Well, they were disappointed in California, but same-sex marriage is now legal in Connecticut.
New Haven Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert ruled at a brief hearing yesterday that gay and lesbian couples now may pick up marriage-licence forms at town and city clerks’ offices statewide.
Many gay and lesbian couples had planned planning ceremonies for yesterday.
The judge’s ruling followed a historic decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The high court ruled 4–3 on 10 October that same-sex couples have the right to marry, as such, rather than accept a civil-union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples, as we have here in the UK, where our government decided to bow to religious pressure to ban the M word.
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Poetic injustice, Part III
It just reiterates Waterstone’s position, really: they’re keeping the poet, Patrick Jones, on the shelves, but cancelled the event because they didn’t want trouble.
But, if they expected trouble, the people to call would have been the police. Instead, they bowed to that suitable case for treatment, Stephen Green, and his dog and his pet cockatoo (or whoever makes up the rest of his pathetic little organisation Christian Voice, which gives Christianity a bad name).
Anyway, here is Johnson’s response to an email from me complaining about the cancellation of the event:
Waterstone’s does not act as a censor and will not, and should not, dictate what customers may read. We will only remove a title from sale on the advice of the publisher. This is the case for Patrick Jones book, and it remains available from Waterstone’s. Any comments or complaints regarding the content of the book should be directed to the author or the distributor of the book, the Welsh Books Council.
Regarding the cancellation of the event arranged for this book, Waterstone’s simply took steps to prevent a disorderly event in the interests of our customers and staff.
Let your own views be known to Waterstone’s. Gerry Johnson can be phoned on 020 8742 3800 or emailed at gerry.johnson@waterstones.com. His boss is Simon Fox of HMV. Get him on 020 7432 2000.
Poetic injustice, Part II
Stephen Green, the nutter who runs Christian Voice, has been trying to justify his insane little organisation’s protests against the Welsh poet whom book chain Waterstone’s kicked out of their Cardiff store yesterday.
This time the Beeb were justified in bringing on this loony, since it was he who caused this stamping on freedom of speech. (Usually, they and newspapers just wheel him on because they know he’s good for a lunatic quote or two.)
See the post below this one (or by clicking here) for background on how this cowardly act by Waterstone’s came about, and listen here to a BBC Wales recording of Green and the poet, Patrick Jones, arguing the toss (which has now been placed on the BBC story’s web page).
Toss is probably an apt word here: Green comes over as the tosser.
Incidentally, why not let your views be known to Waterstone's? Their managing director, Gerry Johnson, can be phoned on 020 8742 3800 or emailed at gerry.johnson@waterstones.com. His boss is Simon Fox of HMV. Get him on 020 7432 2000. Make their lives hell.
This time the Beeb were justified in bringing on this loony, since it was he who caused this stamping on freedom of speech. (Usually, they and newspapers just wheel him on because they know he’s good for a lunatic quote or two.)
See the post below this one (or by clicking here) for background on how this cowardly act by Waterstone’s came about, and listen here to a BBC Wales recording of Green and the poet, Patrick Jones, arguing the toss (which has now been placed on the BBC story’s web page).
Toss is probably an apt word here: Green comes over as the tosser.
Incidentally, why not let your views be known to Waterstone's? Their managing director, Gerry Johnson, can be phoned on 020 8742 3800 or emailed at gerry.johnson@waterstones.com. His boss is Simon Fox of HMV. Get him on 020 7432 2000. Make their lives hell.
Poetic injustice
It’s time to boycott Waterstone’s. The UK national bookseller chain has just kicked a poet out of its shop in Cardiff after protests from a nutty Christian group based in West Wales.Patrick Jones – poet, playwright, filmmaker and brother of Nicky Wire, of the Welsh band the Manic Street Preachers – was supposed to be signing copies of his latest book of poems, Darkness is Where the Stars Are, there yesterday. But Christian hooligans complained – about just what, we’re not sure – and Waterstone’s caved in.
The story is here on the BBC Welsh news site. What is particularly galling is that the supine Waterstone’s spokesman said, grovelling to Christian superstitionists who may not even have read the book (we’re not told in this story), “The book remains available through Waterstone’s and we are very happy for that to be the case.
“However, we have a duty to our customers and booksellers regarding events that we organise, and we felt it prudent in this case.
“We don’t act as a censor. We stock books in the tens of thousands and would only remove them from sale on the advice of the publisher.”
So did the publisher, Cinnamon Press, advise removal? This story doesn’t tell us. Lazy journalism again.
What the story does tell us is that the nutcase Stephen Green, who probably makes up a large percentage of Christian Voice, said that this was “a triumph for the Lord, not for us”. This lunatic goes on, “The Lord had not even showed me what we should do at Waterstone’s, only that it should be Christlike.
“Just the knowledge that we were on our way has put the fear of God into the opposition.”
Well, it put the fear of something into the cowardly people at Waterstone’s, that’s for sure. Write to the bastards, tell them you won’t be using their stores, and ensure you tell them why. Be polite but firm, and use better punctuation than the BBC. They’re more likely to take you seriously.
Jones had been expecting to launch the book at the Cardiff Hayes branch of Waterstone’s on Wednesday night. I’ve seen several websites with his name coupled with that of Waterstone’s, all looking forward to the event.
But, a few hours before the planned event, the poet, who’s from Blackwood, Caerphilly county, was contacted by the company to tell him the event had been cancelled “to avoid potential disruption to our store”.
Jones was not going to be “beaten down”, by religious activists, he said, and signed copies for a small group of people in the street.
“I’m really proud of this book and I’m really sickened.
“There shouldn’t be censorship of this sort – it doesn’t set out to be offensive.”
He said he had not singled out Christianity in his poems, but was questioning beliefs in society.
__________
UPDATE: Since posting, I've been looking at a few websites. The Sony BMG Music Entertainment website, on the page that heralded this signing session back in October, had this to say of the poetry in this volume:
The poetry is harrowing, compelling and psychologically acute [. . .] giving the reader an insight into the painful effects of domestic abuse, as well as addressing bullying, religious fundamentalism and the way children are taught at school.
Well, that vies us some idea, then. The religious fundamentalists don't like being called religious fundamentalists, it seems. It then carries a couple of endorsements: “very strong stuff” – Harold Pinter; “thoughtful, provocative and challenging, these poems engage and enrage” – Peter Tatchell. It goes on to give details of tour readings, so, if you missed the Waterstone's one because of caving in to religious fundamentalists, you can still catch him.
