Oi! Keep the noise down!

“A London church has been told by Lambeth Council to reduce the volume of its worship,” the Christian Legal Centre tells us.

In an extraordinary decision, All Nations Church in Kennington, South London, has been served with a noise abatement notice by Lambeth council after complaints from a couple of local residents about the level of noise coming from the church.

This is the first complaint that the church has received since it began meeting at the premises in the 1960s. Church leaders have been ordered not to amplify its music or sermons – something which will make worship very difficult for the 600-strong congregation – some of whom are elderly and hard-of-hearing.

The decision, which imposes a restriction on the freedom of expression of religion will, according to one of the church’s pastors, Victor Jibuike, seriously affect the congregation and potentially mean that some members will leave and worship elsewhere – something he does not want to see.

The Council Noise Abatement Notice was served on the church without warning on 25 September 2009, despite the fact a meeting with the local Councilor [sic] and residents had being arranged for 20 October with the intention of addressing the neighbours’ concerns. The Pastors of the Church wanted to do everything possible to solve the matter amicably.

Pastor Jubiuke [sic: different spelling from the one above!] believes the complaints which have led to the notice may also have been triggered by the church’s plans to develop a disused school into a community centre in partnership with the Council. He said: “The complaint has nothing to do with the noise and everything to do with our faith. Lambeth Council are driving us out and we feel harassed.”

The Church is being supported in its ordeal by the Christian Legal Centre.

Andrea Williams, Director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “The real issue behind this complaint is hostility to the Christian message, and the law is being used as a pretext to harass and silence Christian viewpoints not approved by the State. All Nations Church is simply trying to make Christianity relevant to 21st[-]century Britain and it will be a great loss if the church, which is a great benefit to the community, has to curtail its activities and outreach programmes because of the Council’s actions.”

Who told the church to cancel its outreach work? The council, as far as I can tell, has told it to pipe down a bit, stop using amplified music. How does that affect the outreach programme?

And, if it’s so difficult to cater to huge congregations, then reduce them. Have separate meetings. Bring the hard-of-hearing to the front.

The fact is that, if you choose to live near, say, a nightclub, you might expect some noise, and I would hazard a guess that building regulations contain something about noise insulation. And a question I have: are churches obliged to apply for live-music permits, the way places of entertainment are?

When you live near a church, you don’t expect a huge horde of rowdy Christians belting out God’s pop songs like a strident chorus in a West End musical.

You might expect bells on Sunday (not particularly intrusive in a country that’s used to such sounds, and has been for centuries, with all of its indigenous citizens having grown up with them) or a few cars parking or moving away, maybe animated chatter – things at a human scale.

But amplified gospel singing (assuming that's part of the mix)? I think not. Not that I don’t like gospel, and have heard some fine examples of it. But that’s been when I’ve chosen to listen to it.

The Christian Legal Centre seem to be using this as yet another excuse to bash those who they perceive are bashing Christianity. Mostly, no one is bashing Christianity: they’re wanting things to be equal in the workplace, or for neighbours not to be bothered by unnecessary noise.

But Christians are as capable as Muslims of choosing victimhood over common sense.

Let’s not be antigay, says bishop

Dr Peter Selby, the former Anglican bishop of Worcester, has, according to the ever-helpful Christian think tank Ekklesia, told a gathering of Christians "that anti-gay sentiment should not be setting the tone of discussions about Anglican polity and that the Archbishop of Canterbury has a responsibility to speak up for more than just holding church institutions together”. The bulletin continues:

“If homophobia is contrary to the intentions of those advocating the traditionalist cause”, as has often been said, “it has been allowed to provide a good deal of the fuel for the debate, and the Archbishop’s personal opposition to homophobia does not exempt him from complicity in the way that energy is being used”, Dr Selby told the Inclusive Church residential conference “Word on the Street – reading the Bible inclusively”.

The gathering also heard lectures from biblical scholars Dr Richard Burridge, Dr Andrew Mein and Dr Paula Gooder, who argued that those who oppose recognising the faithfulness of gay people have no monopoly on sacred texts – which actually point in the direction of God’s embracing love and critique human attempts to manipulate God in favour of one particular group or class of people.

Other biblical scholars who have undermined the attempts of anti-gay activists to claim biblical warrant for their prejudices have recently included Professor Christopher Rowland, who holds the Dean Ireland Chair of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture at the University of Oxford, and Professor Deirdre Good, a New Testament specialist from General Theological Seminary in New York, with her book Jesus’ Family Values.

