The Catholic Church didn’t want schoolgirls to be given anti-cancer-STI vaccines, because doing so would encourage sexual behaviour. As a compromise, the Church has now agreed to support the vaccines, provided the schoolgirls receive no advice on contraception. Said advice would explain that the vaccine only works against two strains of cancer-causing STI, and others are out there. This policy will apply to all schoolgirls in Scotland.

Just so we’re clear, here’s the previous Catholic hierarchy of Things That Are Important:

1. Not using contraception
2. Not using a ’sex-encouraging’ vaccine
3. Not dying of cancer

And here it is now:

1. Not using contraception
2. Not dying of cancer
3. Not using a ’sex-encouraging’ vaccine

What a wonderful compromise they’ve made.

If this is your worldview, you are a raving lunatic. Your right to express your opinion does not extend to anybody paying you attention, let alone consulting you on health/education policy.

This is why secularism is so important. Lunatics can and will try to harm children. Non-secular governments will let them.

The cracker is no more. It’s gone to heaven, or it’s still alive, or whatever. The post is only a few hours old, and there are already over 1000 comments.

I’ve seen plenty of comments over P.Z.’s cracker controversy, with lots of generally sensible people adopting disapproving tones. I think Rebecca Watson gets it right (as ever):

A percentage of the omgrude crowd is upset because they do not think PZ’s words help further the skeptical movement because he won’t convince any of the hardcore group that they are crazy. I agree that he probably won’t convince many true believers, but I disagree that he doesn’t help rational people. Just about any time someone dares to point out the absurdity of irrational thinking, he does a great service to many other rational thinkers who were too scared or unsure to say so themselves.

Did Trey Parker and Matt Stone convince any true believers when they called John Edward the Biggest Douche in the Universe? Probably not many, but I bet they influenced a lot of young people who might have been on the fence. There’s no one right way to communicate skepticism, and for every Trey & Matt we need a Carl Sagan. For every PZ, we need a Julia Sweeney or a Hemant. If one isn’t to your taste, you’re free to ignore him, but it’s short-sighted to claim that person is hindering the “skeptical movement” just because he’s not your bag.

I’d only add that it was the church who initially tried to impose their fantasies on the real world. That the real world pointed and laughed is only to be expected.

Maybe, just maybe, this will put an end to the whole thing. Heck, even Jesus has had enough.

It’s…suggestive. Like he says, don’t try this at home. Via.

Last week a student took a cracker from his local church, and the Internet exploded.

Some Catholics think the cracker is actually - literally - the body of Jesus, and say it’s a hate crime to hold it hostage. A hate crime! The US Catholic League has gone bananas, hurling fire and brimstone (and bizarrely coming out as anti-evolutionists, despite their church’s ‘official’ position) and suggesting the student should be expelled. Of course, if he’d taken the cracker and chewed it up, that would have been just fine. Their little world is really quite gross.

The insanity ensued after science/atheist blogger P.Z. Myers posted about it, in typically entertaining style. He asked for crackers to hold hostage on his blog, and he’s had to close various posts after literally thousands of comments threatened to take down his server. The Catholic League is in shock that anybody would want to hurt the baby Jesus, and so is telling people to email the head of P.Z’s university with their complaints. P.Z. has tenure, but I think he and everyone are somewhat shocked at the escalation of muppetry in just a few days.

One the one side you’ve got many many people taking advantage of an excellent opportunity to take the piss out of the Eucharist. I don’t blame them at all. The Eucharist is so conspicuously stupid that it’s almost a duty to bring it up whenever the opportunity arises.

It is a bit weird that the Eucharist is still around, if you ask me. Religions have been quite good at abstracting out all the fantastical stuff so it’s vulnerable to logical fallacy. Miracles conveniently happened thousands of years ago, because humans for whatever reason think old stuff = wise. God acts in mysterious ways = the ultimate argument winner. Jesus died for our sins makes no sense, but it’s mysterious, and humans for whatever reason equate mystery with virtue. All pretty obvious. But the Eucharist doesn’t bother. It just says ‘this here cracker literally becomes the body of Jesus Christ’, and that’s it. No equivocation. They’ve got as far as using fancy words to make it sound Big And Clever: a cracker = ‘The Host’, magic spells and voodoo = ‘The Eucharist’, doing something the Catholic Church doesn’t like = ‘Desecration’. But that’s it. No spin, just magic spells and cannibalism. Really, at some point it’s got to be phased out.

