Salvation Army rejects gays – but accepts a paedophile

Also ignored sexual abuse of women.

I am utterly incredulous at two stories about the Christian charitable organisation, the Salvation Army.

In the UK the organisation has admitted they will not allow LGBT+ to serve as ‘soldiers’ or ‘officers’ (is it only me who finds the very idea of regimenting Christianity distasteful?), yet in a story from Australia, one SA officer, who did not act on the sexual abuse of two women, has also denied having a paedophile in their ranks, a man who admitted his offence, by claiming that not all child abusers are paedophiles.

In a BBC television show The Sally Army and Me, openly and actively gay comedian, female impersonator and TV / Radio presenter Paul O’Grady, better known to many as his drag queen persona Lily Savage, spent time with the organisation, concentrating on it’s charitable works, but also performing in a Salvation Army band. O’Grady was allowed to wear a Salvation Army uniform for the cameras, but the organisation has confirmed that as an actively gay man he would not be allowed to serve as an SA officer. The Salvation Army’s internal hiring policies ban gay men from serving, unless they remain celibate, which of course would be almost impossible to prove.

In the show, Paul O’Grady openly confronted Commissioner Clive Adams, chief officer of the Salvation Army in the UK, upon their policy concerning LGBT+ people. Adams confirmed “You wouldn’t be allowed to be a member. You could volunteer for us, you could come to our church services but if you want to become a soldier in the Salvation Army, you have to commit to what we believe.”

This is completely at odds with another claim from Commissioner Adams, who also stated that the organisation “abides by all applicable anti-discrimination laws in its hiring”. Indeed, I actually wonder if the Salvation Army is acting within employment law by banning sexually-active LGBT+ people from employment.

“That’s upsetting, really,” Paul O’Grady replied, “because I know so many men and women who are gay and lesbian and they’d be the most wonderful officers.”

The Salvation Army’s policies towards LGBT+ people have long come under criticism. In the USA in 2014 transgender woman Jodielynn Wiley had to flee her home in Paris, Texas, due to death threats and moved to Dallas. The US Salvation Army refused her emergency accommodation because she had not had gender reassignment surgery. She was eventually rehoused by another charity. In 2014 the Australian Salvation Army were forced to apologise after Major Andrew Craibe discussing a Bible passage (Romans 1:18-32) which suggests gay men should be put to death and which appears in the Salvation Army Handbook, confirmed he believed that it should be taken literally.

Also in Australia we have the recent claims of Major Peter Farthing, a man who himself failed to act over the sexual abuse of two women, trying to defend another member by alluding that he was not a paedophile.

Speaking at the Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, the former SA Secretary for Personnel, Major Farthing, was speaking on the 1989 sexual abuse upon an 8-year-old little girl by SA officer Colin Haggar in a town in New South Wales. Haggar had admitted the offence, yet Major Farthing denied the man was a paedophile and refuted having a paedophile in their ranks.

“My understanding is that a paedophile is somebody whose primary sexual orientation is towards children or adolescents, and not all offenders are paedophiles,” Farthing told the commission.

“Some people offend in a kind of crime of opportunity – a situational crime.

“Left alone with a child, they might have some brokenness, something going on in their own life which may make them vulnerable to offend and they will abuse a child.”

Farthing concluded that while all such offences were “serious” in his view, “the nature of the offender is not the same. They are not all paedophiles.”

Major Farthing had also failed to act when Colin Haggar sexually assaulted two women in 1990. He told the commission, “it wasn’t a contemporary action”.

“It is not second nature to me. It is not something I’m greatly familiar with, and it is not something the Salvation Army have habitually done,” he said.

“So you know my mind didn’t immediately run I have to investigate this.”

Haggar was dismissed from the Salvation Army in 1992, but was later re-admitted and allowed to remain until his retirement in 2015.

Major Farthing could not of course be more wrong over the nature of paedophilia. Anyone who has a sexual attraction to children, whether they act upon those urges or not, is, by definition, a paedophile, and their urges are not even driven by sexuality.

The overwhelming vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexual men, most of whom are in relationships with women or even married. They often have families of their own and the vast majority of child sexual abuse is carried out by family members of close family friends. Even the majority of paedophile men who abuse little boys are otherwise heterosexual and will show revulsion to any suggestion of sexual relations with other adult men.