Bishop Selby said: “Our main concern has to be that what is being proposed is no way to discern the truth about the matters in dispute, and we must be sure to make that point clear at every opportunity.”

Speaking about the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, he said: “The Archbishop has removed himself from his natural area of thought in the matter of sexuality, that is, his remarkable capacity to bring a godly wisdom to bear on secular developments, a gift we need more than any other in attempting to work out how to assess current developments in human attitudes and behaviour in matters sexual. Instead the issues that surround sexuality are now treated by him only as ecclesiastical problems, to be resolved as such.”

In a detailed analysis of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent “Reflections on the US General Convention, Communion, Covenant, and our Anglican Future”, he showed how the Anglican Covenant as currently proposed would send unintended messages of exclusion.

Dannii and Danyl – and some political correctness

Just what is all the fuss about Dannii Minogue and an alleged “slur” against a gay contestant in The X Factor?

I admit to watching The X Factor (but I don’t watch soaps, OK?), and to some extent enjoying it, especially towards the end of the competition when the dross has been filtered out and we get some quality performances.

Now Minogue was commenting on the fact that one contestant on Saturday night, Danyl Johnson, was gay. She’d read something, presumably, about his being so, and made the reference when he chose a song made famous by a girl.

Here’s how one source – Undercover.com.au, an Aussie website – describes it:

Danyl sang the Jennifer Hudson Dreamgirls show tune “And I Am Telling You”. Dannii’s completely inappropriate comment referred to the gender change to the lyric. “Changing a girl’s song into a guy’s song, but if we are to believe everything we read in the paper maybe you didn’t need to change the gender reference in it,” she said.

Simon Cowell was gobsmacked. “What did you say? What did you say? What did you say?”, he fumed, to which Dannii then foolishly repeated her out-of-place statement.

Inappropriate? Foolish? Sorry. I don’t see the problem, and didn’t when I heard Minogue apologise for the reference in last night’s votes show. All she did was say, although not in so many words, that, Johnson being gay, he could have sung the song with reference to a man rather than a woman, since it would be relevant to his own sexual orientation. Fair enough.

I don’t know whether any gay groups have complained – and, to be honest, can’t be arsed to find out – but, if they have, they should be careful. Gay people will be put side by side with some Muslims, Christians and other religionists who get all prickly if there’s a reference to their religion that they perceive to be offensive.

Minogue’s reference to Johnson’s sexuality was, as far as I could make out, just that: a reference. It wasn’t a criticism. It wasn’t even a joke and certainly not a jibe – just a whimsical reference.

Let’s stop this political correctness. Please!

Religion and drugs

“Freedom of religion is an inalienable right, and until this right is extended to the oldest form of spiritual practice, our ability to explore who we truly are will be severely limited.”

The words are those of Alexander Beiner, author of the novel Beyond the Basin, which draws on his studies of shamanism and the use of sacred plants in South America.

His plea – and it’s in the standfirst in a Guardian “Comment is Free” feature – is that this “oldest form of spiritual practice”, the use of mind-changing drugs, should be allowed in law. That standfirst: “Freedom of religion should be extended to the use of drugs in spiritual practice”.

No, no, no.

Allow the use of the drug, yes, but why just because for some people it’s a religious practice?

Beiner makes the perfectly logical point that our society allows ciggies and booze to be consumed in whatever quantities we wish, so why not plant-based drugs?

Well, one reason could be that when these plant-based drugs are refined, they become more dangerous and have to be controlled. In their raw state, though, yes, why not let us use them if we wish? That doesn’t, of course, excuse the fact that tobacco and alcohol are capable of harm when misused – and harm to people other than the user, too – but it’s a point worth pondering.

But leave religion out of it, Alexander. Freedom of religion is not, as you say, an inalienable right, in that it extends only as far as it doesn’t tread on the rights of others. Often, it does.

I agree that to have a religion is an inalienable right. It’s in the how of practising it that things can get tricky. So let us not complicate matters further by having more special privileges – just because something is classed as a religion.

The Beeb and the beeps – you can swear by it

Christians are crowing about the BBC’s decision to clamp down on some swearing on air, even after the 9 p.m. watershed. And religion looks like getting a special status.

Gratuitous swearing is never very clever, but I say that not because I’m against hearing the words, but because they simply lose their effect if overused. Carefully placed, the odd F-word can be funny or otherwise effective; used at every verse end, it’s not.

