Pink Triangle

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

2012-01-27T11:03:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hill writes:

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

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

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

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

And thanks for looking in.

The cautionary tale of the bishop and Mr Green

2012-01-26T09:43:00.002Z

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

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

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

Muir writes (last paragraph):

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

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

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

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

You gotta laugh.

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

2012-01-24T09:12:00.001Z

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

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

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

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

2012-01-21T10:30:00.000Z

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

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

The new law takes effect in April.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political correctness and censorship

2012-01-13T09:42:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-12-24T12:00:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of Africa: homophobia – and religion is behind it

2011-12-16T15:18:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

Another pillock

2011-12-12T14:48:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

The story’s in Pink News.

Now you see it, now you don’t, now you do

2011-12-09T08:00:00.000Z

I don’t know what it says about attitudes that a school in Michigan in the USA edited the word “gay” out of a Christmas song.

Well, it was the music teacher, according to this story. Then the school put the word back again.

It comes in a line in “Deck the Halls”, which reads “Don we now our gay apparel.” Your humble blogger makes use of the line in a Christmas article in the new Pink Humanist

The teacher took the word “gay” out and substituted “bright”, not necessary because she was homophobic, but because the pesky kids giggled every time they sang it.

Even allowing that kids will be kids, it says something about the way the word is still used as a minor insult, or that homosexuality is somehow funny (well, it can be funny, but we’re not talking Alan Carr here).

US foreign aid – and how gays are treated in recipient countries

2011-12-08T13:27:00.001Z

US foreign aid – and how gays are treated in recipient countries Looks as if the USA is telling some homophobic countries what for. A memorandum from the White House says the administration will weight up how it distributes foreign aid depending on how countries treat their gay citizens.

The Middle East and Africa come in for criticism, according to this story.

And Hillary Clinton has told a gathering in Geneva: “Gay rights are human rights.”

In the Pink – new gay humanist magazine hits the cyberstreets

2011-12-05T13:32:00.000Z

A new magazine for humanists who are gay or gay-friendly has just launched. The Pink Humanist is published by the owners of this blog, the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT), and edited by Freethinker editor Barry Duke.

Duke, a veteran gay journalist and photographer, formerly of Brighton, now languishing in Benidorm on Spain’s Costa Blanca (lucky bastard!), has put together a colourful mix of articles, including one that Freethinker readers will recognise as a fine display of his own acerbic, cut-to-the-chase (or cut-to-the-jugular) voice.

Here is the press release the magazine has put out today:

The UK gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) has re-launched its online magazine with a new title, The Pink Humanist.

The PTT, which was founded in 1992, started publishing a printed magazine entitled Gay & Lesbian Humanist back in 1993 and continued this until it went online in 2008.

Though described as an LGBT publication, the new magazine is aimed at all atheists, Humanists, sceptics and freethinkers and is the only one of its kind worldwide.

The editor of The Pink Humanist is Barry Duke who is well known in UK atheist and Humanist circles as the editor of the Freethinker, a monthly journal which was founded in 1881. Duke was also closely associated with the National Secular Society for many years.

Contributors to the first issue of The Pink Humanist include Russian gay activist Nikolai Alekseev, who has been praised by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell for “his amazing, ground-breaking work over many years”.

Barry Duke said: “As editor of the oldest freethought magazine in the world, I am delighted to have been invited to launch the newest.

“Since 1974, I have devoted my life to promoting LGBT rights, atheism, Humanism and rationalism, and The Pink Humanist will, I hope, help raise awareness of the need to challenge religious privilege wherever it occurs in public life, and stem the rising tide of homophobia, especially in Africa where mainly foreign evangelicals have been allowed to muddy the waters of tolerance and generate unprecedented levels of hostility towards the LGBT community.

“My hope, too, is that freethought writers from all over the world will donate original articles, comments and reviews for inclusion in future issues of the publication.”