This is because paedophilia, like all abuse, is not about sex, it is about power. The paedophile just like any other abuser, whether they use sexual, physical, verbal, or psychological means, is an inadequate individual who seeks to assert power over their victims. Because they are so inadequate and powerless – or see themselves as such – abusers pick out the weakest targets, those least likely to be able to defend themselves. In the case of the paedophile, this just happens to be children, whom they seek to belittle, humiliate and control through sexual means. In reality the abuser, any abuser, is a bully, and in the nature of the bully, a coward at heart.

Should anyone doubt that, just look at Colin Haggar’s track record; having abused a little girl one year, he moved on to abusing two women the following year. If his “primary sexual attraction” was to children, why should he suddenly abuse two adult women? There are volumes of cases of sexual abusers and sexual thrill killers who have equally attacked children, adolescents, and women. Serial Killer Robert Black mainly targeted little girls, but once tried to abduct a teenage girl, thereby making him both a paedophile and a hebephile; one attracted to pubescent teenagers. Fred and Rosemary West abused their own children, the children of others, teenage girls and grown women.

Farthing is not even correct in claiming that child sexual abuse is a crime of “opportunity” or “situational”. Paedophiles are world class manipulators, who can spend weeks, months, years even, building up a trust in their targeted victim. Paedophiles from outwith families will weedle their way into the trust of the child’s family and of the child themselves before they strike. The idea of “stranger danger” and the stereotypical image of the paedophile as the dirty old man in the park in a shabby raincoat are very much myths. While not unknown, the vast majority of paedophiles are very far from being opportunists, and that is one thing which makes them so bloody dangerous.

And while they may indeed have someth “brokenness” within them, that can never excuse the behaviour of the paedophile who acts upon their urges. Contrary to what some claim, paedophilia is not a mental illness – or just another sexuality as some are nowadays trying to claim – but rather any psychologist worth their salt who has dealt with paedophiles will tell you it is a “learned sexual behaviour”, which is usually triggered by some catalyst in the past of the individual. All too often and all too sadly, in the case of paedophiles it is a “cycle of abuse”, where they too were sexually abused in childhood. That however can never excuse their actions. I would also argue that to say a paedophile abusing a child because they are “broken” and in a “situation” where they are left alone, is tantamount to shifting the blame from the abuser onto the child; another favourite tactic of paedophile abusers.

I would never deny that the Salvation Army does an enormous amount of good works, whether that is giving overnight beds to the homeless, supplying food banks to those in desperate poverty, supplying emergency accommodation to those in need of such, or many of the other good works that make a difference to millions worldwide. But for senior officers to hold such views against the LGBT+ community, to turn a blind eye to cases of sexual assault upon women, and to completely blindfold themselves to a paedophile within their ranks is wholly unacceptable and their priorities appear to be completely twisted.

It seems to me the SA would do well to consult sexual psychologists, who would be able to show them that LGBT+ people are normal – and by sheer weight of numbers they must already have LGBT+ members who have not outed themselves – but those who abuse women, children, anybody are far from normal and should not be trusted one iota.

Well, there’s one thing; at least the Salvation Army is being wholly consistent with the Bible, which while it calls gay men an “abomination” and calls for their execution, it seems to have absolutely no problem with sex with little kids, incest, rape, and the subjugation of women.

 

Woman fails to sue all Gays on Earth

Nebraska woman’s bizarre case is thrown out of court

So outraged was 66-year-old Sylvia Driskell at LGBTQI people in the US media, that she brought a lawsuit against all homosexuals on Earth.

In some sort of bizarre reverse of the Billy Connolly movie The Man who Sued God, Driskell, of Omaha, Nebraska, filed a federal lawsuit against all homosexuals, naming herself as ‘ambassador’ for the plaintiffs, namely “God and His son, Jesus Christ”.

In a seven-page, handwritten suit, Sylvia Driskell stated;

“Your Honor, I’ve heard the boasting of the Defendant: the Homosexuals on the world news; from the young, to the old; to the rich an famous, and to the not so rich an famous; How they were tired of hiding in the closet, and how glad they are to be coming out of the closet.”

…

“I, Sylvia Ann Driskell, Contend that homosexuality is a sin, and that they the homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality. Why else would they have been hiding in a closet?”

…

“I, Sylvia Ann Driskell, write, as well, we also know that if a child is raised in a home of liers [sic], and deceivers, and thieves that it is reasonable to believe that child will grow up to be one of the three, are all three.”