But the Beeb are even planning to beep out taboo words, it seems, when they feel it appropriate – in addition, I assume, to simply not allowing them to be used in the first place in their own-produced material. And, moreover, if swearing is combined with mentions of religious stuff, it’s somehow even worse.

Jesus fucking Christ on a stick! (Sorry – should have beeped that.) This is sheer lunacy. Just how much privilege is religion going to continue to get? And why is religion going to be thus privileged?

Because religious references can offend some people, that’s why.

No. People get offended. Religious people get offended. Because they’re religious. Let’s get it right. No doubt stamp collectors would take offence if their hobby were trashed with jokes and swearing. Owners of Lada cars must have winced when their pride and joy was the butt of jokes. Vegetarians come in for some stick.

Where will this end? Banning everything that can conceivably be taken as offence by somebody?

The watershed is there for a reason. It’s that time when kids are thought to be in bed and away from the telly. In practice, that’s very different, but broadcasters can do only so much. The rest is up to parents.

As for those who take offence, well they can use the watershed, too, and be prepared for an announcement – and there are such announcements – that the following programme contains language that some viewers may find offensive.

Are we to find that the odd F-word is now going to be bleeped out of comedy and movies? It’s done, incidentally, on the UK digital channel Dave, and just what the logic is beats me, because sometimes the participants in, say, Mock the Week (a topical panel show involving well-known comedians, mostly of the stand-up variety, even though they’re sitting down) say the word and it’s bleeped, and in another showing it’s not bleeped.

That illogicality apart, we should really be allowed to make up our own minds.

If thine eye (or ear) offend thee, dear viewer, pluck at the off switch.

More thoughts on “Thought for the Day”

We reported on Thursday on the debate in London about whether the BBC’s “Thought for the Day” ought to be open to nonreligious speakers. Over on our Gaytheist discussion group (see sidebar – join up), John Hunt told us he’d managed to get along. Here’s what he said:

The chain of circumstances unleashed by reports six months ago of my debaptism last year led in June to my unpremeditated ordination as a minister of the First Church of Atheism. As such I have acted (unofficially) in recent weeks as an atheist chaplain at my local hospital.

This evening [Thursday] I attended a debate on whether humanists should be allowed equal rights on “Thought for the Day”, with panellists Andrew Copson from the British Humanist Association, Ariane Sherine of the Atheist Bus Campaign, “inclusive” cleric Giles Fraser from Putney, and the very same Bishop of Croydon who declined to meet me in March.

During the discussion I explained my (non-physical but spiritual?) relationship with Bishop Baines, and my works as a hospital chaplain. Afterwards I was buttonholed by a couple of members of the audience: allowing Nick Baines to do a runner.

Moved by the experience of this evening’s debate, I shall enquire whether the BBC “Thought for the Day” management team are prepared to include a minister from the Free Church of Atheism amongst their speakers.

And we hope John will share the results of that enquiry with us.

Meanwhile, over on Nuts and Reasons (which we include on our sidebar), we see that an appeal on the matter will be held on 5 November (will there be fireworks?).

“I feel we are approaching a watershed moment in this long-running dispute,” writes blog owner Quedula.

Growing disbelief

Atheism is a force to be reckoned with in American schools and colleges, it seems. We on the UK side of the Pond have tended to think religion is hardwired into the American psyche, as this article on a Telegraph blog points out.

Now, we learn that atheism is one of the fastest-growing movements in the 18–25 age group.

And there’s a Catholic cardinal in there complaining about it, as you would expect.

But there’s hope yet.

Playing gay

For once a Muslim can be sensible about coming into contact with that extremely haram phenomenon: being gay.

A 24-year-old actor from Cardiff – Said Mohamed – plays a gay man in a new film, Colonial Gods, which is being premiered at the gay and lesbian Iris Prize Festival in Cardiff.

His approach to the part – and he says he’s not gay – is one of professionalism, he says. He hopes most actors would bring a similar attitude to bear.

It’s not the first time a gay Muslim has been depicted – and at a higher-profile level, too. Dev Patel, star of the successful Slumdog Millionaire, played a gay Muslim, Anwar, in the British TV drama Skins. (Lovely line, when his mother knocks on Anwar’s bedroom door: “Anwar? Anwar? Are you masturbating? You should.”) And there was the celebrated kiss – not just a gay kiss but a gay Muslim kiss – in the UK soap EastEnders.

