A Defeat for Religious Liberty...

.... by which I mean our collective freedom from religion, and in particular the Dark Age bigots who arrogantly believe they have a right to impose their backwards 'values' upon the rest of us.

The case I am referring to is that of Lillian Ladele, newest addition to my long list of religious gits. Ladele is a civil registrar of weddings who has refused to conduct civil partnerships between same-sex couples, because it is 'against her religion' (details can be found here).

Much has already been written of this outrage, the blogosphere being filled with almost unanimous condemnation of Ladele - and rightly so. But looking into her reasoning in full, it does set quite a worrying precedent, not least from a legal perspective. After all, what is religious belief other than a set of 'values' or ideas which the believer holds to be true regardless of any evidence or opinion to the contrary. In short it is an ideology, and one that doesn't accept dissent at that.

One can only assume that the type of 'religious liberty' Ladele was on about was one wherein everybody is allowed to hold whatever moronic beliefs they like, under the umbrella defence of "but it's my religion!" Under such circumstances one would presumably obey all the laws of the land - unless of course you didn't really fancy one or two of them, in which case try the 'against my religion line'.

Now lets say I have a fundamental and devout belief in not being detained against my will. Presumably this would grant me freedom from arrest and inprisonment. A sort of theologically mandated opt-out if you like. Don't fancy paying any taxes? Blame it on a god/gods - you're really sorry but he/she/they aren't so keen on the true faithful paying for the support of the non-faithful. They don't believe you? Make up some silly rituals and wear a daft hat - that should do it....

Obviously such a scenario is ridiculous, but no more so than the decision made by the employment tribunal which decided Ladele could opt-out of UK law and the responsibilities of her job. A central pillar of good democracy should be that everyone is equal under the rule of law - whether they like those laws or not.

In fact.... especially if they don't like those laws.

Obama aiming for the Faith-head vote

From the BBC News site:

"US presidential hopeful Barack Obama has said he would expand George W Bush's programme of involving religious groups in government initiatives."

Just brilliant. So not only have the Democrats (supposedly the US' more liberal party) picked the candidate least able to beat McCain, he's getting into bed with the same fundamentalist lunatics as the Bush administration. Why is it that not one US politician can seem to remember that the United States is supposed to have a complete seperation between church and state? It's written down in the Constitution after all, not to mention countless other pieces of paper (Treaty of Tripoli anyone?). Jefferson himself was an Atheist, or at least a Deist - at any rate he clearly didn't envisage a US where religious groups set the national agenda.

I believe politics students have a word for states where faith determines policy - they're called theocracies.

A question I'd have to ask about this 'council' of religious groups that young Barack is planning. Will all groups be given equal representation? I mean, you could just have all Baptists, the dominent denomination in the south. Let's not forget the Methodists, or the Lutherans. What about the Catholics, I imagine they'd need representation too. Better not leave out the Jews (Orthodox and Reformed, naturally) - or the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, etc, etc, etc...

O-barmy

Obviously this could get very very complicated. Well, if they all claim to be the One True Faith, I guess they'll have to be given some representation. Then there's us atheists and agnostics - obviously atheist citizens in the US can expect to be properly represented on this council (though since this is the US, maybe not). Yes, this make take some thought...

To be entirely honest, it's not as if I wasn't expecting this. Religious fundamentalism would appear to be growing so rapidly within the United States' interior that you would be forgiven for thinking that the entire nation is intent on throwing itself back into a dark age - one with cars and fast food, obviously. Therefore we see the inherant flaw with democracy; the winning candidate will only ever be as good as the electorate. Right now the members of the electorate Obama is trying to appeal to are the conservative religious types - hence this new statement suggesting that one of things I hated most about the Bush administration may not be disappeaing for good come November.

You're the one who needs counselling!

Northern Ireland assembly member Iris Robinson has just added herself to my long list of religious tossers by calling for all members of the LGBT community to seek psychiatric help. She believes that homosexuals can be 'turned around' with the help of 'a very lovely psychiatrist ' she happens to know.

