On the resignation of Tim Farron as Leader of the Liberal Democrats

This is my brief "editorial" ['pretentious' - Ed.] on the resignation earlier this evening of Tim Farron as Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party:

If religion hadn't historically tried to impose its will on society, often by physical force and often by social pressure (very often even more powerful in controlling a gullible population), sceptics wouldn't be so fearful of the menace it has too often represented when it gains the upper hand.

Tim Farron [may feel he] has been harshly treated or at least "misunderstood", and to a certain limited extent even I, as a gay man, would tend to agree that he has, but one cannot divorce what has happened from the historical context of how religious dogmas have always behaved if they thought they could. It's not so long ago that one of the country's greatest heroes (Turing) was chemically castrated, because at that time merely being homosexual was a crime, largely based I would argue on the influence of the Christian religion in framing the country's laws then, and now another of these wacko religions (Islam, lest there be the merest scintilla of doubt to what I refer), because it can, is throwing gay men off of buildings, and consigning women to slavery.

To be clear, I don't think Tim Farron is any kind of danger as an individual, but the kind of thinking his beliefs represent, if they had the upper hand, petrifies me.

So Tim Farron has taken the, in my view, somewhat petulant decision to stand down from the Leadership of the Liberal Democrat Party and ended with the jibe that this is because the country is not truly 'democratic', nor 'liberal'. This is nonsense. The harsh reality is that a significant proportion of the population in many of what are self-described as "advanced societies" no longer 'believe in' nor are prepared to be dictated to by religion. If he had clearly said what his own personal views/beliefs are, when asked about it, but that this would not be used to influence his views on public policy, I think that would have defused the matter completely, indeed his own voting record in Parliament is pretty "respectable" in this regard. Instead however he repeatedly shied away from simply stating what his views are. So he has been somewhat harshly treated, but his own reaction to the pressures he has felt he has faced have been "sub-optimal", to put it mildly. And so he "exits stage left" from the political stage of party leadership.

NB/ I have deliberately avoided touching on his views on 'Brexit', by the way (about which he never stopped speaking); if he had been similarly open about his views on certain aspects of his religious beliefs, I do not think he would have landed up in this dilemma of his own making.

Over-spending and Debt at Christmas - please try and resist the temptation

I rarely touch on personal domestic matters, but at this time of year many people will become increasingly "excited" over the coming few weeks in the run-up to Christmas or the Festive Season or the Holiday Season or however you choose to describe it. I have little or no religious faith (I hover between Agnosticism and Atheism), but I have felt since I was becoming a teenager and then young adult that the idea that there was some "power" overseeing humanity was so much superstitious nonsense. I try to be "nice" in my personal dealings, so I hope that not too many are offended by my cavalier viewpoint, but ultimately if you are offended I'm afraid you will have to live with it, because in reality I don't much care. You have your views and I have mine.

In any case, however you view the coming few weeks, many people including me look upon the forthcoming Christmas holidays/festival/celebrations as an opportunity to get together with friends and family, eating and drinking rather more than is usual during the rest of the year, also offering hospitality and gifts to various family, friends and acquaintances and receiving similar in return. However, the simplest thing I can urge upon you is to not overdo it, and remember that if you are incurring debts, or your friends and family are, to fund this annual extravanganza, that booms generally are followed by busts. Debts incurred to fund this period will fairly soon have to be repaid, somehow or other. I realise that for younger families with young children that they will want to provide their children with a happy and exciting Christmas and certainly will not wish their own children to feel they are less fortunate than some of their classmate contemporaries, who receive the latest "must have" toys, games, clothes and gadgetry generally at this time of year. I understand the pressures that people face in a "consumer" society. Most of us have budgetary limits in what we can do; some of us have more "discretionary" income, beyond the absolute essentials, than others. Some amongst us have almost no such "discretionary" income at all and whatever "joy" (if any) they can look forward to over the coming weeks will be dependent on the help of others, which I hope will be as generous as others' means will allow.