I guess I find it hard to believe that most Catholics, in their heart of hearts, really think it’s literally true. I mean, most religious nonsense I can empathise with. There are plenty of reasons people believe wrong things. But the Eucharist? Come on. The cognitive dissonance must be epic. The whole concept makes no sense - why do you want to eat Jesus? what part of his body does it become? Is he alive or dead? WHY DO YOU WANT TO EAT JESUS? - and I suspect most people just take it as highly symbolic.

Which is why the other side of the argument is probably just your standard mental minority. But they’re very very loud, totally paranoid, lack any kind of sense of humour, and have been sending death threats. At which point it stops being funny. Although, having said that, the average YouTube videographer gets death threats - “this video sucks, die in a fire” - so while it’s serious, I suspect that’s just the way things are on the Internets. You get the impression they’re quite new at this lark, and watching them try to take on creationist-hardened skeptics is almost painful.

Still. The Eucharist itself = pretty funny. I only know one Catholic - I must ask what she thinks…

This post was longer than intended. I really just wanted to point towards Ophelia, who made me laugh.

The big non-story of the weekend was the Church of England debating female bishops. They voted to allow the practice in principle, but the final vote won’t happen until 2011/2012. Or something. I don’t care.

Really, it’s like freemasonry. Freemasons are funny, with their Right Worshipful Brothers and and all that. They have their clubs with their rules and their games, and I generally see no reason to take any interest. If that’s what people want to do, no worries - I’d play Dungeons and Dragons if I could talk my friends into it. But freemasons aren’t fond of women either, and so piss me off. The first phrase that springs to mind is ’stupid little club for stupid old men’. Which feels mean, and maybe isn’t fair - I know someone who’ll defend them for their charity work - but I’m happy to mock those who rationalise away Neanderthal sexism. You don’t deserve attention if you’re this backward. Pity maybe, but not attention. It is 2008.

Church of England = the same. I’m not interested in their little power struggles. They can do what they like. It’s not like this is the one remaining obstacle between them and rationality. But then I’ll remember that these people, these people tearing themselves apart over whether women should have the same rights as men, sit in the House of Lords. They can affect the law. And this is obviously worth screaming to the hilltops over. It is 2008.

But still - a weekend’s news coverage of old sexist dudes? Not worth the effort. But then. Then the Catholic Church stuck its oar in, and things became Very Funny Indeed.

The Vatican has a ‘Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity’. Sounds worthy, doesn’t it? Think of all the good things that could be done by unifying Christians! Here’s what its head said about the CoE’s decision:

For the future, this decision will have consequences for dialogue, which until now had borne much fruit.

Yes. Thanks for sorting out Northern Ireland, by the way.

Such a decision is a break with apostolic tradition maintained in all of the Churches in the first millennium, and is therefore a further obstacle for reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.

These people who issue edicts on behaviour. These people who claim to be a force for good in the 21st century. These people who continually witter on about their mischaracterisation by ‘militant atheists’, and who claim their religion is not the hate-filled, medieval backwater of the ‘extremists’. These people who would have us believe they can build bridges with other faiths and solve the world’s problems.

These people think it counterproductive that their competitors don’t treat women like shit. Competitors who believe in the same deity, read the same magical book, and are only a different religion in the same way Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant are different Doctors. The only ‘obstable for reconciliation’ is the stupid old men and their stupid little rules.

Their Bible says Jesus’ apostles were men. I note that said apostles were also all from the Middle East. And (somehow) white. And won’t have worn deodorant. Or watched televisions. And didn’t wear totally ridiculous hats¹. But none of this matters - it seems the most important thing about the apostles was their genitalia.

It’s not really Very Funny Indeed. Innocent people, for perfectly understandable psychological reasons, pay attention to these whackjobs. They matter. Yet it’s 2008, and they still can’t handle women’s rights. Pathetic.

1. NOT that there is anything wrong with wearing ridiculous hats. In fact it is one of the pleasures of life. If I were Pope I’d wear a ridiculous hat too. I suspect it is the main reason people become Pope [↩]

I’ve been tagged by the ever-readable Scribbles.

Q1) How would you define atheism?