…

“I’m sixty six years old, an I never thought that I would see the day in which our Great Nation or Our Great State of Nebraska would become so compliant to the complicity of some peoples lewd behavior.

Why are judges passing laws, so sinners can break religious and moral laws?

Will all the judges of this Nation, judge God to be a lier [sic]?”

Oh dear.  Poor Sylvia.  Her comments would be tragic if they were not so hilarious.

Firstly, one would have thought that an omnipotent deity would have no need of any earthly “ambassador” and that if any such entity wished to punish homosexuals, then he would be perfectly capable of doing so of their own accord.  Instead, if God exists, then he seems to have absolutely no problem with having his creation born gay, lesbian, bi, genderqueer, intersex, pansexual, asexual, or in variations in some of these themes.

The closet references are extremely amusing.  “Why else would they have been hiding in a closet?” suggests that Ms Driskell actually think that non-outed LGBTQI people actually live in physical closets.  Oh if only, dears.  Where else would one find fabulous frocks to try on?

The statement concerning children is Facepalm City.  “I, Sylvia Ann Driskell, write, as well, we also know that if a child is raised in a home of liers [sic], and deceivers, and thieves that it is reasonable to believe that child will grow up to be one of the three, are all three.”  she writes, and of course the inference here is that if a child is brought up in a gay household, that child will also turn out to be gay.  Not only does science not bear this out, but how then does she explain exactly where LGBTQI children come from if not from cishet parents, including Christian parents?  Seems to me that Ms Driskell is of the Pat Robertson belief, that gays will die out because they can’t multiply.

Well, Judge John Gerrard, hearing the case in Nebraska’s US District Court, lost no time in throwing out Ms Driskell’s case.  He told first flatly told her that she had no legal jurisdiction to act as “ambassador” for God and Jesus Christ.  He then told Ms Driskell that it is not the business of US courts to decide whether homosexuality is sinful or not.

“The United States Federal Courts were created to resolve actual cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States,” stated Judge Gerrard. “A federal court is not a forum for debate or discourse on theological matters.”

Some people have too much time and money on their hands.  Perhaps Sylvia Driskell should spend both of hers on improving her English spelling, in becoming educated on LGBTQI issues, in learning that a federal court in Omaha does not have the jurisdiction over the entire world (nor does the USA as a whole as she seems to think so), that the USA is a secular republic with a wall between church and state enshrined in the constitution, that an omnipotent God would not need a mortal being to do their bidding – and that if she wants to take the Bible literally, then as a woman she should be silent and subservient and by bringing her fatuous lawsuit, she has in fact blasphemed the very faith she claims to believe in.

UKIP’s ‘secret’ manifesto for anti-gay Christians

UKIP leader Nigel Farage

Hidden “conscience clause” would protect religious bigots while stripping LGBTQI people of human rights

In a document not released to the media, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have suggested that they would introduce a “conscience clause” which would create legal protection for Christians who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

The document, Valuing our Christian Heritage, states that the party, while not rescinding England’s Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013, that the party opposed same-sex marriage and would amend the English law to allow “reasonable accommodation” to those opposing equal marriage on religious grounds.

The document states;

“UKIP opposed same-sex marriage legislation because it impinged upon the beliefs of millions of people of faith. Rushed through Parliament without proper public debate, the legislation is significantly flawed.  It should have been subject to a review of the state’s role in marriage.  We will not repeal the legislation, as it would be grossly unfair and unethical to ‘un-marry’ loving couples or restrict further marriages, but we will not require churches to marry same-sex couples.  We will also extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue.”

In his introduction to the document, UKIP leader Nigel Farage gives his own views on the subject;

“Sadly, I think UKIP is the only major political party left in Britain that still cherishes our Judaeo-Christian heritage. I believe other parties have deliberately marginalised our nation’s faith, whereas we take Christian values and traditions into consideration when making policy.  Take the family, for instance. Traditional Christian views of marriage and family life have come under attack of late, whereas we have no problem in supporting and even promoting conventional marriage as a firm foundation for a secure and happy family.”

The document, the contents of which are not mentioned in the UKIP 2015 manifesto, was not released to the media.  It was however distributed to some churches and the strongly anti-gay group Christian concern.