But for everyone, I would like to urge some level of moderation, both in the desire to "give" and expectation of what you may wish or expect to "receive"; we all want to enjoy oursleves, but not at the expense (surely) of subsequent weeks or months of actual or near penury to pay for it. I volunteered for some years, quite some years ago now, with a charity organisation that sought to help people in various personal struggles and I always remember that another volunteer, when we were both "on duty" around this time of year, tried to explain to me the pressures she was under not to disappoint her own children in their expectations, which she was barely able (if at all) to satisfy. I am not "wealthy", but I suppose I am "comfortable" in comparison to many others, so it's possible that I don't always understand fully the pressures that face some others, I don't deny it, but I am very aware that not everyone is so fortunate as me.

In Nairn we have a weekly newspaper, published every Tuesday, as I have mentioned a few times before - The Nairnshire Telegraph does not have any online presence, so it is not possible to link to their articles, but one item they carry every week is a sort of 'moral homily' from some religious bloke signing himself 'Sandy Shaw - Nairn Christian Fellowship' and they are usually pretty trite, apart from being poorly written and full of logical non sequiturs. I read them, or at least glance at them, every week when I am in Nairn, and usually indulge in a little derisive chuckle and have at least once before written about something I read in the column - for example, in November/December 2011 when I wrote this. The article today (Tuesday, 6th December 2016) is the usual mix of religious mumbo-jumbo mixed in with practical advice, so whilst I find the former risible I am happy to acknowledge that that there is considerable "common sense" in the latter. The article this weeks is pithily entitled "Debt" and I reproduce it below:

The Nairnshire Telepgraph Tuesday, December 6, 2016 - page 8

Whatever your views on "religion" (and I have already expressed my own scepticism and indeed scorn for these "notions" and "beliefs" as they are what I regard as fiction), there is I think a good deal of common sense in the linked article. Do with my article what you will. In any case, enjoy yourselves over the coming weeks, but don't overdo it in any sense.

Spain's Constitutional Court again upholds gay marriage law

Spain's Constitutional Court has once more upheld the 2005 law granting same-sex couples the right to marry, with 8 voting for and 3 against with one judge abstaining.

This follows on from the similar vote earlier in the year, which I wrote about here.

As I wrote in that earlier article, doesn't Mariano Rajoy have more important things to worry about than attempting to reverse gay-marriage laws, for example getting the Spanish economy back into some semblance of order?

(NB/ This article is cross-posted from my Spanish blog casabill.blogspot.com)

Catholic "sky fairy" cult continues its campaign against same sex marriage in Scotland

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic "sky fairy" cult in Scotland has caused to be read out in all 500 parishes in Scotland the following subversive message, designed to enlist the followers of this cult to attempt to thwart the will of the elected Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') in its stated aim of legislating for same sex marriage in Scotland:

A Message for Marriage Sunday 26 August 2012 from The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland In all things, we as Catholics look to Jesus Christ as our model and teacher. When asked about marriage He gave a profound and rich reply: “Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, ‘made them male and female’, and said: ‘This is why a man must leave father and mother and cling to his wife and the two become one body’. (Matthew, 19: 4-5) In the Year of Faith, which begins this October, we wish to place a special emphasis on the role of the family founded on marriage. The family is the domestic Church, and the first place in which the faith is transmitted. For that reason it must have a primary focus in our prayerful considerations during this period of grace. We write to you having already expressed our deep disappointment that the Scottish Government has decided to redefine marriage and legislate for same-sex marriage. We take this opportunity to thank you for your past support in defense of marriage and hope you will continue to act against efforts to redefine it. We reaffirm before you all the common wisdom of humanity and the revealed faith of the Church that marriage is a unique life-long union of a man and a woman. In circumstances when the true nature of marriage is being obscured, we wish to affirm and celebrate the truth and beauty of the Sacrament of Matrimony and family life as Jesus revealed it; to do something new to support marriage and family life in the Catholic community and in the country; and to reinforce the vocation of marriage and the pastoral care of families which takes in the everyday life of the Church in dioceses and parishes across the country. For that reason, in the forthcoming Year of Faith we have decided to establish a new Commission for Marriage and the Family. This Commission will be led by a bishop and will be composed mostly of lay men and women. The Commission will be charged with engaging with those young men and women who will be future husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and with those who already live out their vocation to marriage and parenthood in surroundings which often make it hard to sustain and develop the full Catholic family life we cherish. We wish to support too, those who are widowed, separated and divorced and all who need to feel the Church’s maternal care in the circumstances in which they find themselves. The new Commission will promote the true nature of marriage as both a human institution and a union blessed by Jesus. The Commission will be asked to develop an online presence so that prayer, reflection, formation and practical information on matters to do with marriage and family life can be quickly accessible to all. It will also work to produce materials and organise events which will support ordinary Catholic families in their daily lives. During the course of the coming year we will ask for your support for these initiatives. Our faith teaches us that marriage is a great and holy mystery. The Bishops of Scotland will continue to promote and uphold the universally accepted definition of marriage as the union solely of a man and a woman. At the same time, we wish to work positively for the strengthening of marriage within the Church and within our society. This is an important initiative for all our people, but especially our young people and children. We urge you to join us in this endeavour. Pray for your own family every day, and pray for those families whose lives are made difficult by the problems and cares which they encounter. Finally, we invite you to pray for our elected leaders, invoking the Holy Spirit on them, that they may be moved to safeguard marriage as it has always been understood, for the good of Scotland and of our society.

My objective in quoting the text of this letter here is not, just to state the obvious, because I support it in any way, but because I think it is important for as many people as possible to read for themselves the full measure of the delusions that afflict this particular 'sky fairy' cult. Let no one ever forget that this is the same organisation which for decades in many of the countries in which it operates actively covered up the criminal misconduct of its paid operatives (aka 'priests') in their deviant paedophile activities involving children of both sexes, misguidedly placed under their care by parents and guardians. Supposedly this organisation has now 'cleaned up its act', but I remain sceptical and whatever changes it has made have been brought about solely by the threat of financial sanction, not because it has fundamentally changed its ethos of intimidation and control, as is amply demonstrated by this ridiculous and hateful 'pastoral' letter. For a religion which is supposed to stand for peace and support for the weak and downtrodden is in fact nothing more than a crude protection racket in the Roman Catholic 'cult' version of it.

Of course, adherents of this subversive cult have the right in our democratic society to believe whatever nonsense they choose to and even to promulgate their deluded ideas should they so wish, but it gives them absolutely no right to have any more attention paid to their notions than that accorded to any other citizens. Elected politicians are how we as a country choose to run our affairs and it is time that this subversive cult remembered this. The Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') will, I hope, carry out its stated policy of legislating for same sex marriage as soon as possible.

Separately, the UK government has held consultations on introducing similar legislation in England and Wales and will, no doubt, continue to be the object of similar tactics there on the part of the Roman Catholic 'sky fairy' cult; I hope the UK government will be just as resolute in standing up for democratic values.

Rajoy's attempt to reverse gay-marriage law rejected by Spain's Constitutional Court

(Please see UPDATE at end)

Spain's economy may be in a complete shambles, but at least some sense still prevails. The Constitutional Court has rejected an appeal by the governing Partido Popular and President ('Prime Minister') Mariano Rajoy against the 2005 change in the law which permitted same-sex marriage on the grounds that it was 'unconstitutional', asserting at the time the law was changed that it flouted article 10.2, relating to protection of the family, women and children. Of course he ignored the fact that a ban on same-sex marriage would constitute gender discrimination, and segregation on the grounds of sexuality, two situations forbidden by the Constitution.

I may think that Zapatero's PSOE was a lousy manager of Spain's economy (just as was the last Labour government in the UK), but both introduced reforms of the law which brought their countries into the forefront in terms of granting badly-needed rights to enhance the equality of their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.

