Fools and Bairns

Who is fit to parent?

A Christian couple have had their application to adopt two boys they were foster parents to turned down, and are now claiming that they are being persecuted for holding “anti-gay” views.

The couple fostering the children had been told that a couple had been found to adopt the boys. But two days later, when they heard that the couple in question were two gay men, they put forward their own adoption application, stating it would be the “best option for them and their emotional wellbeing.” The couple had made a previous application to adopt the boys, which was turned down on the grounds that their family home was too small, which they accepted at the time.

Describing themselves as “a normal couple”, they wrote to their local council, stating “We are Christians and we expressed the view that a child needs a mother and father. We love everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) and we love the children and believe that they would benefit from the foundation offered by a mother and a father,”.

They continued that they had “not expressed homophobic views, unless Christian beliefs are, by definition, homophobic.”

Their local council then responded to the couple, telling them “having heard that the prospective adopters were a same-sex couple you shared some opinions in relation to this proposed placement which are concerning and which would not enable the service to progress an inquiry to be assessed as prospective adopters, as these views could be detrimental to the long-term needs of the children.”

In steps Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Centre and Chief Executive of the anti-LGBT group Christian Concern (no show without Punch). Williams, who has a past record of championing heterosexual ‘traditional’ marriage and condemning and fighting same-sex marriage and parenting, stated that she and the Christian Legal Centre were standing by the couple and affirmed “This couple’s viewpoint is lawful and mainstream.”

Interviewed by Maajid Nawaz on LBC Radio, Williams claimed that studies proved that children were best brought up by a mother and father (married of course), but when asked to provide a source for these studies, she failed to give a reference to any UK-based scientific research, instead making reference to a single, obscure, Christian-based source from the USA, and skirted round the question. When Maajid Nawaz further pressed her that her views would also logically preclude single parents, she equally side-stepped that question. Frankly, Maajid (a lovely, very handsome young man, who is a reformed Islamist extermist ~ I would dears, in a New York minute) had her tied in knots and getting extremely flustered. It was a treat to listen to.

Andrea Williams claimed that the couple had not put tried to make an ideological stance on this case. I utterly refute that, but even if they had not, it is pretty obvious that Williams certainly is doing so. But then she has a past track record of jumping in with her twisted bigotry, which pays little or no regard to children she may be harming in the process.

By their own words and actions, as far as I can see from the scarce information available, the couple have condemned themselves. Their very use of the term “normal couple” should be enough to set off alarm bells in anyone’s head, because that strongly infers that same-sex couples are not normal. They only acted to adopt the boys two days after being told adoptive parents had been found, and only then when they were told that the propective parents were two gay men. And they made this application despite previously being told, and accepted, that their family home was too small to adopt the children. Terms like “ we expressed the view that a child needs a mother and father” and “they would benefit from the foundation offered by a mother and a father” certainly suggest that a same-sex couple could not offer the same support and foundation of that of a heterosexual couple.

They can claim “We love everyone (regardless of sexual orientation)” and they had “ not expressed homophobic views” all they want, but that sounds too much to me like the person who says “I’m not a racist, but…”

And no, Christian views are not by definition homophobic. Far from it, if Jesus ever existed, then he never, not once, made any reference to anyone’s sexuality. But what I will say is that there are many ‘Christians’ ~ including this couple, and the odious Andrea Williams ~ who concentrate too much on the Old Testament while paying too little attention to the man whom they claim is their saviour. The same man who allegedly told his people not to judge, accepted all, and turned away none.

As for her part, I am not afraid to call Andrea Williams out as a bare-faced liar right here and now. According to Premier.org.uk, Williams stated “They (the Christian couple) said immediately we want to look after them”. This is not so. Again, the couple did not act until two days later, and again, only when that the children may be placed with a same-sex couple.  So hardly “immediately”.  This is not the first time I have caught a ‘Christian’ blaspeming their own faith by breaking the Ninth Commandment, and “lying for Jesus”. In fact, the more conservative the Christian, the more common it becomes, to the point I have come to expect it.

In the LBC interview, Maajid Nawaz was of the view that just because people hold illiberal opinions, that should not preclude them from fostering or adopting children, and went further to say that as children are naturally prone to rebel, it does not follow that any child will share the views of the parents. I would agree, to an extent. However, we are not talking merely about political or ideological views here, but religious indoctrination and brainwashing. I have seen too much of it to ever be convinced that a strict religious upbringing does not have an effect upon the views of children; I happen to know of a anti-Catholic sectarian street preacher from Kirkcaldy, Fife, whose own two sons are as equally brainwashed and bigoted as he is.

And Maajid Nawaz himself is an interesting case in point. He had an upbringing in a traditionally conservative Muslim home. His own rebellion took the form of throwing himself into Islamist extremism, for which he spent five years in an Egyptian prison. Having worked with Amnesty International, he turned his back on that and turned right around, now holding very liberal views. Yet he remains a devout follower of Islam; a religion which holds some very disturbing, illiberal views on LGBT+ people.

Even from a political / ideological viewpoint, children will often follow in the footsteps of their parents. My grandad was a communist. My dad was a socialist (although became a bigoted old bastard in his latter years). To this day I describe myself as “slightly to the left of Leon Trotsky”. I am a diehard socialist, proud to be one, and I learned much of that from my father. By equal measure, one could hardly ever see Carol Thatcher carrying the banner, left breast bared, leading the revolution, could one?

So certainly, having views which are illiberal or controversial should not be a barrier to fostering or adopting ~ within limits. How many of the thugs running about with the EDL/SDL or Britain First came from parents who hold equally bigoted views? Quite a few I would venture.

As we say in Scotland, “Fools and bairns spik at the cross whit they hear by the ingleside.”, and if a local authority feel that anyone is unfit to parent a child because they fear that child may be indoctrinated with hate speech, which may manifest itself in a dangerous form later in life, then I for one would have to agree with them. In effect, authorities who make such bans are only saving the children from future heartache of perhaps ending up in court, or even in prison.

So who is fit to be a parent? The Christian couple and Andrea Williams openly state that it is only heterosexual same-sex married couples. That got me to thinking; but what if it was two straight men or two straight women who merely shared a house, and brought up a child, would Andrea Williams complain about that? Did she ever have a complaint about the movie “Three Men and a Baby”, it’s sequel “Three Men and a Little Lady”, or the US sitcom “My Two Dads” (apart from how bloody awful all of the above were ~ Charlie Sheen, what were you thinking?)? If she ever did object to these things, I’ve certainly never heard her saying so. Ah, but then, the characters in them were all heterosexual.

And that got me to thinking further; traditionally just who did bring up children? Did all children historically have the upbringing of a mother and father? Guess what? For the most part, no, they did not.

Among the working class of the UK, it was largely mothers who brought up the children. And when I say mothers, I emphasise the plural. It was certainly a truth, even in my lifetime, that mothers rallied together and helped each other out. As kids we were all in and out of each other’s houses, and every mum treated the children of others as their own, and looked after them as needed. Most fathers were the breadwinners, often working long hours, whom the children rarely got to see and had little contact with; another reason why mothers turned to each other, because they had no-one else to turn to.

And even among the middle and moneyed classes, it was not a matter of children ‘benefiting’ form the upbringing of a mother and father. Middle class fathers were in professions which often involved them working long hours, while those further up capitalist ladder would often be away to meetings or even out of the country. As to the children themselves, many were brought up in their formative years by nannies or au pairs, before being shipped off to boarding schools, where they spent most of the year being supervised by all male or all female staff, depending on whether they were at a boys or girls school. I don’t hear many religites shouting blue bloody murder about girls being brought up in all-female convent schools, do you?

So, having seen that side of it, I wondered if there was ever an instance when men brought the kids up. Yes, there was one, and it was right here in bonny Scotland. From the late 19^th to the early 20^th century, the city of Dundee became famous for it’s three main industries; “Jam, Jute, and Journalism”. Of these three industries, it was only the latter which was an all-male preserve. The jam works and the jute mills which covered Dundee employed women almost exclusively. Because it was women who were the breadwinners ~ and who controlled the purse strings ~ it was the fathers who stayed at home and looked after the children. Dundee women of the time condescendenly referred to their husbands as the “tea bilers” (boilers). Aye, you don’t like it when the boot’s on the other foot, do you fellas? Like working class women, these men had to rely upon each other in their community to help with and look after their children. No-one could ever say that any Dundonian ever suffered from being brought up by an entire community of “dads”.

And that is of course before I get to women (or men) who were widowed by the rampant disease of the past, industrial accidents which were all too common, or indeed war, and who ended up single parents (funny how single mums often get castigated, but if their partners died in war they are ‘heroe’s, isn’t it?) as a result. Again, this was overwhelmingly women, and again it was other women, other mothers, they turned to for help, who were only too happy to offer that help, to welcome the children of others into their homes, and look after them like they were their own. Indeed, even of those servicemen who survived, they were often away for years, while mums were left to bring up the kids by themselves, and with the help of other mothers in the same boat as them.

Despite many more women working today, and some men becoming “househusbands” (hate that term – a homemaker is a homemaker, regardless of gender, and it’s one of the hardest jobs in the world), this community spirit between women survives in many places to this day. Nature teaches us that the majority of species have a nurturing instinct in the female of the species. Why then should it be any different for Homo Sapiens Sapiens? It is still true that women will rally around each other where needed, and above all, they will instinctively protect children, even those of others, and even if that means putting themselves in a place of danger in the process. Women are indeed strong, and they are never stronger (or more vindictive) where the welfare of a child ~ any child ~ is involved.