All a far cry from the Muslim footballers in France we blogged about yesterday, who, we were told, didn’t wish to play against a gay team, but we are now informed they will be playing after all (thanks to Dave McKeegan for that tip-off).

Thoughts on “Thought for the Day”

It’s the debate that’s exercised religionists, broadcasters and secularists for years: why can’t nonreligious folk have a bash at the BBC’s “Thought for the Day” slot?

For those living outside the UK “TFTD” is a slot in Radio 4’s Today programme. It lasts about two and a half minutes and goes out at around ten to eight each morning.

It’s mostly drivel, full of clichés and platitudes. Indeed, there’s a blog (linked to in our sidebar) called Platitude for the Day, which is well worth a visit.

The argument from secularists is: why are homilies and words of wisdom valid only when from the mouths of religionists? The religionists argue (well, some of them) that it’s a religious slot. So do the broadcasters. The BBC has steadfastly refused to budge on the issue.

Now there’s to be a debate, chaired by one of the Today programme’s more religious presenters, Edward Stourton. It takes place today at the London Institute of Contemporary Christianity, and the motion will be “This House Believes that Humanist speakers should be included in BBC Radio 4’s ‘Thought for the Day’ ”.

For the motion are Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association and the comedian and writer Ariane Sherine, the brain behind the atheist bus campaign. Against the motion is one of the contributors to “TFTD”, Canon Giles Fraser, and the Rt Rev. Nick Baines, Bishop of Croydon.

Let battle commence.

Talking balls

So much for the sporting spirit. A team of Muslim football players have refused to play against a gay team in France (see also here).

It’s against their religion. Being gay, that is (as if there were no gay Muslims!). And their superstitious beliefs are more important that football. They would probably complain if a gay (or any other) football team pulled out because they didn’t agree with Islam.

You would think the relevant football authorities had ordered both teams to have a group shag in the showers afterwards.
__________
See an update on this here (see last paragraph).

Kicking religion in the goolies

So we should all bow down to the great god that is religion itself, should we?

That seems to be the message from the Tory Baroness Warsai, at the Tory Party conference.

The UK’s Telegraph quotes her as saying, “Under Labour, the state has become increasingly sceptical of an individual’s religious belief.

“We’ve all seen the stories, how appalling that in Labour’s Britain a community nurse can be suspended for offering to pray for a patient’s good health.

“How awful that a school receptionist could face disciplinary action for sending an email to her friends simply asking them to pray for her daughter.

“At the heart of these cases lies a growing intolerance and illiberal attitude towards those who believe in God.”

Idiot! We just don’t want religion in the public square. We might feel more tolerance towards people who believe in impossible things if those people didn’t want to shove those impossible things in our faces all the time.

Secularism is a growing movement. People are realising that gods were an explanation centuries ago for things we didn’t understand.

Then came the need to control people, so savvy types decided they could intercede on behalf of the gods, or a single god. Then more people began to believe.

Belief in gods is much the same as belief in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus; belief in religion is just a mistake, because it’s a control mechanism, and it’s a pity more of its adherents can’t see that.

It saps resources; it takes up valuable human energies; it causes conflict; it divides communities.

If people got on with their spiritual lives in their own way, they might get a bit more respect from those of us for whom it’s just not right.

But religions grab and grasp, they carp and complain, they demand and they damn anyone who doesn’t fit in – usually in the matter of sexuality – with what said religions say their gods say we should and shouldn’t do.

So I’m afraid, Lady Warsai, that, if we are truly giving religion a kick in the bollocks, it can be only a healthy thing.

Credit where it’s due

Let’s give credit where it’s due in the case of Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain. He thinks gays are given a hard time by Islam.

In a piece in the Guardian, he writes:

In Muslim communities the issue of homosexuality is very rarely discussed in a candid manner and is all too often wished away as if it is an affliction that involves other groups, not them. Not far from the surface, however, are reports of gay Muslim men being pressurised into rushed marriages by parents desperate to avoid any social stigma. The woman’s family is never told the truth about her husband’s sexuality, of course, with the result that another soul has to endure unhappiness due to the initial failure to face up to the issue. It is a highly dishonest and unethical approach.

Islamic scholars and imams should ideally be performing a much-needed pastoral role by helping in these situations and providing guidance. At the very least they should insist that any intimidation or discrimination against gay Muslims is unacceptable.

