The CoE reverend vs. the militant preaching of homosexuality
So there's this priest who thinks gay men should have "sodomy can seriously damage your health" tattooed on their backsides. Having written this charming statement on his blog, he's now claiming it was 'satire'. I am at a loss as to what he's satirising, though, and can only assume it's himself. However, it's nice to see the Church of England condemning him for being obviously out of his mind. Because God in fact likes gay people, he's just very homophobic and doesn't want them near him in heaven. Or whatever. I forget. Anyhow, everyone's pointing and laughing at the old crazy dude, and that's a good thing.
This kind of comment is barely surprising, to be honest - old bonkers homophobes in the CoE, who'd have thought - but the dude's clarifying remarks have a new line of bigotry that's worth noting:
I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion.
Have been. It's a choice, you see. Also: points for the brazen non sequitur.
What I have got against them...
See, in my mind this is incompatible with 'I certainly have nothing against homosexuals', but that's me.
What I have got against them is the militant preaching of homosexuality
And thus we witness the death of the word 'militant'.
To be fair, it was on the way out already. 'Militant religious fundamentalists' blow up abortion clinics, while 'militant atheists' write books. I would suggest this is not very equivalent, but the entire media would seem to disagree. This is because it lets them off the hook. They really want to report on 'religion vs. atheism', but really really don't want to write about the issues. So they use the standard relativist trick of crying hypocrisy: look, these militant atheists are just as bad as those they're criticising, isn't it ironic. It's the perfect solution: you get to sit in judgment without actually judging anything.
But the Reverend Peter Mullen has gone further and stripped the word of all sense. I'm intigued as to what 'militant preaching of homosexuality' would involve, actually, but even excusing the scything of the English language: what the hell is he even talking about? Preaching of homosexuality? That's happening? Having redefined 'militant', maybe he's doing the same for 'preaching' - perhaps it now means 'anything that brings homosexuality to my attention'. Because I really can't see any other explanation.
I'm off for some militant sleepytimes now. And before that, some militant toast.
Score one for the good guys
You may think the news has been somewhat depressing of late. I would agree. You may think this will not change, and little can be done to restore optimism. I would disagree. For in Little Rock, Arkansas, USA, something wonderful has occurred.
Possibly you've heard of Fred Phelps. He can be described, without fear of recrimination, as a scumbag. He's the guy who pickets funerals because homosexuality is a sin against God. Last Wednesday he was protesting the National Conference of Editorial Writers - nobody really knows why - with his usual hateful spiel. This happens so often that it's barely newsworthy, but it's still upsetting to anybody involved. But wait.
Last Friday, you say? Wasn't there something else going on last Friday? Some kind of worldwide celebration of...Hey, wouldn't it be great if...
Fred Phelps and his gang of nutters were driven away by a gang of pirates. I am not joking.
Arkansas Pastafarian Pirates staged a counter-protest across the road, dressed in full nautical gear and holding signs indicating Leviticus' objections to shrimp and cotton-polyester blends, and the Phelps gang gave up.
This is the best thing I have heard in ages. The relevant Pastafarians deserve touchings from His Noodly Appendage asap.
Don’t bash the Bishop
The Bishop of Willesden thinks recent flooding was caused by society's increasing acceptance of homosexuality. Being a) a bishop and b) clearly bonkers gets you coverage, and he was quite-rightly ripped to shreds and laughed at by anybody who reached the end of the article without throwing the newspaper across the room. Unless, that is, you're the religious correspondent for The Times:
In our rational, spiritually sceptical world it is easy to laugh. Gratitude might be more in order.
For giving us yet another amusing tale of a bishop with the critical thinking powers of a nostril hair? Nope:
In any other walk of life, is there a scientist, a politician or even a media commentator with the courage to suggest that we might indeed be morally responsible for the chaotic weather systems disrupting our lives?
Well, no. Because it's stupid. It's nothing to do with courage. What a strange thing to say.
And if the bishops who believe in God don’t say it, who will?
Well, nobody. Because only somebody who believes that would say it, obviously. And nobody else thinks it. Because, as I mentioned, it's stupid. I think giant lizards secretly rule the Earth. If I don't say it, who will? Everything needs to be said!
All right, maybe she's being sarcastic. Or making some confused point about global warming. Except, in the same article:
[The Bishop says:] “There is a view that both oral and anal sexual practice is liable to allow entry to spirits.” It is important to note here that the Bishop is not equating destructive spirits in everyday life with full demonic possession. Trained exorcists are, in fact, far more careful about diagnosing possession than most.
Obviously. What kind of muppet would think destructive spirits are the same as demons? Duh.
