, and it wouldn’t just be a Christian cross or an Islamic crescent (do they wear that sort of thing?) that would be banned, but any form of bling pinned to one’s dress or jacket.

Nope. It’s just the same old bleatings of religionists with an axe to grind. Poor ickle “faiths”! Are the big bully-wullies of secularism defeating them with rational argument, then? Aw, diddums!

It’s time these people got a life. If they exerted half as much energy to make the world a better place as they do trying to push fantasy into the mainstream, they might earn their huge salaries and expense accounts.

Gay humanists’ fury over nasty Uganda bill

The UK gay humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) – owner of this blog – says it’s appalled to learn that Uganda’s new parliament is expected to debate the notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was first introduced as a private member’s bill by MP David Bahati in October 2009. Bahati is an evangelical Christian and a member of the Fellowship Foundation, also known as the Family, a US-based Christian and political organisation which arranges the annual prestigious National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.

If enacted, the bill would greatly broaden the criminalisation of homosexuality by introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions, are HIV-positive, or engage in same-sex acts with people under 18 years of age. The bill also includes provisions for Ugandans who engage in same-sex sexual relations outside of Uganda, asserting that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda, and includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations that support LGBT rights.

The PTT’s secretary, George Broadhead, said: “We are appalled that after such a long time this heinous piece of legislation may still become law. Much of the homophobic bigotry which is rife in Uganda and other African countries emanates from religious sources, including US evangelical Christians.

“It certainly emanates from the Anglican Church of Uganda which states on its website [PDF]: ‘The Church of Uganda appreciates the spirit of the Bill’s objective of protecting the family, especially in light of a growing propaganda to influence younger people to accept homosexuality as a legitimate way of expressing human sexuality. We particularly appreciate the objectives of the Bill which seek to: provide for marriage in Uganda as contracted only between a man and woman; prohibit and penalize homosexual behaviour and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family; prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act; prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality.’

“Unfortunately,” Broadhead continues, “the vast majority of the population are Christian and clearly greatly influenced by these malign Bible-based policies.”

A whinge and a prayer

Here’s something Britain’s National Secular Society has been fighting for for yonks: an end to prayers before council meetings.

And it’s got its way, having fought a town council in Devon in the courts.

It will have repercussions for councils all over the country now, of course.

As you would expect, Christians aren’t too pleased that this ritual has been outlawed. One whinges that the ruling is “bizarre”.

The NSS fought it on human-rights grounds, but Justice Ouseley ruled it was unlawful on technical grounds

Prayers, he said, were not lawful under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. “Mr Justice Ouseley said the prayers were unlawful because there was no statutory power permitting the practice to continue,” says the Beeb.

You can read the full story on the BBC website here.

No pardon for Alan Turing

The UK government, in its wisdom, has decided not to offer a posthumous pardon to the wartime code breaker Alan Turing after he was convicted of something called gross indecency.

There was a petition with some 23,000 signatures, triggering an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons – but to no avail, it seems.

You can read the story here.

Humanists welcome UN sec-gen's gay-rights support – with reservations

With some reservations, the UK gay humanist charity, the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) – owner of this blog – has welcomed the unequivocal support for gay rights given by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in his speech to the recent African Union summit.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation had been ignored or even sanctioned by many states for too long, Ban Ki-moon told the summit. He told delegates that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity “prompted governments to treat people as second class citizens or even criminals”.

“Confronting these discriminations is a challenge, but we must not give up on the ideas of the universal declaration (of human rights),” he said.

Reacting to this support the PTT’s secretary George Broadhead said: “The situation for LGBT people in African states seems to be going from bad to worse and, as in the rest of the world, it is clear that much of the hostility they face stems from religious teachings. Examples are the Anglican Church of Uganda’s support for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and the Anglican Church of Nigeria’s support for a similar bill.

“With Islam now becoming more dominant in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, the prospect for improvement in these North African countries seems bleak indeed. Whilst the support of such a prominent figure as Ban Ki-moon is very welcome, will politicians and religious leaders in these countries, in which homophobia is so entrenched, take any notice?”

The bishop, the religious ranter and the nice Mr Hill – the tale continues

Further to our story of yesterday about Mr Green and the contrite Bishop Benn, it seems that the latter has now specifically asked the former to withdraw the latter’s endorsement of the former’s idiocy in a booklet called Britain in Sin.

Green, you see – well, you do see if you know much about him – is, ahem, a bit of a, how shall we say, er . . .

He runs this tinpot right-wing outfit called Christian Voice, which is enough to give religion a bad name – if it didn’t already have one, which it does.

One form in which it doesn’t have a bad name is when people just get on with it and believe in others’ freedom to do their thing, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else or frighten the horses.