Why anyone should need a mojo man I don’t know; it’s up to them. But, if it weren’t for religion’s interference in the first place, most gays – Muslim and otherwise – would be a lot happier and at peace with themselves, and most others would never have thought homosexuality an issue in the first place. Religion is to blame for gays’ misery.

The hypocracy of Pope Ratzinger

Pope Ratzo reckons “spiritual garbage” is poisoning Africa.

It’s been afflicted by materialism, says the man whose organisation drips in wealth, who gets to live in sumptuous palaces, get dolled up in expensive dresses and never go hungry.

He’s also banging on about religious fundamentalism. Well, we know what most people mean by that, but you don’t get much more fundamental than Catholicism, with its literal interpretations of miracles and the intercession of saints and other impossible things.

More self-censorship

Here we go again: people are afraid to speak because nutty Islam might get uppity.

This time it’s a German publisher, reported by the blog Monsters and Critics, quoting Der Spiegel.

“A German publisher has cancelled plans to publish a mass-market novel out of fears that it might face violent protests due to a rude reference to the Koran,” it says.

It’s a crime novel about an honour killing. The story says:

It [the magazine] said the publisher had first asked the author, Gabriele Brinkmann, writing under the pen name WW Domsky, to tone down dialogue in To Those Worthy of Honour which might be construed as offensive, but she had refused.

Spiegel reported that the offensive phrase in question was a character saying: “You can shove your Koran up . . .”

A character, note, is saying this. It’s fiction. There’s no saying there would have been violence, of course, but it’s come to something when we’re forever censoring ourselves because of religious sensitivity.
__________
Related links:
Aisha: the on/off story continues
Aishia: on . . . off . . . on again

Floyd on Humanism

The life of TV chef Keith Floyd, who died at the age of 65 on 14 September, was marked by family and friends at a Humanist funeral service, which took place in Bristol, and you can see a short video of it here.

I was not a fan of Keith Floyd, but was intrigued to learn that he had a Humanist funeral ceremony.

Other celebrities who have had a Humanist ceremony include the world-famous award-winning gay ice-skater John Curry (whose ceremony in Warwickshire I arranged!), comics Ronnie Barker and Bob Monkhouse, pop star (and later actor) Adam Faith, and jazz performers Humphrey Lyttlelton and George Melly, who, until his death, was a vice-president of both CHE (Campaign for Homosexual Equality) and GALHA (Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association).

It takes three to tango

“A controversial children’s story about gay penguins has come top in a list of books Americans have asked public libraries to withdraw,” the rabidly gay-hating bunch of tossers known as the Christian Institute tell us.

Their story goes on:

The American Library Association run an annual Banned Books Week which highlights books which library users have requested to be banned.

The book at the top of the list, entitled And Tango Makes Three, is about two male penguins in New York’s Central Park Zoo who raise a baby penguin.

Some of the reasons given for requests to ban it include “anti-ethnic, anti-family, homosexuality, religious viewpoint, and unsuited to age group”.

In the UK last year, children’s books about homosexual relationships were removed from primary schools after Muslim parents protested.

Well, Muslims would. They need to have something to complain about, and sexuality is a prime target, because they’re as rabidly homophobic as Catholics and the Christian bloody Institute.

And what right have religionists to demand that books deemed OK and important to young minds be removed? Is education not about educating? If young minds are being taught the facts of life concerning hetties, should they not be taught the equally factual facts of life concerning homos?

But this is an argument readers of this blog would, I’m sure, largely agree with.

The Christian Institute quotes a governor at one of the schools, Farooq Saddique, who said, “The agenda was to reduce homophobic bullying and all the parents said they were not against that side of it, but families were saying to us ‘our child is coming home and talking about same-sex relationships, when we haven’t even talked about heterosexual relationships with them yet’.”

You haven’t, maybe, but if the school are talking about homosexual relationships you can bet your bottom they’ll have dealt with, or will be dealing with, heterosexual ones, too.

And, Mr bloody Saddique, you seem to be saying bullying is wrong, but keeping the facts of life away from our children is more important than preventing bullying, and if the gay ones get bullied that’s just collateral damage.

And, anyway, are the kids being taught how to do it? I don’t think so, somehow. They’re probably being told that same-sex relationships exist, just like the heterosexual ones they see around them every day and in all aspects of their quotidian existence: at home, at school, in the shops and supermarkets and so on and so forth.