Part of his calling is to speak out, to “prophesy”, another of the “gifts of the Spirit”. Bishop Dow will know of prophets vilified in their own time and their own lands. But even only as myth, we ignore the lessons of the Bible at our peril. Much of what the prophets predicted came true.
That's a good point. This also happened in Battlestar Galactica. We should not ignore the lessons of Battlestar Galactica. Prepare for the cylon rebellion now. They have a plan.
What started out as a misguided defence of raving gobbledygook under the banner of 'it's brave to say what you believe' seems to end up hinting he might have a point. It must be really easy to get jobs at national newspapers.
(Sorry about the title. Couldn't resist.)
Three dubious moral judgments
One: the coming of the Lord
You know how it's been raining recently? Do you know why? It's because God hates the gays. It is. The Bishop of Carlisle says so:
"The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance."
He expressed his sympathy for those who have been hit by the weather, but said that the problem with "environmental judgment is that it is indiscriminate".
How broken does your brain have to be to believe this drivel? I could write plenty more, but Ophelia is better than me:
Funny god these bishops believe in. Arbitrary, whimsical, cryptic, absent-minded, brutal, sloppy, and stupidly vicious. We'd better hope it doesn't exist. Oblivion is vastly preferable to being bossed around by a petty shit like that for eternity. Funny that the bishops seem to find it attractive. (But not really funny at all of course, since it's merely a projection of their own petty shitness.)
Perfectly put. The Archbishop of Canterbury has of course been quick to disassociate himself from the remarks and to emphasise the inclusive nature of...oh, wait, never mind.
Two: it's icky and I don't like it
A mother has frozen some of her eggs for potential use by her daughter, who has a medical condition that will render her infertile. This is apparently ethically dubious because of 'identity problems':
Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, expressed sympathy with the family, but could not support storing the mother's eggs.
She said: "The psychological welfare of the baby itself has to be the principal concern.
"Such a baby would be a sibling of the birth mother at the same time as the direct genetic offspring of the grandmother donor.
"In psychiatry we are hearing more and more of children suffering from identity problems, and specifically a condition called 'genealogical bewilderment'. Could it possibly get more bewildering than this?
Fertilise with the grandfather's sperm? It's not really that complicated. Just because the child wouldn't quite fit with either of the usual definitions of 'child' or 'sibling' doesn't mean anything - it's just something new. I'd want to see strong evidence of psychological problems before denying anyone the chance of happiness through having children, if that's what they want. As it happens, 'genealogical bewilderment' was posited as a possible problem with adoption, but doesn't appear to exist. It's tempting to suggest that critics are just scared of things they don't know how to classify, but who knows.
Three: the EU is a porn merchant!
The EU created a channel on YouTube. The most watched video is 'Film Lovers Will Love This!'. There's a bit of a fuss as it shows:
men and women having sex in different ways and places, and ends with the words, "Let's come together".
I'm always happy to suffer for my website, so I watched it. It's mostly clips from Amélie. It's cut very quickly, there's no nudity, and it's pretty funny - I thought it was actually a decent advert. Conservative MEP Chris Heaton-Harris does not:
They do have an image problem but I think cobbling together 44 seconds of soft porn on the internet is not a brilliant way of solving it
Dude, that is to soft-core porn as a monkey is to Jeremy Paxman. Take a look at the top-shelf of the nearest newsagent, and get a grip. Wait, that sounded wrong, although it might actually help. Meanwhile, Labour MEP Gary Titley (stop it) said:
European films are about more than a quick slap and a tickle. It is bonkers that this clip gets so much attention.
I like this. I picture the two MEPs cornered by a reporter, trying to think how they should respond. The Labour MEP pretends not to understand why a video vaguely showing people having sex is popular. The Conservative MEP pretends he thinks it's disgusting. Over to people who will at least say what they really think:
A Polish MEP from the conservative League of Polish Families has accused the commission of using "immoral methods" to promote itself.
Is all sex now immoral? Somebody should tell them everything's fine in this case: all the actors were married.
European Commission spokesman Martin Selmayr said there had been a flood of complaints from Poland about an intimate scene between two men
It's the gays again. Not content with making it rain, they're now trying to...er...promote the EU. Infamy! What does Martin Selmayr have to say about it?
Fuming at what he called "quasi-religious bashing of the very important cultural diversity we have in the European Union", he said the lovemaking clips were excerpts from award-winning films, and that the commission was proud of the EU's rich cinematic heritage.
"The European Union is not a bible belt, we believe in freedom of expression and artistic creativity," he added.
Go Martin Selmayr! Let's not mince words, it's not 'quasi-religious bashing', it's just religious bashing. Find me all the atheist 'family values' groups, and I'll change my mind.