Yet men can and often do demonstrate similar instincts. The example of Dundee proves this, as do the dad’s who want to (and sometimes do) lay out the referee at a sports match who cards their kid, or the dad of the kid who has just fouled their kid. I’m not for one moment condoning such behaviour, but it does display an instinct to defend and protect. It would also be a sorry excuse for a man who could ever turn away from a child in need or danger. Indeed, do not the traditionally male roles in the armed forces, the police, and the fire service underline this need to nurture and protect?

Therefore, the claim that a child needs the input from both male and female parents is clearly a false one, for the simple reason that it has rarely happened. And Andrea Williams and those of her ilk need not worry about children same-sex parenting, because for generations of countless millions of children, that has always been the norm.  Probably even for you reading this.  Probably even for Andrea Williams.

Want Your Pension? Annul Your Marriage.

And renounce your faith.

MB is 68 years old, married, and a Christian. Under the law, as a woman she should have received her state pension at the pensionable age for women, 60 years old. It was refused to her by the UK’s Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), and this has been upheld by the UK Court of Appeal. Why? Because MB was born with the biological sex of a man, married and fathered a family, and has not had her marriage annulled by a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

MB married in 1975, but did not start living as a woman until 1991, and underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1995. As a Christian, she prefers to remain married to her wife, with whom she has a family, “under the eyes of God”. Under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, transgender people in the UK gained the right to have their gender legally recognised by a GRC. However, a GRC may not be issued to any transgender person who has not had their marriage annulled on the basis of gender change.

When MB applied for a state pension upon reaching the age of 60 in 2008, the DWP refused her application on the grounds that she is still legally a man, as defined by biological sex on her birth certificate. She took her case to the Court of Appeal, who in 2014 upheld the DWP decision. Undeterred, she has taken the case to the Supreme Court, the highest civil court in the UK. The Supreme Court has found itself “divided” on the issue, and has now decided to consult the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), to advise their decision. Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, stated “Since there is no CJEU authority directly in point, it refers the question for their guidance”.

The entire case highlights problems with two things in the UK; the controversial Gender Recognition Certificate, and pensionable age.

GRC’s have long been a point of contention in the UK. When a GRC is issued, it is a form of legal recognition of gender. However, they are only issued under certain criteria. The “Standard Route” for this is;

you’re 18 or over

you’ve been diagnosed with gender dysphoria (discomfort with your birth gender) – this is also called gender identity disorder or transsexualism

you’ve lived in your acquired gender in the UK for at least 2 years

you intend to live in your acquired gender for the rest of your life

But it does not end there. Every single application for a GRC goes before a panel, usually made up of cisgender heterosexual men, who can indeed refuse to issue a GRC if they see fit.

The GRC puts young transgender people at a distinct disadvantage; old enough to have sex or even marry at 16 or over, they cannot in fact be legally recognised as the gender they identify with until 18 or older. This disparity has also led to transgender young offenders being placed in prisons according to gender identified by biological sex as given on their birth certificate, purely because they cannot get a GRC until over 18 and have lived under their acquired gender for 2 years.

Many transgender people are also opposed to GRCs on the grounds that they are unwelcome governmental intrusion into private lives. It should also be noted that birth certificates have no legal basis as means of identification, and placing transgender offenders is thereby technically illegal. In their campaign for the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary Election, the Scottish National Party promised to change the entire process in Scotland and make it much easier for transgender and genderfluid people to officially change their gender status. I have yet to see them make any movement upon this, and it may be time to drop my local Member of the Scottish Parliament an email.

Now the case of MB has proven another flaw with the GRC; that one shall not even be issued unless the transgender person has a marriage under their birth-assigned gender annulled. MB has no wish to annul her family. I have no doubt she loves her wife and family, and as a devout Christian, she sees her marriage as sanctified by God. Now, as an atheist, I obviously say phooey to that. I am not MB however, and as much as I may disagree with her, I have to be the first to stand up to her human right to freedom of religion.

The former UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, continually maintained that we lived in a “Christian country” (not Scotland, dear ~ 39% “No Religion” at the last census, and rising). His successor, Theresa May, is equally a devout Christian. Whilst there is no written constitution in the UK, the entire Westminster government is linked to the Church of England, which is the established church of England, Wales and Cornwall (not Scotland or Northern Ireland), with the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, as head of that church, and 26 Church of England clerics, the “Lords Spiritual”, sitting in the House of Lords. The English judiciary is likewise closely tied to the established church.

Therefore, England is officially a Christian country, and MB, who is an English citizen and subject of her monarch, is having her rights infringed. She is being denied her rights as a woman, she is being denied her rights as transgender person, and she is being denied her rights as a Christian.

I am therefore very pleased that the Supreme Court is to ask advice on this case from the CJEU. The judges there will have to look at the matter in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is a legally-binding declaration of human rights, which is itself based heavily upon the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 9 of the ECHR states:

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

MB’s identity as a Christian and her marriage do not in any way infringe public safety, public order, health or morals, and do not present any threat to the rights and freedoms of others. However. insisting that MB annuls her marriage and applies for a GRC is an obvious infringement upon her freedom for thought, conscience and religion.

Article 8 states:

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 12 states:

“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right”

Articles 8 and 12 are contentious, but are closely tied. It seems to me, however, that in insisting that MB annul her marriage and obtain a GRC, the DWP and the courts are a, infringing her private life, and b, infringing her right to marry.  Moreover, an officially Christian state is effectively telling a transgender woman to renounce her deeply-held religious faith.

The ECHR is of course not attached to the EU, and there is nothing in law to say that EU member states must abide by it’s articles (likewise, many states contravene the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a daily basis). The CJEU does however carry the weight to enforce judgements based upon the ECHR, and if they decide that MB has indeed had her rights infringed, then as the UK is an EU member (we’ve not left yet dears) the DWP and the Supreme Court shall have no choice but to adhere to their ruling, and give MB her pension, backdated to her 60^th birthday.

But the entire case throws into sharp relief the entire question over pensionable age in the UK. Currently the official ages for qualifying for the state pension are 60 for women, and 65 for men. These ages date back to when men traditionally performed heavy labour, whereas women did “less taxing” jobs in offices. Please dears, as one with 20 years of admin jobs behind her, I can attest to the emotional stress of office work. It leaves you completely drained and can lead to nervous breakdowns and early deaths. The entire concept is flawed and deeply sexist. My former female partner has worked in environments, including physically ejecting violent bar customers, and in situations where I would have gone to pieces, or just screamed and simply fainted. I’m much more of a fragile girlie than she is.

The UK pension age also fails to recognise the hard jobs which some women did ~ and do ~ which are traditionally considered women’s work. How many men ruined their eyesight, gave themselves back problems and drove needles through their fingers, as my dear mother did through countless hours of leaning over a sewing machine? How many managed the heavy lifting and sweaty conditions of a laundry? How many have been on their hands and knees as cleaners? And just how many added all the tasks of being a homemaker and bringing up children into that? Yes, heavy labour is exhausting, hazardous to health, dangerous, and life shortening ~ every bit as much as the roles which a great many women have traditionally done, and some still do to this day, and at the end of their working day run a home and bring up a family, purely as a labour of love with no financial reward.

So, what happens if someone is genderfluid? An asshat caller to a radio show firstly stated that men might get gender reassignment surgery purely to get their pension early. Sure, pal, cisgender men are really going to have their meat and two veg cut off, purely to get the paltry state pension. Like that’s ever going to happen. He then did throw in the question that what if a genderfluid person tries to claim their pension as a woman at age 60? That’s actually a very good point, as much as the asshat way he put it; “What if someone says I’ve just turned 60 and I feel like a woman. I want my pension?”

In our more enlightened age, where gender identity is finally becoming much more widely recognised, there is an all-too-obvious answer to this, and that is to have a uniform pensionable age across the board, for all genders. That is indeed coming. From 2020 the pension age for both men and women shall be 66, which is to rise to 67 from 2026 to 2028. That is much fairer, as it shall truly recognise gender equality, for women, for men, for transgender people, and for the genderfluid (but sadly not this genderfluid person ~ I’m a pauper and will have to keep working until I drop).

But from the moment women gained equality in the workplace, it should ever have been so. And had it been thus, then MB would not be fighting for her pension, 8 years after she should have received it.

Prejudiced Pastor’s Pizza Prank ‘Persecution’

Oh, you nasty, nasty American LGBT+ people, persecuting a poor Christian pastor for nothing more than his attempts to spread God’s love.

Aye! Right!

Regular readers of mine shall recall how I reported on the Orlando shootings, including the homophobic comments of Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful World Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, when he stated “The good news is that there’s 50 less pedophiles in this world, because, you know, these homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles,”

No stranger to controversy, Pastor Anderson also stated that the victims of the Paris terrorist shooting deserved to die because they “worshipped death”.

It seems that some have now have had enough of his odious guff, and are now, ahem, persecuting him ~ by advertising free furniture and free airline tickets from his church on Craigslist, having magazine subscriptions posted to him, and having pizza delivered to his church.

Pastor Anderson is upset at people aiming to “harrass” and “persecute” him, and saying how they are all so nasty and uncaring.

