Pat Condell on debating dogma
Guardian: Woman arrested for naming teddy-bear “Mohammed”
Yeah, you read that right…
I really have no comment to make on this story, apart from a great big
What The Fuck?
A British teacher has been arrested in Sudan for letting her children name a teddy bear Mohammed, the British Embassy said.
Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was detained on Sunday on suspicion of insulting Islam’s prophet.
The teacher let her class of seven year olds choose the name as part of a school project.
A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: “We can confirm a British national was arrested by police in Sudan yesterday. We are providing consular assistance.”
A spokesman for the British Embassy in Khartoum said Ms Gibbons taught at Unity High School in central Khartoum.
He said: “The children chose the name because it is very common here.
No shit. Every other man in the islamic world, it seems, has one part or other of their name that’s a variation on Mohammed. Hell, even in the UK (variations on spelling aside) it’s now the second most common name for boys (after Jack).
I think a nice, slow round of applause for islam is deserved.
Yahoo!: Springer blasphemy hearing closes
As reported by Reuters in this Yahoo! News article, the hearing for the privately brought blasphemy case against the BBC for its screening of Jerry Springer: The Opera has wound-up, with a ruling expected at a later date.
The Yahoo! article writes about the arguments used to bring the case:
[Jon] Thoday is the producer of musical “Jerry Springer-The Opera,” which the BBC aired in 2005. [Stephen "dogshit"] Green argues that the show is blasphemous, likening Jesus to “the perv in a nappy.”
Based on U.S. television host Jerry Springer’s brash talk show, the musical depicts Jesus being referred to as “a little bit gay” and features Eve attempting to fondle his genitals.
Green’s lawyer Michael Gledhill [QC], speaking on Tuesday at the opening of the two-day hearing, argued that “Jerry Springer-The Opera” would never have been staged or aired in Britain had it been a satire about Islam, not Christianity.
“No theatre would have produced it. Neither would the BBC have broadcast it,” he said.
So, instead of the expected evidence, which would normally come in the form of actually showing that the alleged “crime” took place (i.e. Jesus was actually offended) nor that the offendee actually exists (as claimed by christians the world over, “Jesus is risen”, etc.), the legal team has resorted to the “you wouldn’t say that about Mohammed” argument.
Of course, this argument has absolutely nothing to do with blasphemy and is merely a pathetically executed argumentum ad baculum, which really gives me the shivers when one understand that this is coming from a QC, ostensibly a very experienced (and successful) arguer.
Of course, should a successful prosecution be brought, this can surely be seen as the UK legal system validating the existence of a god, and specifically the christian god (seeing as the UK’s blasphemy laws are strictly applied to anglicanism). Given such validation, I wouldn’t be surprised if Green were to instruct his lawyers to push for the appropriate punishment. For those that don’t know, christian scripture proscribes being put to death (Leviticus 24:16).
Christian Voice launches new bid for blasphemy ruling
Stephen “Dogshit” Green of Christian Voice is launching a private prosecution in the High Court in an attempt to sue the BBC for blasphemy for it’s screening of Jerry Springer: The Opera.
Green first launched his legal application for special treatment for supposed offence caused in 2005, but it was turned down at the time by City of Westminster magistrates court. Now Green seeks to have this ruling overturned.
The BBC reports:
Michael Gledhill QC, appearing for Mr Green, argued the district judge had made a mistake in refusing to issue the summonses as the show had clearly “crossed the blasphemy threshold”.
He said the show was “an offensive, spiteful, systematic mockery and wilful denigration of Christian belief”, and one that would never have been staged or aired in Britain had it been a satire about Islam, not Christianity.
No theatre would have produced it. Neither would the BBC have broadcast it,” he said.
As I’ve mentioned before, it seems that christians are not averse to riding on the coat-tails of islamists who might actually make good on their threats of violence. It seems that they’re content to equate the consequences of insulting christianity with those of insulting islam, yet they’re not so keen as to actually make any overt threats of violence, and even less keen to carry out those that they do make.
Instead, they make shallow comparisons and appeal to completely backwards and anachronistic laws that have no place in any modern society that values rationality, evidence and reality.
