Comments more than welcome.

(via Anonymous)

Related posts:

1. Rapture? No Rapture! (via Godless Atheist) It’s easy to laugh of course, isn’t...
2. 50 Renowned Academics & Scientists Talk About God And basically trash the entire concept. One to enjoy and...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The current paranoid climate about Christianity is continuing:

Related posts:

1. For God’s Sake! Blasphemy laws by the back door? You decide. From the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related posts:

1. Abortion Counselling: Nadine Dorries vs Evan Harris I love how Dr Harris breaks Dorries’ argument so easily,...
2. So What if Equality is Religious Discrimination? From the Guardian: A select committee-style inquiry on Christianity is to...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

And basically trash the entire concept. One to enjoy and share with the zealots.

Related posts:

1. For God’s Sake! Blasphemy laws by the back door? You decide. From the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Breivik, while having political targets, is still a religious terrorist. The bomb was placed to target the secular government. The children were horrifically targeted to either send a message to their secular, left-leaning parents or eradicate their “bloodline.” He did this to send a message to those he held responsible for allowing Muslims into his country and Europe at large. He wants to establish a Nationalist Theocracy with Christians supplanting every level. Americans are more familiar with the term “Dominionism.”  Let’s be clear: that worldview/theology is the same thing.

For the Christians that automatically claim “well that is not ‘true’ Christianity” I have some news for you. I know that his is not reflective of (most of) what you believe to be Christ’s teachings (thankfully for the rest of us), but at this point the confluence of the teachings of Christ and the actions of many of his “followers” is irrelevant. Also, whether or not you agree with their theology is irrelevant. They would just as quickly dismiss yours. It is all too easy to dismiss him/them as “not true Christians,” and they you. That is called a “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Read the whole article. Quite unnerving but no less brilliant because of it.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A select committee-style inquiry on Christianity is to be held in order to clarify how the law affects believers, amid increasing claims of religious discrimination and persecution.

The public hearings, scheduled to last for about three months this autumn, will invite peers and politicians to examine legislation on hate crime and equality and evaluate whether changes are needed.

The inquiry is the idea of Gary Streeter MP, a Christian who chairs the cross-party group Christians in Parliament. He said that, while there was religious freedom in Britain, some groups were “whipping up an alternative view and generating fear” where there did not need to be any. He said: “That fear is growing, that voice is growing. There is a particular problem. In the last 12 months, we have had legal cases that provoked concern. These now need to be tackled.”

We have an Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have an Equality Act. We have the courts, who are well aware that in an age of competing rights claims they will have to determine, case-by-case, winners and losers. There is no need whatsoever to look at this again institutionally. What we have is a group of ultra-devout zealots, who believe they should still have the right to discriminate because of their religion, or to proselytise in the world of work.

Christians (as well as theists in general) need to grow up. I don’t care one iota if their freedom (which has never been a ‘right’) to discriminate on religious grounds has trashed by equality under the law for me. Noone has suggested for a minute that they should be prohibited in some Minority Report stylee from thinking less of me because I’m gay; they have the right to believe in pink unicorns for all I care. But they don’t have the right to discriminate against me because of the crazy ideas they have; noone does and noone should. There is nothing more to discuss.

Related posts:

1. Screw the Vatican! The Vatican appears to have joined in the clamour of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“It is a tremendous mistake for the Church of England to start taking an interest in religion.”

Says it all really. As he goes on to say, the mad ‘Christian’ cultists, with their massive (and growing) congregations steeped in bollocks about evil spirits and demons, should be left well enough alone.

Related posts:

1. House of Lords Reform? It Isn’t. A quick demonstration of how Nick Clegg has utterly lost...
2. For God’s Sake! Blasphemy laws by the back door? You decide. From the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

(via Godless Atheist)

It’s easy to laugh of course, isn’t it? As if the world was going to end on 21st May 2011 just because some religious lunatic said so. What alarmed me then and alarms me now is the lengths to which the truly devout would go in response. After all if you’ve subcontracted your morality out to religion, why stay moral when you believe you’re guaranteed to rise up with Jesus? Check this out:

Harold Camping should be held liable for this (and any other instances which arise). Martin Pribble couldn’t be more right when he says:

I agree with what Voltaire is famous for saying “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”but with one addition: “and in return you must be willing to face the consequences of your actions.”