Yeah. He’s really persecuted, isn’t he? I challenge Steven Anderson to spend one day identifying as an LGBT+ person, and learn what real persecution is all about. Even outwith the bigotry people like him spread, I somehow think that the very man he claims to worship, if he ever existed, was persecuted. Syrian Christians are truly being persecuted, to the point they are having to flee their homes and even their country. I write this in the wake of an 83-year-old priest being murdered by Islamist fanatics in Normandy. That’s persecution, having pizza sent to your door does not even come close to comparison.

That being said, however, Pastor Anderson does have a point. Doing these things is not hurting him or his church as much as the other people involved. People going out of their way looking for free furniture / airline tickets are the ones being inconvenienced. Pizza joints and their delivery drivers lose money every time anyone phones in a hoax delivery. Magazine publishers lose money with every fake delivery. In the cases of fast food outlets and magazine publishers, when they lose money, that only inevitably pushes up the prices for everyone.

So, if any Americans are reading this, I would urge you to stop doing this and find some other, more inventive, way of harassing this pond life. One idea would be to get a similarly homophobic business to send him deliveries. That way you could kill two birds with one stone.

Story here in LGBTQ Nation:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/stop-sending-americas-homophobic-preacher-unwanted-pizzas/#.V5erzlbtR9Q.facebook

---

Many apologies for the vomit-inducing alliteration  in the title, dears.  I’m hoping to be spotted by a tabloid.

Pray for Orlando – but make sure you MEAN it.

Moment of silence, Orlando vigil

Beware of hypocrites in sheeps clothing.

I have been trying to write this for over a week, but my mind’s not been in the right place to do so. I’m not sure it’s still in the right place, but I am satisfied that I did the right thing in waiting.  However, if I don’t get this out, I am going to make myself ill.

The shooting in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, where 49 LGBT+ people enjoying a night out in what they believed was a safe place, was truly stuff of horror. I have never been so moved to tears, so utterly shaken, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. Four nights running I cried myself to sleep. As the days went on, it became clear that the gunman, Omar Mateen, had very complex motives indeed.

The first thing we learned, which the media were very quick to tell us, was that Mateen was a Muslim. As more facts emerged, it was reported that he swore allegiance to the leader of Daesh. Then he was reportedly “angered” by the sight of two men kissing. Then it was reported that he used to beat his ex-wife. It was said he drove miles seeking out a gay nightclub to carry out his massacre. The media gradually built up a picture of an angry, homophobic, misogynistic, radicalised Muslim, with possible links to Islamic State.

Then as time went on, we found out that as well as Daesh, Mateen had also claimed allegiance in the past to Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and various other radical Islamist groups, whose ideas and interpretation of Islam all disagree. His ex has stated that he rarely attended mosque but merely paid lip-service to Islam, the FBI stated that while there was evidence he was radicalised, there was no proof of links to any radical Islamic group. It seems then that far from the “soldier” which Daesh were quick to portray him as, Omar Mateen was a lone nutter with a chip on his shoulder, who claimed allegiance to conflicting radical Islamist groups, while really knowing diddly-squat about any of them.

Probably most damning of all revelations were that far from seeking out a gay nightclub, Mateen was in fact a regular customer and well-known at Pulse, Orlando, and that he had profiles on gay dating apps. So now of course, he is being portrayed as a self-loathing, semi-closeted gay man, and that’s why he carried out his crime.

Not one of us knows the inside of Omar Mateen’s mind, so we will never know the true motives behind the killing. It could have been religious based, it could have been self-loathing, he could have been mentally ill; we simply do not know, and that he was killed, we will never know.

Can we then absolve the influence of religion upon his crime? Some seem to be doing so, including those who are maintaining that it was a purely homophobic attack. That was certainly the view of political columnist and author Owen Jones, when he walked out of a Sky News interview about the attack, accusing them of downplaying the homophobic nature of the attack.

Of course, Jones was right. Sky were deliberately trying to push the Islamist nature of the attack and completely ignoring the homophobic element. It cannot be ignored. Even the US media, whilst touting the pulse attack as the worst gun attack in US history (wholly inaccurate; try Wounded Knee), they completely ignore one sobering fact; the Pulse attack was the single largest killing of LGBT+ people in one place since the Nazi holocaust. That little fact is something which must be pressed as much as possible.  Likewise, unlike the media trying to play this massacre down, I will call it what it is; a terrorist attack.

For cishet people, through their cishet media mouthpieces, to try to portray the Pulse shooting as anything else than primarily homophobic in nature is either to pursue an agenda against Islam, or ignore it as “not my problem”. To portray the shooting as a ‘gay-on-gay’ attack, is tantamount to blaming the victim.

But all the rhetoric coming out of the media begs the question, can we equally ignore the religious element in this mass murder? Not for one moment. Whether confused about his sexuality or not, there is one thing for sure; Omar Mateen was a homophobe, and that begs the question, just where did that homophobia stem from?

Bigotry, all bigotry, is a learned behaviour. No person wakes up one morning thinking “I hate all gays.”; it comes from indoctrination. As I said, we’ll never know the inside of Omar Mateen’s mind, but it is already known he had been radicalised and had some knowledge of Islam, which like it’s Judeo-Christian cousins, is a deeply homophobic religion. Some people, particularly apologists for Islam and for other religions, can try to downplay the Islamic religious element all they want, but it cannot be ignored. When Daesh are pushing gay men off the top of buildings, when there are Islamic countries where being gay or any other part LGBT+ can earn one anything from a jail sentence to being lashed in public, or even the death penalty, to ignore the homophobic influence of Islam is to bury one’s head in the sand, while wearing blinkers at the same time – a good trick if you can manage it. Unfortunately, there are so many today who think “Ooh, we can’t upset the Muslims.  How dare you be so Islamophobic.” (I hate that word), that we are all supposed to walk on eggshells.

Well, tough titty dears. Call me an Islamophobe all you want. Indeed, call me anti-relgious – I am – because I am not going to miss Christianity in this article either. And once you’re done calling me all your names, you can go kiss my sweet atheist arse. But I am not for one moment going to refrain from pointing the finger firmly at Islam for the Pulse shooting, when it most certainly was one of the motives.

But Islam as a faith is only part of the indoctrination. We then have to ask where it began, and as is usual with most bigotry, we need look no further than the home environment and parental influence. There is a lot of truth in the old Scots saying “Fools and bairns speak at the cross whit they hear by the ingleside.” Look to a bigot, any bigot, then look to one or both of their parents, and nine times out of ten, you shall find that they are equally bigoted, and have brainwashed their child into the same poisonous mindset. And of course, that is never more true where the family has deeply held religious beliefs.

Omar Mateen’s father, Saddique Mateen, after the killing gave an apology and claimed his son’s terrorist act had nothing to do with religion. Less than 24 hours later, Mr Mateen senior released a video, supposedly an apology, in which he stated “God will punish those involved in homosexuality… …not an issue that humans should deal with.” It later transposed that Saddique Mateen hosts an extremely pro-Taliban TV show on the California-based Durand Jirga Show, and in Facebook videos has often appeared in uniform, declaring himself the leader of the “transitional revolutionary government of Afghanistan”, that he has ties to the US congress and his own intelligence agency, which he says he will use to subvert and overthrow the present Afghan government. If Omar Mateen was a nutball, it seems it must have been hereditary.

But we also see that Saddique Mateen is indeed an Islamic fundamentalist, he is indeed a homophobe, and we then see where Omar Mateen’s Islamist leanings and his religious homophobic bigotry began; at the hands of his own father.

And that of course does not, for one moment, justify the worst ever terrorist attack upon LGBT+ people. It was a truly evil thing for Omar Mateen to do. But while he may have been mentally-ill (and the continued media stigmatisation of the mentally ill is not lost on me either), I sincerely doubt he was a psychopath and / or did not know what he was doing was wrong; that is, he was not of the legal definition of insane. I maintain he deliberately set out to kill as many gay men and women as possible, in full knowledge of what he was doing, and if anything, that makes it all the worse. However, his Islamist brainwashing does go to some extent to explaining the complex motives he held.

Not that I would ever wish to stir up anti-Islamic hatred. This is not the point of this article, but rather it is a reaction to and a criticism of a faith with a Dark Ages view of sexuality. Don’t worry Christians, I’m getting to you and I’m not going to miss you either. Just you take your place in the queue, because know what? You’re next in line.

I certainly would never wish to be seen as buying into the rhetoric of Donald Trump, who was obscenely quick to make the Orlando shooting about him, and try to claim that it supports his plans if elected US President to ban Muslims from entering the USA. Trump claimed on Twitter that he had been right about Islamic terrorism, and then Tweeted “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

Were that vile Tweet not enough, the fact that there was an armed police officer outside of the Pulse nightclub was not enough for Trump; he thinks that people in clubs should be armed. On Monday, 13 June, he stated on CNN, “If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had. If people in that room had guns with the bullets flying in the opposite direction right at him… … right at his head, you wouldn’t have had the same tragedy that you ended up having.”