It's a good job I'm beyond moral reproach, isn't it?
Churches unite against gay rights
A large organisation has today signalled its support for the Catholic Church in demanding exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation. Is it the NSPCC? Childline? Save the Children? Non-Catholic Adoption agencies? Perhaps a letter from a large group of philosophers, arguing for the inherent goodness of discriminating against somebody on the basis of their sexual orientation? Who would possibly want to be seen standing up for bigotry? It is of course the Church of England.
It's all to do with 'rights of conscience', you see. Imagine if the fire brigade said they wanted to refuse employment to homosexuals - 'freedom of conscience' wouldn't wash for a minute. There's a petition on the Downing Street website asking the Prime Minister to implement legislation as it stands, without exemptions. I don't know whether these kinds of petitions are all that useful, but I've signed it. Pass it around.
I was interested to see yesterday's letter from Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's letter (thanks to Tom in the comments for finding a copy) as I wanted to know whether he attempted to justify his position. He did. The key paragraphs are:
We place significant emphasis on marriage, as it is from the personal union of a man and a woman that new life is born and it is within the loving context of such a relationship that a child can be welcomed and nurtured. Marital love involves an essential complementarity of male and female.
We recognise that some children, particularly those who have suffered abuse and neglect, may well benefit from placement with a single adoptive parent.
However, Catholic teaching about the foundations of family life, a teaching shared not only by other Christian Churches but also other faiths, means that Catholic adoption agencies would not be able to recruit and consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents.
I'm finding this strangely difficult to get my head around. Firstly, I think he's saying that marriage is always preferable, but he doesn't back this up with anything. Then he says marriage is always between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman can have a child, which doesn't follow. That's just an arbitrary definition; 'two people who love each other' would make more sense. It has the insidious implication that same-sex couples cannot love each other as much. He then says that sometimes it's ok to put a child with a single parent, despite the lack of 'marital love'. Finally there's the 'I think this because I think this' argument, without any attempt at justification - why should we listen to 'Catholic teaching about the foundations of family life' if you can't explain the reasonings behind it? I'm not in your club! As justifications go, it's pretty pathetic.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York today sent a letter supporting the Cardinal. It makes no attempt to justify bigotry, instead resorting to...well, let's see.
Many in the voluntary sector are dedicated to public service because of the dictates of their conscience.
In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk.
The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.
Bullshit. Everybody acts according to the dictates of their conscience, but the problem is that people contradict each other. If somebody thinks it's fine to murder people they don't like, would the Archbishops argue for freedom of 'conscience' there? If not, why? How is it different? Presumably because there would be demonstrable harm that justifies taking action against them. Everybody would agree (including them, apparently) that unfair discrimination against homosexuals constitutes demonstrable harm, but their counter-arguments show no such evidence of harm to themselves. What would actually happen if Catholic adoption agencies gave children to same-sex couples? Who would suffer? The churches have provided no evidence at all that this would harm anybody, aside from baseless insinuations that children need the love of both a man and a woman. Even they don't have the nerve to come out and say 'it offends God', because they'd be rightly ignored. Instead they come up with this 'rights of conscience' nonsense, which is just 'I want to behave like I do because I just do', and in this case is a thin veil for 'I don't like gay people'. There are no 'rights of conscience' - they made them up.
On numerous occasions in the past proper consideration has been given to the requirements of consciences alongside other considerations contributing to the common good, such as social need or human rights - the right, for example, of some doctors not to perform abortions, even though employed by the National Health Service.
So what? Mistakes would never be rectified if precedent were a valid argument. Good to see that human rights are at least something to be weighed against freedom of conscience, though, even if they lose out in the end.
It would be deeply regrettable if in seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against, a climate were to be created in which, for example, some feel free to argue that members of the government are not fit to hold public office on the grounds of their faith affiliation.
Ah, we should stop criticising Ruth Kelly. I'm not criticising her because of her faith affiliation, I'm criticising her because her arguments make no sense. Again, we're meant to assume that criticism of arguments from faith is in some way shameful, when it's actually completely reasonable. But I wouldn't say she's not fit to hold public office - she gives every impression of being a very intelligent and competent woman, it's just that the evidence seems to suggest she has a blind spot when it comes to faith-related matters.
As you approach the final phase of what has, until very recently, been a careful and respectful consideration of the best way in which to introduce and administer new protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in England and Wales, we hope you, and cabinet colleagues, will do justice to the interests of the much wider grouping of interests within the nation that will be affected.