In the current issue, there’s a piece on Britain’s greatest code breaker, Alan Turing; an article on Andrew Haigh’s recently released Weekend, which has been wowing critics and audiences around the world; a piece on the plight of gays in Russia; an article by Yours Truly about the use of the word “Christmas”; and much, much more, as well as an audio blog by freelance writer and voiceover artist Andrew John, of Celtica Radio, who takes a few pots at the hoo-ha over the latest Benetton ad, featuring the Pope kissing a fella, and the twit who coined the word “Gaystapo” (which we blogged about recently).

So do pop in, browse around, leave some comments and some votes. Especially on my article. Only joking.

Leo Igwe on barbaric bill in Nigeria

2011-12-02T09:38:00.000Z

Leo Igwe of the Nigerian Humanist Movement has just issued a statement about the bill to be passed in Nigeria outlawing all kinds of things to do with same-sex relationships. See the post here. Here’s Igwe’s statement in full:

I condemn in no uncertain terms the recent passage by the Senate of the the anti gay marriage bill. The passage of this bill once again demonstrates how disconnected Nigerian politicians and lawmakers are from the realities of the 21st century. It has confirmed that our lawmakers indeed prefer to fiddle while our social, political and economic house called Nigeria, burns. Otherwise how does one explain the relevance of this bill at a time when Nigeria has become almost a failed state due to terrorist attacks, sectarian violence, corruption, poverty, diseases, abuse of office, tribalism and nepotism, misguided politics and mistaken sense of statecraft?

The passage of this bill has shown clearly how misplaced our priorities are. Or better, how misplaced the priorities of those who claim to lead this country are. Our senators should answer this question clearly, “How does an anti-gay marriage bill contribute to the greatest good of the greatest number of Nigerians?”

Does this bill put food on their table or money in their pocket? No. Does it provide them with jobs? No. Does it enhance their much needed security and peaceful coexistence? No. Does it improve the standard of education in the country? No. Does it make Nigerian parents more responsible in terms of child support, upbringing and other family responsibilities? No. Does it improve the love and harmony in homes and communities across the country? No. Will this bill improve trust in marriages and relationships in Nigeria? No. Will it in any way strengthen the much talked about marriage institution or family values? No. Can the senators tell me the practical, political, moral relevance of this bill except to legislate and institutionalize hatred and persecution of minorities, gay cleansing, moral hypocrisy and inquisition.

The true test of a democracy is not how it panders to the so called will (real or imagined) of the majority, but how it treats and respects its minority. The test of a society’s humanity is how it protects and defends vulnerable members of the population. And with this bill, has the Nigerian democracy and society failed this test? The answer is an unequivocal “Yes”.

This anti gay marriage bill is a clear indictment of our sense of common humanity and our commitment to human rights principles as a people and as a nation. The state cannot legislate when it comes to sexual relationships among consenting adults. The politicians and lawmakers cannot dictate for adults whom to relate with. Lawmakers have no business in the bedroom of adults. For me this anti gay marriage bill is another pointer to where we have chosen to go as a nation – backwards. Today the global trend is to unban, not to ban gay marriage.

The Senate vote to ban gay marriage is another indication of how our politicians have refused to confront our real challenges and to tackle and address our real, urgent and pressing problems as a nation and as a people. Instead our lawmakers prefer to pursue shadows and to engage in wasteful debates and counter productive legislations. The whole idea of debating and passing a bill against gay marriage which has been going on since 2006 is a waste of our limited legislative resource, a huge distraction from more pressing issues and a mark of our warped sense of politics and law making. In fact it is an abuse of Nigeria’s legislative space. The obsession with homophobia among our lawmakers is unwarranted and uncalled for. It is rather an indication of political impotency and emptiness, lack of vision, focus and politically expedient programs for nation building and good governance.

I want to know from our senators and all those clamouring for anti-gay marriage legislation the rationale behind such a bill in a country where homosexuality is a crime. Can any gay marriage act or pact legally stand in a situation where homosexuality is illegal? The answer is no. So why do our Senators think we need an anti gay marriage legislation at this time?. Today as we all know most countries are striving to make their laws compatible and not in conflict with human rights. They are either reviewing, amending or repealing legislations like those against homosexuality, the death penalty and blasphemy, that not in line with human rights, or introducing new laws that are in accordance with human rights.