Well then. I'll begin by stating the bleeding obvious. Homosexuality is NOT a psychiatric disorder. If you don't agree with that try asking the Royal College of Physicians. If anything, it is Mrs Robinson's blatant bigotry and irrational homophobic hatred that is the disease. Prejudice is the disease of the mind. In the case of Mrs Robinson (and her 'lovely' psychiatrist friend) it probably stems from christian 'principles'. Stone age desert cults are what we, as a society, could do with being cured of - not our innocent fellow humans.

As for turning homosexuals 'back' into heterosexuals, well, utter BS. Firstly, it would suggest that sexuality is a matter of choice. Anyone with half a brain cell would realise that this isn't and could never be the case. When LGBT people across the world are openly persecuted and discriminated against, can anyone really suggest that being gay is a choice anyone would make? It's also obvious that Mrs Robinson feels that being gay must mean you have something wrong with you - that Heterosexuality is 'the norm', and that anything else is somehow 'deviant'.

I mean, really? Why do we still put up with such self-righteous religious bigots like Mrs Robinson. That this woman is in regional government should be scary. The people of Northern Ireland, of all people, must be aware by now that religion and politics don't mix. Trying to 'cure' people of being gay?!? While you're at it, why not have a go at curing those people who happen to prefer tea to coffee! Lets remind those that favour dogs over cats of the error of their ways! How dare anyone have a different sexual orientation to that of Mrs Robinsonk, or to the recommendation of her favourite 'holy book'.

Before i go, i may just book an appointment with that counsellor. Not for me of course.... for Iris. Poor woman is clearly quite deranged.

In God's Name

Ok, Channel 4's Dispatches series has wound me up again. This is not a bad thing for the program itself - i absolutely love it. Rather, it's what was portrayed in their most recent edition (still available on '4 on-demand'). Right-wing Christian nutters. In the UK.

The first 2 word of that description do it for me, the third makes it 10 times worse. Knowing it's happening in my own country just takes the piss. You expect this sort of thing in the US, sure; it's Islamic parallel in Iran goes without saying. But in Britain?

A brief synopsis if i may. The program follows the efforts of numerous self-righteous religious pricks as they attempt to limit a woman's right to choose as part of the Human Embryology Act was going through parliament. Now I am pro-choice, but as far as I'm concerned, that isn't the issue. What i take issue with is the general attitude of these people, and many 'people of faith'. The program showed bigot after bigot as they elaborated on their numerous personal hatreds - ranging from gay rights, to womens rights, to the fact that some people have the nerve to worship a different god. The main points that this group of evangelical 'born-again' christians seemed to agree on, are as follows.



-Britain is a 'Christian country'.

-Christians should be in charge.

-Anyone who disagrees with them is a bad person, or sinner.

-The Christian religion should be the basis of government.

-Muslims are evil for not following Christianity.

-Muslims are evil for wanting to be in charge.

-Muslims are evil for thinking Christians are evil for not following Islam.

-Gay people are evil and gay relationships are wrong

-The Earth is only '4,000 to 10,000 years old' (taught in their faith schools this one)

-Nobody has the right to a private life

-Their beliefs and 'values' should be imposed on everybody else.



All of the above are, of course, complete bollocks as far as I am concerned, so much that I won't even bother arguing against them. Personally I find the views and 'values' of even 'moderate' religious types a throwback to the dark ages. I'm certain they would think of me as evil, or at least 'wrong'. The point is, I don't mind people having opinions, no matter how vile, so long as they KEEP THEM TO THEMSELVES.



You may feel that gay people should be stoned to death for the 'sin' of loving another person, but I don't. I don't want to hear the bigotry of Christians and other faith-heads, I certainly don't want to live my life according to it. Religion should have no place in government, or in public. keep it in your head!



Oh, and Britain is not a Christian country, I live here.



'Ciderite'

Knowledge Brings Fear

Like many politically minded people of all parties, I have also been watching the progress of the Human Embryology Bill. Believing as I do in autonomous liberation, I have thus far refrained from commenting (one cannot put of revision forever). That said, I cannot help bringing up something which has been heard a lot as this Bill has progressed through the parliamentary process. It is a basic untruth which does an enormous amount of harm to everyone’s reproductive rights, and not just those of women. It is that young women treat abortion as: “just another form of contraception.”

