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.

Green Lane Update

I've always been a bit of a fan of Ian Hislop, and the wonderful satirical organ that is Private Eye. Indeed, it was that fine publication that inspired an earlier satirical blog of mine. (Free subscription for the plug please Ed.)

And so it was from the current issue (No 1211) that I first saw an update on the Channel 4 dispatches programme i blogged about recently. If you remember rightly, having been shown the film that clearly showed the local religious loonies in full anti-West hate mode to the police, it was none other than the film-makers that were hauled before the court. The brains that are West Midlands Police (or more exactly Anil Patani) made a complaint that selective editing had unfortunately portrayed this particular group of hate filled theocratic nutcases intent on destroying British freedom and democracy - as hate filled theocratic nutcases intent on destroying British freedom and democracy.

Its not every day that you get in trouble with the CPS for actually telling the truth.

Unless its the truth about religion of course. Or more exactly, about Islam.

An old friend of mine once complained that while you could say whatever you liked about Christianity, Islam seemed to be protected by a collective vow of silence. While i didn't entirely sympathise with him - believing that you should indeed be allowed free speech with regards to Christianity - the hypocracy is quite apparent. In the documentary, the invariably bearded sociopaths (i.e. preachers) expressed multiple times thier anti-semitism, homophobia and mysogyny. Were any true British citizen to express such backward opinions (backward for the civilised world at least) they would surely have their collar felt.

Quite rightly so, but if Jonny Imam says it, the Old Bill 'respectfully' tiptoe away. Wouldn't want to offend muslims would we - even if it comes at the cost of condoning murder, domestric abuse and treason to the British state. Sometimes it feels like there's a little game of minority Top Trumps going on - maybe the police have a pack so they know who should be offended under which circumstances.

If West Midlands Police were doing their job properly, Green Lane mosque would have been closed, its preachers of hate locked away for a very long time indeed. Anil Patani would be thrown out on his heels for not realising that there can be no greater threat to 'community cohesion' than a bunch of deluded man men preaching hatred in our own back yard.

With Policemen like this, who needs Al Qaeda...

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.

Atheists aboard the Milibandwagon!

Following the disastrous (for the Labour Party at least) Crewe bye-election, there has been open speculation on the future of our Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Will the Torys win the next General Election? Will Brown survive as leader until the next General Election? Who will succeed Brown as Labour leader and Prime Minister?

Naturally that has been the order of speculation, with attention now turning to the third. Polically minded people across Britain are now eyeing up Brown's cabinet to see who would make a half decent Prime Minister. And so the Times has turned its attention to the young (42) David Miliband, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs - a job he has held since the June 28th 2007 reshuffle. Miliband has apparently declared that he is willing to "save New Labour".

I don't know about anyone else, but I seem to recall that this is what Brown was supposed to do? Back in June 2007, weren't we told that Gordon would rid the party and the government of the worst excesses of the Blair years? That it would be the end of spin, the end of sofa government? Admittedly, Brown has been more a victim of circumstance than anything else. Current economic problems are global (or so i am led to believe). Nevertheless, it is the government which must carry the can when finances go tits up.

For the sake of argument, leds imagine that the Labour Party has, en masse, called for Gordon Brown to resign. Gracefully, though not to pleased about it, he does so. Then what? Numerous names have been thrown in the air, other than that of Miliband, are Jack Straw, Alan Johnson and James Purnell. Naturally no one will currently admit wanting the job:

Alan Johnson on the chances of him leading Labour into the next election: "None whatsoever, absolutely none".
David Milliband: "I'm not in the market for any job other than the one I've got at the moment"
Douglas Alexander on Brown: "I don't think there's anybody better qualified "
Ed Miliband on Brown: "He's the right man for the times" Naturally things may change.