And that’s exactly it. Hopefully the plethora of Christianists in America will start seeing just how much they’ve been duped, but I wouldn’t like to put my money on it. People who feel detached from the mainstream of things will always latch onto whatever it takes to feel part of something, even delusional bullshit like this ‘rapture’.

Related posts:

1. It’s Judgment Day! Somegreybloke has something to say about #rapture today, seeing as...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Government’s proposal to retain 12 reserved seats for Church of England Bishops would actually mean an increase proportionately of the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords. Keeping any reserved seats for the Bishops would be an affront to democracy and antithetical to the aims of a fairer and more egalitarian parliament, the British Humanist Association (BHA) has claimed.

The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg set out the Government’s plans in a statement to the House of Commons from 15.30 on Tuesday 17 May. The Government’s proposals include a significant reduction in membership of the chamber, from nearly 800 at present to 300, and between 80-100% elected and the remaining appointed. At present, 26 Bishops of the Church of England are entitled to sit in the House of Lords as of right; the only such example of clergy holding automatic membership of a legislature in a modern democracy.

Under current arrangements, Bishops make up 3% of the House of Lords. Under the Government’s proposals that would increase to 4%. Reducing the number of reserved seats for Bishops from 26 to 12 would actually increase their presence proportionately in the chamber.

This is palpably absurd. The Bishops represent the views of unaccountable organised religion and haven’t been voted for by anyone. They are an appalling anachronism in what now, more than ever, needs to be a modern parliament, bent on ever better representation and not privilege. The Bishops should not be there at all. It’s a good thing that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to transform the upper chamber into an elected body, but retaining an increased undemocratic element can’t be allowed to happen. I saw the word ‘religiophobe’ used on Twitter yesterday, and an even better definition:

Religiophobe: One who strives for the elimination of religious privilege in government and public service.

I couldn’t agree more. That’s a badge I’d wear with pride.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Three posters planned for display at railway stations as part of The Census Campaign have been refused by companies owning the advertising space, who viewed them as too likely to cause offence.

Two reasons were given by owners of the space: they were concerned that the use of the phrase ‘for God’s sake’ would cause widespread and serious offence and they also did not wish to take adverts relating to religion.

The BHA has reacted with astonishment that an everyday phrase should be deemed too contentious for public display.

‘It is a little tongue-in-cheek,’ BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented, ‘but in the same way that saying “bless you” has no religious implication for many, “for God’s sake” is used to express urgency and not to invoke a deity. This censorship of a legitimate advert is frustrating and ridiculous: the blasphemy laws in England have been abolished but we are seeing the same principle being enforced nonetheless.’

The BHA also pointed out that the adverts were only tangentially related to religion, being mostlyconcerned with public policy and directed towards people who are not religious.

Mr Copson continued, ‘The Census Campaign is not intended to dissuade those who hold strong religious beliefs from holding them. We are asking people to be honest and if they are not religious, to say so. Ticking “No religion” means that their voices will be heard and we will have a more truthful picture of what people really believe today.’

We are continuing down the highly dangerous path of outlawing offence and avoiding even the possibility of offence, and from the looks of it out of sheer cowardice. Is this a side effect of outlawing incitement to religious hatred, or the recent upswing in Christian militancy? ‘For God’s sake’ isn’t a religious statement, any more than ‘Good God’ or ‘Oh my God’ (OMG – religious? Please!) – self-censorship only emboldens the zealous religious lobby and contributes to this problem. The companies which denied the ads should be ashamed of themselves. The BHA point out:

• Those who profess no religion have risen from 31% to 51% between 1983 and 2009.
• In 1983 66% identified as Christian, in 2008 the number was 43%.
• In 2008 37% of the UK population are sceptical, 35% have definite or doubtful.
• In 2009 only 17% of the British population attend religious services at least monthly, and only 11% attend at least weekly.
• Those self-described as members of the Church of England consist of 20% of the population in 2009 (40% in 1983). In 2008, it was found that 49% of this group never attend services; only 8% of people who identify with the CofE attend church weekly.
• 62% of people in Britain never attend a religious service.