And instead of moving forward with these countries and working towards repealing obnoxious laws, our politicians and lawmakers prefer to move backward by tightening the laws against homosexuality on the basis of religious and fanatical sentiments, and ill defined sense of African culture and tradition. Culture is not static. Culture is diverse and dynamic. There were acts, norms and habits deemed culturally unacceptable centuries ago but which are commonplace cultural practices today. Those who are saying that respecting people with homosexual orientation is unAfrican are really misrepresenting the African culture. If there is anything history tells us it that Africans have been traditionally tolerant of people with same sexual orientation prior to the introduction of criminal provisions based on the alien religions of Christianity and Islam. African politicians and lawmakers should make African traditions compatible with human rights. Unfortunately, the anti-gay marriage bill entrenches and legalizes homophobia not human rights. Not only in Nigeria but in most parts of Africa, there is a growing trend to tighten laws against homosexuality and to ban gay marriage. There is a escalation of the clampdown on those really or imagined to be homosexuals in Ghana, Cameroun, Gambia, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Senegal, Malawi, Kenya etc.

Meanwhile, there has been some vague reference to the recent threat by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, who, at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth to cut aid to countries that do not reform legislations banning homosexuality. Some have interpreted the statement as an attempt by the UK to impose its values on the rest of the world. I don’t think this is the case. Britain is a democratic country where the people’s voices and opinions matter.

I believe that the so called threat was a reflection of the voices and wishes of the British people. Britain has decriminalized homosexuality and has made significant progress in the protection of the rights of gay people. The British government is simply saying that they cannot be protecting the rights of homosexual persons and also be providing aid or financial assistance to countries where the same people, who are protected under British law, are persecuted or treated as criminals. No country even Nigeria would agree to provide aid or assistance to countries where black people are treated as criminals or thrown into jail because of the colour of their skin. How then do we expect Britain to extend aid to countries that persecute and legislate against individuals based on their sexual orientation? But this is the simple logic which the homophobia of many African politicians and lawmakers cannot understand or appreciate.

Pillock!

2011-12-01T12:21:00.001Z


Here’s hoping you find this in your Christmas cake, Mr O’Brien!

Our old fiend (spelling deliberate) Cardinal Keith O’Brien is at it again: denouncing love.

Well, he would say that what he’s actually denouncing is evil.

This leader of the Catholic Deluded Herd in Scotland is another of those who think same-sex marriage is some kind of threat to opposite-sex marriage.

He joined other figures yesterday to deliver speeches outside the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, Edinburgh.

“The Roman Catholic Church intends to deliver 20,000 postcards to the Scottish Parliament signed by Scottish people who oppose gay marriage,” says Pink News.

It quotes O’Brien as saying: “As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government. It was not created by government and should not be changed by them.

“Instead, recognising the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society they should act to protect and uphold it, not attack or dismantle it.

“At the heart of this debate, however, there is one perspective which seems to be completely lost or ignored: it is the point of view of the child.

“All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and wellbeing which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal.”

Well allow me to correct you, you blithering evil oaf. Marriage as a legal institution, which is what this is all about, was created by governments. Who else could make it a legal thing? Whether you recognise a couple’s union as marriage by your hocus-pocus – sorry, religious – terminology is up to you, but don’t expect sane people to take you seriously, you pompous arsehole.

(Sorry, I’m getting a bit carried away here, but this ridiculous tosser has just got right up my nose, the pillock.)

Marriage as a religious institution was created by people – men. You, Mr O’Brien, would claim, I assume – though you don’t in this story – that it was created by God. That’s tosh, I’m afraid. There is no evidence whatsoever. Anyway, he told me he had nothing to do with it.

Then there’s this shit about kids. Whatever the debate about whether a kid is better brought up by a male and a female, the fact is that gay people adopt kids who might otherwise languish till adulthood in institutions. As for creating kids using surrogacy, I’m a tiny bit iffy. While there are kids in institutions wanting stable homes, it seems a bit of a waste to add another consumer to the mix, but there you go – that’s not our argument here.

What kids deserve, Mr O-sodding-Brien, is a stable loving home. There are gay couples aplenty just ready, willing and able to provide it.