You can get the same information at the Columbia site. As I say above, several sites signpost this event, so it was widely anticipated.
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
The Saudis – always good for a laugh
Saudi Arabia is sponsoring a discussion at the United Nations on – wait for it – religious tolerance starting today. Yes, you got me right: religious tolerance.
Pardon me while I snort with laughter.
Saudi Arabia has a special police force to ensure that only one narrow sect of Islam predominates in the kingdom.
It's a bit like asking Fred Phelps to host a conference on why gays should have equality.
Full story here in the International Herald Tribune.
Pardon me while I snort with laughter.
Saudi Arabia has a special police force to ensure that only one narrow sect of Islam predominates in the kingdom.
It's a bit like asking Fred Phelps to host a conference on why gays should have equality.
Full story here in the International Herald Tribune.
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Let religionists carry knives into Parliament building, says MEP
An MEP wants Sikhs to be able to carry knives into the European Parliament building.
She says they can carry them into Westminster, so why not the European Parliament?
Lib Dem MEP Liz Lynn was speaking as an all-party Sikh interest group is launched, but some Sikhs have been denied access to the Parliament building because they seem to think they have to carry a knife – a ceremonial thing called a kirpan.
No, they don’t. If it’s ceremonial and not a weapon, as they claim, why can’t they carry a representation of it? And what are they doing being allowed to carry weapons into Westminster, when anyone else would not be allowed to do so?
This loopy PC MEP puts forward this crazy logic: “I am deeply disappointed that the European Parliamentary authorities refuse to recognise the right of Sikh people to wear the kirpan.
“The kirpan is not a weapon: it is a religious symbol. This is not a question of security but one of religious freedom.”
Even if each and every Sikh who was allowed to enter a government building carrying a knife had only the purest of intentions (and that cannot, of course, be guaranteed), the fact that that weapon is on his person if he got into an contretemps – even by no fault of his own – is itself a security issue. If ten Sikhs are in a meeting, there are ten knives in the meeting.
And what if a religious type claimed it was his fundamental religious freedom to carry an AK-47?
Where I do agree with her is when she says, “I do not see why the rules should be different in the European Parliament.” Quite. The rules shouldn’t be different for the two parliaments. The knives should not be allowed into Westminster – unless, of course, everyone were allowed to carry one, which might not be wise.
She says they can carry them into Westminster, so why not the European Parliament?
Lib Dem MEP Liz Lynn was speaking as an all-party Sikh interest group is launched, but some Sikhs have been denied access to the Parliament building because they seem to think they have to carry a knife – a ceremonial thing called a kirpan.
No, they don’t. If it’s ceremonial and not a weapon, as they claim, why can’t they carry a representation of it? And what are they doing being allowed to carry weapons into Westminster, when anyone else would not be allowed to do so?
This loopy PC MEP puts forward this crazy logic: “I am deeply disappointed that the European Parliamentary authorities refuse to recognise the right of Sikh people to wear the kirpan.
“The kirpan is not a weapon: it is a religious symbol. This is not a question of security but one of religious freedom.”
Even if each and every Sikh who was allowed to enter a government building carrying a knife had only the purest of intentions (and that cannot, of course, be guaranteed), the fact that that weapon is on his person if he got into an contretemps – even by no fault of his own – is itself a security issue. If ten Sikhs are in a meeting, there are ten knives in the meeting.
And what if a religious type claimed it was his fundamental religious freedom to carry an AK-47?
Where I do agree with her is when she says, “I do not see why the rules should be different in the European Parliament.” Quite. The rules shouldn’t be different for the two parliaments. The knives should not be allowed into Westminster – unless, of course, everyone were allowed to carry one, which might not be wise.
When God is “pretty useless”
The Archwizard of Cant, Rowan “Dumbledore” Williams, has said that God was “pretty useless” when Islamic terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 11 September 2001.
This revelation comes in a new biography of Williams, who was a few streets away from the World Trade Center when it was hit. He’s said to have told an airline pilot in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity that God had not prevented it because he has given humans free will.
“The Archbishop and his companions feared they would suffocate in a smoke-filled room as the Twin Towers collapsed,” says Britain’s Telegraph. One of his friends put a hand on his shoulder and declared, “I can’t think of anyone I’d rather die with.”
Later in the story, the paper says:
Well, I’ll let you into a little secret, Rowan. He’s probably pretty useless because it’s very, very unlikely that he’s there. Wake up. You’re a scholar.
This revelation comes in a new biography of Williams, who was a few streets away from the World Trade Center when it was hit. He’s said to have told an airline pilot in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity that God had not prevented it because he has given humans free will.
“The Archbishop and his companions feared they would suffocate in a smoke-filled room as the Twin Towers collapsed,” says Britain’s Telegraph. One of his friends put a hand on his shoulder and declared, “I can’t think of anyone I’d rather die with.”
Later in the story, the paper says:
According to Rupert Shortt’s new biography, the pilot asked him: “Where the hell was God?”
The book states: “Rowan’s answer was that God is useless at times like this.”
Well, I’ll let you into a little secret, Rowan. He’s probably pretty useless because it’s very, very unlikely that he’s there. Wake up. You’re a scholar.
Monday, 10 November 2008
Homophobic bus man sinks hate money into city academy
Brian Souter, that evil sod who was so hell-bent on keeping Scotland’s version of Section 28 (the clause in the Local Government Act that sought to prevent the “promotion” of homosexuality by local authorities) has now sunk half a million into a city academy in England – and of course it will be pumping religion into impressionable kids’ minds.
And why is he sinking so much money into this project? Because its policy is not to “promote” homosexuality – although quite how you promote something that a kid either has or doesn’t is beyond me. It’s a bit like “promoting” the idea of having lungs.
“The city academy scheme, a flagship education policy of the [UK] Labour government, allows firms and entrepreneurs to take charge of schools in exchange for a fee,” says Scotland’s Herald newspaper. (Yes, and then they can force-feed their charges with as much superstitous nonsense as they like.)
It says that Souter’s Stagecoach, the bus company he owns, has “ploughed £500,000 into a city academy in Grimsby – the firm is unable to make a similar investment in a Scottish school as city academies have been blocked north of the Border”.