It seems to me that now is as good a time as any to promote the petition to get the UK’s blasphemy laws put onto the dog-pile of history where it belongs.
Full article over at on BBC News.
Revoke UK blasphemy laws (petition)
UK citizens: if you haven’t done so, why not take a couple of moments out of your day to sign the Number 10 petition to get rid of the UK’s blasphemy laws (deadline to sign up by: 8 March 2008).
Further reading: Appendix 3 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Religious Offences in England and Wales.
Citizens of the world: Please post this on your own blog so that we can get a wider exposure for this. 70 signatories is a poor show for a modern secular nation.
Invincible Donovan University
Thanks to Black Sun for alerting me to this example of wingnuttery on my doorstep.
From the AP (via MSNBC):
EDINBURGH, Scotland - Donovan, famous for ’60s pop hits such as “Hurdy Gurdy Man” and “Mellow Yellow,” has announced plans to open the Invincible Donovan University, where students will adhere to the principles of transcendental meditation [TM].
…
Donovan discovered transcendental meditation while visiting India and guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1968.
“The Maharishi told me during that 1968 visit that I should build a university in Edinburgh. I went to my room and drew a beautiful dome-shaped place of learning,” he said Friday.
“I didn’t know what to do because I couldn’t do this on my own. But then I met David Lynch, who told me about the positive effects of TM in education. Although it’s taken me 35 years, I will do what the Maharishi told me to do.”
…
The duo said they will now contact Scottish authorities to have the institution accredited.
“For a country the size of Scotland it would take only 250 students meditating to protect Scotland from its enemies and to bring peace, to stop violence and drug abuse,” Lynch said. “That is just a byproduct (sic) of the students meditating together.”
Obviously, this isn’t going to happen. As Black Sun points out, there are very likely over 250 people already engaged in TM in Scotland, and they’re utterly useless at making any headway whatsoever into the violence and drug problems already currently in evidence, far less “protecting” a population of about 3 million. These claims are complete hogwash and should be laughed at or, at the very worst, ignored.
So, what to do?
Well, we could let them spend their millions and build their university, let them plough through the red tape—wasting their money—trying to get accreditation, let them spend tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds in advertising trying to attract paying students. And then, when their 250-strong army of TMers completely fails to protect
Scotland and rid it of violence (unless they somehow manage to get Buckfast banned in Glasgow) and drug abuse we should remove their accreditation (if they get it), point, laugh, and say “we told you so, you fucking eejits1”.
Or, simply, we could just point, laugh, and tell the pair of them to “fuck right off” and get a clue. This is my preferred option: it costs the tax-payer less and wastes less people’s time.
Sadly, I know that there are enough credulous people here to ultimately make it worth Donovan and Lynch’s respective (financial) whiles, and I would love to see them fail (I have no problem with Schadenfreude when it comes to delusional ideas and those who seek to take advantage of others through them). I’m afraid though that any “course” accreditation will be from some other new-age fantasy-factory. The only hope I see is that the “university” appellation will be turned down by the appropriate organisation—I know that these things don’t come easily.
Come on, Scotland, stand up to these (and the other) evidence-ignoring wingnuts!
- Scots for “idiots” [↩]
Forgive us when we cock things up
From the “You couldn’t make this shit up” department:
This story from the Romford Recorder is just too precious retarded:
A PEARLY Queen’s Cockey slang version of the Lord’s Prayer recited during a formal council meeting has sparked an official complaint.
The modern interpretation of the prayer was brought to the Town Hall by the Pearly Queen of The Old Kent Road, Doreen Golding, who was invited by Havering Mayor Georgina Galpin.
The Pearly Queen, dressed in her traditional outfit, joined the 52 members of Havering Council and several officers and opened the Full Council Meeting on Wednesday, October 17, with her cockney rhyming slang-ridden version of the Lord’s Prayer.
The prayer, recited daily by thousands of Christians, was converted to include the phrases “ave a butchers” (look), and “give us some Uncle Fred” (bread), colloquial terms and abbreviated words.