Basically, you’re talking crap to support your prejudice – a prejudice that betrays an intrinsic moral evil in you and your kind.

I hope you find a rat in your Christmas cake.

Barbarism in Nigeria

2011-11-30T11:50:00.001Z

The UK gay humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust – owner of this blog and a member of the International Humanist and Ethical Union – has expressed its dismay and outrage at the news that Nigeria’s Senate has voted in favour of a bill that will criminalise gay marriage, gay advocacy groups and same-sex public displays of affection.

It will make it illegal to register gay clubs or organisations, as well as criminalising the “public show of same-sex amorous relationships directly or indirectly”. Under the proposed law, couples who marry could face up to 14 years each in prison. Witnesses or anyone who helps couples marry could be sentenced to 10 years behind bars.

The bill, now much more wide-ranging than its initial draft, must be passed by Nigeria’s House of Representatives and signed by President Goodluck Jonathan before becoming law. However, public opinion and lawmakers’ calls for even harsher penalties show the widespread support for the measure in the deeply religious nation.

“Such elements in society should be killed,” said Sen. Baba-Ahmed Yusuf Datti of the opposition party Congress for Progressive Change, drawing some murmurs of support from the gallery.

Gay sex has been banned since British colonial rule in Nigeria, but religious leaders in the country have long pushed for harsher penalties for homosexuality and supporters of gay men and women.

In September 2011 the Anglican Primate of Nigeria called gays and lesbians “evil” at the wedding of tribal royal Princess Ewere Efeizomor, telling the room that God had created women as a “helpmates” for men.”

What is being known now as gay and homosexuality is contrary to God’s plan for human sexuality and procreation,” the Most Reverend Nicholas Okoh said. It is against the will of God, and nobody should encourage it, and those who do will earn for themselves the damnation of the Almighty.”

Commenting on this development the PTT’s secretary George Broadhead said: “Gays and lesbians already face open discrimination and abuse in a country divided by Christians and Muslims who almost uniformly oppose homosexuality. In the areas in Nigeria’s north, where Islamic Sharia Law has been enforced for about a decade, gays and lesbians can face death by stoning.

“It seems that there is a very real threat that this barbaric bill will become law and if it does, Nigeria will become the most homophobic nation in Africa. Even in South Africa, the one country where gays can marry, lesbians have been brutally attacked and murdered.

“If the bill is legalised, the situation for LGBT people in Nigeria will become completely untenable and set a precedent that would threaten all Nigerians’ rights to privacy, equality, free expression and association.

“It is clear that the impetus for such legislation has come from religious sources, and the Nigerian Humanist Movement (NHM), which has had financial support from the PTT, has been one of the few heterosexual institutions defending LGBT rights in the county. Its executive director, Leo Igwe, deserves much credit for courageously speaking up for their rights in the country’s parliament.”

Aussies are becoming Muslims, MP claims

2011-11-27T10:02:00.000Z

An Australian MP reckons Aussies are being turned into Muslims because they’re unwittingly eating cruelly slaughtered meat.

Oh, Muslims call it halal, which means acceptable to their religion – a religion that clearly favours cruelly dispatched animals unless, as is allowed by some Muslims, prestunning is employed. But the rest of us call it animal cruelty.

The Aussies aren’t exactly being turned into Muslims, but I see what he means. He reckons it’s a step on the way.

“By having Australians unwittingly eating Halal food we are all one step down the path towards the conversion, and that is a step we should only make with full knowledge and one that should not be imposed upon us without us knowing,” Luke Simpkins has said.

He has a point, just as we do in the UK, where we may be eating meat whose slaughter we’d be ethically opposed to, and would reject that meat in favour of prestunned if we did but know.

How many schoolkids are being fed this stuff, because it’s deemed to make more economic sense to buy in meat from one supplier?

I don’t say people should not be able to follow the customs of their religion, but that goes only as far as not imposing suffering on others – including animals, which are stressed enough in livestock markets and abattoirs without having their throats slit while they’re still conscious. And, of course, it shouldn’t be imposed on those of us who reject this barbarism.