The provisional conclusion that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of spiritual overlords.

I still use the term ‘atheist’ as it’s pretty easy to explain what I mean, which I’d have to do for ‘freethinker’, ‘nontheist’ etc. anyway. Don’t get me started on ‘agnostic’, though (the director’s cut of Donnie Darko defines an agnostic as ’someone who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists’. WTF.).

Q2) Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Not really. I wasn’t Christened, and I can’t recall my parents ever making outright claims one way or another. But when I was a kid my (not all that religious) grandmother inexplicably bought me ‘the Bible in 365 easy stories’, or something, and I made my parents read it every night. I recently asked what they thought of that, and they said they didn’t anticipate how violent it would be. I remember the artwork more than the stories, but some of the old testament stuff stuck. I’ve yet to re-examine the battle-watching dude who had to hold his arms aloft to prevent the mass slaughter of all his people, but even at 10 that was a bit weird. But I bought into anything that seemed mysterious, so I was Generically Christian until probably 14-15ish. By then I’d begun to realise the assembly-guest vicars sometimes came out with total rubbish, and I remember calling myself an agnostic (argh) in a discussion with über-Christian RE teacher¹ at about that age.

Q3) How would you describe ‘intelligent design’, using only one word.

Dishonest.

Q4) What scientific endeavour really excites you?

My favourites have always been astronomy and cosmology. I mean, stars are only ever point sources no matter how big your telescope, but by analysing their light we can figure out their chemical composition. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took a picture of the Pheonix Lander parachuting to the ground². The light from the Big Bang is still bouncing around, making up 3% of the static on an untuned tv screen, and we can use this to figure out the conditions in the first microseconds after the Big Bang. It’s just nuts. And brilliant.

But the older I get, the more I’m impressed by the basics. Just the easy little physics equations, and that they actually work. I get regular holy-shit flashes about natural selection, too.

It seems like most things, the more I think about them the more they descend into grey-area mess. Politics, photography, the day-to-day running of my life, whatever. But science is the inverse: the deeper I look, the more detailed and clearer things get, and it’s both a lifeline and a joy. So I’m rather a fan of the endeavour as a whole

Q5) If you could change one thing about the ‘atheist community’ what would it be?

Erm. I don’t think the ‘atheist community’ share anything but a disbelief in deities, really. The Internet forums suffer from the usual problem of online communities, though, and I’d like to kick out the mental atheists who forget religious people are human too.

Q6) If your child came up to you and said ‘I’m joining the clergy’, what would be your first response?

Which one? Why that one? Will it make you happy? Can I be a guest speaker?

Q7) What’s your favourite theist argument, and how do you refute it?

I quite like the ontological argument, which essentially says:

Imagine the most perfect being you can. Got it? Well, that one’s just in your head. A really perfect being would actually exist, because existing is more perfect than not existing. Therefore god exists.

This one’s quite good as it’s obviously completely bloody stupid, but it’s actually quite difficult to put your finger on why. People have, of course, and it’s fun wrapping your brain in knots trying to keep up.

The ontological argument doesn’t come up much in the cafeteria, though. Pascal’s Wager is better: if you die and god does exist you’re screwed, but if he doesn’t there’s no experience of any kind, so play the odds. That’s always entertaining, as I reject it for the same reason I don’t erect shrines to my toaster.

Other than that, there’s the moment when someone looks at you with pity in their eyes and says ‘Jesus’. As if that proves shit.

Q8) What’s your most ‘controversial’ (as far as general attitudes amongst atheists goes?) viewpoint?

I suppose thinking the Iraq War was at least a tricky decision is pretty controversial. And I’m a total relativist on the arts. But these don’t really count - they’re counter to the general opinion of commenters on atheist forums, but only in as much as they’re common to everyone.

As regards general attitudes amongst atheists, I can’t think of much…I take the Dawkins / P.Z. Myers approach that critical thinking + scientific knowledge will inevitably erode religious belief, and that saying the two are compatible is duplicitous. That one does at least split the scientists in the atheist community.

I also harbour some suspicions about the arguments over the best ways to change people’s minds. There are endless arguments over the merits of meet-them-halfway versus stand-up-for-what-you-believe-in, and I’m not sure there’s evidence for any of it yet. Although I haven’t yet read Carol Tavris’ book, so I might be talking rubbish.