Of course, we all know that Donald Trump is electioneering, and we know that his electioneering is based on a ticket which is equally bigoted against Muslims and Latin Americans. Unfortunately for the Donald, there are certain facts where his racist and anti-Islamic rhetoric falls down completely;

• Omar Mateen was not an immigrant; he was a US citizen, born in the USA. Therefore, a ban on Muslims entering the USA would not have made a blind bit of difference.
• People carrying guns in nightclubs, in a crowded place, with alcohol mixed in, would indeed have a very different outcome; with bullets flying in all directions, it would be a bloodbath in which many, many more would perish.
• Of the 49 dead and 53 injured in the Pulse nightclub, the overwhelming majority were Latinx. Would Donald Trump and those in the US gun lobby who support him be so ready to push the “arm everybody” line if they were aware of that fact?

That the majority were in fact Latinx, the irony of the attack was that it was a US citizen attacking people at least from immigrant backgrounds, and some of whom were more than likely immigrants, which of course is the complete mirror of Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric – about immigrants killing US citizens.

So, what about the response from some Christians, and why do I have such a problem with them?

Well, firstly there was the response from some Christian homophobes, which was to be expected. Even as the attack was happening, one particular lowlife crawled out from under his stone long enough to Tweet “Someone is doing God’s work in Orlando. #FeelingBlessed” There have indeed been many bigoted Christian pond scum who were just rubbing their hands with glee at 49 LGBT+ people being wiped out. Of course, some didn’t realise at first that it was a Muslim terrorist, and soon changed their tune when they found out. Others simply did not care who did the shooting, so long as somebody did it. When it comes to LGBT+ people, creationism, subjugation of women, abortion, atheism, wanting a theocratic government, declaring their God is the only true god, and being willing to kill for that belief, you could not get a pubic hair between some Christian fundamentalists and Islamist fundamentalists.

Of course, many of such are keyboard warriors; trolls stuck in their mom’s basement who can only pull their obese arses away from their computer long enough to waddle off for another 2 litre bottle of cola (and it’s always diet cola – WTF?), and another share-size bag of cheetos, sweating profusely at the exertion of doing so, whom we should not worry about too much. But others may be physically fit, heavily armed, and easily influenced by Christian pastors ‘rejoicing’ the killing and continuing to spread their homophobia. One such is Pastor Roger Jiminez of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento, who stated;

“People say, like: Well, aren’t you sad that 50 sodomites died? Here’s the problem with that. It’s like the equivalent of asking me — what if you asked me: Hey, are you sad that 50 paedophiles were killed today?’ Um, no, I think that’s great. I think that helps society. You know, I think Orlando, Florida, is a little safer tonight.” He added: “The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. The tragedy is I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job… …I wish the government would round them all up, put them up against a firing wall, put a firing squad in front of them, and blow their brains out,”

Jiminez also posted a video of his sermon, which YouTube promptly removed for violating their hate speech policy.

Not that Jiminez was alone in his twisted rhetoric. He was soon echoed by Pastor Steve Anderson of the Faithful World Baptist Church, of Tempe, Arizona, who came out with a similarly vile rant in another video, also removed by YouTube;

“…we’re supposed to be sad because a bunch of perverts in a gay bar are killed… … we’re supposed to sympathize with that. Well, frankly, I’m not sad about it at all. I don’t condone violence, I never have… but I’m not gonna sit here and cry about it and say it’s a tragedy, because it’s not…”

The video followed earlier comments by Anderson, in which he stated there were “fifty less paedophiles in the world”. Same rhetoric as from Jiminez, except of course it is a fact that children are much safer in the company of LGBT+ people than they ever have been in the company of Christians, particularly Christian clergy. Yes dears, I went there – and I make no apologies for that, because it happens to be a fact. The vast majority of paedophiles, both active and inactive, are cishet men; even men who prey upon little boys tend to be otherwise heterosexual. The LGBT+ community has the lowest incidence of paedophilia -fact. And it’s not gay clubs hiding and protecting kiddy fiddlers – it’s the Vatican doing that. Stick that one RIGHT up your cassock, Frankie Baby.

I only wish it were easy to ignore the insane rantings of the likes of Jiminez and Anderson. Unfortunately, as we in the LGBT+ community know all too well, we cannot. They are every bit as dangerous as fundamentalist Islamists. In fact, given that Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, and there are many, many more people out in western, developed, at least ‘culturally Christian’ nations than there are in Islamic countries, homophobic Christian preachers are probably a greater danger, due to the hate they stir up. Steve Anderson is the natural successor to the leader of the 16th century Scottish Protestant Reformation, John Knox. And if he thinks that’s a compliment, it’s not. Just like Knox, people like Anderson stir up the hate, which inevitably leads to violence. But when that violence happens, he is nowhere to be seen and claims not to condone it. And that dears, is and always has been, the worst kind of cowardice.

But it is not so much the hate preachers who anger me. Not even crazy TV evangelist Pat Robertson who says Christians should just sit back and “let Muslims and gays kill each other”. Because of course, the LGBT+ community are well-known for launching attacks upon Muslims. Look out, Daesh, we’re coming for you – to redecorate your tents with hanging drapes and throw pillows.

No dears, the ones who have really got my backs up have been the hypocrites, with their crocodile tears for the Orlando victims; who all too often have been the same people who have sought to further oppress the LGBT+ community.

If someone hates me, let them hate me, and I’ll fight them with my intellect, my sarcasm, and where it is called for, with kindness and a soft word. What I cannot stomach is the hypocrite who pretends to be my friend, and yet holds a deep-set prejudice against me. Those are the ones you have to watch out for, or you’ll soon find a knife sticking out of your back.

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, there were a number of “good Christians” on social media posting “Pray for Orlando”. Some of the people I noticed posting this had in the past, the recent past, applauded moves to repress LGBT+ legislation. Indeed, in the two weeks prior to the shooting, there were two instances of American politicians calling upon anyone spotting a transgender woman in a ladies restroom to kill them. Some of the people I spotted posting these stories, agreeing with them, were among the same people posting their “Pray for Orlando” memes. Another such was one woman who posted a story about young children being taught to respect gender differences, and who stated “Well, that’s mine being home schooled.”

The hypocrisy is vertigo inducing.

But if keyboard warriors trying to find a salve for their guilty consciences was bad enough, those “in authority” doing exactly the same thing was bloody infuriating and insulting in the extreme. Governor of Florida Rick Scott (Rep), Texas senator Ted Cruz (Rep), Speaker of the House Ted Cruz (Rep), North Carolina senator Richard Burr (Rep), Texas representative Louis Ohmmeter (Rep), and Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell, are among just some of the US politicians who offered “thoughts and prayers” for the Orlando victims, but who have not only voiced strident homophobic and transphobic statements, who have not only pushed anti-LGBT+ legislation, but some are actually continuing to do so.

The very state the shooting took place in, Florida, and it’s governor are actually a prime example of this. Governor Scott is known to be against equal marriage, and while he says it is a matter best left to the courts, he made sure that Florida continued to drag it’s heels on the issue, long after other states had given up. More recently, Florida’s Children and Families Department began moves to remove sexual orientation and gender expression from the definition of bullying in care homes. As recently as March 2016, Governor Scott personally signed into power the state’s Pastor Protection Act, which shields churches and their clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. It took until the Thursday after the shooting for Governor Scott to even admit that the attack was targeted at the LGBT+ community.

When such vehemently anti-LGBT+ politicians come out with meaningless platitudes about offering “thoughts and prayers” for the victims, one has to ask if they truthfully mean it, or are they saying these things purely for their own publicity and ratings?

Likewise, on Sunday, 12 June 2016, the Vatican released this statement:

“The terrible massacre that has taken place in Orlando, with its dreadfully high number of innocent victims, has caused in Pope Francis, and in all of us, the deepest feelings of horror and condemnation, of pain and turmoil before this new manifestation of homicidal folly and senseless hatred,

“Pope Francis joins the families of the victims and all of the injured in prayer and in compassion,” the statement said. “Sharing in their indescribable suffering he entrusts them to the Lord so they may find comfort.

“We all hope that ways may be found, as soon as possible, to effectively identify and contrast the causes of such terrible and absurd violence which so deeply upsets the desire for peace of the American people and of the whole of humanity,”

I would ask all to study that statement carefully. Notice anything? There is not one mention of “gay” or “LGBT” anywhere in it. There is not even a mention of the Pulse nightclub, or even that the shooting took place in a ‘gay’ nightclub, or that the LGBT+ community was specifically targeted.  Little difference to Governor Scott’s initial response, and with spin that any career politician (which the Pope is, really) may be envious of.

This does not surprise me in the least. For a pontiff who has ‘opened a dialogue’ with and claims not to condemn the LGBT+ community, Pope Francis is vastly hypocritical on LGBT+ rights. The Roman Catholic Church, as ever under the mistaken impression that they have full rights over marriage – and families – has continually and consistently stated they will never recognise same-sex marriage, and the present Pope has himself called it “a major threat”. As recently as November 2015, the Vatican lambasted same-sex marriages and called attempts by same-sex couples to adopt children were “a great danger”. HA! And allowing their priests access to children isn’t?  Frankie; beam, mote, brother’s eye, Sweetie.

Of course, there have been other churches have similarly made sanctimonious statements about Orlando, while at the same time condemning LGBT+ people and continuing to oppose equal marriage and same-sex adoption, but as the single largest Christian communion in the world, it is the RC Church which angers me most. Not least because these are statements from a bloke in a dress, who is celibate, trying to make the rules for all humanity. Just a word Frankie dearest, if you’re not going to play the game, do not assume to write the rules.