It is great to know that the Spanish Constitutional Court is prepared to stand up to the government when it seeks to deprive a segment of the population of recently-won and hard fought-for rights. I recall at the time the last government introduced the change how vehement was the opposition of the then opposition and the Roman Catholic church. We are seeing exactly the same opposition to the changes currently under discussion in the UK from the very-same Roman Catholic church. Although Spain is nominally a Catholic country, whereas the UK is not, both are modern democracies which have, fortunately, moved well beyond the crude propaganda efforts of the Church and neither is a theocracy, a concept the main churches in both countries (Catholic and CofE respectively) will just have to learn to live with!

And referring back to the first line of this article, doesn't Mariano Rajoy have more important things to worry about than attempting to reverse gay-marriage laws, for example the urgent task of sorting out the Spanish economy, which still has a very long way to go (quite frankly)?!

(NB/ This article is cross-posted from my Spanish blog casabill.blogspot.com)

UPDATE (Wednesday 7NOV2012 06.41 GMT) Spain's Constitutional Court has re-affirmed the 2005 law granting same-sex couples the right to marry. See later post here.

A video-clip religious bigots should be forced to watch ...

... to try and get it into their thick skulls that hatred and bigotry hurt real people. Yes, this is relevant to the consultation currently going on in Scotland about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and if so whether such marriages may take place in a religious setting or officiated over by religious bodies or whether they should be possible only without religious intervention. I'm not 'religious' in any way myself, but some people are and for them it is important. On the other hand I think it reasonable that particular religious bodies should not be obliged to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies if they do not wish to and I cannot imagine why any same-sex couple would wish to be married in circumstances where those conducting it objected to doing so, but that does not mean that religious bodies should have any kind of veto over allowing civil same-sex marriages. Tolerance needs to work both ways - and neither Scotland nor the UK generally are theocratic states, but secular democracies, even if we have the bizarre system of having 'established' churches.

Anyway, I came across this powerful video-clip today which, although obviously put together by a young American boy, is a very powerful testament to the types of consequences which can flow from the hateful beliefs of some religious bodies which they have been spewing forth these past weeks against the possibility of allowing any kind of same-sex marriage here:



(thru Boy Culture - relevant post here.)
- this boy, despite being bullied, taunted and made fun of because of the possibility he is gay and having indulged in 'cutting' and thought about suicide in response to the treatment he has received, has decided he isn't going anywhere. Far too many 'teens (specially male teens and young people) have committed suicide over the years for the same reason - read the statistics about suicide in Scotland.

In Nairn we have a weekly newspaper, published every Tuesday - The Nairnshire Telegraph does not have any online presence, so it is not possible to link to their articles, but one item they carry every week is a sort of 'moral homily' from some religious bloke signing himself 'Sandy Shaw - Nairn Christian Fellowship' and they are usually pretty trite, apart from being poorly written and full of logical non sequiturs. The article this past week was titled 'Marriage' and yes, it was about that old hobby-horse, religious objections to gay marriage. I reproduce the article below so you can read it for yourself, but I will be making a few comments about it further down this article:

The Nairnshire Telepgraph Tuesday, November 29, 2011 - page 6

Now to the fisking of this piece of tosh:

"For centuries, heterosexual marriage has been recognised across cultures as the most successful building block for sound solid society"

- I don't quarrel with the basic premise of this sentence, but the word "heterosexual" is completely superfluous, because it has been the only kind in recent centuries, but in those few countries where same-sex marriage already exists there is absolutely no evidence that this has led to societal breakdown or to heterosexual marriage being in any way diminished in value, one of the postulations put forward without any evidence by those who object to the concept of same-sex marriage. In any case, the modern concept of marriage does not have the deep roots in history which Sandy Shaw would have us believe; it has evolved over the centuries - and this is as true of same-sex as heterosexual marriage. Read more here.

"Marriage recognises and acknowledges the uniqueness of the complimentary genders of male and female, and their ability to produce children."