But will government do anything about it? How do you know when you buy beef or lamb in a supermarket that it hasn’t had its throat slit while conscious?

There needs to be clear labelling, but preferably a ban on the practice altogether. If they don’t want to eat meat that’s prestunned, they can always go veggie.

See also “Let them eat hake”.

Homophobic peers strike again

2011-11-22T12:07:00.001Z

Some Tory peers (well, they would be Tories, wouldn’t they?) are objecting to allowing same-sex ceremonies in religious premises.

This move is being led by one Baroness O’Cathain, who has form when it comes to homophobia.

They fear religious establishments will be forced to splice same-sex couples, but my understanding is that they won’t. So what’s the big fuss if it’s not downright homophobia?

The idea is being supported by more enlightened Christians, such as the Quakers, though, as the link above, to a story in the Independent, demonstrates.

Some walk the talk; others just talk the talk

2011-11-20T08:38:00.000Z

Eighteen UK Church of England bishops have signed an open letter having a go at the current Con–Dem government for its draconian, not to say evil, plot to ensure the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

I refer to its plans for welfare, and its naïve* belief that, in a country where jobs are disappearing and at any time up to five people are chasing one job – and, even then, some are not “proper jobs”, but part-time or on short contract or no contract at all – people can just go out and find work.

So these 18 bishops have signed an open letter criticising this plot, and there’s backing from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Their main concern seems to be for children – because the government wants to limit the amount any given household can claim in benefits, no matter how big the family, and, they say, it’s not the fault of children that they’re in big families.

And the Children's Society claims the policy will cut support to around 210,000 children and make as many as 80,000 homeless.

OK, so far, so good. Bishops walking the talk.

But there are 44 diocesan bishops and archbishops in Britain, so where are the other 26? (By coincidence, 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords as of right, but, without checking them all out, I doubt it’s the 26 who haven’t signed the letter, although there’s bound to be some overlap.)

I assume the invitation to sign the open letter, which is in today’s Observer, went out to all bishops. I don’t know that to be the case, but it seems likely that they’d all be invited to sign it.

Just wondering . . .
__________
* No, I take that back about "naïve". These monsters know exactly what they are doing.

Kiss ’n’ sue

2011-11-19T06:00:00.000Z

The Vatican is threatening some sort of legal action over a photoshopped pic in a Benetton ad of Herr Ratzinger kissing a leading imam.

Bit late now, isn’t it? It’s all over the place, just as Benetton no doubt intended. It’s always been one for the shock value.

Well, Pink Triangle is doing its bit. The picture is on this page and a Pink Paper story can be found here.

The Vatican is clearly upset (tee-hee), with a spokestwat saying the picture “shows a grave lack of respect for the pope, an offence to the feelings of believers”. Aw, diddums!

A nice little earner . . .

2011-11-17T12:30:00.000Z

It’s pretty easy to see why the Arch of Cant, Rowan Williams, and his Number Two in the Church of England, John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, should want Britain to steer clear of an elected House of Lords (that, for my multitude of overseas readers, is our upper legislative house here in dear old Blighty).

If we go for a fully elected Lords, you see, the right of the Church of England to have 26 – or, indeed, any – bishops sitting there as of right, just for being bishops, will disappear. And it can’t come too soon.

I’ve no objection to bishops or imams or rabbis in the House of Lords – provided they get there on merit, not by default. They would be peers, but just happen to be bishops or whatever.

At the moment, there are these 26 geezers in frocks sitting there, who, if they do say anything useful, don’t do so because they’re bishops but because they have something useful to say. That could apply to anyone.

Which brings me to another objection from the two prelates: the chamber would lose much of its expertise.

This presupposes that no one who is elected could possibly have expertise.

Well, if all peers were appointed because of their expertise – which isn’t the case, because a lot of peerages are handed out through favouritism, and no doubt corruption (peerages for donations, that sort of thing) – I could see some point in it.

And why, anyway, should not potential peers have to show some expertise, or at least aptitude, before being allowed even to run for election (something I favour for MPs and local councillors, who ought to sit an appropriate examination of before their parties are even allowed to put them forward)?