Some Christians of course may try to claim it’s a matter of “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Another load of sanctimonious, platitudinous crap. I fail to see any difference between that particular Christian soundbite, and the half-assed and hypocritical apology Saddique Mateen offered for his son’s actions. But worse than that, every time a Christian comes out with an anti-LGBT+ statement, every time they speak out against equal marriage, every time they try to prevent a same-sex couple from adopting a child, they provide the fuel for the fires of hatred. They can put their hands on their hearts and say “Oh no, not me.” all they want, but the fact is that is starts with even one individual Christian saying that homosexuality is unnatural (unlike a woman emerging from a man’s rib, which, among other things in the Bible is obviously perfectly natural), and it ends with someone going on the rampage and killing people purely because of the sexuality they happen to have been born as. And in that respect, the homophobic / transphobic Christian churches are absolutely no different from Islam. Bigoted Christians can try to play at Pontius Pilate, attempting to wash their hands of the blood all they want, but the fact is that they are every bit as complicit in the murder of not just those in Orlando, but every LGBT+ murder – and suicide – as if they had carried out the attack themselves.

At this point, I was going to go on a tirade about prayer solving nothing and use it to illustrate how God does not exist. However, I have been humbled by an atheist friend who had a Roman Catholic upbringing, who has shown me that hate is never the way. Were I to go on my tirade, then I would be as guilty of abusing the Orlando terrorist attack as those I mention above, only from the opposite perspective. Also I fully realise that there are many Christian churches and communities who do not judge others, fully following the teachings of their saviour, but rather welcome LGBT+ people, and many others society has rejected, with open arms. The same can be said for Islam, but it has to be admitted, to a much lesser extent. I am equally aware that of the 49 dead, some were indeed believers in God, so for me to carry out a blanket condemnation of all religious faith would serve only to dishonour their memory.

And while I may be a hardened, cynical, atheist bitch who does not believe prayer does any good, I fully realise that those faithful who do indeed offer prayers do so with only the finest of intentions, and to throw them back in their face would be hateful indeed. So, genuine faithful, on behalf of the entire global LGBT+ community, thank you for your compassion and your kindness.

My article is therefore not directed at those faithful who accept all and turn away none. Rather it is directed at the hypocrites who on one hand seek to further, judge, vilify, oppress and persecute LGBT+ people, then on the other hand offer prayers and ask others to do likewise, which as far as I can see is for no other reason than their own self-aggrandisement.  Any of such who may be reading this, your false prayers and crocodile tears are not only not welcome, you actually do those who are genunine a huge disservice.  Shame on  you.

More than anything, it is in memory of the 49 young people, mostly Latinx – let us never forget that – who thought they were in a safe place, only to be gunned down in the worst anti-LGBT+ terrorist incident in history.

Goodnight, my sweet darlings. Nothing and no-one can hurt you any more.

Xandra.

XXX

Jehovah’s Witness video teaches children homophobia

Indoctrinating against equal marriage – and likening LGBT+ people to terrorists.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have produced a series of videos aimed at children about JW faith. One of them, Lesson 22: One Man, One Woman, however is openly exhibiting and teaching children that same-sex relationships are wrong, and worse still, teaching them to spread that message to other children.

In the video a little girl draws a picture of her family at school, along with all the other pupils. Taking it home to her mother, she explains that a friend drew her “two mommys” and tells her mother that her teacher had said that as long as two people love each other, that is alright. The mother then tells her daughter that different people have different ideas of what is right and wrong, but it is making Jehovah happy which counts. She goes on to tell her that the Bible teaches leaving ‘wrong’ things behind, likens same-sex marriage to taking unauthorised items on a plane, and suggests that her daughter tell her friend about Jehovah and Biblical rules on same-sex marriage.

I was listening to a radio show concerning this, which had Jehovah’s Witnesses and other theists phoning in saying everyone is entitled to their opinions. The JW callers all said that they were tolerant and the video does not suggest that the little girl should end her friendship with the other girl, or judge the girl’s parents.

Really? Let’s go through the video, step-by-step.

Confronted with her daughter’s friend having same-sex parents and the teacher saying that is okay as long as they are happy, the mother retorts “People have their own ideas about what is right and wrong – but what matters is how Jehovah feels. He wants us to be happy and he knows how we can be happiest. That’s why he invented marriage the way he did.”

“You mean one man and one woman?” the daughter asks.

“Exactly,” the mother replies, “Look at Genesis 1:27. “Jehovah created Adam and Eve, male and female. Then in Genesis 2:24 he said a man will stick to his wife. Later, Jesus said the same thing. Jehovah’s standards haven’t changed.”

Right, fallacy one is that Jehovah “invented marriage”. This is a common claim one gets from Christian homophobes opposed to same-sex marriage, and it makes me spit. For if they are claiming that their God created marriage, then that would mean that not only would every same-sex marriage would be invalid, but likewise so would every marriage within other religions and cultures, as well as atheists who are married. If the Jobboes, or any other Christians, wish to tell people of other faiths and none that their marriages are invalid, then they are welcome to go on and try it. Most countries in the world recognise marriages in all faiths and cultures as being legally binding, so when the police get through with them for religious hate speech, they may wish to consider that same-sex marriage where recognised by the state is equally legally binding, and speaking out against it is homophobic hate speech.

Marriage is timeless, it has appeared in all cultures, and it well predates Judeo-Christian culture by thousands of years. Anyone questioning that would also have to be a Young Earth Creationist, and maintain that the Earth was made in six days, 6000 years ago.  And anyone who believes that sort of nonsense, which even the vast majority of Christians today relect, while not even worth debating, by trying to push creationism upon impressionable minds is every bit as dangerous as anyone who stands against same-sex marriage on the grounds of it being against their religion. The fact is that marriage has nothing to do with god(s), but rather it is and always has been a social contract between two people who love each other. And while most cultures have held to heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage has not been unknown in many cultures, down throughtout history, in every continent across the globe.

Fallacy two is that Judeo-Christian marriage is for one man and one woman – and that “Jehovah’s standards haven’t changed”. Well, they certainly do not change in the Bible, where the most common form of marriage is polygamy, and monogamous marriage is in fact the exception rather than the rule.

In saying that Jesus says the same later, the mother is alluding to Matthew 19:4-5, which is mentioned at the start of the video, which states; “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” In these verses Jesus does indeed appear to be stating that marriage is one man, one woman. Homophobic Christians often quote these verses, and some even try to get around Old Testament polygamy by claiming that because Jesus was allegedly bringing in the New Covenant, that monogamy was thereby the rule. Does this argument stand up to scrutiny? Not for one moment. For a start, Jesus was referring to the OT in stating that God made humans male and female, and that because of that a man shall cleave to his wife, singular. Yet given the huge plethora of polygamous marriages in the OT, does that mean that all of those in such marriages, including Moses who had three wives yet allegedly penned the first four books of the OT, were breaking God’s laws? According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who maintain that, they must have been.

Was Jesus making the rule in the New Covenant that monogamous marriage was from there on to be the norm? Well, you would have to one, see if Jesus makes any direct rulings against that. He does not. Two, you would have to see if Jesus ever makes any mention of polygamous marriage. And whaddya know? There it is staring us in the face.

Also in the Gospel according to Matthew, in Chapter 25 we have Jesus relating the parable of the five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins. Likening the kingdom of Heaven to a marriage, Jesus tells a story of ten virgins going to meet the bridegroom, five of whom had oil for their lamps, and five who did not, and only those with oil are taken into marriage. In Matthew 25:1, Jesus states, “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.” Then in Matthew 25:10, he states, “And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.” Hello? Did you see that? They went “in with him to the marriage”.

Therefore, in relating the parable, Jesus was alluding to a polygamous marriage. Some apologists try to maintain that yes, but he was only alluding to polygamy. But by equal measure, in Matthew 19, Jesus is only alluding to monogamy, with no direct commandment. More disingenuous apologists try to say the ten virgins were bridesmaids. The bridegroom choosing bridesmaids would not make any sense in Christian marriage, not even today, far, far less in Jewish marriage in first century Judea. Generally in that culture it was the bride’s mother who selected the bridesmaids.

So, by the very example of the Bible, there goes any notion of marriage being one man, one woman, completely out of the window.

The cartoon then takes a more sinister turn, by the mother using the analogy of someone attempting to carry something disallowed onto a plane flight, stating “It’s kind of like bringing something on an airplane – what happens if someone tries to bring something on that isn’t allowed?” The cartoon actually depicts a man with a large bag setting off an airport security alarm. In the modern age, when most people think of disallowed items on air flights, particularly in large items of hand luggage, they are immediately going to think of terrorism. Therefore the only inference I can take from this cartoon is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are likening LGBT+ people to terrorists. Hmmm. Strangely enough, I can’t recall any instance of any LGBT+ person ever blowing up a plane or flying one into a building. But as for those who hold strong religious beliefs…

The mother then tells her daughter of Jehovah’s rules for reaching paradise, which means removing certain things from ones life. “At Matthew 7: 13 and 14, it talks about the road leading to paradise,” states the mother, “to get there Jehovah says we have to leave some things behind, that means anything Jehovah doesn’t approve of.”

Actually, Matthew 7:13-14 may state the former, but certainly not the latter. It says “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matthew 7:15-23 certainly does have Jesus stating to beware of false prophets, of knowing people “by their fruits” (this particular ‘fruit’ would never fit in, dears) and that only those who do the “will of the Lord” shall enter into Heaven. And whilst that is open to interpretation as to what is good and evil and what “Jehovah doesn’t approve of”, it says nowhere that the faithful need to “leave some things behind”.