The religious lobby needs to be seen as the minority which it is.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Caroline Green, who was married to the anti-gay Christian extremist for 26 years, says she has come forward now because “the people who support him financially and morally should know what he is really like”.

She told the Mail on Sunday that he had beaten her and her children, “brainwashed” them and forced them to live in a dilapidated caravan in remote Wales to protect them from the “evil” of urban life.

Mrs Green described the incident which prompted her to leave him, recalling how he made a list of her failings as a wife and then beat her until she bled with a piece of wood.

She said: “He even framed our marriage vows — he always put particular emphasis on my promise to obey him — and hung them over our bed. He believed there was no such thing as marital rape and for years I’d been reluctant to have sex with him, but he said it was my duty and was angry if I refused him.

“But the beating was the last straw. It ­convinced me I had to divorce him.”

She also said that he had beaten their eldest and middle sons with belts and broomsticks.

She added: “It was almost like living in a cult. We were all subjugated to his will and cowed by him. Over the years he belittled us and made us feel worthless.

So the next time Stephen Green is interviewed by the BBC as a counter-balance to gay-related news, you know just how severely to condemn them too.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It should come as no surprise to those of us who track the HateMail’s bigotry, but check out the guy on the left’s right arm.

This is in response to the story about Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy succeeding in their case against Peter and Hazel Bull, zealous Christian B & B owners who wouldn’t let them share a room on religious grounds.

Join with me here in condemning the HateMail yet again, and continuing to encourage everyone we know who still buys that rag finally to stop.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Devout Christian hotel owners who refused to allow a gay couple to share a double room acted unlawfully, a judge at Bristol county court ruled today.

Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, who are civil partners, won their landmark claim for discrimination in a case funded and supported by theEquality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

The ruling, one of the first made under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, is likely to provide those in partnerships with greater protection from discrimination.

The owners of the Chymorvah private hotel in Cornwall, Peter and Hazel Bull, do not allow couples who are not married to share double rooms because they do not believe in sex before marriage.

The Bulls asserted that their refusal to accommodate civil partners in a double room was not to do with sexual orientation but “everything to do with sex”. The restriction, the owners said, applied equally to heterosexual couples who are not married.

In his ruling, Judge Andrew Rutherford said the hotel had directly discriminated against the couple on the grounds of their sexual orientation and awarded them compensation of £1,800 each.

A great result. I’ve heard numerous complaints that the Bulls should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they like, but the Sexual Orientation Regulations of course apply because they are providing a service, which may be conducted within their home, but which constrains their freedom to discriminate there. Ben Summerskill of Stonewall points out:

During passage of the 2006 Equality Act, Stonewall fought hard to secure pioneering “goods and services” protections for lesbian and gay people, protecting them for the first time against discrimination in the delivery of public and commercial services. The preceding legal entitlement to deny gay people a service was every bit as offensive as the notorious signs outside guesthouses that once said: “No blacks. No Irish.” And people certainly took advantage of it, as lesbians denied smear tests and gay men refused holiday bookings were well aware.

The Bulls suggest that it’s their freedom, and not that of a gay couple, that is compromised by the existing law. But no part of the current and carefully calibrated compact in Britain’s equality legislation forces anyone to do anything. However, if a couple choose to turn their home into a commercial enterprise, why should they be any more entitled to exempt themselves from equality legislation than from health and safety laws?

Of course they shouldn’t – common sense says they shouldn’t. But the Christian devout keep protesting their right to discriminate as a necessary component of their religion trumps every right gay people have to be protected from discrimination. We’ve had relationship counsellors, civil registrars and others professing their right not to serve gay people in the same manner as they would others, and they’ve all failed. Judge Andrew Rutherford said:

the right of the defendants to manifest their religion is not absolute and “can be limited to protect the rights and freedoms of the claimants”.

No doubt the devout will continue to insist they’re being persecuted, but I would insist that quote proves conclusively otherwise.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.