Scotland has some sense, it seems.
These city academies are notorious for being run by religious nutcases. Souter himself is a religious nutcase. It was his Christianity that informed his opposition to Section 28 (it was abolished eventually, anyway, so he wasted his money, thank goodness!) and is informing his “philanthropy” now.
Then we get to the nub:
Surprise, surprise!
The money will be paid out via the Souter Charitable Trust, his “personal vehicle for good causes” (and evil ones, too, if his opposition to human rights is anything to go by).
Souter is also a huge backer of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which is the majority party in the Scottish Parliament. This has prompted Labour MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) George Foulkes to say, “This shows there is a whole load of paradoxes about Souter’s support for the SNP. He is supporting a Scottish Nationalist party, but backing this sort of school in England.
“I just don’t understand how ordinary SNP members can support having him as their principal backer.”
Garry Otton, who for years wrote “Scottish Media Monitor” for ScotsGay magazine, and is the author of Sexual Fascism (about which I wrote an article in the print version of G&LH in 2001) is one of those leaving comments below the story. “[H]ow about getting religion out of schools altogether!” he says. “And what is a charity doing funding a school that is openly breaking international law by imposing on the human rights of young gay or bisexual kids in accessing appropriate support and education?”
Good question. But the nuttier Christians, who are fuelled by hate rather than love, are like that.
And why is he sinking so much money into this project? Because its policy is not to “promote” homosexuality – although quite how you promote something that a kid either has or doesn’t is beyond me. It’s a bit like “promoting” the idea of having lungs.
“The city academy scheme, a flagship education policy of the [UK] Labour government, allows firms and entrepreneurs to take charge of schools in exchange for a fee,” says Scotland’s Herald newspaper. (Yes, and then they can force-feed their charges with as much superstitous nonsense as they like.)
It says that Souter’s Stagecoach, the bus company he owns, has “ploughed £500,000 into a city academy in Grimsby – the firm is unable to make a similar investment in a Scottish school as city academies have been blocked north of the Border”.
Scotland has some sense, it seems.
These city academies are notorious for being run by religious nutcases. Souter himself is a religious nutcase. It was his Christianity that informed his opposition to Section 28 (it was abolished eventually, anyway, so he wasted his money, thank goodness!) and is informing his “philanthropy” now.
Stagecoach’s accounts reveal that the transport company is funding the Oasis Academy Wintringham, a school catering for 1,100 pupils.
The school – which opened in September last year, replacing Wintringham School and is due to move into new buildings in January – is run by Christian group Oasis Community Learning (OCL) as a city academy.
Then we get to the nub:
A clue as to why Souter is offering financial support to the Wintringham academy is found in the school board’s sex and relationships policy, which states: “The Oasis Community Learning Board will not permit the promotion of homosexuality.”
Surprise, surprise!
The money will be paid out via the Souter Charitable Trust, his “personal vehicle for good causes” (and evil ones, too, if his opposition to human rights is anything to go by).
Souter is also a huge backer of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which is the majority party in the Scottish Parliament. This has prompted Labour MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) George Foulkes to say, “This shows there is a whole load of paradoxes about Souter’s support for the SNP. He is supporting a Scottish Nationalist party, but backing this sort of school in England.
“I just don’t understand how ordinary SNP members can support having him as their principal backer.”
Garry Otton, who for years wrote “Scottish Media Monitor” for ScotsGay magazine, and is the author of Sexual Fascism (about which I wrote an article in the print version of G&LH in 2001) is one of those leaving comments below the story. “[H]ow about getting religion out of schools altogether!” he says. “And what is a charity doing funding a school that is openly breaking international law by imposing on the human rights of young gay or bisexual kids in accessing appropriate support and education?”
Good question. But the nuttier Christians, who are fuelled by hate rather than love, are like that.
Sunday, 9 November 2008
You can give the missus a good kicking – if you're Muslim
It’s OK to beat hell out of the missus if you’re a Muslim. That, anyway, seems to be the perception among Muslims, if a headline in the UK’s Daily Telegraph is to be believed when it says, Muslim men “think they have God-given right to beat wives”, claims female Muslim medic.
But this is happening here in the UK, not merely in some benighted Muslim theocracy whose religious observance ensures it remains in the seventh century. The paper says domestic violence is more common in Muslim households because the male members of this “religion of peace” think wives are OK to use as a punchbag.
At least your average non-Muslim wife beater can blame it on the booze (not that that is an excuse – for any type of violence), but your Muslim man can’t. All he can say is that it’s part of his cultural tradition, informed by his religion.
The Telegraph tells it from the point of view of Fatima Husain, a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology, who “has told how she sees Muslim women coming for treatment with strangle marks around their necks and bruises on their pregnant bumps”.
The paper goes on, “She also claimed that problems develop because many followers of Islam are fearful of discussing sex, contraception and infertility.”
And this problem can only get worse if we allow domestic matters to be settled in sharia “courts”, as the second extract in this previous Pink Triangle blog post testifies.
No doubt our politicians will just throw more money at Muslim “community leaders” and trust them to come up with some “initiative”, instead of tackling it head-on and simply doling out the appropriate punishment for men who are violent, whether to their wives or anyone else, and thus getting the clearest of signals out to these people that violence will not be tolerated, whatever your religion.
The PC brigade would no doubt say that this is something that has to be tackled with a softly-softly approach, for the sake of the (failed) multiculturalism experiment, that it’s something that has to be tolerated for now, until we can spend millions on the “education” of these morons.
But this is happening here in the UK, not merely in some benighted Muslim theocracy whose religious observance ensures it remains in the seventh century. The paper says domestic violence is more common in Muslim households because the male members of this “religion of peace” think wives are OK to use as a punchbag.
At least your average non-Muslim wife beater can blame it on the booze (not that that is an excuse – for any type of violence), but your Muslim man can’t. All he can say is that it’s part of his cultural tradition, informed by his religion.
The Telegraph tells it from the point of view of Fatima Husain, a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology, who “has told how she sees Muslim women coming for treatment with strangle marks around their necks and bruises on their pregnant bumps”.
The paper goes on, “She also claimed that problems develop because many followers of Islam are fearful of discussing sex, contraception and infertility.”
Dr Husain, who works at Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals in Berkshire, told the Muslim News that many women ask to be referred to her specialist clinics because she is a hijab-wearing Muslim, allowing her to discover the true scale of domestic violence in her religious community.