What the story fails to report is to whether it was up-their-own-arse christians, non-christian theists or non-theists who made the complaint. It it was made by christians, I would then ask them if they would make the same complaint if it were made in, say, Latin? Somehow, I doubt that they’d be so black-affronted if it were. Or would it be that they might imagine that their god is offended by supplications ululated in anything other than King James’ English?
Not that I advocate any kind of special religious representation in government, even local government, but while it’s allowed (or at least tolerated) in the UK, then at least give each their own chance to chant their respective mumbo-jumbo in their own way, and then get down to the business of reality.
The full story, and full version of the prayer, are available in this week’s Recorder, which I don’t have a copy of and am not in a position to pop to the newsagent’s to get, although I do know plenty of people in that neck of the woods, so I’ll put the feelers out to see if one of them could ‘ave a butchers on my behalf.
Lahverly.
BBC: I’m Jesus, Fly Me!
A Catholic worker at Manchester Airport was suspended after hanging an image of Jesus on a staff room wall.
Gareth Langmead, 40, was sent home from his job as a car parks supervisor after a complaint from a Muslim colleague.
He was off work for three days while an investigation was carried out and later reinstated with a clean record.
Union officials accused the airport of overreacting and said Mr Langmead was upset by the incident, but the airport said he had not complained.
The airport worker, from Atherton, Greater Manchester, found the image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus as he was clearing out a desk drawer.
As he felt unable to throw it away, Mr Langmead hung it on a wall in the staff rest room, prompting a complaint it had been put up as “an act of provocation”.
[H]e felt unable to throw it away
? So the optimum solution, rather than taking it home and putting it on one’s own wall, is to decorate one’s (shared) workplace? I disagree with the muslim’s complaint of it being an act of provocation
(you know how sensitive ’some people’ can be).
Perhaps we should be grateful that muslims, although they can bitch about christians hanging up their sectarian propoganda everywhere, are unlikely to start fly-posting tableaux of Mohammed all over the shop.
Langmead has since been reinstated without prejudice. I expect the airport authorities got rid of the picture, or perhaps told him to take it home, where it belongs.
Theos whines over less priests in hospitals
On today’s BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme, christian “think tank” Theos complained about the NHS’s lessening support for chaplaincy in healthcare, although specifically from a religious angle.
Aside from the show’s usual confused conflation of “religion” and “ethics”, the question on the table was should public money should be used to fund NHS chaplaincy?
It’s worth a listen.
Meanwhile, over on the Theos web site, researcher Paul Bickley, writes:
Cue secularist delight, with something like the following logic. “The NHS exists to provide clinical care. The NHS necessarily subsists on a limited budget. NHS funds, therefore, should not pay for anything but clinical care.” In the words of Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society:
“We want nurses and doctors in our hospitals in sufficient numbers to take care of our health properly … if you want a chaplain and can’t afford it, the church [here a lazy cipher for the many traditions, including humanism, represented in healthcare chaplaincy] should pick up the tab, not the taxpayer.”
I doubt anyone will ever convince Terry Sanderson otherwise. But those who share his views should consider the services that chaplains provide before they campaign for, or celebrate, their removal. Healthcare chaplains exist to meet the pastoral needs of all patients, relatives or members of hospital staff who request it. They do not primarily exist to deliver services that are, in some way, narrowly ‘religious’, such as prayers or communion. Rather, they are there, to answer needs that are simply human: coping with the death of a loved one, the suffering of a child, the fear that comes with injury or sickness.
[S]ecularist delight
? A very poor straw-man. As far as I can tell, Sanderson isn’t advocating the removal of the rôle of chaplains, he’s saying that if they’re required, and to be of a particular faith tradition, then that church should pay for them.
Bickley continues:
The chaplain’s role is less that of a cleric and more of someone who has time, experience and wisdom; who is willing to sit with the needy, listen to their stories, and share their burdens; who will act as an advocate for those who lack a strong voice.