And there’s no doubt that their bloody holinesses or graces or lordships or whatever they’re called see their own beliefs in fairies as “expertise”.

The government’s draft bill at the moment proposes a House of Lords of 300 members, with 80 to 100 per cent of peers elected by proportional representation. There’s never been an elected upper chamber in the UK, and the public have been bamboozled into thinking this is an OK situation, that people should be allowed to legislate on our behalf without our having put them there.

The archbishops also question whether a salaried House of Lords can be justified in these straitened times. Easy. Pay them how they’re paid now: an allowance – but cut it. They’re entitled to £300 a day (tax-free), when so many hardworking people don’t even get £300 a week! There would be enough people willing to do the job for less than is being paid now – without the distraction of being a bishop.

How do they find the time? Isn’t being a bishop a full-time occupation? If a bishop can find time to sit in the House of Lords, too, bishoping can’t be that onerous. Either bishoping or sitting in the House must be something of a sinecure. And they’re entitled to £300 a day for it. Tax-free!

The new word of the month: Gaystapo

2011-11-16T18:00:00.000Z

The Church of England Newspaper called gay campaingners Nazis recently. Well, one of its contributors, a right-wing, nasty piece of work called Alan Craig, did.

He coined the portmanteau word “Gaystapo”. The newspaper defended it.

Well, it’s his opinion, but to label as Nazis some of the people whom the Nazis sent to concentration camps and gassed is rather under the belt. The man must himself have Nazi sympathies even to suggest such a thing.

Anyway, in the Huffington Post, Patrick Strudwick has a go at him. It’s worth a read. And there are some links there, too.

A big grovel

2011-11-16T09:30:00.000Z

“American director Brett Ratner confirmed that he will not be producing next year’s Academy Awards broadcast after using a gay slur during a press conference to promote his latest film.”

This is what Pink News told us earlier this month after this guy said rehearsals were for fags.

Since then, however, Jane Lynch, who plays the delightful Sue Sylvester in Glee and is herself gay, has supported him.

“I think humour is such a personal thing,” she has said, “and, you put a microphone in somebody’s face, they’re going to say something that offends somebody.”

Well, give him his due: he’s grovelled over his remark, and here’s his statement in full:

Over the last few days, I’ve gotten a well-deserved earful from many of the people I admire most in this industry expressing their outrage and disappointment over the hurtful and stupid things I said in a number of recent media appearances. To them, and to everyone I’ve hurt and offended, I’d like to apologize publicly and unreservedly.

As difficult as the last few days have been for me, they cannot compare to the experience of any young man or woman who has been the target of offensive slurs or derogatory comments. And they pale in comparison to what any gay, lesbian, or transgender individual must deal with as they confront the many inequalities that continue to plague our world.

So many artists and craftspeople in our business are members of the LGBT community, and it pains me deeply that I may have hurt them. I should have known this all along, but at least I know it now: words do matter. Having love in your heart doesn’t count for much if what comes out of your mouth is ugly and bigoted. With this in mind, and to all those who understandably feel that apologies are not enough, please know that I will be taking real action over the coming weeks and months in an effort to do everything I can both professionally and personally to help stamp out the kind of thoughtless bigotry I’ve so foolishly perpetuated.

As a first step, I called Tom Sherak this morning and resigned as a producer of the 84th Academy Awards telecast. Being asked to help put on the Oscar show was the proudest moment of my career. But as painful as this may be for me, it would be worse if my association with the show were to be a distraction from the Academy and the high ideals it represents.

I am grateful to GLAAD [Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation] for engaging me in a dialogue about what we can do together to increase awareness of the important and troubling issues this episode has raised and I look forward to working with them. I am incredibly lucky to have a career in this business that I love with all of my heart and to be able to work alongside so many of my heroes. I deeply regret my actions and I am determined to learn from this experience.

That’s a pretty big grovel, and I wish everyone who insults gay people – either intentionally or otherwise – would do the same.

It’s easy to say the wrong thing. We’ve all done it, whether in the presence of someone of a different sex or a different colour or someone who has a disability. We’re spontaneous animals and associations are made quickly in our brains and words can tumble out before we realise what’s happening.