She said: “I’ve seen injuries on some of my patients that I wouldn’t dream would happen to pregnant women.
“I’ve seen strangle marks, finger marks on their necks and bruises on their pregnant abdomens.
“Domestic violence is supposedly equally divided amongst the various groups but I get the impression it is more common in Muslims.
“Some Muslim men think they have a God-given right to be physically violent to their spouses. I see the result of all this when they are admitted as my patients.”
Dr Husain went on: “I feel that it is important to talk about issues that are often avoided, especially by Muslims. These often cover areas to do with advanced fertility treatments, contraception issues and psychosexual problems.
“Unfortunately, many misconceptions have developed as a result of a lack of accurate medical information as well as the religious perspective.”
And this problem can only get worse if we allow domestic matters to be settled in sharia “courts”, as the second extract in this previous Pink Triangle blog post testifies.
No doubt our politicians will just throw more money at Muslim “community leaders” and trust them to come up with some “initiative”, instead of tackling it head-on and simply doling out the appropriate punishment for men who are violent, whether to their wives or anyone else, and thus getting the clearest of signals out to these people that violence will not be tolerated, whatever your religion.
The PC brigade would no doubt say that this is something that has to be tackled with a softly-softly approach, for the sake of the (failed) multiculturalism experiment, that it’s something that has to be tolerated for now, until we can spend millions on the “education” of these morons.
Doing the splits – again
A third diocese within America’s largely liberal Episcopal Church – part of the Anglican Communion – has decided to break away because it can’t stand poofs.
That’s simplifying it a bit, perhaps, but that’s what it amounts to. Give or take.
This one is Quincy in Illinois, described by the Washington Times as “theologically conservative”. It has broken away from the main Episcopal community “in a long-running dispute over biblical authority, homosexuality and other issues”.
“Two other dioceses – San Joaquin, based in Fresno, Calif., and Pittsburgh – have already split off,” says the Times. Next weekend, the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, will vote whether to follow suit.”
Not only is the Episcopal Church at odds with the barmy homophobes in the more conservative corners of the Anglican Communion, but there are, as we reported in August, splits within splits.
That’s simplifying it a bit, perhaps, but that’s what it amounts to. Give or take.
This one is Quincy in Illinois, described by the Washington Times as “theologically conservative”. It has broken away from the main Episcopal community “in a long-running dispute over biblical authority, homosexuality and other issues”.
“Two other dioceses – San Joaquin, based in Fresno, Calif., and Pittsburgh – have already split off,” says the Times. Next weekend, the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, will vote whether to follow suit.”
Not only is the Episcopal Church at odds with the barmy homophobes in the more conservative corners of the Anglican Communion, but there are, as we reported in August, splits within splits.
Saturday, 8 November 2008
Heroes and villains
Two Robinsons have just got Stonewall awards: one called Gene and one called Iris – hero and villain, respectively.That bloody woman (pictured) has been voted bigot of the year. I refer, of course, the latter of the two Robinsons, Iris, whom it’s hard to think of in any terms other than “that bloody woman” (as we have dubbed her on this blog several times).
She is the Northern Ireland politician – a Westminster MP and a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, chairing its Health Committee no less – who really thought that homosexuality could be “cured” by a psychiatrist she had hidden under her bed.
Well, she described him as “a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals trying to turn away from what they are engaged in”.
She uses that phrase “from what they are engaged in” in that distancing way, as one might pick up someone else’s dirty handkerchief by the corner and hold it at arm’s length while affecting a disgusted grimace.
Well, Stonewall have named her Bigot of the Year. Not that such an accolade will bother her, I’m sure. Indeed, she’ll probably see it as just that, an accolade, on the grounds that being hated by your enemy is a sign of your success. The more they hate you, the more effective you’ll believe you’ve been in doing whatever it is that’s got up their noses.
This damnable excuse for a human being is on record as having said, “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children.”
Stonewall say she won the award “overwhelmingly”.
The Gene of the pair is the Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, the only out gay bishop in the Anglican Communion.
Friday, 7 November 2008
Creationism in the classroom
About a third of British teachers think creationism or its pal, intelligent design (creationism but it all took a lot longer), should be taught alongside evolution in classrooms.
This is according to a poll of more than 1,200 teachers. The poll was published to coincide with a week of UK TV programming dedicated to the evolution debate. The poll also showed that nearly a third (30.1 per cent) of schools already consider creationism or intelligent design to some extent during science lessons.
Nearly 50 per cent of teachers also agreed with Professor Michael Reiss’s sentiment that excluding alternative explanations to evolution is counterproductive and alienates pupils from science.
Almost 9 out of 10 (87.9 per cent) teachers took the view, pragmatically, that they should be allowed to discuss creationism or intelligent design in science, if pupils raise the question.
This was more or less Reiss’s position. He didn’t actually say creationism should be taught in science lessons, but his belief that it should be discussed got scientists twitching, and he eventually stepped down from a post as a director of the prestigious Royal Society, which said at the time:
And, of course, talking about it in class is OK. It’s a legitimate subject. “Look, kids, people once believed that Earth was created in six days by a deity. It probably seemed a plausible explanation at the time. There are many who don’t believe this, however. Many don’t even believe there is a God, but no one can know for sure. But the evidence for the creation of the universe is overwhelmingly . . .”
That’s teaching about it, not teaching it as fact. It's the way RE should be taught. It’s interesting to talk about in class, no doubt, as one might talk about characters in mythology, without trying to say they actually existed or exist.
Let’s hope that’s only as far as it goes.
This is according to a poll of more than 1,200 teachers. The poll was published to coincide with a week of UK TV programming dedicated to the evolution debate. The poll also showed that nearly a third (30.1 per cent) of schools already consider creationism or intelligent design to some extent during science lessons.
Nearly 50 per cent of teachers also agreed with Professor Michael Reiss’s sentiment that excluding alternative explanations to evolution is counterproductive and alienates pupils from science.
Almost 9 out of 10 (87.9 per cent) teachers took the view, pragmatically, that they should be allowed to discuss creationism or intelligent design in science, if pupils raise the question.
This was more or less Reiss’s position. He didn’t actually say creationism should be taught in science lessons, but his belief that it should be discussed got scientists twitching, and he eventually stepped down from a post as a director of the prestigious Royal Society, which said at the time:
As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of education – a part-time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science education at the Institute of Education.