Q9) Of the ‘Four Horsemen’ (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite and why?

Dawkins, for reasons that will be terribly tedious to anyone who’s read this blog for a while. The Blind Watchmaker literally changed my life - I haven’t looked at the world the same way since - and I’m thankful to and admire the guy such that I have to be careful not to let biases get in the way of critical thinking. A couple of years ago I got him to sign my original TBW, and I think it’s time to read it again.

Q10) If you could convince one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Ahmadinejad. And Katie Holmes, because she seems so nice.

Also: Russell Brand. He’s not specifically religious, but goes in for all sorts of spiritual mumbo-jumbo. It’s a shame, as the guy would be such a force for rationality.

Pass it on

I’m setting you free, little meme. Run, run like the wind.

1. ”on Christmas morning I want you all to get up and shout, as loud as you can, ‘HAPPY BIRTHDAY JESUS!’” [↩]
2. I so want a poster of that photo [↩]

Dead at 71. He made me laugh. A lot. I like comedians who make their politics and opinions part of their comedy, and he was no friend to religion or anything even vaguely right-wing. And he had a seriously cool voice.

Here he is making the 10 commandments more efficient:

Not safe for work or Christians.

There are two tv shows I go out of my way to watch. The first is obviously Doctor Who, and the second is Holby City. Seriously, it’s really, really good.

It helps that they have some great actors, but it’s just a classy programme all round. It takes the time to build up characters, and actually (unlike soaps, generally) keeps them consistent - you rarely find nice doctors suddenly turning nasty if the storyline demands it, for example. It also pulls off the Cheers / West Wing trick of making them all likeable. When the emotional storylines come around you can’t help but empathise, and it’s regularly moving. Tonight’s show had two widowers struggling to deal with their new relationship. Not something you see on tv very often, and very easy to get wrong, but I really felt for both characters. Elsewhere one of kindest people in the show was getting screwed over by his girlfriend and, knowing his history, you’re sure he’s not going to cope well and you really don’t want it to happen. Did, though. Cow.

The writing varies with the writer, as with any show, but the dialogue is rarely less than effortless and often witty as hell. Storyline-wise, you can sometimes feel the writers coming and going - the occasional episode will wrap up a bunch of plots, to start afresh the next week - but it’s always neatly interwoven and, importantly, not forgotten. They’re happy to reference two-year-old storylines if necessary. The modular nature isn’t surprising with a full-time show - I don’t think it’s been off the air in three years - but they also have various long-running themes that cross boundaries. For example, there’s been an atheism/religion element in the last nine months. A couple of patients have referenced Richard Dawkins, an atheist consultant turned to god in a time of desperation¹, and a Catholic doctor clearly has issues dealing with things that go against his faith. It’s not terribly overt, and I don’t know whether it’s ever going to come to anything (or even which side it’s on, if any), but it’s definitely deliberate. The ethics of private medical care come up regularly, too.

I also think it’s technically well made. The lighting on tonight’s show was beautiful, and their long-term use of popular music, relevant to the themes or events of the particular episode, is evocative. And, as I said, the acting is top notch².

I think it’s the long-term stuff I like most. They’ve put the effort into creating consistent characters, with back-stories that don’t go away. It’s common to sniff at soaps / long-running dramas, but I think this is why they’re worthwhile. Building up characters and situations over literally years allows for emotional resonance you can’t get elsewhere - in books, sure, but no film or standard tv show has that kind of time. You follow the lives of these people, and share in their joys and tragedies. It’s genuinely upsetting when a loved character dies, but the complete opposite when, say, a long-running romance comes to fruition. And of course it goes away, but there’s a pleasure in these experiences that’s unique to the medium. I’m not ashamed to admit liking it - that’s what storytelling is all about.

Bit gushing? Probably. But atm it’s one of my favourite things on tv. Credit where credit’s due.

1. this was particularly nicely played - it was never suggested that it helped, but this particular character grasping for any kind of control could be interpreted in various ways [↩]
2. they should pay Amanda Mealing whatever it takes; but then I’m a bit biased as Connie does strange things to me [↩]

Come spring, my local park always has two ice cream vans within 100m of each other, and I’ve often thought it’s an episode of Midsomer Murders waiting to happen¹. In my head there are fierce rivalries in all sorts of professions, but I’d never thought of this²:

A documentary now in limited release, “Twisted: A Balloonamentary” examines the world of professional balloon twisters, who make everything from life-size racing cars to their own wedding dresses. It also exposes the rift — who knew? — between the “gospel twisters,” who use their craft as a way to teach Bible lessons, and the “adult” twisters, who use balloons for more prurient entertainment.