Any such clause would give legal protection to any business which openly refused business to same-sex couples on grounds of their sexuality.  Moreover, the wording “We will also extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue.” could effectively be used by employers to refuse employment to, or even fire, LGBTQI employees on the grounds of their sexuality.  And given that two key UKIP policies are the repeal of the UK Human Rights Act, and pulling the UK out of the European Union – where we currently enjoy the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights – that would effectively give those discriminated against with no means of appeal in law.

UKIP claims not to be a bigoted party, and often point to members and politicians they have from various sections of societies, including the LGBTQI community.  Sadly, even those have been known to voice bigoted views.  Scotland’s only UKIP politician, David Coburn MEP (Member of the European Parlament), who is openly gay and is in a long-standing relationship, has always taken a strong stance against same-sex marriage.  In an interview with Huffington Post (30 October 2014), Coburn attacked the subject, expressing his views in deeply offensive terms, stating, “It’s just for some queen who wants to dress up in a bridal frock and in a big moustache and dance up the aisle to the Village People, quite frankly if that’s the cost of upsetting a hell of a lot of people, then I don’t think it’s a price worth paying.”

NIgel Farage claims that UKIP is an all-inclusive and open party, whose manifesto is the best going.  When any party hides a ‘manifesto within a manifesto’, particularly one which seeks to strip rights from the LGBTQI community (or anyone for that matter), while attempting to hide those policies from the media and the public in general, then that belies the true nature of that party.  Likewise his unequvical opposition to equal marriage and his strong support for “traditional” marriage, coupled with his failure to either reprimand or dismiss David Coburn from the party speaks volumes about Nigel Farage personally and UKIP as a whole.

Some of us believe in democracy, where politicians are open towards and respect the rights of all sections of society.  But then, some of use believe that all people should have equal rights – even queens dressed in frocks, with big moustaches, and dancing to the Village People.

---

PDF of the document can be found here:

Click to access UKIPChristian_Manifesto-1.pdf

DOWN with this sort of thing! Careful now!

But she’s apparently kind to animals…

I was going to do a full blog challenging every one of these points, Loves, but there’s simply too much to address.  So instead, I’ll leave this here to judge for yourselves.  I will however make a few observations upon it.

Every election throws up candidates who are controversial, eccentric, offensive, and downright barmy, and the UK General Election, which takes place on 7 May 2015 is no exception.  Susan-Anne White could fit all the above categories and is standing on the above ticket, which even puts UKIP in the shade for bigotry, ignorance, and frankly daft ideas.

Claiming to be “Biblically correct NOT politically correct”, Ms White’s agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-adultery, and pro-child discipline.  Her agenda also includes other measures such as the UK pulling out of the EU, banning the legalisation of dangerous drugs, opposing global warming science (which she claims is pseudoscience), CCTV in all abattoirs and banning Halal slaughter, which of course are clearly Biblical because… …ah… …ermm… …perhaps Ms White would like to explain those ones herself?

Interesting to note that Ms White wants to “recriminalise” homosexuality.  She would have a hard job, as homosexuality was never actually criminalised. Buggery, Sodomy and Gross Indecency (under the Labouchere Amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885) were the offences under which gay men were prosecuted, but being homosexual in itself was never a criminal offence.   It’s equally interesting to note however that she claims that after stating “Oppose the LGBT agenda while showing compassion to those who struggle with gender confusion.”  Yes, the LGBTQI community have encountered that particular brand of “compassion” many times before.

Please note I am using Ms White’s terminology here, as I have no doubt she thinks gay men and lesbian women “struggle with gender confusion” and is unaware that gender and sexuality are two different things.

No doubt I am the very sort of person who would make Ms White want to heave.  I like dressing in pretty, feminine clothes, right down to frilly panties and I’ll happily shag anything I fancy, male or female, which moves – and a few things that don’t.  To steal a line from one of my favourite movies, Chopper Chicks in Zombietown, “my tongue has been places you don’t even know you’ve got and it’s great.”  And being a pansexual genderqueer crossdresser, I’m not struggling with gender confusion at all.  I fully embrace it, I love it, and far from feeling any shame, I’m proud of it.  One can only wonder just how much “compassion” Ms White would afford the likes of me?

Another bizarre stance is to raise the age of consent to 18 and enforce the law.  I don’t know how Ms White imagines teenagers with raging hormones are going to obey that law, how she intends to enforce it, or what point needlessly making criminals of young people and wasting police time would achieve exactly.