So how can you say they don’t know about heterosexual relationships yet, when they see them happening all about them?

This is just homophobia.

Slobbering zealots

Oh, what a hoot! A councillor in Barnsley, Yorkshire, has summed up bone-worshipping Catholics as “slobbering zealots” – just the sort of phrase most of us would like to have used.

Councillor Tim Cheetham used the words on Twitter, and some people aren’t too happy about it.

May have been a bit silly, he being a councillor and all that. But, as Horace said, “Scire loqui decus est; decus est et scire tacere.”

Which means, “A word once released does not know how to return.”

His own words – which he could delete from Twitter, I believe – were, “With all those slobbering zealots kissing that glass case, I hope it has some mystical power to prevent swine flu.”

Well said!

Evil child-abusing Catholic Church not really that bad, honest, says Catholic

As we all knew already, the Catholic Church’s scandal over pervy priests was caused by . . .

But you’ve guessed already: not predatory, bullying paedos and sex attackers per se, but homosexuals.

A story in Pink News tells us:

A Vatican official has said that the child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was caused by gay men preying on teenage boys, rather than paedophilia.

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN, read out a statement after a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva.

He said: “Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17.”

Tomasi added that it would be “more correct” to refer to ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males, than paedophilia.

The statement also attacked other religions, with Tomasi saying that most US churches embroiled in abuse scandals were Protestant, adding that the problem was also common in Jewish communities.

Tomasi said: “As the Catholic church has been busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it.”

For a start, the tu quoque argument (others did it too, so our own culpability is lessened) is flawed. We’re talking about Catholic pervs for the time being.

I don’t know what proof he has of the sexual orientation of most of the priests who used their positions to prey on and attack young people. Let’s say he’s right. Does this change the degree of evil? Is it better to prey on girls than on boys? Does that make it just a little less heinous – a venial rather than a mortal sin?

The sex of the victims is immaterial, since the crime was attacks on them by priests in the employ of this evil organisation, an organisation that has gone to great lengths to cover up and play down.

Tomasi goes on to say only 2.5 to 5 per cent of Catholic clergy had been involved in pervy practices involving young people. The Times (London) has a “Holy See” diplomat called Monsignor Hubertus Megen saying very much the same thing.

Perhaps Tomasi was reading from a statement written by Megen. Who knows? Who cares? The fact is that the Vatican is up to its old tricks of playing down its priests’ offences against other – and vulnerable – human beings.

And that 2.5 to 5 per cent is still a helluva lot of offenders.

If you’d like to rub your hands while reading a thorough condemnation of Pope Twatzinger, try this one from the Guardian. It’s a humdinger, ending with the following paragraph:

So this is the man who is coming to lecture us about morality. Welcome, Benedict XVI, Episcopus Romae, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God. Don’t tread on the corpses.

Head case

If you can’t do your job because you’re wearing some unnecessary head gear, you expect to have to take it off, right?

Wrong!

A 31-year-old, turban-wearing Sikh cop, Gurmeal Singh, is now “in line for a payout from Greater Manchester Police”, says the Daily Mail.

There are some complexities in this story, and one suspects that both sides have perhaps not acted as well as they might, but this blog is, among other things, about religious privilege, and that’s what is happening here.

If someone else wanted to wear a huge jokey bandage around his head, just because he fancied it, he’d be told to take it off if it got in the way of his job. This turban did.

It’s bad enough that Sikhs get away with not having to wear crash helmets on motorbikes; now they can win compensation from their employers.

The solution is simple: if you feel you can’t do a job for religious reasons, don’t do the job. Do another job.

More baying for blood in Bonnie Scotland

They still want not only the blood but the entrails of the chap appointed a priest in Scotland, it seems, just because he doesn’t fit with some people’s ideas of what a guy should and shouldn’t do in private between consenting adults.

The Christian Institute – a rabidly homophobic bunch of nutcases in the UK, who seem to have sex on the brain – report that more and more churches are ganging up on Scott Rennie.

We reported back in May how the followers of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, would like to see the guy hounded out of a job.

The Christian Institute says:

[A] group of like-minded congregations set up to oppose the move says it has received more than 100 requests for application packs from churches wanting to join.

The Fellowship of Confessing Churches say 46 churches are already members.

One might ask why Rennie wanted to get involved with the priesthood in the first place, and—

Oh, but of course, he’s gay, and the priesthood would probably fall apart were it not for its gay members.