And just what do they mean by leaving some things behind which their god may not approve of? That suggests to me that the mother is telling the daughter to end her friendship with the other girl.

“But I want everyone to get to Paradise.” says the little girl. “So does Jehovah,” replies the mother, which is completely at odds with not just with what Jesus said, in the very part of Matthew the mother is referring to, but also with Jehovah’s Witness teaching. Matthew 7:21-23 states;

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Therefore, to claim that their god wants everyone to enter Heaven is a complete falsehood. Jehovah’s Witness theology itself, based upon calculations from the Book of Revelation, teaches that only 144,000 souls will enter Heaven, whereas the rest of the faithful (there are approximately 20 million Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide) will live forever on Earth. Given that Jehovah’s Witness theology is also very big on predestination – that their god, being omniscient and omnipotent, has always known who the truly faithful are – even by their own theology, to claim that their Jehovah wants everyone to enter Heaven is likewise a falsehood, and actually quite hypocritical of Jehovah’s Witnesses to make such an assertion.

“People can change,” says the mother, “that’s why we share his message. So, what can you say to Kerry?”, encouraging her daughter to preach Jehovah’s Witness teachings to her daughter, even saying “let’s practice”.

That the cartoon says “People can change” is of course suggesting that the same-sex couple can change, and suggesting that her daughter go preach to her little friend that her parents will be banned from paradise unless they “change” is simply outrageous. This may only be a cartoon, but it is being directed at children, and asking them to proselytise that homophobic message to other children (do JW children get classroom doors slammed in their faces?).

As I said, there were many callers to the radio show trying to claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not judgemental but open to all. Well, dears, that is a whole pile of bullshit, no matter how they try to pretty it up. This very video shows a marked degree of intolerance in which it is suggested that only Christian marriage is valid, that LGBT+ people are no better than terrorists, that the little girl should cast off her friend, and that she should tell the other girl her parents are evil and unfit for her god’s paradise.

In my personal experience Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to be among the least tolerant of the religious sects – and they are a sect – against the beliefs of others, or lack thereof, and of LGBT+ people, and this very video, which is nothing but the indoctrination of children with hate speech, bears that out.

But as they are so very fond of quoting Matthew’s Gospel, allow me to finish with a message to the Jehovah’s Witnesses by also quoting from Chapter 7, one of the same chapters mentioned in the video;

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement 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.” (Matthew 7:1-5)

---

All Biblical quotes are King James Version.

What is truth?

This article is in response to “Two truths” by Clare Flourish

“Can two truths co-exist?” asks Clare Flourish, examining whether atheistic and religious viewpoints can be harmious and respectful towards each other. I would argue that not only can they, for the sake of peace, they must do. Clare’s article comes from a Quaker Christian viewpoint, my own comes from my atheist philosophy.

The first thing we have to ask is, to borrow the words of Pontius Pilate to Jesus (quite poignant as I write this at Easter), “What is truth?” Is there any one of us can actually define truth? I am not speaking of factual evidence, be it scientific or otherwise here, but truth itself. What is truth for Clare is not always my truth, nor mine hers. And for both of us, the truth of any other may not necessarily be truth to either of us, or our truths be true for them. Truth by it’s very nature is ever elusive. To explain, for a believer in God, the tenets of their religion may be truth. For me anything which can be demostrated, explained, and conclusively proven is one truth. In a more abstract sense my code of honour – that honour is more important than life itself – is another truth. And that life ends when no quality of life remains is yet another. The latter are points which many will find contentious, but to me they remain truths.

This is an important point, especially where atheism is concerned. Contrary to what some believers may try to tell you, atheism is neither a religious faith, or a belief system. It does not even qualify as a movement, for unlike religious faiths, belief systems, or movements, atheism has no philosophy which ties those who identify as atheist together. There are no tenets, no dogma, no communion, no rules, and no real society. There is only one commonality which unites atheists, and that is we all agree that gods do not exist. But even that does not make for a shared philosophy, for every individual atheist has come to that conclusion based on their own personal observations and experiences.

I personally never came to atheism until the age of 47, after a life of searching for spiritual fulfilment, which took me from Baptist Christianity to Wicca. To quote from the John Lennon song, I Found Out, “I’ve seen religion from Jesus to Ba’al.”, only to realise that I have never found any real evidence for the existence of god(s). And while many atheists have indeed left religion, there is not one will have had the same experience as mine, just as there is not one atheist thinks like me, or shares all of my views, just as I do not share all of theirs. Atheists tend to be highly individualistic freethinkers; way too freethinking to adhere to the diktats of another.

We hear much today of the “New Atheism”, a term I despise and refuse to be identified with. Many who do are every bit as dogmatic, and every bit of a nuisance, as the religious zealots who try to force their particular faith upon you. In my experience the New Atheism is full of Dawkins clones who have read The God Delusion (or at least parts of it), treat it as their bible, and woe betide anyone who dares to disagree with the teachings of their new messiah. We, if I will not worship any god, then the Devil is going to be skating to work before I bow to the altar of Dawkins.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not that I dislike Richard Dawkins; I recognise he is possessed of a marvellous intelligence, and I respect and admire that greatly. Unfortunately, Dawkins also realises he is highly intelligent, but has failed to learn the humility which should accompany that. Smart he may be, but Richard Dawkins’ public persona to me comes across as arrogant, elitist and condescending, and he does neither himself nor other atheists any favours by the way he pours derision upon believers. Frankly, Dawkins to me is like that swotty, arrogant kid at school, who attempted to be teacher’s pet (although even the teachers didn’t like him), who would immediately tell on his peers, and who had that smug, self-satisfied face you just wanted so dearly to punch. And the same goes for Dawkins followers, who attempt to emulate his style and persona.

Such “atheists” attempt to lay down rules and laws of what atheism is supposed to be. In another guise I am a paranormal researcher, and I have actually been told by some atheists that paranormal research is incompatible with atheism. Says who exactly? Consider the root of the word atheism; atheos – “without god(s)”. That’s all it means; nothing more, nothing less. Effectively anyone could believe in the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs and alien abduction, telekinesis, chupacabra, the Big Grey Man of Ben MacDhui, or many other things, but as long as they do not believe in gods, they remain by definition an atheist.

But paranormal research does not mean believing, no more than researching the Bible, as I am wont to do, makes me a Christian. And this is where those atheists who deride paranormal researchers err; they assume that researchers must be believers, which is actually rarely the case. Most paranormal researchers are in fact atheists, or at least agnostic, for the simple reason we are the ultimate skeptics. We accept nothing at face value and will be the first to look for a logical explanation to any given phenomena. I personally adhere to the philosophy of Charles Hoy Fort, who believed that unless something has been conclusively proven, then all hypotheses surrounding any given unproven subject carry equal value. To put it in Fort’s own words, “One measures a circle beginning anywhere.” That’s not believing, that’s keeping a wholly open mind to all possibilities.

Equally there are atheists who try to say that you cannot be an atheist and spiritually-minded or a believer in spiritualism, ghosts, or hauntings. Equally bunkum, as they are immediately equating these subjects with belief in god(s), Heaven and Hell, which may not necessarily be the case. As a paranormal researcher I would argue that given stories of ghosts and hauntings are common to all cultures and have been with us since mankind could first communicate, there is far too much evidence to dismiss the phenomena as delusion. And would suggest to even do so belies not only arrogance but downright ignorance. Again, to equate spiritual experiences with belief in god(s) can often be a mistaken assumption. But if any atheist still arrogantly thinks you cannot believe in spiritual matters and be an atheist, I suggest they tell that to the Buddhists, who have happily been recording ghosts, hauntings and other such spiritual matters, whilst having no creator gods for 2500 years.

The bottom line of all this is that any atheist who tries to add these ‘rules’ to atheism and impose that upon other atheist, is not voicing atheism at all, but trying to enforce their own personal dogma, Just as some theists will try to enforce their own personal interpretation of scripture upon others. In short, they are attempting to impose their truths upon another.

So, if atheists can research of even believe in esoteric matters, does it follow that theists can equally be freethinkers and enquiring scientists? Not only does that follow but down throughout history that has been an established fact. Galileo Galilei, Sir Issac Newton and James Hutton are just three examples of men of science who were equally very devout Christians. Most know of Galileo being forced to recant, but few are aware he was indeed a very pious man who was more angry with the intransigence of the church than being against them. Sir Issac Newton, who did so much to advance mankind, was also a noted theologian in his day. When James Hutton presented his paper Theory of the Earth to the University of Edinburgh in 1785, arguing that the Earth was extremely ancient, it caused an enormous rift between him and the Church of Scotland which saddened him greatly, and which never fully healed. For these men their scientific observations in no way disproved God, but rather they saw them as wonderful examples of a God-given creation. It was the churches being dogmatic which caused all the problems, just as it is with some churches to this day who take the bible to be a literal history and the irrefutable word of God – and exactly the same can be said for some Muslims and the Qur’an, and a great many other belief systems for that matter.