And, of course, talking about it in class is OK. It’s a legitimate subject. “Look, kids, people once believed that Earth was created in six days by a deity. It probably seemed a plausible explanation at the time. There are many who don’t believe this, however. Many don’t even believe there is a God, but no one can know for sure. But the evidence for the creation of the universe is overwhelmingly . . .”
That’s teaching about it, not teaching it as fact. It's the way RE should be taught. It’s interesting to talk about in class, no doubt, as one might talk about characters in mythology, without trying to say they actually existed or exist.
Let’s hope that’s only as far as it goes.
Peace on Earth? Pull the other one!
A bunch of Catholics and Muslims have been chin-wagging all this week to try to reach common ground for Islam and Catholicism.
They’re discussing a document called A Common Word Between Us and You, which proclaims itself as an attempt to bring peace to the world by finding this common ground.
But they have problems. Real problems.
For a start, the god the Catholics believe in has a son and his pal the Holy Ghost – that three-in-one thing. It’s a ménage à trois posing as a ménage à un. The Muslim God – “You can call me Allah” – is strictly a loner.
There’s a bit in the Koran – Sura 3:64 – that denies the identity of the Catholic god (and, of course, that of most Christians). It goes, in part, something like, “Say: O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him.” To say that God/Allah has any sort of “partner” is blasphemy to Muslims. So get out of that one, you bunch of pontificating arseholes!
Previous Muslim entreaties to meet them halfway have really been a way for Muslims to say, “Psst. Wanna become a Muslim, brother?” In other words, no way are they going to step over the Catholic side and risk accusations of apostasy. Muslims like to kill people for that little transgression.
Then there’s another big stumbling block: their desiccated old scriptures. The Muslim worldview sees the Koran as a valid, authoritative source and that Muhammad was an authentic prophet. Christians don’t quite see it that way.
There are oodles of differences. They wanted to base their common ground on the idea of loving God above all things and loving your neighbour (just what Jesus is supposed to have said in the New Testament, though God knows where, and I can’t be arsed to look it up).
And that’s the easy bit. Those who actually believe in the god of their chosen religion, rather than pay lip service because dabbling in religion is sort of rather nice and you get to dress up, will of course love him/her/it. And loving your neighbour is just the sort of thing most people aspire to, whether they have these disturbing delusions about invisible friends or not.
Anyway, this document is being a bit naughty in suggesting that the “love thy neighbour” thing is a tenet of Islam. There’s nothing in the Koran that supports love of neighbour. Indeed, Islam teaches love of other Muslims; nonbelievers can either be converted or disposed of.
So a bunch of Catholics and imams have just had a nice little junket for a week, really, and there will be no peace on Earth – not as a result of this totemic little effort, anyway.
They’re discussing a document called A Common Word Between Us and You, which proclaims itself as an attempt to bring peace to the world by finding this common ground.
But they have problems. Real problems.
For a start, the god the Catholics believe in has a son and his pal the Holy Ghost – that three-in-one thing. It’s a ménage à trois posing as a ménage à un. The Muslim God – “You can call me Allah” – is strictly a loner.
There’s a bit in the Koran – Sura 3:64 – that denies the identity of the Catholic god (and, of course, that of most Christians). It goes, in part, something like, “Say: O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him.” To say that God/Allah has any sort of “partner” is blasphemy to Muslims. So get out of that one, you bunch of pontificating arseholes!
Previous Muslim entreaties to meet them halfway have really been a way for Muslims to say, “Psst. Wanna become a Muslim, brother?” In other words, no way are they going to step over the Catholic side and risk accusations of apostasy. Muslims like to kill people for that little transgression.
Then there’s another big stumbling block: their desiccated old scriptures. The Muslim worldview sees the Koran as a valid, authoritative source and that Muhammad was an authentic prophet. Christians don’t quite see it that way.
There are oodles of differences. They wanted to base their common ground on the idea of loving God above all things and loving your neighbour (just what Jesus is supposed to have said in the New Testament, though God knows where, and I can’t be arsed to look it up).
And that’s the easy bit. Those who actually believe in the god of their chosen religion, rather than pay lip service because dabbling in religion is sort of rather nice and you get to dress up, will of course love him/her/it. And loving your neighbour is just the sort of thing most people aspire to, whether they have these disturbing delusions about invisible friends or not.
Anyway, this document is being a bit naughty in suggesting that the “love thy neighbour” thing is a tenet of Islam. There’s nothing in the Koran that supports love of neighbour. Indeed, Islam teaches love of other Muslims; nonbelievers can either be converted or disposed of.
So a bunch of Catholics and imams have just had a nice little junket for a week, really, and there will be no peace on Earth – not as a result of this totemic little effort, anyway.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
A victory for hate
Well, the Catholics and others at the nuttier, more hate-filled, more evil end of the religious spectrum in the USA have a lot to crow about now that they’ve pissed on the parades of so many people by pushing for Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 was the move to change the State Constitution in California to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. It passed.
The sad story of one couple is told in the International Herald Tribune. They planned ahead for a wedding next spring, confident that the vote would fail. Then they learned it was looking very iffy, and dashed off to tie the knot, only to be told it had passed, with immediate effect.
As the paper puts it, “There was nowhere to turn except each other’s arms.”
It continues, “Combined with defeats on ballot measures in three other states, the outcome raised sobering questions for gay activists after an election full of triumphs for other liberal causes,” says the report. “Marriage bans prevailed in Arizona and Florida, while Arkansas voters approved a measure aimed at gays and lesbians that bans unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.”
It goes on to say, “Religious groups, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church, played pivotal roles in pushing for the ban.”
Well, the religiofascists of the right had little to boast about when the presidential election result was finally announced. Now they can crow about this.
Let’s hope they feel really great about helping to cause so much misery to so many people by helping to bring about a situation that actually does them no tangible good, but satisfies their quota of hate for a while. But, then, that’s rabid right-wing Christians and Catholic mental cases for you.
At least it looks as if those who have already tied the knot can be assured that their knots will remain tied.
Proposition 8 was the move to change the State Constitution in California to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. It passed.
The sad story of one couple is told in the International Herald Tribune. They planned ahead for a wedding next spring, confident that the vote would fail. Then they learned it was looking very iffy, and dashed off to tie the knot, only to be told it had passed, with immediate effect.