This lie is one which is constantly spouted by the anti-choice lobby. It assumes that couples simply don’t bother taking precautions during sex because “hey, if something goes wrong, you can just get rid of it right?” This assumption is an insult to those millions of women who need to take a difficult decision under what almost certainly aren’t circumstances of their choice. At least consider those women who don’t even have a choice about having sex. If I were to be devoid of all humanity, I’d go so far as to say that abortions don’t even sound that convenient, (what with the 2 signatures and the jumping though hoops to prove need…), I’m not a women so I don’t know, but I’d assume that taking a pill daily, or using a condom is far more efficient and infinitely less stressful.

But abortion isn’t the issue I want to discuss. The issue with me is the root of the ridiculous statement above. The Daily Mail and other tabloid newspapers, so keen to support the 20 week limit, are also very keen on publishing stories on ‘Britain’s record teen pregnancy’. Said tabloids are also very fond of expressing ‘moral’ outrage whenever plans are revealed for sex education in schools. It’s usually some utter rubbish, suggesting that telling pupils about sex will ‘only encourage them to be promiscuous’. This conclusion is usually based on the faulty logic that if one, for example, hears a beautiful piece of music; one will want to learn to play for oneself. The suggestion is that it is obviously the same with learning about sex.

Usually the letters will flood in from indignant parents (‘My daughter is only 14, she’s far to young to learn about sex’, etc, ad nauseam). Always the conclusion is the same; better sex education = promiscuous teenagers = higher teen pregnancy rates.
Firstly, this conclusion is utterly incorrect. In fact, it is so absurd I can assume most of our readers are intelligent enough not to need it pointed out to them. Secondly, levels of sex education in this country are appalling.

Now admittedly I’m only speaking from anecdotal evidence, but quite often that is scary enough to suggest that something needs to change. Personally through my schooling, the standard from a biological point of view was quite good, even if parents were allowed to remove their children from the class for those lessons (‘well we can’t have our child actually learning anything’), at least we were told the mechanics. For the social side of things we were kept mostly in the dark with no time officially allocated for teaching, and no specialists. In fact, I’m told our old headmaster actually prevented the school nurse from supplying free condoms (“teenage boys actually having sex?? Not my pupils!”).

That said, I’m quite sure I got the better part of the deal. While I went to a middle class suburban comprehensive (though this came with problems of its own), inner city schools are obviously in a much worse state for sex ed, not even having adequate resources to spare on it. All manner of myths surround sex when you are a teenager, no matter how much the ‘moral’ right would like to keep us in the dark. What bothers me is not that young people won’t know anything about sex, its that they won’t be in possession of the facts or the accurate information. When you hear a 16 year old girl (physically kept by her parents from knowing or learning anything about sex) ask if it’s possible to get pregnant from oral sex, you have to ask if we as a country are doing enough through education.

Supposedly ‘moral’ parents (often the hardcore conservative Christian variety in my experience, but one doesn’t like to generalize) would love to stop their children being taught any of the facts of life –presumably under the misguided impression that what they don’t know won’t hurt them. Yes it will. You aren’t keeping them innocent, you’re keeping them vulnerable. After all, would you avoid teaching them about road safety, because it might tempt them to cross the road? Basic health and safety in the workplace anyone? No, anyone who falls off a ladder obviously had it coming to them.

The point I’m trying to make is that, chances are, a girl who knows how contraception works, where to get it from and how to use it, is probably less likely to end up needing an abortion than a girl who believes (or is led to believe) that you ‘can’t get pregnant if you do it standing up with your socks on when it’s a full moon’. That is why I despise the right wing lobby that is both anti-choice and anti-sex-ed. Call me cynical, but it seems to me that if this lobby really believed in ‘the rights of the unborn’, it would surely give full support to a decent and fully funded program of compulsory sex education in all UK schools and thereby help to reduce the number of unplanned and accidental pregnancies.