We therefore see that it is not a case of whether we atheists are right and the theists are wrong, or vice versa. As with so many other things in life, it is both intolerance and disrespect for the beliefs and opinions of others which cause division where none should exist. As there are no two atheists alike, then it is imperative that we respect each others views, And likewise we need to listen to and respect the views of believers and we shall never do so while pouring derision on the beliefs of others, and dismissing them through unproven assumptions and accusations, Not believing in gods is one thing. Insulting, deriding, abusing, and / or dismissing believers is a completely different matter.

Many atheists believe that all believers are suffering from mental delusions, while some others try to claim that religious faith is a mental illness. Figures vary, but it is reckoned that the number of those who have some faith in a god or gods worldwide, may be between 55% to 88%. Whichever, it can be safely said that the vast majority of people do indeed believe in god(s). And if that is the case, then that is one helluva lot of people who are either deluded, or suffering mental illness. And if it were mental illness, given that our ancestors were all believers, then any such instability could lurk within the genes of every atheist. Be afraid, be very afraid.

I downright refuse to accept such an easy answer which ignores several other factors. To my mind to easily dismiss faith as delusion or mental illness smacks of the very thing myself and other atheists often accuse fundamentalist theists of; lazy and sloppy thinking. Such claims fail to take in historical, cultural and familial factors perpetuating faiths. Little Billy in Normal, Illinois, who goes to church every Sunday and knows he is saved through Jesus Christ, is really little different from little Achmed in Shaqra, Saudi Arabia, who prays to Allah five times a day. They both have their own truths, but culture apart, there is little to separate them. They are both being brought up in their respective faiths, to honour and worship God, as their respective faiths teach them to do so. And that is true for the overwhelming majority of believers in god(s). They follow the faith of the fathers because that’s what they have been brought up in, and have been taught all their lives that their faith is the one and only true faith. I really don’t think that many believers actually even stop to think deeply about the faith they have been brought up in, and whether it may be wrong. They just blindly follow, sheeplike. Not for nothing are the faithful referred to as “the flock”.

Some atheists would call that indoctrination, and they may well be right. However, if it is, then it logically follows that to bring a child up as an atheist is equally indoctrination. Better surely to give each child a general grounding in world religions and atheism, and leave them to make up their own mind whether or not to follow a particular faith when they are mature enough to decide. Doing any other is not respecting either the child, nor the beliefs and philosophies of others. I can already see both theists and atheists throwing their hands up at that one, but I would ask you to think very deeply on this; if you impose your own philosophy upon a child, you are ultimately force-feeding that child your truths, and leaving them without the option to think for themselves, to make their own minds up, and discover their own truths.

The freedom of, and from, religion is enshrined in Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it’s wording is something which each and every one of us, atheist and believer alike, should have burned into our minds and which we should keep in mind when debating matters of faith;

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Some atheists ask whether we should even respect religions, and some downright refuse to do so. Their argument is that the religious faiths in the world have nothing of value to offer. I find such intransigence to be narrow-minded, arrogant, ignorant and confrontational. There are in fact many truths within faiths which are good guides for life, and which one need not believe in god(s) to follow.

Christianity has given us the Golden Rule; “Do unto others as you would have them treat you.” Islam teaches that practising undue usury upon an individual is corrupt but charity unto others is fruitful. Hindu and Buddhist beliefs give us Karma – that we reap exactly that which we sow. Every faith teaches us to be respectful of our parents and elderly people, who having life experience, know better than we do. As a pacifist I have a particular fondness for the Quaker faith which Clare Flourish follows which advocates nonviolence. And of course, almost every faith on the face of the planet teaches the basics of the moral code; that killing, violence, stealing, cheating, and bearing false witness against another, are wrong, while showing kindness to others, and being forgiving, thoughtful and compassionate is morally right.

Atheists need to keep these things in mind when debating with believers; that far from having nothing to offer, the faiths of the world in fact have a wealth of truths to offer mankind. The atheist may argue that while these things may be true, the followers of those faiths rarely adhere to nor demonstrate those values, and I couldn’t agree more. That does not mean however that the teachings, the truths, are wrong; just that they are being abused. I will quote an example a Hindu gentleman once gave me, “I could take knife from my kitchen, which has been created and intended to chop food to make beautiful meals, and I could slit your throat with it. If I do so, is the knife to blame?”

And believers, you too need to give atheists some leeway. You cannot argue that morality comes alone from your God, because experience tells us otherwise. Morality is manmade and fluid, changing with time and between cultures, and one does not need to believe in god(s) to be a good person. The great many good and kind people who are atheists, humanists and agnostic are testament to that. Morality at it’s simplest level is a cultural concept, not a religious one.

Likewise discussions with atheists should not be seen as an opportunity to proselytise, and try and ram your faith down the throats of others. Trying to push your faith on others just gets people’s backs up, and makes them more likely to react negatively than to ever listen to what you are saying.

And nobody minds believers discussing science, so long as it is science. But start maintaining that your holy book is accurate history, despite scientific discoveries roundly dismissing them as mythology, do science badly, including twisting or even lying about what science and scientists say, and many atheists will switch off and dismiss you as a fool (not that you have to avidly study science to be an atheist – but it helps). This one will not. Try and tell me that Biblical creationism is true and evolution is false, then you and I are going to have problems, BIG problems.

I maintain therefore that the truths within and without faith can and do co-exist, but it needs tolerance and understanding on both sides. Both theists and atheists need to be willing to listen to each other, to take on board what the other person is saying, debate it calmly and rationally as adults should do, and where there are disagreements, to show no malice towards the other person.

The alternative is for each side to continue to dogmatically try and tell the other I’m right and you are wrong. Anyone, atheist or theist, who takes that tack is not only disrespecting others, they are immediately creating a confrontational situation which can only result in others going on the defensive. Any such are also not taking on board another possibility – that they may just very well be wrong.

That is why we have to show respect to the views of others and learn that they may too have as many truths to teach us, as we have to teach them. Only by listening and talking can we only ever learn to co-operate and co-exist with one another.

---

Illusrtation: What is Truth?  By Peter Howson.

“Two Truths” by Clare Flourish can be found here:

https://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/two-truths/

Holy Smoke! Religious Freedom Bill goes all to Pot

Indiana’s anti-gay legislation inadvertently opens door to cannabis smokers

You shouldn’t laugh, dears.  No, really, you shouldn’t.  Ohh, but how can you not?

For those of you who have been living in a box and are unaware of it, the state of Indiana in the good ol’ USA recently rushed through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a hateful piece of legislation which makes it legal for businesses to refuse service to gays (and one would imagine other LGBTQI people) on grounds of religious belief.  The backlash from this legislated bigotry has been considerable from both LGBTQI and supportive cis/het people alike.  Former Star Trek star George Takei, himself openly gay, is calling on people to boycott the entire state.

Now it seems however, that Indiana’s homophobic legislators may well have shot themselves in the foot.  Indiana attorney and commentator, Abdul-Hakim Shabazz, has pointed out that the wording of the kneejerk legislation would may well also protect those who smoke marijuana as part of their religious beliefs.

Shabazz has pointed out that owning and / or smoking marijuana remains illegal in Indiana, if a pot smoker can prove that they are performing a religious sacrament, then under the wording of the RFRA, their rights must be protected.  “I would argue that under RFRA,” says Shabazz, “as long as you can show that reefer is part of your religious practices, you got a pretty good shot of getting off scot-free.”

RFRA supporters state the Bill, “only spells out a test as to whether a government mandate would unduly burden a person’s faith and the government has to articulate a compelling interest for that rule and how it would be carried out in the least restrictive manner,”  Shabazz maintains this merely compounds problems; “So, with that said, what ‘compelling interest’ would the state of Indiana have to prohibit me from using marijuana as part of my religious practice?

Shabazz went on to point out that alcoholic wine is used in Christian sacraments and that marijuana is a far less dangerous drug than alcohol.

So, is this farcical?  Not one bit of it, dears.  On Thursday, 26 March 2014, the same day the Bill was passed, Bill Levin, founder of the First Church of Cannabis Inc, filed paperwork in Indianapolis to register his church as a non-profit, religious organisation.  Referring (should that be reefering?) to followers as “cannataerians” on the group’s Facebook page, Levin stated that they seek “love, understanding and good health.”  Colorado-based Green Faith Ministries, who use marijuana as part of their sacraments, have also reportedly voiced an interest in setting up a branch in Indiana.

And of course, these two are not alone.  There are plenty other established religions which use marijuana as part of their belief systems.  Rastafarianism regards marijuana as a sacred plant, to be used for the purposes of meditation and achieving heightened spiritual awareness (yes dear, been there, done that).  The Hawaii-based THC Ministry, founded by Roger Christie of the Religion of Jesus Christ, considers cannabis sacramental for both spiritual and healing properties.  They state that the “cultivation and enjoyment of cannabis sacrament is a fundamental human right provided by God and protected by the Constitution.”  The California-based Church of Reality, founded on the principles that some of the best ideas come from smoking pot (truth), similarly maintain that smoking cannabis is a constitutional right in the USA.  Should anyone doubt how serious the Church of Reality are, consider that the US Internal Revenue Service recognised them as a non-profit, tax-exempt church as far back as 2005.

Oh dear.  It seems the bigots of Indiana may have bitten off more than they can chew.  Before long the streets of Indianapolis and other cities may be full of dreamy-eyed people walking about in a beautiful haze – and the conservatives who made that possible won’t be able to do a damned thing about it.