There are more of us religious people than there are gay people! I'm not actually sure that's true. How many people are gay? About 1 in 10? And how many people are practicing Christians? Only 7% of people attend church regularly, and how many of them are actually as homophobic as their leaders? I'm not convinced the wider grouping of interests isn't being served perfectly well, although that hardly matters - what's important is that the arguments make sense.
It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest.
Political interest? What? This is just emotional blackmail.
And that conditions are not inadvertently created which make the claims of conscience an obstacle to, rather than the inspiration for, the invaluable public service rendered by parts of the voluntary sector.
If your conscience tells you that there's something wrong with being gay, I'm perfectly happy for you not to work in the voluntary sector. But you can, of course, do what you like as long as you have reasonable arguments to back it up. It's nice, being able to do what you like, don't you think?
I'm warming to the petition. 753 signatures so far.
How to find Cardinal’s letter to the Cabinet?
Does anybody know whether there's a public archive which might have a copy of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's letter to the Cabinet? It apparently says:
We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the Government to insist that if they wish to continue to work with local authorities, Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the Church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide such a service
but I'd be interested to see the whole thing...
Faith groups demanding to be exempt from anti-bigotry legislation
Lobbyists in a meeting with the minister for Women and Equality:
Ruth Kelly: Our vision is of an equal, inclusive society where every citizen is treated with respect and where there is opportunity for all. We want to measurably improve the lives of all of those who are discriminated against. Our task is to promote equality for all regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or belief, age or personal disability. This is why we are implementing legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. A bank can't sack somebody for being gay, but can refuse a mortgage application on this basis. It's wrong, insulting to reasonable thinking people everywhere, and a genuine violation of individual rights. Does anybody have any questions?
The BNP: Hello. We hate gay people. Can we be excluded from this legislation, please?
Ruth Kelly: Get the hell off my planet.
The Church: Hello. We hate homosexuality, but can forgive homosexuals themselves, obviously. Can we be excluded from the legislation, please?
Ruth Kelly: Sure thing.
The BNP: Hey. What?
Ruth Kelly: It's their religion, retards.
The BNP: Huh. Oh, did we mention we have a magic thimble that tells us to hate homosexuality? Obviously we can separate homosexuality from homosexuals, just like it's practically possible to hate the colour of people's skin, not the people themselves. Are we good? Can we be excluded?
Ruth Kelly: ...
Obviously, that's not very funny. Because the whole thing isn't bloody funny.
Years ago I saw Tony Blair in a commons debate over Section 28 - the Local Government Act that said local authorities would not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". The Conservatives wanted to keep it due to their mostly being compassionless dinosaurs with no sense of decency concerned about 'family values', then Tony Blair stood up and said Section 28 was a piece of bigotry, and it would be removed. I didn't know all that much about politics, nor had I thought much about my own stance on this kind of discrimination, but his response was so clearly right, so purely and unambiguously the correct thing to do, that it was obviously the way of the future.
Yet today Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly are apparently trying to exempt faith-based organisations from anti-bigotry legislation. You know: the most powerful, vocal and ubiquitous anti-gay groups in the country. It's just so completely absurd, and contrary to Labour principles, that I almost find myself assuming there must be some decent argument from the other side that I've missed. What are the arguments for their side? It helps to get a little clarification on the legislation itself:
The proposed measures would ban discrimination over the provision of goods and services, meaning, for example, that hotels which banned gay couples from sharing a room could be prosecuted. In turn, gay bars would also have to be open to straight clients. More broadly, the rules potentially affect everything from fertility clinics' right to refuse lesbian couples IVF treatment to whether the tourism industry can promote heterosexuals-only honeymoon resorts, drawing several Whitehall departments into the row.
Some have argued that there's no point, that why would gay people want to stay in an obviously hostile hotel? Why should a gay bar be forced to be open to straight clients? I think this is full of crap - tolerance has to protect itself, and see Jo's post for more - but the Church's arguments don't even have such verisimilitude:
Faith schools have, however, led the protest, arguing that the rules could affect teaching about sex or require them to let gay groups hold meetings on their premises after hours. Catholic adoption agencies fear being forced to allow gay couples to adopt children. The Catholic church, which regards homosexuality as a sin, has suggested adoption agencies would close down rather than obey.
They'd have to let gay groups hold meetings on their premises after hours? Diddums! How terrible! Goodness, just think of the consequences of such a horrific requirement! And you'd have to change how you teach about sex? How on earth are you teaching it at the moment? By avoiding homosexuality altogether? If adoption agencies would rather close down than obey, that sounds like good riddance to me.