I would also question her claim that she is being “Biblically correct” on this one.  This is what the Bible has to say on Mary’s conception of Jesus; “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.“  (Matthew 1:18, KJV).  Now, at that time Jewish girls were betrothed in arranged marriages at age 12.  So if Joseph had not “known” Mary before she conceived, then that could mean she was as young as 12 years old when she conceived Jesus.

That’s before we even get onto the story of Rebekah, whom even rabbinical and Biblical scholars agree may have been as young as three years old, that’s right dears – 3, when she was betrothed to Issac.

What was that about being “Biblically correct”, Ms White?

But then, for a woman, we see that Ms White’s manifesto is particularly misogynistic. when we consider that she wants to “Oppose feminism and restore dignity to the stay-at-home mother” (which no serious person has ever seriously questioned the dignity of women who choose that noble role), and “Restore the concept of the family wage with the father as the bread-winner”.

Which only leads me to wonder just why she, as a woman, does not choose to “stay-at-home”?  Particularly when being so “Biblically correct”, she should be staying at home and not be seeking political office at all;

“The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;  That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,  To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”  (Titus 2:3-5, KJV)

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence^.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” (1 Timothy 2:11-13, KJV)

Them’s the words of the Bible, which you claim to be the unerring word of God, Ms White dear, not mine.

---

UPDATE: Susan-Anne White came last in the constituency of West Tyrone, polling a mere 166 votes and thereby losing her deposit.  So far no reaction has been posted in her blog.

---

Irish religious groups object to Equal Marriage

Irish Equal Marriage protest

Muslims, Christians and one Quaker call for a conscience clause

As the Republic of Ireland heads towards a referendum on equal marriage, Irish Muslims and Christians have become united in drafting a petition calling for a “conscience clause” to protect the rights of the religious to refuse recognise same-sex marriage in certain circumstances, and are railing against the “aggressive secularism” of the Bill.

In what is no more than further religious bigotry, the petition makes it obvious that those supporting it do not recognise equal marriage.  The wording states;

“We the under-signed, for reasons of faith, consider the state of marriage the exclusive province of a man and a woman. This is the understanding of all revealed religions,”

The petition comes after a number of high-profile cases of a number of Irish businesses refusing service to gay customers, and the proponents of the petition make it perfectly clear they support such people;

“The current wording of the 34th amendment of the Constitution on Marriage Equality and Implementation Bill not only allows for same-sex marriage, but obliges all citizens and residents of Ireland to endorse same-sex marriage or potentially face prosecution.  The proposed amendment states marriage may be contracted in accordance of the law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.  We therefore respectfully request that Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald provide for and safeguard the right of people on grounds of ‘conscience’ to abstain from endorsing same-sex marriages while in employment, worship or through social interaction.”

Those backing the petition claim not to be bigoted, and that they recognise the Bill allowing freedom of expression.  The wording however obviously tells a different story.  If businesses are allowed to discriminate on grounds of sexuality, then they obviously are bigoted and do not recognise freedom of expression.

The petition was started on 4 April 2015 by an amalgam of The Irish Council of Imams, the Galway branch of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.  It has since been signed by over 200 members of these groups, and individual Roman Catholic clergy.  So in other words, the usual suspects, which one would have expected no less (and no better) from.

Possibly the saddest aspect of all however is the fact that the wording of the petition was drawn up by clerk of the Galway preparative meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, (also known as the Quakers), Richard Kimball.  Mr Kimball claimed that a conscience clause would not affect the rights of gay people in Ireland to be served by businesses, then went onto cite the cases of a Northern Irish bakery and a printers in Dublin who refused to do business with gay couples, thereby completely contradicting himself.  He then went on in vitriolic language to accuse those campaigning against the said businesses of “aggressive secularism” and claimed there was an “orchestrated campaign” by LGBTQI groups to force people to hide their views

Yes, Richard, Dear – it’s called speaking out against hate speech.

The Society of Friends have yet to either endorse or reject the petition.  However that a Quaker should even draft such an odious and obviously bigoted petition, seeking to legitimise homophobia, is indeed depressing,  The Society of Friends never stood against nor sought a conscience clause in either England’s Same Sex Marriage Act, nor Scotland’s Marriage and Civil Partnerships Act.  It seems therefore that Mr Kimball may very well be out of step with the views of his own faith.

Thankfully the petitioners may have missed the boat, for as the referendum debate is well under way, any such clause is now unlikely to be included.