To quote the Times "Among the ministers said to be ready to desert Brown are Alan Johnson, the health secretary, Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, John Hutton, the business secretary, Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, Jack Straw, the justice secretary, and Tessa Jowell, the Olympics" and "Brown is also losing the support of Alistair Darling, the chancellor." That would leave quite an empty cabinet one would imagine, seemingly made up of Harriet Harman, the Miliband Brothers, Balls and Cooper, Denham, Hoon, Alexander, Browne, Benn, Woodward and Murphy, as well as a lot of hastily promoted backbenchers.

"I'll get my coat"

Assuming the Times' prediction is correct, and that Brown has just left Number 10 (possibly taking notable Brownites such as Harman, Darling and Balls with him). Is it possible to imagine a leadership contest? For the first time in 11 years, the Party hasn't had a leader in waiting. No one potential Prime Minister looms out over any other. Let's suppose the ballot of Labour Party members has opened and the choice is between either David Miliband or Jack Straw.

All other issues aside, I'm actually quite fond of one of these candidates. Miliband is an Atheist like myself. While the Daily Mail naturally sees this as a bad thing (Godless PM! Shock Horror!!) I feel it could only be a good thing for Britain. The UK needs an Atheist government, secularism needs to be strongly defended against constant attack. If the recent debate over abortion has taught us anything, it's that right wing christian fanatacism is on the rise. Across the country, there are people who will argue that discrimination is ok if it's based on faith.

Once PM Miliband has sorted out our economic problems (perhaps with a little help from Chancellor Byrne?) there are a few areas of national policy i'd like to see him sort out:

-End any privalege accorded to minority groups on the basis of religion
-Close down ALL faith schools, be they Christian, Muslim or whatever
-Ban religious dress in schools -End worship in schools -Force schools to teach evolution in science classes
-Enforce a decent standard of sex education in schools
-Kick the 26 unelected bishops out of the House of Lords -Enable police forces to seriously investigate hate crimes and incitement from religious groups
-Protect the right to criticise religion
-Block all attempts to lower the abortian time limit
-Bring in tough anti-homophobia laws
-Legalise marriage for homosexual couples
-Maintain the equality of all citizens under the law (No to sharia).

The Rt Hon. David Miliband, PM?

I can only hope that as a Prime Minister, David Miliband would be as openly proud of his Atheism as Brown has been of his Presbytarianism and Blair is of his new Catholicism. I should probably point out that Jack Straw has been almost as committed to secularism, having at one time asked Muslim women in his constituency to remove their veils when talking to him - before being forced to back down by a party that depends quite heavily on the muslim vote in its inner city constituencies. As long as Ruth Kelly doesn't get the job, there's enough homophobic right wing nutters in the Tory party, we don't need one in charge of Labour.


All said and done, I sincerely hope that Brown survives the current blip in the polls. But should the writing really be on the wall for the Brown era, I'll be there on the sidelines cheering on fellow godless heathen, David Wright Miliband.

'Ciderite'

And the latest from the religion of peace....

Well, following on from Dispatches; "In God's Name", I tracked down and watched and earlier episode made up of undercover recordings at 'mainstream' mosques across the UK (notibly Birmingham's Green Road mosque). I don't know whether this is an Atheist perspective or not, but i sometimes forgot which program i was watching.

Sometimes I'm greatful for the beards, always helpful in telling one mad fundamentalist from another entirely different mad fundamentalist of another faith.

In this one, the clerics have a go at insulting and inciting hatred against pretty much every minority, indeed every human being on the globe. Not bad for a 50-minute runtime. Even ideas such as democracy and freedom of speech aren't safe from the madness imported from Riyadh.

It's interesting to note that the undercover journalist - operating at enormous personal risk - handed over this vast body of evidence to West Midands Police. They went on to launch an investigation into..... the program, accusing it of:

"misrepresented the views of Muslim preachers and clerics with misleading editing."
and
"inciting terrorism or racial hatred"

Thankfully, the CPS dropped this ludicrous prosecution and may now actually seek to charge the real criminals - the Islamofascists in our midst. Good to know the Old Bill has our best interests at heart.

'Ciderite'

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'