As the paper puts it, “There was nowhere to turn except each other’s arms.”
It continues, “Combined with defeats on ballot measures in three other states, the outcome raised sobering questions for gay activists after an election full of triumphs for other liberal causes,” says the report. “Marriage bans prevailed in Arizona and Florida, while Arkansas voters approved a measure aimed at gays and lesbians that bans unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.”
It goes on to say, “Religious groups, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church, played pivotal roles in pushing for the ban.”
Well, the religiofascists of the right had little to boast about when the presidential election result was finally announced. Now they can crow about this.
Let’s hope they feel really great about helping to cause so much misery to so many people by helping to bring about a situation that actually does them no tangible good, but satisfies their quota of hate for a while. But, then, that’s rabid right-wing Christians and Catholic mental cases for you.
At least it looks as if those who have already tied the knot can be assured that their knots will remain tied.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Forgive me, Father, for I am about to sin. Wallop!
Catholic priests and nuns have found a new pastime in Italy to while away the hours of boredom. They kick the shit out of a restaurateur. Great fun.
This happened. It actually happened. Two nuns and a priest were at it, beating the bejabus out of Antonio Esposito and thrashing him with a chair in a scene that resembled something out of a Wild West movie.
The story’s covered in the Scotsman (among others, no doubt) and, if it weren’t for the poor chap’s injuries, would make hilarious reading.
Disciples of St Teresa and Baby Jesus! Laugh? I nearly did. You couldn’t make it up.
Just as hilarious is how Vatican staff – up to the level of Cardinal (probably equivalent to a lieutenant general) – are now to carry swipe cards so the authorities there under the ex-Nazi, Führer Joseph Ratzinger, can keep an eye on their timekeeping. He’s known to be a bit of an authoritarian in these matters, although it’s said he didn’t himself come up with the idea for the cards.
What makes it so funny is that the Vatican is so not necessary, except to those who languish in its largesse while many of those who give for its upkeep are largely living in poverty. And just what do most of them do, for goodness’ sake?
A former pope, John XXIII, was once asked by a journalist how many people worked at the Vatican. He famously remarked, “Oh, no more than half of them.”
They do humour. Some of them. Some of the time. They could teach Muslims a thing or two.
Well, it may keep these clergypeople at their desks longer so they don’t have time to assemble at the holy water cooler and exchange ribald jokes about the Immaculate Conception.
And it may keep more of them away from children.
This happened. It actually happened. Two nuns and a priest were at it, beating the bejabus out of Antonio Esposito and thrashing him with a chair in a scene that resembled something out of a Wild West movie.
The story’s covered in the Scotsman (among others, no doubt) and, if it weren’t for the poor chap’s injuries, would make hilarious reading.
The brawl happened at Rutino, near Salerno in the south of Italy, at a restaurant which is leased by a local religious order to the victim, Antonio Esposito.
The building the restaurant is in is owned by the Disciples of St Teresa and Baby Jesus – to which the priest and nuns belong.
Antonio Tata, the local police chief, said: “Passers-by had called us because the three attackers were turning over tables and chairs and smashing plates as well as attacking the owner – it was like a scene from a wild west saloon.”
Disciples of St Teresa and Baby Jesus! Laugh? I nearly did. You couldn’t make it up.
Just as hilarious is how Vatican staff – up to the level of Cardinal (probably equivalent to a lieutenant general) – are now to carry swipe cards so the authorities there under the ex-Nazi, Führer Joseph Ratzinger, can keep an eye on their timekeeping. He’s known to be a bit of an authoritarian in these matters, although it’s said he didn’t himself come up with the idea for the cards.
What makes it so funny is that the Vatican is so not necessary, except to those who languish in its largesse while many of those who give for its upkeep are largely living in poverty. And just what do most of them do, for goodness’ sake?
A former pope, John XXIII, was once asked by a journalist how many people worked at the Vatican. He famously remarked, “Oh, no more than half of them.”
They do humour. Some of them. Some of the time. They could teach Muslims a thing or two.
Well, it may keep these clergypeople at their desks longer so they don’t have time to assemble at the holy water cooler and exchange ribald jokes about the Immaculate Conception.
And it may keep more of them away from children.
Suspension for homophobic “stick” doc
A homophobic, UK-based, Muslim GP who allegedly thought gays should have a bit of the “stick of the law” to make them see the error of their ways has been suspended.
It should have been by the neck, if what is alleged is true, but the General Medical Council (GMC) has merely suspended him from his job.
Dr Muhammad Siddiq, head of the Islamic Medical Association (IMA) in the UK, has been suspended for a year over the letter he sent to the GPs’ magazine Pulse last July. A story on the BBC news website says:
He then claimed his son had written the letter as a spoof and the good doctor had signed it without reading it.
(Would you trust him to diagnose your scrofula or ingrowing nasal hairs? “Oh, I didn’t actually look at the patient, but thought he ought to take these little pink pills, which I also didn’t look at.”)
The Beeb’s story goes on:
Perhaps they’ll set up special sharia versions of GMC panels in future. Given that we now have to have double standards in some aspects of law to accommodate misogynistic, gay-hating Muslims, why not in medical practice? If that happens, it will be only a matter of time before cautious patients looking for a GP read the names on the plaque outside the surgery very carefully before they make their choice.
It should have been by the neck, if what is alleged is true, but the General Medical Council (GMC) has merely suspended him from his job.
Dr Muhammad Siddiq, head of the Islamic Medical Association (IMA) in the UK, has been suspended for a year over the letter he sent to the GPs’ magazine Pulse last July. A story on the BBC news website says:
He wrote gay people needed the “stick of law to put them on the right path”, the General Medical Council was told.
When confronted by Walsall Primary Care Trust [PCT], he apologised at first but later wrongly blamed his son, the GMC heard.
The GMC Fitness to Practi[s]e panel, sitting in Manchester, was told Dr Siddiq also wrote in the letter that gay people were “the root cause of many sexually-transmitted diseases”.
He initially told [his] employer, the Walsall PCT, that he had written the letter due to intense stress and apologised unreservedly.
He then claimed his son had written the letter as a spoof and the good doctor had signed it without reading it.
(Would you trust him to diagnose your scrofula or ingrowing nasal hairs? “Oh, I didn’t actually look at the patient, but thought he ought to take these little pink pills, which I also didn’t look at.”)