So, if such a chaplain’s rôle is not clerical, then why the need for it to be fulfilled by clerics? Surely such services could be provided by anyone who is experienced in providing the kind of personal support that chaplaincy supposedly entails, regardless of their particular faith bias. What particular quality does a priest bring that is unavailable to a support worker or other personal advocate? The only one I can think of is vapid platitudes of the “little Timmy’s with god now” variety.
Where chaplaincy provision is removed it is not replaced by secular pastoral support - assuming “You are only a ‘lumbering robot’ programmed by your genes so you shouldn’t fear an eternity of non-existence,” qualifies as pastoral support. Instead, it is simply lost to those most in need.
My emphasis.
I will agree that some kind of support service could be required by some, but Bickley seems to presume, by setting up another completely ridiculous straw-man, that a bona fide and worthwhile support service can only be provided by the religious faithful.
This, of course, is complete bollocks.
Anyone who has ever attended a secular funeral knows that there is plenty of humanity in evidence, and one doesn’t need religion to find it. To claim that humanity can only be expressed as a reflection in the mirror of “faith” merely devalues any humanity that these people lay claim to providing.
I can see the value of chaplaincy, and I can see how it might help those that need it, but if the religious sects are going to claim to provide such a service and promote their own dogma, then they can pay for it themselves - the state shouldn’t be bolstering any kind of sectarian proselytism, even if all sects are equally supported. If spreading dogma is not the point, the there’s no need for people who provide this service to be religious.
BBC: Scientist/priest says teachers are scared to teach evolution
Professor Michael Reiss, scientist, priest and head of science at London’s Institute of Education, has written a new book aimed at encouraging teachers, who it seems are avoiding the teaching of evolution in schools for fear of the “controversy” and not wanting to dismiss creationist pupils’ beliefs out of hand.
This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says.
Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools.
He said: “The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.
“That’s one reason why it’s more of an issue in schools.”
The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins
said Reiss.
Reiss’s book, Teaching About Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin’s theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.
(BBC)
While I admire Reiss’s efforts to help get science where it belongs, I wonder if he also thinks that these other ideas should be considered in science lessons, so that they can be summarily dismissed also:
- the “stork” hypothesis of reproduction
- the “intelligent falling” hypothesis of gravity
- the “to test our faith” hypothesis of palaeontology
- the “pirates” hypothesis of global climate change
There’s just as much evidence for these as there are for creationism (i.e. none whatsoever).
Read the full article over at the BBC.
Belief-based politics (UK edition)
I was just watching the BBC News 24’s morning report on the Conservative party conference before I headed off for work, and what do I spy on the little graphical ticket at the foot of the tv screen?
[David] Cameron wants “politics based on belief”.
No. Nonono.
NONONONONONO.
We want politics based on reality, but let’s assume for a second that the quote has a wider context.
After a brief perusal of the BBC News web site:
“It wasn’t just that we have heard it all before - literally heard it all before - simplistic short-term pledges rehashed and reannounced, with absolutely no indication of how they would be delivered.
“It wasn’t just the cynicism of announcing things that Gordon Brown himself must know he can’t deliver.
“It was the carefully calculated pitch to the 4% of voters in the middle who might switch this way or that.”
He will say the Conservatives “had to do better than that” and reach out to disaffected ex-voters who “don’t believe a word of it any more”.
“We have to inspire them. We have to change from the old politics of easy promises and disappointment to politics you can believe in.
“That means politics based on belief.”
Politics you can believe in = politics based on belief?
NO!
I hope that this was just an equivocal faux pas from Cameron, but the fact that it can be so obviously soundbited (soundbitten?) makes me wonder if the statement wasn’t a deliberate non sequitur which he can, at some later point, use to appease either faithful voters, or turn it around and be equivocal for those of us who think he’s being an asshat.
Coming from an avowed highly political active christian, this concerns me mightily.
Either way, it was either a very clever, or very stupid, thing to say. I sincerely hope it was the latter.
The qualities of the faithful
At a recent christian fair trade conference, Labour MP and government minister Stephen Timms made the following comment:
There is positive impact when people of faith are involved in the lives of their community, because these people bring valuable qualities in their service which are rare elsewhere and they are qualities modern Britain urgently needs.