Pity Glee is only on Sky now, though. I watched two series when it was available on Freeview. (OK, OK, I just like that kind of stuff, OK? It’s camp and showy. Don’t give me a hard time.) But then Sky bought it, and I’m buggered if I’m going to subscribe to Sky for the sake of one series – even Glee.

Believers or “believers”?

2011-11-15T10:36:00.001Z

“I had a very difficult time following a so-called religion whose founder and followers had butchered my ancestors, raped and sold our women, burned our libraries, and destroyed our magnificent culture. Islam was forced down the throats of Iranians with the sword of Allah. In my heart, I never considered myself a Muslim. However, I didn’t reveal this until later in life for fear of retribution by radical Muslims.”

Thus writes Amil Imani in International Analyst Network.

What makes this statement more remarkable is that he was brought up in an Islamic family. “I never embraced Islam in the first place, although I was born and raised in a Muslim family,” he writes.

He has a go at sharia law, saying, “Sharia law stipulates that any Muslim who turns his back on Islam should be given a chance to revert to the faith. For an unrepentant male apostate, death is the proscribed punishment and life imprisonment for the female apostate.”

And this points up the sheer illogicality of it all. How can you force someone to believe something? They either believe or don’t. Belief is not a voluntary action: it’s entirely involuntary, like your heartbeat.

It also insults the religion, if these bozos who insist on blind faith could only see it. If someone is being coerced into “revert[ing] to the faith”, they will outwardly embrace the tenets without believing in them. They’ll never be able to tell anyone, for fear of punishment. But the fact remains: they are pretending to believe. So how many Muslims – and those of other belief systems where coercion is a factor – are thought to believe in their hocus-pocus while not doing so?

Far better, surely, to have a believer who is literally that, rather than a “believer” you have to put quote marks around.

And all of this prompts the question: how many true believers are there? As many as they like to claim? Obviously not, if many of them are “believers” under duress.

LGBT humanists protest at Russian antigay legislation

2011-11-14T14:23:00.001Z

The UK gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) – owner of this blog – is appalled to learn of the latest antigay legislation proposed in Russia.

The legal committee of the St Petersburg Legislative Assembly has introduced a draft law prohibiting the so-called propaganda of “sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism and transgenderism, and paedophilia to minors”.

Commenting on this, PTT secretary George Broadhead said: “This is yet another example of the homophobia, which seems rampant in Russian society, no doubt fostered by the malign influence of the Orthodox Church. In this instance it is especially repugnant that the Assembly has associated homosexuality with paedophilia.

“As the LGBT organisation Coming Out Russia points out, the Assembly has chosen to ignore the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention for Human Rights, the Council of Europe recommendations and other decrees by international organisations of which Russia is a member.”

Reacting to the plea for help from Coming Out Russia, the PTT has sent a letter of protest to Yakovenko Alexander Vladimirovich, the Russian Ambassador in the UK.

Why secularists make Christians angry (and vice versa)

2011-11-12T11:23:00.000Z

A report from Premier Christian Media is highlighting how Christians feel more persecuted. The rise of secularism is one thing that is blamed for this.

But it’s cause and effect. If Christians (and other religions, notably Islam) didn’t make ridiculous demands, secularists would be less vocal. It becomes a game of ping-pong, with each side trying to hit the ball harder each time it comes to its end of the table.

If secularists complain that there’s too much religion on TV, say, that’s probably because there is (disproportionately so), and the BBC and other broadcasters are guilty of kowtowing to these beliefs, instead of – as I’m sure would be quite acceptable – making interesting programmes about religion to enable us to increase our knowledge, just as we might seek to increase our knowledge of cooking by watching Jamie Oliver. (No, scrub that. TV cooking is just a spectator sport for morons, but I digress.)

I’m not saying secularists are always right – and often one wishes they’d stick to secularism if that is their only remit, and stop pontificating on spiritual matters or issues of ontology and theology. After all, secularism is just a case of wishing to chuck the churches and other religious organisations out of public decision making and put them on a level playing field with any other group that seeks the ear of those in power.