The Beeb’s story goes on:
Dr Siddiq, the IMA president, also told a Pulse journalist he believed gay people “prey on society” and he thought 99% of Muslim GPs shared his views.
The GMC also heard that Dr Siddiq refused to accept the findings of an assessment in April 2007 into his ability to perform minor surgery and had continued to perform circumcisions at the Luqman Medical Centre in Walsall, despite being advised not to.
Andrew Popat, chairing the GMC hearing, called the GP’s actions inappropriate and not in the best interests of his patients.
He added that the letter to Pulse was “liable to undermine public confidence in the medical profession and liable to bring the profession into disrepute”.
He said: “The panel continues to have concerns regarding Dr Siddiq’s insight into his actions.”
The ruling took place in Dr Siddiq’s absence as he dismissed his barrister last week and left the GMC, claiming he could not receive a fair hearing.
Perhaps they’ll set up special sharia versions of GMC panels in future. Given that we now have to have double standards in some aspects of law to accommodate misogynistic, gay-hating Muslims, why not in medical practice? If that happens, it will be only a matter of time before cautious patients looking for a GP read the names on the plaque outside the surgery very carefully before they make their choice.
Monday, 3 November 2008
Bastards, bastards, bastards!
If you need any more proof of just how shitty, how utterly, utterly shitty, a religion Islam can be, you might like to read this disturbing report in Britain’s Sunday paper, the Observer.
The headline sets the scene admirably: Rape victim, 13, stoned to death in Somalia.
Some earlier reports had put the victim, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, at 23; now it’s emerged she’s just in her teens.
Ophelia Benson in her Butterflies and Wheels blog post is characteristically – and justifiably – angry. “Bastards bastards bastards,” she begins, continuing, “It can tip you right over the edge sometimes, contemplating how unfathomably foul people can be.”
She cites an Amnesty International report on the issue, which describes how the girl was stoned by 50 men with a lorry load of stones brought for the occasion. This took place in a stadium, watched by 1,000 people. As some ran onto the killing ground to try to save the girl’s life, militiamen opened fire, killing a boy who was a bystander.
Amnesty says:
Many Muslims, we know, would not condone this sort of behaviour carried out in the name of their wrathful, vengeful deity. It remains to be seen how many Muslim groups, mosques and individuals in Britain and elsewhere stand up and denounce it. This report has had a fair airing, so they’ll be unable to say they were not aware of how their “brothers” have behaved.
Let's leave the last word to Benson:
The headline sets the scene admirably: Rape victim, 13, stoned to death in Somalia.
Some earlier reports had put the victim, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, at 23; now it’s emerged she’s just in her teens.
Ophelia Benson in her Butterflies and Wheels blog post is characteristically – and justifiably – angry. “Bastards bastards bastards,” she begins, continuing, “It can tip you right over the edge sometimes, contemplating how unfathomably foul people can be.”
She cites an Amnesty International report on the issue, which describes how the girl was stoned by 50 men with a lorry load of stones brought for the occasion. This took place in a stadium, watched by 1,000 people. As some ran onto the killing ground to try to save the girl’s life, militiamen opened fire, killing a boy who was a bystander.
Amnesty says:
At one point during the stoning, Amnesty International has been told by numerous eyewitnesses that nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue.
Many Muslims, we know, would not condone this sort of behaviour carried out in the name of their wrathful, vengeful deity. It remains to be seen how many Muslim groups, mosques and individuals in Britain and elsewhere stand up and denounce it. This report has had a fair airing, so they’ll be unable to say they were not aware of how their “brothers” have behaved.
Let's leave the last word to Benson:
What kind of monster do they think they worship, that wants children smashed to death with rocks for being raped? What kind of hideous loathsome savage bloodthirsty tyrannical cruel monster do they imagine wants them to act like that? What kind of nightmare world do they live in? How do they look on their work and approve it?
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Dem bones, dem bones, dem bones of contention
Just before the head of Roman Catholics in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, conducted a service yesterday for Cardinal Newman, it was revealed by the human-rights campaigner Peter Tatchell that the British government colluded with the Catholic Church to have Newman’s bones separated from those of his boyfriend.
Tatchell unearthed this by looking at documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). The Catholics – noted for moving remains about – wanted to exhume Newman’s bones as a first step to making him a saint.
However, they were much suspected of not wanting Newman’s remains to stay with those of his lover/boyfriend, Father Ambrose St John. The church’s plans were thwarted when they got to the grave, because there were no bones. They’d vanished into the earth, so Newman’s bones and those of Ambrose St John are united for ever. (See “Dem bones, dem bones, dem gay bones” and “Dem bones, dem bones, dem gone bones” for the background.)
The online UK Gay News tells us:
But, of course, nutty Catholics will conveniently forget Newman and St John’s relationship, or will sanctify it with mumbo-jumbo talk of “higher love”. Well, yes, there will very likely have been a “higher love” (whatever that is) between them, but, if we’re to believe what we’re told, they had a love relationship in the sense that we know it. Possibly they kept to their vows and didn’t actually, you know, do it, but there it was.
Two men.
In love.
Disgusting!
Tatchell unearthed this by looking at documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). The Catholics – noted for moving remains about – wanted to exhume Newman’s bones as a first step to making him a saint.
However, they were much suspected of not wanting Newman’s remains to stay with those of his lover/boyfriend, Father Ambrose St John. The church’s plans were thwarted when they got to the grave, because there were no bones. They’d vanished into the earth, so Newman’s bones and those of Ambrose St John are united for ever. (See “Dem bones, dem bones, dem gay bones” and “Dem bones, dem bones, dem gone bones” for the background.)
The online UK Gay News tells us:
The documents show that [Jack Straw’s] Ministry of Justice worked in close cooperation with the Catholic Church to deflect criticism of the reburial plans, which violated Cardinal Newman’s expressed wish to remain buried with the man he loved for over 30 years, Father Ambrose St John,” said Mr Tatchell.
“They reveal high level collusion between the government and the Catholic Church, including devising a ‘Media Plan’ to rebut criticisms.
“It is now apparent that the Ministry of Justice was initially slow and hesitant about granting the licence and delayed a decision until July this year,” Mr Tatchell continued.
“It took repeated emails from Peter Jennings of the Catholic Church, and reference to the concerns of the Vatican, to get ministerial authorisation.