That’s hideous. I for one never, ever want to see a professional twister using balloons to teach gospel lessons. Whereas, a prurient show - bring it on. Sure, it’d be easy for it to be tawdry and obvious, but in the right hands I can see that being funny as hell.

The wedding dress can be seen here. My wedding plans so far:

1. compulsory capes + hats

and that’s as far as I’ve got, but I’m going to go ahead and pencil in that dress. I mean, that’s some non-stop innuendo right there.

It’s just occurred to me that balloons are the perfect vehicle for preaching the doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I’ve found a niche, people!

1. I think something stole their thunder, actually - New Tricks? [↩]
2. warning: there was a big Battlestar Galactica banner at the top of the page when I visited. I activated Spoiler Defence Mode and killed all power to the building, but beware [↩]

I’ve been itching to know the Vatican’s thoughts on extraterrestrial life. Good news!

Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.

They know this from all the astronomy mentioned in the Bible, as well as their extensive questioning of astronomers.

Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God.

…well, no. That’s a bit circular, really. The Times has the exact quote:

Father Funes said that just as there existed a “multiplicity of creatures on Earth”, so there could exist “other beings created by God, including intelligent ones. We cannot place limits on God’s creative freedom.”

Immovable objects; irresistible forces. Just saying. Anyhow, we haven’t got to my favourite bit yet.

And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.

Planets where they don’t have fruit? Where God didn’t take his eye off the ball? Where there isn’t a power-hungry cult trying to control people’s every thought? I lose my sense of humour when people start talking about original sin. It doesn’t take more than a moment’s thought to see original sin for what it really is, and those who preach it lose their right to be treated politely. Twisted, manipulative bastards.

I think it’s a mistake for the Vatican to start looking to the stars. They should stick to vague historical claims that can’t be proven one way or another. There’s more wonder in astronomy than the world’s religions combined, and space has the annoying habit of supplying fresh data. It’ll only veer towards comprehensible, and the Vatican should know to stay away from comprehensible. Like Perry DeAngelis used to say: if you’re going to believe in a God, you have to give him something to do.

From a pamphlet delivered by Jehovah’s Witnesses:

The standard underlying circular logic, but isn’t it usually a bit more subtle? I don’t know how someone types the last three sentences without noticing a problem.

The latest tactic by US creationists is to cry academic discrimination, and they’ve produced a documentary, ‘Expelled!’, claiming that anybody who criticises evolution is being forced out by evil Darwinian scientists. The makers interviewed biologist P.Z. Myers under false pretences, and yesterday he tried to get into a local showing:

I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn’t even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn’t going to cause any trouble.

This isn’t all that surprising, but I haven’t included the best bit. Head over to Pharyngula to see what happened next…Via L.

It’s difficult to be offended by hair straighteners. Maybe if they set fire to your head, but otherwise, what’s to mind? Well, 23 Christians apparently don’t like their adverts, and somehow convinced the generally-sensible Advertising Standards Authority to uphold their complaint.

Here’s the advert (I don’t think it’s quite the banned one, but is close enough). Try to guess what the problem is:

What’s the main issue? They used a cross in place of the letter t. A cross. This makes the baby Jesus cry. He didn’t die / not die / zombify on a cross so people could just use it for…shudder…consumerism, you know. The very existence of the letter t is bad enough - it’s a little known fact that every time you write ‘turtle’ Jesus sends you to hell for another ten minutes - but making it look even more like a cross is offensive to people obsessed with medieval torture instruments. The ASA had no choice.

But Ben spotted the best bit, which has to be my favourite complaint ever. Not only did they use a cross without a note from the Pope, and not only was the Lord’s Prayer quoted without a safety cracker, but the women were ‘praying while being erotic’. Dolly Parton is so going to burn.