These are the same faith schools, bear in mind, that say things like:
The Church’s approach to education as a whole, while admitting of diversity of practice in the light of particular local circumstances, is one founded on a notion of inclusiveness rather than separation from the community. The composition of its school population, especially in primary schools where parents generally want their children educated close to home, will reflect the composition of the neighbourhood and must therefore be inclusive of all ethnicity, belief and social class. The Church will seek to develop its provision as part of a wider partnership with communities. Its schools will seek to engage actively with all parents and to be distinctively welcoming to them.
Well, isn't that just bollocks. This, also from the 2001 Archbishops' Council Report, is more appropriate:
If the Church schools are at the centre of the Church’s mission, their work must derive from the mission of the whole Church. In a sentence, the Church’s mission is to open up people to what God desires for them: Church schools are places where a particular vision of humanity is offered.
Bit different from providing a tolerant, inclusive education when you put it like that. Isn't it obvious that schools of a religious character have a built-in predisposition to their own moral failings? Isn't it obvious that many are going to raise children indoctrinated with the bigotry that pervades the major religions?
The Church's arguments are an evasion. They don't address the substance of the legislation nor the assumption behind it, namely that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. Of course they don't bring this up. There are no valid counter-arguments; the only argument they have is that a magic thimble in the sky gives them orders. Nobody who uses that kind of argument has any business being involved in the creation of law, and it's always possible to separate the argument from the faith behind it, if it's valid. Labour is rejecting its principles by considering exemptions, and we're simply better than this. Aren't we?
Fanning the flames
Skuds reported earlier this week on nine firefighters who were disciplined after refusing to hand out fire safety leaflets at a gay pride march. According to the BBC:
Some of the firefighters involved had argued it would be embarrassing for them to turn up in uniform to the Pride Scotia event, while others claimed it would contradict their moral beliefs.
At least the 'moral beliefs' argument is honest, if stupid. 'Embarrassing'? What this really means is 'people might think we're gay'. The only way it would be embarrassing to turn up in uniform would be if you think there's something wrong with being homosexual, so let's just say what this really is: your basic homophobia, bordering on outright bigotry.
It's entirely correct that the fire service should punish the firefighters involved. If you take a job, you have made an agreement to do whatever that job entails. If you are required to do something with which you disagree, you're free to argue, but not to opt-out. You're also free to leave.
Who could possibly disagree with this? Who would dare publicly support the firefighters? What organisation could be so morally bankrupt that they would support such monstrous anti-gay sentiment? Ah yes: the Roman Catholic Church1. Says Glasgow Archbishop Mario Conti:
"They were asked, while in uniform, to hand out leaflets during a demonstration where they had legitimate concerns about being the subject of taunts and jokes, and in which in some cases, their religious sensibilities would have been grossly offended by people dressed as priests and nuns lampooning the Church."
We can't have people's religious sensibilities being offended, can we? That would mean, um, that people would be offended. And that would mean, um, that, you know, um, it's just bad, ok? Don't give me that crap. It's obvious why they're wading in, and it's appalling.
It's tempting to think that we should all just ignore such bigots and they'll go away, but I don't think that's true. I hope the fire service comes back with a strong statement disagreeing with the church's position.
- it is regularly pointed out to me that the RCC only abhors homosexuality, they still respect homosexuals as people. If anybody ever figures out how this makes any sense at all, please let me know [↩]
Ruth Kelly
I've been head-composing a post about Ruth Kelly for a while, but Butterflies and Wheels puts it far better than anything I came up with:
It's a bit like belonging to a Nazi party, or the KKK, or the God Hates Fags gang, and then trying to claim not only that of course one's belonging to that organization doesn't in the least mean one can't "speak up" for the rights of Jews or blacks or gays, why on earth would it, but also that even asking the question is absurd and outrageous and indignation-worthy. It's a bit like that, but to many observers it doesn't look like that, because we've been so relentlessly trained to think of religious beliefs and teachings as in some profound way entirely different from political beliefs. But why would they be? Because it's taboo to challenge them, that's why - and that's a terrible reason.
If someone said "I personally want to let children set fire to their teachers, but I won't let that affect my judgement in parliament. I'll just abstain from any votes about teachers, that's all" would you make them education minister? There's no difference between the two other than that the pyromaniacs haven't spent 2000 years convincing brainwashing everybody into not arguing with them. The pyromaniacs haven't spent 2000 years brainwashing everybody into not arguing with them, but the underlying argument is the same.1
I don't want somebody who thinks homosexuality is a sin having anything to do with the making of laws. They try to do things like this. I don't care why she thinks it, or how hard she tries to avoid the topic by abstaining from votes; there's no excuse for bigotry.
- edited for hyperbole [↩]
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