It’s not reported by Ekklesia as to what Timms thinks are these valuable qualities
actually are, nor if indeed these qualities are actually valuable, but from reading some of his speeches from his web site, he seems to think that simply having “faith” is enough of a virtue in itself.
Inexplicably, I’m not convinced. Like all socially progressive activities claimed exclusively by the religious, there’s no reason why these things can’t be both motivated and achieved without resorting to superstition.
I’ve never heard of Timms before, but apparently he’s the Labour Party’s “vice-chair with special responsibility for faith communities”, whatever that is.
On his web site, Timms writes on christian socialism:
It is clear from the Bible that Jesus was not only a man who empathised with people’s problems, but was a man who took action to change them. It is my hope for this generation that people who are committed to following the lifestyle of Jesus will seek to engage in politics and with the political authorities, as Jesus himself regularly did.
From my own reading of that same book, I remember an episode whereby the Jesus character also told people that they should sell all of their belongings and give the proceeds to the poor. I wonder if Timms is willing to go that extra mile for his biblical convictions, seeing as he’s so adamant that it’s the basis for social responsibility.
Somehow, I think not.
Even more faith schools?
Recently, the UK government (in the guise of the aptly named Ed Balls) and a bunch of mutually incompatible (are there any other kind?) religious groups decided to get together and tell the rest of us that they want to control more state schools, and that we should all pay for them, regardless of whether we’re religious or not, and the government published a report about it (PDF).
They also decided that the status quo - any non-religious school should still be subject to current laws - which the report summarises as:
All maintained schools are required to have a daily act of collective worship. In schools without a religious character, this must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian nature; while in schools with a religious character, collective worship may be in accordance with the tenets and practices of the religious designation of the school. The Government recognises the value of collective worship in schools in contributing to young people’s spiritual, social, moral and cultural development and to exploring social and moral issues and their own beliefs
should remain. I guess the christians must have played their “the UK is a christian country” card to win over the other groups.
Anyway, in the spirit of this, we’ve decided to come up with a handbook for non-religious schools, which contains some choice christian moral teachings. We present an extract in the form of a page from this book below.
We’re looking to get this published for the beginning of the 2008/9 school year. We think it’ll be a massive hit because, as everyone knows, one can’t have morality without religion, and the christian scripture is just so replete with prime examples.
Thankfully, the NSS and the ATL step in to the fray in an attempt to put this nonsense to bed.
Dembski, Darwin and Denominations (of cash)
Over at his hive of stupidity, bigotry and intolerance, Uncommon Descent, William Dembski is making more ridiculous noises, this time about the fact that we have the etched image of Charles Darwin on the £10 Bank of England note.
His idea is that Darwin dissenters, when offered one of these notes, should ask for two five pound notes instead, saying something like this:
No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.
How very droll, especially when this comes from a man that believes one of the vilest books in (not of) history should be considered not only the ultimate source on morality but also of scientific knowledge.
Anyway, onto Dembski’s statements.
British paper currency — the 10-pound note — features Charles Darwin. (The custom is that the notes all have the Queen on one side and a famous Briton on the other. The notes are in denominations 5, 10, 20, and 50; there are no 1-pound or 2-pound paper notes, these are coins).
If this paragraph exemplifies the amount of research that Dembski puts into a project, then I’m not surprised at the bampot conclusions he comes up with. A few corrections:
1) There are several forms of £10 note - it’s only the Bank of England £10 note that features Darwin.
2) The custom of the Queen on one side again only applies to Bank of England notes.
3) There are still £1 notes issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland, although these are beginning to be phased out.
Three mistakes in the very first paragraph — way to research, Dembski!
A couple of days ago the Bank of England issued a new 20-pound note, using new security features, and took the occasion to change the “famous person.” This is a news-worthy cause for British Darwin-doubters, who should urge that Darwin be dumped from the 10-pound note whenever there is a new security-upgrade version, on grounds that he is the chief prophet of the materialist religion, and his presence on the 10-pound note is an inappropriate endorsement of that materialist religion and its related anti-religious ferment.