Pope personally rejected gay French Ambassador

Francis seemingly not so progressive as he seems

Were the Roman Catholic Church, not despicable enough in their bigotry, on Tuesday 7 March 2015 the New Civil Rights Movement reported that their prejudice had hit a new low, in reporting that the Vatican has yet to officially recognise the new French Ambassador, Laurent Stefanini (pictured), supposedly because he is openly gay.

“Last January, the Council of Ministers appointed Stefanini France’s Ambassador to the Vatican.” reported the New Civil Rights Movement, “That post, to the historic Villa Bonaparte Embassy in Rome, is considered a plum assignment, often given as a reward for years of service by members of France’s diplomatic corps. That ambassadorship has been vacant for more than a month now, but Stefanini has yet to be credentialed by the Vatican, and the rumors are growing that it is because Stefanini is gay.”

Now French weekly journal, Le Journal du Dimanche, has stepped into the fray, reporting that not only has Ambassador Stefanini been formally rejected by the Vatican, but far from officious and bigoted curia officiating the decision, his rejection goes right to the top, the order allegedly coming from Pope Francis himself.

Le Journal du Dimanche reported;

“France has just discovered the hard way that softening has its limits. It was “a decision by the pope himself,” a source inside the Vatican told Le Journal du Dimanche. The letter from the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois, which was presented to the Pope on February 11, which brought together Cardinals asking him to accept the French ambassador has not changed his decision. Jean-Louis Tauran, the Camerlengo of the Holy Church, also interceded on behalf of Stefanini. In vain. The pope told several cardinals he would not yield.” 

The journal continues that the rejection “has poisoned relations between Paris and the Vatican.”  If true, then I would say that is the understatement of the year.  Given the Vatican City State is officially a country, then this is no less than an international incident.

Do excuse me if I voice my true feelings about the Church of Rome.  Totally perverse, this ultra-conservative political organisation for whom matters spiritual often take a back seat, who make up scripture as they go along (rarely adhering to the Bible), and which creates much more suffering in the world than it relieves, has the audacity to still condemn the LGBTQI community for perfectly natural sexuality as an “abomination” and stand firmly against equal marriage, yet they are still complicit in protecting paedophile and sadistic clergy who commit wholly unnatural acts upon children.

Seems someone needs to remove the beam from their own eye before they attempt to remove the mote from a brother’s.

 Two thousand years after an innocent man was (allegedly) nailed to a cross, and five hundred years after a decent and honest priest, seeing how rotten they were, nailed a proclamation to his church door, the Vatican still wields way too much power in the world.  There was a time when the Pope was top boss of all the countries in Christendom.  Kings could rarely make a move or almost even fart without asking the Pope’s permission first, Bishops were the real power behind the throne, and the consequences for disobedience could be severe.  The map of Europe changed several times in history due to decisions taken in Rome.

It is time Pope Francis realised these days are far gone, and bloody good job too.  Today civilised nations make their own destiny and answer to none but themselves.  France is a secular republic which owes the Papacy no favours.  If they choose a gay man to be ambassador to the Vatican, then the diplomatic and proper thing to do is accept that ambassador with good grace.  Yes, grace, Rome.  I’m sure you are not unfamiliar with the word or concept,

If these allegations are true, and I see no reason to doubt either the New Civil Rights Movement or Le Journal du Dimanche – the Vatican’s continued silence tells its own story, then not only has the Pontiff shown himself to be openly homophobic, but a hypocrite to boot.  I will remind him of his own words on 29 July 2013;

“If a person is gay, and sought the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?”

Who indeed, Frankie Baby?  I am only sorry there is no higher authority for you to answer to.  But as there is not, then I will reserve my right to judge you and your political organisation masquerading as a church down here.

You should be so lucky, Pat

Religious loony claims gays will force Christians to enjoy anal sex.

Oh dear.  Just when you think he cannot get any more bigoted, bizarre or ill-informed, American Christian fundie Pat Robertson insists that allowing same-sex marriage will eventually lead to all sorts of sexual behaviours he finds “abhorrent”, including male rape apparently.

Speaking on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s 700 Club in response to Indiana’s homophobic Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Pat claimed that gay customers “make you conform to them.”

In one of his most bigoted and bizarre statements to date – and he’s come out with some doozies – Pat said “You’re gonna say you like anal sex, you like oral sex, you like bestiality,” he added. “Sooner or later, you’re going to have to conform your religious beliefs to the group of some abhorrent thing. It won’t stop at homosexuality.”