Have you seen the Vatican’s list of modern sins? Is most helpful. If you’re catholic, this is divine guidance on how to avoid going to hell. If you’re not, it might seem like an overgrown cult trying to induce guilt so people will go running to church, but let’s not be so hasty. Maybe we can all learn something - let’s examine the scourges of our time:

Environmental pollution

Yep, pretty bad. I’d like some quantitative measures, though. I mean, I should clearly go to confession if I leave the heating on while on holiday, but what about putting too much water in the kettle? Will God hate me? Is there a pits-of-hell-seconds / milliwatt-hour conversion table?

Drug trafficking and consumption

Let’s assume this means illegal drugs and not aspirin, or Tesco is totally screwed. Trafficking illegal drugs is indeed not good, but the evils of consumption are somewhat dubious. You could come up with hypothetical situations in which nobody is being harmed: if I grow my own marijuana, smoke it in an enclosed room and never tell anyone or endorse the product in any way, will God still hate me?

Inflicting poverty

Fair enough.

Accumulating excessive wealth

Seriously? Getting rich is in the top seven evil things? What if you bequeath it all to good causes? What if you’re Bill Gates, and you use your fortune to get direct access to important people who can help you give billions of dollars to charity? What’s ‘excessive’, anyway? I agree there may be a moral case against hoarding money, but it’s pretty low on my list of Things To Fix.

Genetic manipulation

That’s just ignorant. Genetic manipulation could and probably will save billions of lives, by producing varieties of food that can be grown in areas of most need. Any opposition that isn’t “I’m just making sure this is properly regulated” is medieval and verging on the bonkers. I’d also point out that having sex means random splicing of genetic information -far from the carefully controlled small numbers of genes manipulated in labs - and God doesn’t seem to mind that (providing you don’t have any fun in the process, obviously).

Morally debatable experiments

If this were ‘morally wrong experiments’, I’d call the argument circular. What’s evil? Evil cats! As it is, the argument is not only circular but completely insane. Anything morally debatable is a sin?! Based on the Vatican’s debating team, presumably. I’d like to give this pregnant woman a new drug to prevent her dying in childbirth; of course, as with any medical procedure there’s a million-to-one, unforeseeable chance her four-week-old feotus could react against the drug and die. Can I still do it? Can I try feeding millions of starving people with this genetically modified grain, granting that the scientists who created it are evil sinners? Can I use these embryonic stem cells, that were going to be thrown away anyway, to help cure disease and alleviate suffering worldwide? Can I compare the energy usage of normal and energy-saving light bulbs, given that the experiment will add extra environmental pollution?

Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

Well, yes. And these are…? I was aware that bad things are bad; this seems somewhat broad and already covered by commandments and things. Clarification would be appreciated. I don’t know what they could possibly be referring to, here, so let’s pluck something out of the air…say ‘freedom of religious belief’. Well, it’s clearly wrong to outlaw religious belief, yes. Oh, wait, you want ‘freedom from anything that insults our religious belief’, too? That’s not logically possible I’m afraid. Sorry.

Frankly, this list isn’t much use in avoiding eternal torment. Bad cult. Must do better. 

These sins are better than the previous seven, as they aren’t uncontrollable human instincts and laughably obvious ploys. But they’re all redundant or self-serving. It’s also unclear how any of these ‘mortal sins’ relate to the commandments: they’re the only official lists of ‘grave violations of the Ten Commandments’, but neither list contains, say, ‘genocide’, or ‘don’t fight with protestants’.

Concerted efforts to abolish the blasphemy law appear to have paid off, as the Lords have passed the latest amendment to the Criminal Justice bill. This started a couple of months ago when Evan Harris proposed a bill to repeal the outdated legislation, getting a fair bit of publicity in the process. I asked my MP to support it but he never replied, in fairness possibly because the amendment was withdrawn a few days later, after the government said it would propose its own version. I was a little skeptical at the time, but it was indeed added to the Criminal Justice bill amendment, and is now set to become law (or, not-law). Hooray!

The House of Lords Bishops weren’t best pleased. Rowan Williams supported it initially, then made various impenetrable speeches suggesting he thought it was all a bit mean, and finally wrote a wishy-washy letter saying it was maybe a bad move.

It should not be capable of interpretation as a secularising move, or as a general licence to attack or insult religious beliefs and believers.

Those two problems deserve to be placed in the same sentence, of course.

He voted in favour, but the aforementioned speeches suggests he wants more powerful legislation in its place. Well, tough.