Nadine Dorries and the Right to Know
50 Renowned Academics & Scientists Talk About God
And basically trash the entire concept. One to enjoy and share with the zealots.
So What if Equality is Religious Discrimination?
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.
Homophobic Stickers Merit a Slap on the Wrist
Mohammed Hasnath posted a whole bunch of these stickers around the East End of London (where I work):
“Basically, some people just handed them to me so I just put them up. I didn’t say anything, it doesn’t say that I am going to punish them it just says what God says in the Koran.
“I wasn’t the one who made them, some people gave them to me and I only put up a few, there were hundreds of them up. I didn’t know the police were going to get involved or that it was a offence or anything.”
And in response he was given a slap on the wrist:
Hasnath, who lives with his family in Tower Hamlets and survives on job seekers allowance, was fined £100, ordered to pay £85 costs and a £15 victim surcharge. The offence could not carry a custodial sentence.
District Judge Coleman said: “I think you used these stickers deliberately to offend and distress people, you certainly succeeded in doing that.
“You have upset people and they deserve an apology, you are not entitled to behave in this way.”
An apology? £100? Inciting homophobic hatred in the community is worthy of a trivial fine and a demand for an apology? This asshole should be in jail! What if that sticker had said ‘Muslim free zone’? ‘Jew free zone’? I can’t believe that a message of outright hatred, with the clear implicit threat of violence, wouldn’t merit a custodial sentence. Turns out it could have – last month the CPS said:
“This case has now been referred to the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division to consider whether a section 29C (1) of Public Order Act 1986 offence should be added. This offence is committed if a person uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, if they intend thereby to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.”
So they decided not to bother even trying to jail him for up to six months, sending out a message that there are no meaningful consequences to anti-gay extremism like this. Others have pointed it out for many other reasons recently, but it’s clear that there’s something really rotten at the heart of the Crown Prosecution Service.
House of Lords Reform? It Isn’t.
A quick demonstration of how Nick Clegg has utterly lost his way. His long-promised House of Lords reform isn’t going to be anything of the sort:
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.
Screw the Vatican!
The Vatican appears to have joined in the clamour of religious zealots to claim ‘persecution’ for being ever increasingly prevented (at least in the developed world) from discriminating against gay people. Given their history of covering up paedophilia in their own ranks, it’s perhaps no surprise that they feel that an offence is a good defence, but this really takes the cake. From Archbishop Silvio Tomasi, Catholicism’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations to the Human Rights Council of all places:
for the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behaviour, on the other. A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings. But states can, and must, regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviours must be forbidden by law. Paedophilia and incest are two examples.
And how predictable of the bastard to lump paedophilia, incest and homosexuality (by implication) together. Just how should homosexuality be regulated, more to the point why should it be regulated, when national medical and psychological bodies in every country in the developed world agree homosexuality is inherent and not harmful? It’s one of many reminders that the Vatican, this accident of history, remains bound to religious ‘law’ and isn’t playing on the same civil law playing field as the rest of those of us in the 21st century.
But he goes on:
the Holy See wishes to affirm its deeply held belief that human sexuality is a gift that is genuinely expressed in the complete and lifelong mutual devotion of a man and a woman in marriage. Human sexuality, like any voluntary activity, possesses a moral dimension : it is an activity which puts the individual will at the service of a finality; it is not an “identity”. In other words, it comes from the action and not from the being, even though some tendencies or “sexual orientations” may have deep roots in the personality. Denying the moral dimension of sexuality leads to denying the freedom of the person in this matter, and undermines ultimately his/her ontological dignity. This belief about human nature is also shared by many other faith communities, and by other persons of conscience.
Who gives a toss what this moron believes? Does he actually appreciate he’s addressing a human rights council? Does he not appreciate his audience actually knows sexual orientation is inherent? He can philosophise his bigotry all he likes – it doesn’t make him right and it certainly doesn’t give him the right to try to suggest that human rights law shouldn’t cover sexual orientation. Then again this is the Catholic Church, and they have tried every trick in the book to keep themselves from being held to account for their genuine crimes, and Tomasi predictably continues by claiming persecution against Catholics:
People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex. When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatised, and worse — they are vilified, and prosecuted.
Expressing a viewpoint doesn’t get anyone prosecuted. What gets people prosecuted is discrimination, which under European law is illegal in the provision of goods and services. The theist line is so damned tedious. As I’ve pointed out time and time again in this blog, in this era of conflicting rights claims and legislation, religion’s rights to discriminate lose out every time, now that almost all western government have concluded that protection of gay people from any discrimination is more important. This, whatever Tomasi would like you to believe, is not an attack on religion itself. It’s time to start ignoring the hate persistently spewed by the Vatican; it’s entirely out of step with the modern world.