And that makes me think of a think tank I’ve often quoted in this blog called Ekklesia, which I monitor. You don’t have to believe in a god in order to appreciate the words of some who do.

And it’s Symon Hill’s article on the Ekklesia site that has informed me of the contrite bishop’s wish to wash his hands of the tommyrot that Stephen Green has upchucked into print.

Hill writes:

Along with several other bloggers, I drew attention two days ago to Bishop Benn’s endorsement of a booklet called Britain in Sin, written by Stephen Green of the fundamentalist group Christian Voice. The booklet opposes the welfare state, legislation guaranteeing equal pay to men and women, power-sharing in Northern Ireland and the UK’s membership of the United Nations.

A couple of days ago an email came to Ekklesia from the press office of Bishop Benn (well, Suffragan Bishop, but that waters down the alliteration) to say that, after endorsing Green’s booklet, the good bishop wished to disassociate himself from it. Later, his press officer sent another email, quoting Benn: “I have asked Stephen Green of Christian Voice to immediately withdraw my apparent endorsement of his booklet. I apologise for any hurt caused or misunderstanding given.”

By the way, in my post yesterday I appeared to make light of OCD, or obsessive compulsive disorder, and Symon Hill, who suffers from it as a clinical condition, ticked me off in a comment.

No offence meant, Symon. I know it’s listed in clinical circles as a clinical condition, but I dare say we can still use it – as people do with many other bits of terminology – with a degree of levity. And it was so used, diluted by the words “something of a” before it, as well as being a play on several initials: “OTT OCD”.

And thanks for looking in.

The cautionary tale of the bishop and Mr Green

Here is a cautionary tale. If you’re ever asked to endorse something, damn well read it.

The poor old Bishop of Lewes, Wallace Benn, failed to do that with a booklet by Stephen Green, the “foghorn”, as Hugh Muir puts it in the Guardian, for Christian Voice, a grubby little outfit that shouts a lot from a very right-wing Christian perspective.

We all know that Green’s a tiny bit batty when it comes to gay matters – something of an OTT OCD situation with him. Obsessive because he seems to think of little else. Compulsive because he keeps trying to create a stink about such things. Disorder because – well, it’s a disorder.

Muir writes (last paragraph):

Green last crossed our path with claims that Tesco’s profits dropped because it sponsored a gay event. He believes in that sort of thing. Believes in all sorts of wacky things: that we’ve sinned by signing up to European legislation, by banning the cane, passing parking laws, by outlawing marital rape. That the Queen has broken the Ten Commandments by allowing her governments to pass gay-friendly legislation.

He then talks of the booklet, and the fact that the good bishop called it “interesting and disturbing reading”.

However, the good bishop has now been forced to eat his endorsing words.

He “now concedes to the Ekklesia website that he actually hadn’t really read it. Indeed he wishes to ‘completely and absolutely’ disassociate himself from the document. Oh Lord, what a mess.”

You gotta laugh.

How Ratzo may do Ireland a big favour – by not going there

Pope Ratzinger may may do the Irish people a great favour by threatening to stamp his foot and throw his toys out of the pram if the Irish pursue their plan to shut their embassy in the Vatican.

If they do go ahead with it – and of course they should – he may decide not to attend the Eucharistic Congress in Dublin next summer.

Well that’ll save Ireland a lot of money, if the monster’s visit to England last year (and other countries, of course) is anything to go by.

Abortion ads on TV? Wait for the proverbial to hit the fan

This is going to be a helluva can of worms. God botherers will be out in force.

“Private clinics that charge for pregnancy services including abortions will be able to advertise on television and radio under new rules,” says the BBC.

The new law takes effect in April.

One comment beneath the BBC story says, “Abortion is always a terrible thing whatever your ethical and moral beliefs on the issue.”

And that’s true. I’m not sure about advertising abortion clinics when, say, murderous tobacco can’t be advertised. I’m not comfortable about abortion on demand as a form of contraception. I don’t feel qualified to state an opinion, although such a lack of qualification won’t stop what I expect will be a deluge of protest.

I do believe, however, that abortion should be available on demand when a mother’s life or wellbeing is at stake, where there’s been a rape, even when the baby might suffer a shitty life because of a known serious problem with its brain or limbs. And I believe the Catholic Church should be put publicly in its place when it gets on its high horse about abortion.

I recall one story from Brazil in which anyone who helped a young, frail girl to have an abortion – a young, frail girl who’d been raped by her stepfather and was expecting twins – would be excommunicated, and that meant doctors and her mother. Whatever you think of the damnably silly business of excommunication, it’s a serious thing to devout believers and can ruin their lives.

This little girl might not have survived the birth. Fortunately, the abortion went ahead.

We reported on that in 2009 – rather angrily, as I recall.