- I do not wish to be unnecessarily rude to ignorant fools like Sandy Shaw, but he really does need to learn the difference between "complimentary" and "complementary", the latter being the word he should have used. His statement, with that correction, seems at fist glance to be not completely nonsensical, but then of course we come to the not enormously rare number of cases where marriage partners (a man and a woman, just to be clear) do not have children, either through the incapacity of one or other or both to procreate or because one or the other or both does not desire to have children. It almost seems as if Sandy Shaw is implying that marriages without children are not valid marriages - I expect he would deny this interpretation hotly, but it is certainly a logical interpretation of what he has written.

His next sentence: "Jesus Christ honoured marriage and put his imprimatur upon this holy institution" is a matter of belief without any concrete historical evidence, but in modern cultures (including that of the UK) civil marriage is just as valid and legal as marriage under religious auspices and indeed in many countries (for example France and the Netherlands, of which I have personal knowledge) it is the civil ceremony which is required by law to make a marriage legal, with a religious ceremony following on only for those who wish to have one, but has absolutely no status under civil law.

"When people have asked if marriage will make any difference, where a couple are living together, one response has been, "It will make it right"." and "This move to redefine marriage marriage is far more serious than many realise"."

In his first sentence I wonder of Mr Shaw has thought through the implications of what he has written. It has been held, or I always thought it had been, that for a [heterosexual] couple to 'live together', specially if they procreate and have children, that such a couple is 'living in sin' from a Christian perspective. But as Mr Shaw must know, just as much has me, this has become an increasingly common occurrence in recent decades, whatever he or I may think about this, so to 'correct the matter' by formalising the relationship must surely be a 'good thing' in his terms? Of course one response has been that "It will make it right", but there may be other responses. Then he proceeds with his logical non sequitur in the second sentence, because the earlier sentence could apply equally to hetero-sexual marriage as to same-sex marriage. But why is it "far more serious"? Sandy Shaw makes that statement, but then of course blunders on with his article without providing any information to justify it.

"It has been suggested that Government has no right to redefine marriage. To do so would be acting ultra vires - acting beyond their powers and authority."

Well, many things have "been suggested", but it doesn't necessarily make it so and of course Mr Shaw provides no evidence to back up his statement, because of course there is none. The Government, provided it can get a Bill passed through Parliament (whether at Westminster or at Holyrood in the case of Scotland) and get the resulting Act signed into law by Her Majesty the Queen (which She does automatically, by convention, when Parliament passes Bills), can make whatever laws it chooses, with the only sanction being that a subsequent Government, after an election, might reverse or nullify that law. Those are the facts, Mr Shaw, so to "suggest" the Government "has no right" to redefine marriage or anything else is just idiotic. I could suggest the Earth is flat all I like, or that the Earth was created a mere six thousand years ago, but apart from in my own little fantasy world no-one else would have any obligation to take me seriously. Of course in Sandy Shaw's special 'fantasy world', merely making the suggestion makes it a fact, as he then goes on to talking about it being "ultra vires", as if his cod misuse of Latin makes his contention any more believable, or valid.

"If Government is so rash as to define marriage, then that is what will be taught in schools, and will be upheld by other public bodies, and woe betide anyone daring to be controversial or intolerant, by simply holding to the traditional biblical pattern.

Fair enough, Sandy Shaw may assert that such a change would be "rash", but of course he provides no evidence to back up the assertion. It used to be held that marriage between members of different races was somehow "wrong" - there was even a word for it "miscegenation", just like it used to be believed in some places that children of different races should attend different schools, or that people of different races should use different beaches or sit in different parts of buses. So, Mr Shaw, please provide some evidence to back up your assertion, but please don't peddle your bigotry and petty prejudices as having some kind of objective validity. As for "... holding to the traditional biblical pattern", well I hate to be the one to have to point this out to the delusiuonal Mr Shaw, but neither Scotland nor the rest of the UK are theocracies - people like Mr Shaw are free to believe whatever nonsense they wish, but until a theocracy is established in this country, his view on this matter is no more 'valid' than my 'belief' that green wine gums are somehow 'better' than orange ones, but I expect some others think the opposite, or that yellow ones are the best. It's a matter of opinion, nothing more.