Who knows, maybe that could be a good thing?  If the overbearing homophobic bigots of Indiana inhale enough secondary smoke, it may just lead them to chill out a little, get those pokers out of their arses, and actually try being nice to people.  If that happens, I’ll believe the age of miracles has not passed.

Of course, Abdul-Hakim Shabazz has pointed out that as the use and ownership of marijuana remains illegal in the state, a test case may well follow, and states “I want a front row seat at the trial that we all know is going to happen when all this goes down.” 

Oh indeed, dears, so do I, and I’ll be watching out for developments.  As any attempt to apply RFRA to the Christian faith alone would be wholly unconstitutional, then any test case under it can have only one of two outcomes; either those who smoke marijuana as a religious sacrament have their rights protected by law, or this odious piece of homophobic legislation will have to be scrapped altogether.

Loch Lomond venue twice turns gay couples away

“We can’t allow people like you here”

With the advent of same sex marriage becoming legal in Scotland, John and Stephen Devaney, who have been in a civil partnership since 2006, looked to becoming legally wed.  Having entered into negotiations with Loch Lomond Waterfront, Balmaha, John thought he had found the perfect romantic setting for their wedding.

But when owners Charles and Suzanne Cottam realised they were dealing with a same sex couple, it suddenly became a different matter.  Suzanne Cottam bluntly told John “We can’t allow people like you here.” and when John remonstrated that marriage is now a civil right in Scotland, Mrs Cottam retorted “I’m the owner. I can do as I like. A marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

Left reeling, and seeking an alternative venue, John Devaney told his story to Glasgow-based newspaper the Daily Record, so that others may know how they were treated.  He told the newspaper “We’ve fought for many years for equal rights. That woman stripped me of them in an instant.”

Following the story however, another same sex couple, known only as Greig and John, contacted the Daily Record to tell how they too had been turned away by the Cottams for same sex wedding.

Like John and Stephen, Greig and John have been civil partners for four years, and looked to change their relationship to a legal marriage.  To that end Greig emailed Loch Lomond Waterfront with enquiries concerning a same sex marriage.  Charles Cottam replied by email, “it would be wrong to keep from you and your family our deeply-held religious beliefs and our sincere adherence to the traditional view of marriage. This is why we would prefer not to host a civil partnership wedding.”

Greig replied by email to point out that they wanted a wedding ceremony, not a civil partnership one, and to date has received no reply to date.

The Daily Record has since contacted the Cottams who deny the claims and that they are taking legal advice.  Well, I certainly hope they are, considering that the Daily Record has published the email from Charles Cottam to Greig in full, and that the couple have now broken Scots Law on two occasions.

And I do hope that any resulting court action teaches the Cottams that they cannot refuse service on grounds of discrimination, that they cannot do as they like, and that any court case is costful to them in the extreme – hopefully to the point that it puts them out of business altogether.  Frankly, we can’t allow people like them in Scotland.

---

Report in the Daily Record can be found here:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/we-cant-host-your-ceremony-5241356

Pope Nukes Trans People

Religion has destroyed many lives – gender recognition embraces and enhances it

I really am beginning to wonder if Pope Francis has lost the plot completely.  In a new book, This Economy Kills, the Pontiff has comparaed trans people to nuclear weapons.

Claiming to defend the order of “God’s creation”, Pope Francis stated, “Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings… Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.”

Utterly bizarre.  Particularly coming from a man who is not only celibate himself, but who heads up a church within whose rules millions of clergy, nuns and monks, and even lay people also practice celebacy.  Is that not going against the order of creation, which is to reproduce?

But he goes even further; “With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator,” the pope adds.  “The true custody of creation does not have anything to do with the ideologies that consider man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate.  God has placed man and woman and the summit of creation and has entrusted them with the earth… The design of the Creator is written in nature.  If we fail in this responsibility, if we do not take care of our brothers and of all creation, destruction advances.”

Really?  A sin against God, the Creator?  Okay, let’s play Frankie’s game here.  Assuming that God existed, would that God not have created trans people “in nature”?  And herein lies the problem; that the Pope, who previously has claimed to be cool with LGBT people, obviously still considers gender and sexuality to be a choice, when it plainly is not.

As to seeing “man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate”, that has never been my experience of LGBT people.  But I could quote chapter and verse of the history of Christianity (and other faiths) of eliminating people, including not a few LGBT people, who were a problem to churches, clergy and their fanatical followers.  Just as there are LGBT people who are attacked to this day, some to the point of being murdered, many more who commit suicide, because of persecution from the religious.

And I would ask the Pope, or any who agree with him, while they argue from the psychological identification of transgender people, where do they stand when such differences occur physically, such as in the case of hermaphroditism?  What happens when a baby is born with both sets of genitals?  What when such a child develops as they grow into either a girl or a boy, of which there are a great many recorded cases?  No doubt the God-botherers would claim that is different, because there is visible biological evidence.  Well, I’ve got news for them; within each and every trans person there is visible biological evidence of their gender identity.  Just because a girl is born with a penis, or a boy is born with a vagina does not make them any less girl or boy.  The point being that to wholly discard psychological identification with a gender contrary to that of the cisgender binary is nothing short of complete ignorance of what is in fact a very complex subject.

To put it another way, as the wonderful trans girl character Stephie says in Sophie Labelle’s cartoon Assigned Male; “I’m not a girl in a boy’s body.  I am a girl, this is my body. Girls have all kinds of bodies.”

And if we, still playing the Pope’s game, accept that God exists (except I don’t), then if he and his followers accept that their God can make human beings with biological differences which defy the cisgender norm, then it logically follows that any such God would be equally capable of making psychological differences.  Or does the Pope reckon that his maker would only ever be involved in biological creation, and have nothing to do with the mind?  If so, then that could be considered to be nothing short of blasphemy.  Who then is the sinner?

But then, I need no lessons on nuclear weapons and the disregard for human life from a church who once had a member of clergy, Father George Zabelka, who blessed the crews of the Enola Gay and Bock’s Car; the planes which dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Given that he once said “One cannot kill in the name of God.”, if Pope Francis had any balls at all he would publicly revoke those blessings.

And neither do I need any lessons on what is and what is not natural, or morality. from any church which not too long ago castrated prepubescent boys purely in order to keep their voices high, which to this day widely practices celibacy – which is choice, not nature – against the very commandments of the Bible to be fruitful and multiply, and which still protects perverts who bugger little boys.

I am very alienated by Ann Widdecombe

“Ann Widdecombe says she has stayed celibate for religious reasons.  The main reason being that God made her incredibly fucking ugly”
(Frankie Boyle)

Former Conservative Member of Parliament, and once a cabinet minister, Ann Widdicombe has stated that the Conservative government passing same sex marriage in England left her feeling “very alienated”.

Promoting her autobiography, “Strictly Ann”, in the Daily Telegraph, she stated that she felt angry with her party and gives the impression she felt very much left out in the cold.  She denies however that she was ever thinking of defecting to the controversial, right-wing United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP); “I’d rather form my own party than ever join UKIP. We could call it the Widdy Mob”.

Hmm, perhaps Ann, dear, or could it be you realised that as odious a party they are, given the way they are now trying to woo voters, there wouldn’t even be a place for you in UKIP?  You could have been election agent for Scotland’s sole UKIP Member of the European Parliament, David Coburn – who is openly gay.

Ann continues, “David Cameron just bulldozed the whole thing through, though it had never been in any manifesto or tried or tested.”  In the first sentence, Ann Widdecombe is correct.  The Same Sex Marriage Act was rushed through Westminster with indecent haste, and the result of that is that it has been shown already to have serious flaws.  This is why I dislike knee-jerk legislation. And while the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Act took much longer, that is because the devolved Scottish Parliament took a great deal longer over it to make sure it was watertight and representative of all.

That does not however mean that England did not need a same-sex marriage Bill, and that did not need any manifesto promise to legitimise it.  Parliaments represent the people, all people, and given that there was a high enough public demand for same-sex marriage in England was reason enough to legitimise it.  Some politicians should remember that the public are the bosses, they are our servants.  They are in parliament to serve us – not the other way around.

And just how does one “try” or “test” same-sex marriage (answers on a postcard…)?  Does any government, anywhere on the face of the planet, try or test most legislation?  Of course, I do recall the days when Ms Widdicombe was a cabinet minister and the government she served did indeed try and test legislation; the Community Charge, aka the hated “Poll Tax” – which was tested in Scotland a full year before the rest of the UK.  Yet strangely enough, when Widdicombe served under that evil bitch Thatcher, I don’t recall her calling for the “trying” and “testing” of the controversial Section 28 (Section 22A in Scotland) of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibited local authorities from “promoting” homosexuality and labelled gay family relationships as “pretend”.

Ann Widdecombe’s religious beliefs are well known, which of course is her right, and which I do not deny her.  What I do object, strongly, is the fact that her faith seems to be little more than a smokescreen to hide her own small-minded homophobia.  Widdecombe, who attacked the Archbishop of Canterbury in April over the issue of gay clergy, converted from Church of England to Roman Catholic in 1993; obviously prefering a church which actively protects paedophiles to one which accepts and supports adult same-sex couples (who also have the lowest incidence of child abuse) in loving relationships.  Remove the beam from your own eye first methinks, Ann.

And of course, aged 66, Ann Widdecombe boasts the fact that she has remained a virgin all her life.

Just a thought Ann, dear; if you ain’t going to play the bloody game, you have no right to presume to write the damned rules.