As ever, a homophobe hiding behind a Bible to promote his bigotry, and getting it all wrong as usual.  In falsely claiming that homosexual men (you’ll notice Pat never references lesbians) will enforce others to ‘enjoy’ anal sex, what he is talking about is rape.  I would like to ask Pat Robertson if he thinks women victims enjoyed their experience of rape, but I am frankly scared of the reply I might get.

It may interest Pat, and any who think like him, to learn that the vast majority of rapists are heterosexual men, and that includes rapists who anally rape other men.  This is because rape is not about sexuality, it is about control and power over and the humiliation of the victim.  As he is such a loyal ‘merkin’ boy, who no doubts hates the ‘dirty commies’, I suggest that Pat reads about the atrocities the Red Army committed during the march through Germany to Berlin in 1945.  Soviet soldiers, mostly heterosexual (the Soviet Union was probably more homophobic than the west), raped anything that moved; women and men, girls and boys. as a weapon of war and as revenge for the Nazi invasion of Russia.

Oh gosh, we’re all going to like oral sex – like we don’t all like it already.  And I’ve got news for Pat, that includes many Christian couples, with both partners happily going down on each other, just as couples have been doing for millennia.  Unless of course, given his obsession with gay sex, Pat is referring purely to homosexual fellatio (and no dears, that’s not a character in Hamlet).

And here comes the stupid statement – bestiality.  I really wish Pat would become better informed and learn that every US state and every country which has allowed same-sex marriage has the same stringent laws against bestiality (he means zoophilia, rather than human beings being sexually ‘bestial’, which was the original definition) as all others do.  And of course it is not gay men who practice bestiality – it’s mostly straight men who do that.  I know this; I live in Scotland, where the men are real men – and the sheep are nervous.

Then we come to polyamory; group sex.  Again, people have been happily engaging in orgies for millennia, and if Pat thinks this does not happen in the straight community, I suggest he takes the blinkers off.

I really cannot BELIEVE that Pat Robertson describes polygamy, having many wives, as an “abhorrent” practice.  WOAH, Pat.  To use a wise old Scots saying, haud the bus.  Pat Robertson bases his opposition to homosexuality on verses against it in the Old Testament – the very same Old Testament which is replete with men having many wives, and Bob Almighty certainly didn’t seem to have a problem with that.  It’s not the LGBTQI community calling for polygamy, Pat, it’s your religion which advocated that.

With predictable ignorance and bigotry, Pat then goes off on a rant about Islam, correctly stating that stoning wives is in the Qur’an – whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that the very same practice appears in the Old Testament.  In fact, the laws on stoning appear in the Book of Leviticus; the very same book that Pat and his like get the rule of gay sex being an “abomination” from.

Similarly Pat makes the mistake of stating that a Muslim can tell his wife “I divorce you” three times, and the couple are legally divorced.  While the “triple-talaq” of a man telling his wife “I divorce thee” three times is indeed legal in some Islamic countries, there are some Muslim scholars who frown upon it, stating that there should be a period of time between each talaq to give the wife two more chances – a sort of “three strikes and you’re out”.  The triple-talaq however is most certainly not legal in developed, western countries, where Muslims seeking divorce have to go through the same due process of law as any other couple, nor is it ever likely to become legal in western society.  Hell, could you see US lawyers giving up potential divorce cases without putting up a fight?  But Pat maintains “it’s in the book”.  If he is meaning that the triple-talaq is in the Qur’an, then it is obvious he has never picked up a copy.  It appears in fact in the Hadith; writings of Mohammed.  And that is why some Islamic countries allow it, but not all.

It may also interest Pat to learn that under Talmudic Law a man must divorce an unfaithful wife, even if he is inclined to forgive her.  And the Torah states that divorce is simply obtained by a man writing a Bill of Divorce, and handing to his wife, which any Jewish husband is entitled to do, for as little as the wife being a poor cook.  At least in Islam it has to be something substantial, like adultery.

Poor Pat.  Such intolerance and ignorance in under three minutes.  And always reducing what is supposed to be about loving relationships to sex, and attacks homosexuality at every turn.