Um. “Materialist religion”? What the fuck is that? Oh… you mean the “‘materialist religion’ that isn’t a religion at all by any stretch of the imagination, but can be considered ‘materialist’ because we don’t take a bunch of scrolls written in the bronze age as the source of ultimate truth and bow down to an imaginary sky fairy” religion? Oh, why didn’t you say so?
Now, it’s true that Britain has no 1st Amendment, but still, Britain is trying to be multi-cultural. A part of the effort could include a long list of choice inflammatory quotes from the new anti-religion books currently out in the bookstores (and in Darwin’s own writings — see the previous post here at UD); the effort could point out that the government, by honoring Darwin, implicitly lends its prestige to their venom.
Fortunately, we in the UK aren’t as foaming-at-the-mouth as Dembski is. While the UK is historically a christian country, and we still have some stupid archaic laws (e.g. blasphemy — a victimless crime if ever there was one) and some institutional bias (non-elected bishops in the House of Lords) to that effect, for the most part we (christians and non-christians alike) get on pretty well. Sadly, of course, there is the the odd fundie wingnut doing the rounds. Yes, I’m looking at you Dogshit.
In fact, the British government recently put out a statement that I can’t see the US government putting out any time in the next few decades. The non-religious are just as much a part of society and just as valuable as those who are.
I do think it’s indeed rich (and not a little hypocritical) for Dembski to ask for people to point to a long list of choice inflammatory quotes from the new anti-religion books currently out
, when his holy tome is a greater source of cruelty and violence, injustice and bigotry than anything written by any non-believer.
Then Dembski goes on with the non sequitur, although getting back to his previous rant about Darwin. However, contrary to what Dembski thinks, the Bank of England says why it has Darwin on the £10 note, but it doesn’t have anything to do with racism:
Historical character - Charles Darwin (1809-1882). As a young man Darwin was employed as the naturalist on board the ship HMS Beagle an illustration of which is depicted on the back of the note. Also pictured is an illustration of Darwin’s own magnifying lens and the flora and fauna that he may have come across on his travels.
Bank of England
Dembski suggests an alternative to Darwin:
A worthy replacement on the 10-pound note would be William Wilberforce, the anti-slavery crusader, particularly in light of the new movie. As it happens the Fabian Society is also in favor of dumping Darwin, and offers Wilberforce as a possible new famous person — at least, that is what one website says. Thus, this effort would also kick-off a comparison of what good has been brought to the world by these two people — Darwin vs. Wilberforce. Nazi Eugenics vs. the abolition of slavery. Is there really any contest?
Darwin was a Nazi? Amazing, considering that he died in 1882. I really shouldn’t have to explain that stupidity of this statement, it really does go above and beyond any kind of sense whatsoever. A straw man and an ad hominem in one neat bundle. Oh, and perhaps you should do a little more investigation about Darwin’s attitudes to racism and slavery, possibly within the context of the 19th century. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good fundie rant, will you?
It also just goes to provide more evidence (as if any were needed) that Dembski isn’t seeking any “truth” with his ID crap, but that he’s on a personal mission to try to destroy the character of a man that’s been dead for over a hundred years.
Strangely, on searching the Fabian Society’s web site, I found no reference to their desire to replace Darwin or any other figure. I did, though, find a site that referenced their support to have Dadabhai Naoroji, a Parsi, on any denomination note, but it was in reference to having a non-white face, rather than replacing Darwin specifically.
Of course, Dembski picks William Wilberforce (because he was a christian) and uses the reasoning that he was a vocal opponent of the slave trade, thus setting up a false dichotomy of Darwin or Wilberforce. Sorry Dembski, there are other choices too.
I’ve also already mentioned Wilberforce previously. He wasn’t exactly christianity’s favourite son at the time — the church was a firm supporter of slavery.
In other words, promote a boycott of the Darwin 10-pound note because it promotes racism. It’s like putting Robert E. Lee on the ten-dollar bill because he was a great general, and ignoring the cause he served. This would work particularly well because the goal of the Fabians and other multiculturalists is to re-define Britain to be racially-inclusive. Thus there is a particular reason to highlight the racism of Darwin and get rid of him.