For God’s Sake!
Blasphemy laws by the back door? You decide. From the British Humanist Association:
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 mostly
concerned 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.
Worship Really Has No Place in Schools
It is unclear to me how expecting pupils to spend time venerating a being in which they might or might not believe develops their sense of identity and self-worth. Wouldn’t the time be spent more effectively giving pupils the space to engage in structured personal reflection. This could mean pupils spending a few minutes silently thinking about or responding to a stimulus chosen specifically for its potential to develop pupils spiritually (and also morally, socially and culturally). The stimulus might be religious or nonreligious, for there is clearly wisdom in both: perhaps a quote from the Bible, Gandhi or even Marx. Pupils could share their insights with each other, discussing and debating their views, making their engagement collective and participatory and building a sense of communal identity. This is surely valuable, it is inclusive to all (religious or not) and, to be frank, it is not worship and it’s not “mainly or broadly Christian”.
We should reject the idea that worship has a place in our schools. We simply cannot expect pupils to engage in activities that venerate a being they might not believe in. Not only does this violate children’s rights, it offers no real opportunity for spiritual development. Rather, let’s open up pupils’ minds by opening up assemblies as opportunities for personal and shared reflection. This is what many schools do already, so let’s not be dishonest and exclude pupils by calling it worship.
I couldn’t agree more. I went to a school which pushed religion very hard in school assemblies and although I wouldn’t say I was damaged by it, would certainly not say that it helped my personal development in any way at all. Quite the contrary – it almost certainly contributed to developing my utter disdain for unquestioning tradition. Perhaps it’s ironic that Christianity made me hate Christmas.
Separately I can’t fathom why schools do nothing whatsoever to teach children and young people about developing their minds. It’s all about knowledge and passing exams but why is there no room for meditation? Surely understanding oneself is more important than almost anything else?!
HateMail Portrays Gay Couple as Nazis
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.
Christian Soldiers Fail Fail and Fail Again
The zealous Christian owners of the Bed & Breakfast which refused a double room to a gay couple have been found guilty of discrimination:
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.
Britain’s Own War on Christmas
I love Marcus Brigstocke:
The Christian bullies can indeed stop their incessant whining about how the BBC society country entire population isn’t Christmassy enough enough like them now. Sublime.
(via Marc Hall)
Creationists are Just Plain Stupid
As many of you know, Joe Cienkowski is quite possibly the stupidest of all the stupid creationists on the Internet. For reasons known only to him (and them) he seems desperate to prove that evolutionary biologist Prof Richard Dawkins actually supports their outrageous, baseless philosophy. Of course that’s nonsense. Let’s start a rebuttal by showing what Dawkins thinks of creationists:
Of creationists he says: ‘a mind like that…it seems to me is…well…a disgrace to the human species’. Hmm. That doesn’t sound very supportive of intelligent design or creationism. For that matter, have a watch of Jim (@movingtomontana) Gardner’s video (at about 2:47), showing Dawkins himself utterly and completely refuting any vague hint of belief in intelligent design in any way:
Given Dawkins’ own comments it would be pointless to attack Joe’s petulant footstamping line by line. Instead I’m going to offer you a smattering of viewpoints utterly breaking the preposterous notion of design. First we have Neil deGrasse Tyson, reflecting on the stupidity of ‘design’:
Then there’s Randolph Nesse (with Dawkins) showing yet again how the eye could not possibly have been ‘intelligently’ designed, and how evolution is instead at work:
And lastly for now, Dawkins himself explains how the illusion of deliberate design seems to happen (but doesn’t). It starts at about 4:15:
More creationist nonsense, easily dismissed by the…evidence! Your move, Joe (and creationism in general really).
I Don’t Care If This Offends Catholics
And yet the Advertising Standards Agency banned this ad as ‘potentially offensive to Catholics’:
The advertisement for Antonio Federici ice cream shows two priests who appear to be on the verge of kissing, with the tag line “We Believe in Salivation”. On the basis of six complaints, the ASA has banned the advertisement as potentially “offensive to Catholics”. This is the second advertisement from the firm that the ASA has banned. A previous one showed a pregnant nun eating the ice cream with the tag: “Immaculately conceived”.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “It seems our celebrations about the end of the blasphemy law were premature. The Advertising Standards Agency – which is elected by no-one and seems to be answerable to no-one – has reinstated the law unilaterally. Anyone who has seen the Antonio Federici ads knows that they are mildly humorous, in no way threatening, abusive or insulting. It is entirely wrong that these advertisements have been banned by such an unaccountable body, which needs to be reined in.”