“The licence application was approved by Catholic Justice Minister, Bridget Prentice MP, which raises conflict-of-interest issues.
“Did she show unwarranted favouritism towards the Vatican-backed request for the reburial of Newman?” he asked.
“Most of the FOI documents are heavily censored, with whole pages blacked out. This suggests the Ministry of Justice has something hide.
“Nevertheless, we can see that the Catholic Church subjected the government to constant and strenuous lobbying to get its way.
“Fifty-five documents concerning legal advice have been withheld. Other documents have been suppressed by the Justice Minister [Jack Straw] under Section 36 of the FOI, which concerns ‘Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs’. The government has declined to state the content of the suppressed documents.
“Answers to my FOI application to the Ministry of Justice took much longer than the 20-day rule. I had to make repeated reminders to get them released.”
Turning to Cardinal Newman’s sexuality and relationship with Ambrose St John, Mr Tatchell said: “All the evidence from the letters and diaries suggests that Newman and St John had a passionate, long-term, same-sex relationship.
“No one can know for certain whether their relationship included sexual intimacy and affection; possibly not.”
But, of course, nutty Catholics will conveniently forget Newman and St John’s relationship, or will sanctify it with mumbo-jumbo talk of “higher love”. Well, yes, there will very likely have been a “higher love” (whatever that is) between them, but, if we’re to believe what we’re told, they had a love relationship in the sense that we know it. Possibly they kept to their vows and didn’t actually, you know, do it, but there it was.
Two men.
In love.
Disgusting!
Saturday, 1 November 2008
Whingeing Muslim loses employment case
A Muslim who sued the supermarket giant Tesco because it insisted he do the job he was being paid to do instead of whingeing about his superstitions has lost his case at an employment tribunal.
Mohammed Ahmed, a Saudi living in Derby, UK, was a warehouseman, and for some reason thought that, by magic, no alcohol would find itself on his forklift truck, because alcohol was against his religion.
He was told to do his job and has sued Tesco on grounds of victimisation and harassment. But now he’s lost.
Well tough, Mohammed!
He’s considering appealing against the decision, however, saying, “It’s not fair but what can I do? They [Tesco] were not taking into account my religious beliefs. I will consult with solicitors.”
Why should they take into account your superstitions, Mohammed? There’s enough of that sort of appeasement happening, thank you very much. If you don’t like it here, you know where you can go.
Mohammed Ahmed, a Saudi living in Derby, UK, was a warehouseman, and for some reason thought that, by magic, no alcohol would find itself on his forklift truck, because alcohol was against his religion.
He was told to do his job and has sued Tesco on grounds of victimisation and harassment. But now he’s lost.
Well tough, Mohammed!
He’s considering appealing against the decision, however, saying, “It’s not fair but what can I do? They [Tesco] were not taking into account my religious beliefs. I will consult with solicitors.”
Why should they take into account your superstitions, Mohammed? There’s enough of that sort of appeasement happening, thank you very much. If you don’t like it here, you know where you can go.
When is education not education?
The Church Times tells us that the Catholic Education Service and the Methodist Church have welcomed promises that new UK government guidance on the teaching of sex-and-relationships education “would take into account the views of churches and other faiths, and would involve governors and parents”.
The story also rejoices in the fact that the review group that drew up the guidelines “included Church of England, RC, Methodist, and Muslim members”.
Yes, I bet these promises were welcomed! And why? So that superstitionists of whatever religious stripe can indoctrinate kids against what is not acceptable to their particular superstition, that’s why.
Can a gay kid expect to be treated with anything other than patronising, love-the-sinner-but-hate-the-sin “understanding” at best, and utter contempt at worst in a Catholic school? Are they really going to say that sex is OK whether it’s between same- or opposite-sex couples?
How can they, when only opposite-sex relationships are acceptable? They couldn’t even accept that sex is OK within a marriage of same-sex partners, because for them marriage is between a man and a women, even if it’s sanctioned by law as a civil partnership, for instance, or is even a “proper” marriage carried out in a country that recognises marriage between same-sex couples.
So pity the poor kids who’re gay and are struggling at a difficult time of their lives with desires and burgeoning sexuality. To be told that only sex with someone of the other gender is OK and that anything else is a sin is devastating, and amounts to child abuse.
It’s one thing saying it’s best done within a committed relationship, but quite another to say that that relationship has to be of a certain type, and, if you can’t cope with that, tough – you’ll have to spend the rest of your life frustrated, with your very powerful sex drive pent up and probably seeking other ways to express itself, not all of them as socially acceptable as sex!
As for Muslims – well!
So why are we providing sex education – which is within the context of the personal, social and health education (PSHE) curriculum – but allowing it to be taught according to one or another group’s interpretation of thousands-of-years-old scriptures written by nomadic herders?
The story also rejoices in the fact that the review group that drew up the guidelines “included Church of England, RC, Methodist, and Muslim members”.
Yes, I bet these promises were welcomed! And why? So that superstitionists of whatever religious stripe can indoctrinate kids against what is not acceptable to their particular superstition, that’s why.
Can a gay kid expect to be treated with anything other than patronising, love-the-sinner-but-hate-the-sin “understanding” at best, and utter contempt at worst in a Catholic school? Are they really going to say that sex is OK whether it’s between same- or opposite-sex couples?
How can they, when only opposite-sex relationships are acceptable? They couldn’t even accept that sex is OK within a marriage of same-sex partners, because for them marriage is between a man and a women, even if it’s sanctioned by law as a civil partnership, for instance, or is even a “proper” marriage carried out in a country that recognises marriage between same-sex couples.
So pity the poor kids who’re gay and are struggling at a difficult time of their lives with desires and burgeoning sexuality. To be told that only sex with someone of the other gender is OK and that anything else is a sin is devastating, and amounts to child abuse.
It’s one thing saying it’s best done within a committed relationship, but quite another to say that that relationship has to be of a certain type, and, if you can’t cope with that, tough – you’ll have to spend the rest of your life frustrated, with your very powerful sex drive pent up and probably seeking other ways to express itself, not all of them as socially acceptable as sex!
As for Muslims – well!
So why are we providing sex education – which is within the context of the personal, social and health education (PSHE) curriculum – but allowing it to be taught according to one or another group’s interpretation of thousands-of-years-old scriptures written by nomadic herders?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)