Not that I wasn’t already aware of this.  In 1999 the Bank of Scotland entered a deal with Pat Robertson to try to use his influence to break into the banking market in the USA.  Having come over here on a visit, Robertson responded in an outburst decrying the amount of homosexuality in Scotland.  Robertson stated “In Scotland you can’t believe how strong the homosexuals are.”  Well, I don’t know if Pat was speaking from personal experience, but while some of them are quite strong, the rest are what are commonly known in Scotland as ‘Big Jessies’ – I should know, I am one.  He added that Scotland was “a dark country overrun by homosexuals.”  HA!  I should be so bloody lucky, dears.

So, having slighted the best wee country in the world, one would imagine the Bank of Scotland would have sent Pat packing wi’ a flea in his lug.  Like hell they did.  They broke off their business relations and gave Robertson £10 million ‘compensation’.  What the hell, BoS?  I’ve been a loyal customer for over 20 years.  If you’re throwing millions away, throw some in my direction.

So what do we make of Pat Robertson’s obsession with sex, and gay sex in particular?  The late great Bill Hicks once said “You just know someone that right-wing is hiding a deep, dark, secret.” and of course, he was right.  So know what?  I reckon that’s Pat’s problem.  Anyone that obsessed about gay sex must be thinking about it morning, noon and night.  And as any psychologist worth their salt will tell you, those who are most vehemently homophobic do not necessarily hate gays, they hate themselves for their own latent homosexuality, and are so ashamed of it, but are too cowardly to admit it, they lash out at others.

Let’s face facts; Pat Robertson is so far back in the closet, that he has Aslan on speed dial.

And if that is the case, another reason why Pat Robertson is so homophobic is because he’s not getting any action himself.  In that respect, he reminds me of the Conservative Party politician Ann Widdecombe, who at age 67 claims to have stayed a virgin through choice.  Yes, but not necessarily her choice.

And so it is with Pat Robertson, who is more to be pitied than anything else, as a sad, sexually confused, old man, who is unlikely to ever get the good solid rodgering he needs, and which may just unpucker his face a bit and make him lighten up a little.

So he need not worry himself about anyone in the LGBTQI community forcing him into anything.  Certainly not from me.  Sorry Pat dear, but although I’m quite happy to shag just about anything that moves (and a few things that don’t), you wouldn’t even be last on my list; you simply would not appear upon it.  And I reckon the same goes for all my LGBTQI sisters and brothers.

Finally, if you are reading this Pat, and you’re not pleased about it, well, you claim to be a Christian, so forgive me.

The Pope Calling The Kettle Black

Hypocrisy is also a form of selfishness, Frankie Baby

So, Pope Francis has condemned those who do not have children “selfish”.

In a speech to his general audience in St Peter’s Square, the Pontiff stated “The choice not to have children is selfish. Life rejuvenates and acquires energy when it multiplies: it is enriched, not impoverished”

The remarks were supposedly directed at couples who make an active choice not to have children.  Yet as well as attempting to make such couples feel guilt and shame, his comments, whether intended or not, can only ever be yet another attack upon LGBT people.   I for one certainly feel deeply offended by his statement.

And I’ll just head others off at the pass here that, yes, some LGBT people do indeed have children.  Many more would love to be parents.   The vast majority however shall never know the joys of parenthood.  And the factors governing that are not selfishness, but rather biological impossibility, coupled with societal attitudes which frown upon LGBT people parenting children, whether that be through surrogacy or adopting or fostering children.  And why do societies frown upon that?  Because of conservative religious dogma from many faiths, with the Roman Catholic Church being one of the strongest critics of same-sex marriage and LGBT parenting.

Let us, however, take the Pope’s statement into context.  Pope Francis says that not having children is selfish. That immediately castigates not only heterosexuals who choose not to have children, but also LGBT people whose sexuality and gender is wholly natural and something to be embraced and enjoyed, not made to feel ashamed of.  That is quite a comment from a man who not only (allegedly) has no children of his own, but is the supreme leader of a faith in which whose millions of clergy, nuns and monks make an active, concious, and wholly unnatural choice – going by the very rules of that faith – to live a life of celibacy, thereby making procreation an impossibility.

It is also a church which still actively protects some of the most selfish people on the face of the planet, namely paedophiles priests, who steal childhoods and destroy lives, for their own self-gratification.

What was that about selfishness?

Given that Pope Francis has chosen both to point the finger at others, and attempt to castigate those who do not have children, as a celibate man at the head of an organisation with millions of fellow celibates, methinks today’s Bible lesson for him should come from the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Chapter 7, verses 1- 5 (King James Version);

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”