"Take this one stage further. If marriage is legally redefined in this one area, why not polygamy."

Oh, I accept it could happen, but do not think it terribly likely - and indeed polygamy has existed at different times and in different cultures throughout human history. Really, Sandy Shaw is 'clutching at straws', or 'dredging the barrel' with this tired argument (and I apologise for my use of cliches, but I find it difficult to take people like Mr Shaw seriously).

I'm nearly reaching the end of this yawn-fest. His penultimate and before penultimate paragraphs are so logically chaotic that I think I will leave them to stand in their sublime meaninglessness, but his final sentence:

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."

is presumably his basic contention that "the country is going to the dogs" by considering a change to permit same-sex marriage, but as with the rest of his assertions he provides no corroborating evidence. People like Mr Shaw said similar things when buses were desegregated in the US South, or when women were campaigning for voting rights in the early part of the 20th century in the UK. Societies evolve. It is no longer considered 'sinful' to have clothes made of mixed threads or to eat shellfish or to eat milk and meat together, all things which are in his Christian Bible.

I usually glance at Mr Shaw's 'homilies' each week when I am in Nairn; they are all of a type - prejudice masquerading as 'morality'. His subject the week before was "Money", but I shall spare myself the penance of de-constructing that article and any readers the tedium of reading about it.

I hope the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') will, after its consultative programme, get with the 21st century and pass the Bill into law to allow same-sex civil marriage and permit those churches that wish to permit adherents to use their premises or personnel for this purpose to do so.

Taking heed of media pundits' opinions on any topic at all is a dodgy practice

I've held the view for quite a few years that paying too much atention to "media pundits" (amongst others journalists, comedians, television presenters, etc) when they expound on matters well-beyond their chosen method of earning a living or 'supposed expertise' is an unwise course of action. Indeed I've occasionally written about this phenomenon in my blog.

Today in The Sunday Telegraph, the affable Terry Wogan serves up his views on this very topic, so on the surface I should not have too much to quibble at, were it not for the irony that Terry Wogan is himself a 'much-loved' (by many, if the tabloid press and televised media is a guide) media-pundit expressing his views [or more accurately 'prejudices'] on topics which those outside his family and friends have no obligation to take any notice of, unless they stand up to intellectual rigour - which in this case I don't think they do. Today the object of his criticism (if one may dignify his naked polemic with that word) is his fellow generally equally-affable media-pundit Stephen Fry. Wogan is rather oblique in what is in reality a feeble side-swipe at the opinions expressed by Fry on the merits of Pope Benedict XVI being invited to perform a 'State Visit' to this country:

"Try telling that to Stephen Fry, who, this week, has joined a multi-skilled band of protestors to object to the Pope's visit being treated as a State occasion. Fry's opinions on anything and everything are positively revered, in a way that those of, say, Michael Winner, never can be."

Now, apart from the fact that Wogan offers no basis for his dismissal of the views of Fry other than that he thinks they are not worthy of attention, I'm not sure I agree with dear Terry on his analysis of the relative levels of influence accorded to the views of Fry or Winner, or indeed those of Wogan himself. I disagree with some of the opinions expressed by Fry of course, but Wogan's not-so-subtle attempt to belittle the highly-justified criticism of the 'State Visit' granted to the leader of what is merely a religious cult [the Roman Catholic Church currently led by Pope Benedict XVI] expressed by many people (me included) as being the mere parrotting of opinions formed by 'media-pundits' such as Fry is laughable, any more than those who may take a contrary view might like to be told by a smug media-pundit such as Wogan that their views have been influenced by what he writes - although of course I hesitate to surmise how anyone else's opinions are formed.

My final question on Terry Wogan's article is this: Why doesn't he come out and say what he really thinks, rather than trying to couch his criticism of the opinions advanced by Stephen Fry in such 'mealy-mouthed' terms? Frankly his seeming blandness does not fool me or I suspect anyone else.