But abortion nonetheless is not something that should be taken lightly. And the reason I mention the ads story at all is that it will be the religious element that will bleat the most, as if no one else could put forward a moral case for or against advertising abortion clinics. My reference above shows that religion can’t take the moral high ground in such matters.

Decisions should be taken on medical and social grounds, not because an imagined deity might not like the idea – a deity, it has to be said, that sanctions genocide and other horrors in the Old Testament.

Political correctness and censorship

Oh, dear, it’s time for oversensitivity again. Mo (sorry, Mohammed, pbuh) is depicted with a pint of beer in his hand, so politically correct students get all pompous and silly about it.

I refer to the excellent cartoon series Jesus and Mo, which appears monthly in the Freethinker, has become at least two books, and is to be found online. Your humble blogger has an RSS feed, so he misses not one frame.

Those seeming to be offended are the students’ union at University College London (UCL), the first secular university in Britain.

“UCL was founded in 1826 as a secular alternative to the strictly religious universities of Oxford and Cambridge,” says the National Secular Society in the link above, “despite strong opposition from the Church of England. It was the first higher education institution in England to accept students of any race or religious or political belief and was christened by Thomas Arnold ‘that Godless institution in Gower Street’. It is therefore particularly important to support and defend the right to freedom of expression without religious interference and to make a clear distinction between illegal attacks on individuals because of their religion and ‘offence’ used as a means to stifle this freedom.”

Perhaps anyone choosing to be offended by this ought to see the entire series and engage with the often philosophical conversations that occur among Jesus, Mo(hammed) and the barmaid in the Cock & Bull (with occasional contributions from another Mo, Moses).

See also the Freethinker take on the story here, and sign the petition here.
 _____________
UPDATE: I'm glad to see that the students' union has now backed off. A victory for free speech!

We’re taking a break – Happy Christmas, folks!

Time to wish everyone a Happy Christmas, I reckon. Note that I’m not averse to using that term (and the link here tells you why), even though this is a blog that looks towards a nonreligious view of our universe.

And that brings me to Christmas cards. We see a story in the Daily Mail (where else?) whingeing about how stores are “ashamed” to sell religious cards, “but obscene ones litter the High Street”, the headline concludes.

“Christian leaders” are once again wheeled out to complain about this – but, you know, I can’t say I’d noticed. I’ve seen religious cards on sale in several places and never given them a second thought.

The “ashamed” tag above seems to come from one such “Christian leader”, our old friend Stephen Green of Christian Voice. He says he believes there’s anti-Christian prejudice; there’s “militant atheism and nasty secularism” (there are some nasty Christians and those of other religious persuasions about, Mr Green, too, you know, but you think it “nasty” only because it doesn’t agree with you).

Then we get Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance, who says supermarkets “appear” to be ashamed to sell religious Christmas cards.

So, a scientifically carried-out statistical study, then? Seems not. I can’t prove them wrong, but I think we need more rigorous evidence than that these gentlemen have seen some saucy cards and not many religious ones. Let’s face it, they’d ideally wish to see all Christmas cards as religious, because they can’t see that Christianity took over the festivals that we had at this time of year.

As for your humble blogger, well, I don’t buy religious cards. I don’t especially object to receiving them. I look for cards that are Christmassy, in all the ways that word sums up joy and friends and some relaxation and maybe a bit too much to eat and drink. Cards with reindeer, with Santa, with lots of snow, village scenes – these are the sorts I’d buy. I used to buy humanist ones, but felt I was preaching (Christians, take note).

Right, then. Happy Christmas to all those who’ve looked in on the Pink Triangle blog over the past year. Have a Happy New Year, too. We’re closing down from today till the first week in the New Year.

Out of Africa: homophobia – and religion is behind it

Leo Igwe gets everywhere – and deserves to do so. Fresh from a long article in the new Pink Humanist, he has now appeared in Digital Journal, the Toronto-based online news source.

He’s a brave campaigner indeed, and he’s convinced – according to this article – that religion is behind most of the hatred of gays that comes out of Africa.

“I would say religion is behind most, not all of the homophobia coming out of Africa,” he says “Religion permeates all aspects of mainstream social, moral and cultural thought.

“Most homophobes use religion as a basis, as a justification of their hatred and antagonism. I have also encountered non religious Africans who are homophobic and they base their homophobia on what they claim to be the unnaturality of homosexuality.”

Another pillock

Here’s another moron who thinks being gay is a lifestyle choice. But he’s a religious nut, so what do you expect?

And this utter turd – Rev. James Gracie from the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) – has caused controversy by likening being gay to paedophilia, polygamy and theft.

What are these people on, for goodness’ sake? Certainly not anything that teaches them understanding, compassion and a sense of natural justice – the things many Christians pride themselves on having (and some, indeed, have, but not this nutter).

Seems it’s all part of religion’s battle to prevent the Scottish government from legalising gay marriage.

The story’s in Pink News.