If secularists have “humanist” in their name, then that’s a different matter, because the term “humanism” seems to have such a wide scope that it invites its devotees to say just about anything. However, not all humanists are as freethinking as they like to make out, and some so-called freethinkers can be quite dogmatic, as a glance at the letters pages of the Freethinker will confirm.

But, on the whole, secularists pure and simple or secularists who are humanists, rationalists and/or freethinkers have the moral high ground as far as this humble blogger is concerned. Religion is a huge power game, and should be put in its place. It’s far removed from the simple sets of beliefs that probably gave rise to it. Spirituality is a personal thing, as is belief in gods and other supernatural agencies.

Most secularists would argue that people should be allowed to enjoy their beliefs, practise their rituals, celebrate their festivals, honour their deities – as long as they don’t wish (a) to push it all down everyone’s throat or (b) to restrict others’ freedom, either to have religious beliefs or not to have religious beliefs.

And that, if anything, is the strongest case for keeping religion in the private sphere. I’m sure few people object to a bit of sentimental hokum at Christmas, say. I for one like the sound of carols, and the odd crib scene in a town centre doesn’t send me into a vapour; church bells can be pleasing to the ear, provided they don’t keep one awake or frighten the horses. Christianity was here a long time before it began to decline, and it’s informed much of our culture.

If I saw a harmless display celebrating Diwali, say, I’d think the same.

But religionists who shout and throw their toys out of the pram can turn mild secularists into raging, uncompromising fanatics, complete with pitchforks and torches.

Religion versus spirituality

2011-11-11T11:03:00.001Z

The leader of the Catholic Church in Dublin is getting into a hissy fit about the fact that Ireland has closed down its embassy in the Vatican. Yes, some countries have embassies in the Vatican.

Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny says the decision was made purely on cost-cutting grounds.

“But Archbishop Diarmuid Martin’s latest comments [about the closure] will only fuel the suspicion that relations between Church and State are at an all time low,” says Irish Central.

Martin, you see, has a problem with the fact that some people see religion as a private thing, and thinks it ought to be an inseparable, joined-at-the-hip part of national life.

Not happy with having the freedom to practise their religion (which is as it should be), not happy with having special privileges, tax breaks and the ear of government, these bloody idiots think it ought to be imposed on everyone, and that their tax euros should be spent on upholding an embassy in La-La Land. Here’s a further taste of what this idiot’s statement says:

Societies like our own where faith and the Christian life once flourished and faith communities were strong are now undergoing a far-reaching transformation.

The reality of God is slowly being eclipsed and people are living their lives as if God does not exist. It is not so much an atmosphere of hostility towards faith but an attitude of indifference or one which tolerates a presence for God in the private lives of individuals but much less within the realities of our society.

Some who felt that religion was destined to be relegated to the purely private sphere are surprised by the fact that religion has come back to centre stage in international relations. [Has it?]

This is not just about a surge in forms of fundamentalism. Faith is not just part of the problem; religion is so central in the life and mentality of many that it cannot but be part of the solution to central problems of international relations today.

Well, for one thing, international relations might be a lot better off if the complication of religion were taken out the equation. It’s just noise.

For another thing, he’s mixing up God with religion. People have all kinds of ideas about the origins of the universe and whether some kind of noncorporeal progenitor might have been bored and decided to get out the Play-Doh.

The thing is, we’ll never know.

But look what an unholy mess religion has made of the idea, with its Babel of conflicting ideas and ideals. So God, if you believe in one, is a personal thing, because he/she/it has so many versions that it’s impossible to impose him/her/it universally.

But these believers in fairies think they have a special place in the world, and should be central to all things.

I can go along with the idea of spirituality, because it doesn’t have to imply things beyond the experienced world, and one can get a spiritual experience out of a Beethoven symphony or some electro-synth, out of a Dalí painting or out of a toke on a spliff (try all three at once: it’s like, wow, man).

It can also rely on a belief in the supernatural.

Either way, it’s very personal. But these dictators who want to shove their ideas down the throat of every citizen make me suddenly want to develop warm feelings towards Hitler.