This is simpleminded buffoonery. Let’s turn this around:
In other words, promote a boycott of the bible because it promotes racism, slavery, intolerance, murder, rape, torture…
You get the picture, I’m sure.
In fact, the bible does indeed promote these things, and even more so if you choose to interpret it a certain way. A £10 note, however, doesn’t promote anything of the sort, it doesn’t say anything about racism.
So, Demski claims that multi-culturalism is a good thing? Great, welcome aboard! Now, campaign in your own fucking country to get that christian-exclusive ‘in god we trust’ shit off your own money to cater for everyone: or maybe pluralise it for your cultural brethren hindus? Oh, not so multicultural now, are we? Hypocrite.
This would also be a good way to start a counter-reaction to the ‘Darwin Deification’ that we are going to get in 2009. Deifying Darwin is contrary to the multicultural goal of the British intelligentia (sic), and it encourages the worst anti-religious bigotry of Dawkins et al.
Darwin deification
? What crap is this? Who the fuck is deifying Darwin in Britain? Just because you say it, doesn’t make it so, Dembski.
And, just for Demski’s information, pro-equality is not anti-religion, it’s anti-special treatment, something that religions enjoy in abundance. Unless he’s also claiming that being pro-religion implies anti-equality, but we knew that already, didn’t we? Ask the women, the homosexuals and the non-believers in your own country to tell you about it. In fact, Dembski is so keen to attack a man dead for over 100 years, yet one mustn’t says anything uncomplimentary about his (not-even verified as existing) Jesus or his completely contradictory god.
Here’s a little advice from a native Briton to an American fundie: take your (our) pair of fivers, fold them until they’re all sharp corners, then shove them up your arse*. Actually, don’t: use your own almighty-fucking-dollar instead.
* That’s ‘ass’ to you, wingnut.
Thanks to TW over at Why Don’t You for alerting me to this amazing numbskullery.
Special treatment for catholics?
As reported in The Independent on Sunday on 21 January 2007, the news that the catholic church is pressing the British government to allow an exeption to the recently passed anti-discrimination law regarding sexuality has reached the mainstream media (BBC, The Times).
At the moment, only Ruth Kelly and the prime minister, Tony Blair, are supportive of the catholics’ attempt to change the law to their own demands. Kelly is a known catholic, and Blair is a catholic supporter (his wife, Cherie Booth, is a catholic) and has had meetings with both the currrent pope and his predecessor. Blair, it is thought, is expected to convert to catholicism after he leaves government office.
As I noted previously, Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities, is hardly the best person to represent those who are discriminated against, especially considering that she a) is a strict catholic (and probably a member of Opus Dei); b) has abstained from every single major vote on homosexual rights.
Today I learned that, not only is the government considering relenting to the demands of the catholics to allow them (and only them) to legally express their bigotry but, that this government is attempting to subvert the welfare support system by actively promoting religious-welfare programmes (source: DWP).
So, what does this mean?
At the moment, the catholics are attempting to get an exemption to anti-discrimination legislation, which would allow them to refuse to accept adoption requests from homosexual couples.
The Department of Work and Pensions is aiming to promote religious supply of more mainstream welfare services (of which adoption is already one) such as support for the homeless, etc.
Mr Murphy announced he was hosting a national seminar in the coming weeks that will bring together faith organisations of all persuasions to discuss how they could contribute further to the welfare state and what more the Government can do to facilitate this.DWP press release
If this exemption goes through, and the government funds religious groups to offer state-sponsored welfare programmes, what is to stop the catholic church (or any other church) from further demanding extra exemptions for these programmes? The precedent would already have been set, and it would be more difficult (legally) to turn back the clock.
What this would amount to would be the Vatican dictating public policy, determining how the welfare infrastructure of Britain would be run. It would also allow for any special interest group to assert that they too are also eligible for special treatment.
I fear having our government policy, and hence our legal, economic and welfare systems being dictated to from the Vatican or by the whims of any other group. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I’d move to one.