Aside from the clear homophobia, I want to comment on the question of offence. It’s right that the National Secular Society should be worried about blasphemy being reintroduced into Britain by the back door, but it’s only a lesser function of the greater question about whether anyone in the country should be protected from offence. The ASA themselves said:
We noted the ad used the text “We Believe in Salivation” as a theme to refer to the taste of the product and to the image of the priests, who were portrayed in a seductive pose as if they were about to kiss passionately. We considered the portrayal of the two priests in a sexualised manner was likely to be interpreted as mocking the beliefs of Roman Catholics and was therefore likely to cause serious offence to some readers. We concluded that the ad breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 11) clause 5.1 (Decency).
Interesting that the ASA should choose, in bending over backwards (ahem) not to offend the sensibilities of SIX THEISTS, to legitimise homophobia. Something has gone horribly wrong in this society when religious homophobes should have their bigotry protected from offence - not discrimination, not violence but merely from gentle mockery. Offence doesn’t involved discrimination – protecting from offence doesn’t involve protection from incitement to hatred. Why on earth should there be any system in place in this country which allows for protection from ideas or images people (in this case SIX) just don’t like, even though they aren’t harmed by them in any way? The majority of Catholics after all don’t appear to have been remotely bothered.
Dear Creationist Joe Cienkowski
I’ve spoken to Joe Cienkowski (@JoeCienkowski) for some months on Twitter. Most recently he blocked me for warning him that releasing a video claiming to prove evolution definitively false, the earth no more than 6,000 years old and God conclusively real would see him mocked across the Internet. And as he himself points out in his video ‘Grand Reality’ he considers himself the ultimate spokesman for creationism, and professes to have the proof in this video that the world can’t be more than 6,000 years old, and that his God definitely exists. I’ll leave you to watch (and guffaw), and then I’ll comment below:
I’m going to keep this relatively short, because I think Joe (@Joe4Jesus now?) might just want to read it, so if it’s too intricate a deconstruction he’ll stop reading; too academic an approach and he’ll never understand it. With that in mind I’ll address the issues (as he’s nagged me to do) right here, right now:
Joe and people like him haven’t the slightest idea of what science is, what evidence means or how to try to prove their case honestly. Firstly here’s a video to show you what creationism is up to. It’s pretty long, but well worth a watch:
Then enjoy this cartoon, which simplifies the creationist perspective on the world, showing how problematic arguing with them is:
So let’s look at the conclusions that Joe starts with and tries to retrofit reality around:
Joe says evolution isn’t possible, that humans and apes don’t have a common ancestor
We know this isn’t true. Here’s a quick introduction:
Joe says that the human body is an incredibly crafted machine
We know evolution is responsible for it. Here’s a good starting point for understanding the eye:
And here’s another video (albeit a little lengthy) explaining the complete flaw in creationism’s design argument:
Joe says that humans will always produce humans
What he means is the Creationist meme that ‘kind only produces kind’. Check this out:
Joe says that the theory of evolution is religious in nature
It would mean no intermediate fossils (as he says), but here’s Dawkins with yet another lesson:
Let’s not forget the ‘religious’ element. Let’s look at the definition:
Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.[1] It is commonly regarded as consisting of a person’s relation to God, gods, or spirits.[2] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditionsand sacred histories associated with their deity or deities, that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics,religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including congregations for prayer, priestly hierarchies, holy places, and/or scriptures.
Calling evolution a ‘religion’ is just plain stupid. There’s no other way of looking at it. Why? Because it simply isn’t connected to the definition in any way. Creationists think evolution needs to be believed in order to be true. They on the other hand choose to ignore the evidence because with their wonky worldview it would debunk God ‘Him’self. How amusing.
Oh and as far as the ‘revolutionary’ population argument goes, it’s thoroughly refuted here, although Joe will no doubt fail to understand it. (Thanks to Marc Hall)
Joe I’ll be delighted to take your appallingly ignorant arguments apart on YouTube in the next few days too, you’re that deserving. In the meantime watch what I’ve put up here because you could learn from it. History says that you (as other creationists) will just stick your fingers in your ears, say ‘lalala the atheist’s making it all up’. But wouldn’t that just make you look even more stupid than you already do?
If Atheists Ruled the World
They allege that every word is taken literally from Christian fundamentalist forums. Having spoken at great length to wingnuts like @JoeCienkowski, I’m more than ready to accept that. Listen, laugh and worry.
(via atheistineden)