To be clear, I have no idea what Wogan thinks about 'homosexuality', nor do I accuse him of thinking any specifically 'negative' thoughts about that topic in general. However, as a mere 'media-pundit' himself I don't think his views merit any more attention than those of Stephen Fry (or Christina Odone or Richard Dawkins, to mention just two), except that he is of course free to express his views as an indiviual, just as I am, but they have no other special validity.

Protest The Pope - Day 2

Another excellent article in the series from the Made in Scotland blog here, to mark the second day of the 'State Visit' of Pope Benedict XVI to the UK.

Need a reason to protest the Pope - aside from the child-abuse excuse?

Reason #3 - he actively promotes discrimination, seeing homosexuality as "an intrinsic moral evil".

Read more here.

Protest The Pope - Day 1

Another excellent article from the Made in Scotland blog here, to mark the first day of the 'State Visit' of Pope Benedict XVI to the UK.

Need a reason to protest the Pope?


Reason #2 - he spreads HIV/AIDS.

Read the rest here.

Protest the Pope - the day before

(Please see the UPDATE at the end of this article)

Ever since this blog began in April 2002 (the article
THE VATICAN RESPONSE TO PRIESTLY PAEDOPHILIA appeared here on 29 April 2002 and an earlier article The Sickness at the Heart of the Catholic Church appeared on 20 March 2002 in the comment area of my main website, before I began this blog), I have been writing about the scandal of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church and the efforts of the Church hierarchy to cover-up the criminal behaviour of a very significant number of its paid agents (priest and other clerics) in many of the countries in which this 'cult' operates. The Church protests that it has now changed its ways and perhaps it has, to a very limited extent, but if so this change is solely the result of the draconian financial penalties that have been imposed upon it by the civil authorities in particular in the US. But I remain to be convinced that the ethos of the Church has changed fundamentally whenever it thinks it can 'get away with it'. The Roman Catholic Church remains basically an international criminal conspiracy in my view.

Of course paedophilia is only one of the Roman Catholic Church's faults (far too mild a word of course); amongst a litany of evil doctrines, high in the list of 'also-rans' must come the Church's policy of forbidding contraception, even in countries where the transmission of HIV/AIDS is endemic, or of forbidding abortion even in the case of rape (child or adult). It is totally sickening. The leader of this sick institution, Pope Benedict XVI, begins a State Visit to the UK tomorrow so as a Head of State he will be afforded much more respect and consideration than he has any right to expect or deserve. Why was he ever invited?

To commemorate this shameful episode, I am reproducing the whole article which appears today in the blog Made in Scotland; he lives in London so will perhaps be able to attend the 'Protest the Pope' demonstration and march there on Saturday 18 March 2010, but even though I cannot do so I am with the protesters in spirit:

QUOTE

Pope Benedict XVI begins his four-day Papal state visit to the UK tomorrow.

Need a reason to protest the Pope?

Reason #1 - the international criminal conspiracy to cover up for mass child rape.

From Saturday's Guardian.

The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuses by Geoffrey Robertson (Terry Eagleton welcomes a coolly devastating inquiry into the Vatican's handling of child abuse) The first child sex scandal in the Catholic church took place in AD153, long before there was a "gay culture" or Jewish journalists for bishops to blame it on. By the 1960s, the problem had become so dire that a cleric responsible for the care of "erring" priests wrote to the Vatican suggesting that it acquire a Caribbean island to put them on. What has made a bad situation worse, as the eminent QC Geoffrey Robertson argues in this coolly devastating inquiry, is canon law – the church's own arcane, highly secretive legal system, which deals with alleged child abusers in a dismayingly mild manner rather than handing them over to the police. Its "penalties" for raping children include such draconian measures as warnings, rebukes, extra prayers, counselling and a few months on retreat. It is even possible to interpret canon law as claiming that a valid defence for paedophile offences is paedophilia. Since child abusers are supposedly incapable of controlling their sexual urges, this can be used in their defence. It is rather like pleading not guilty to stealing from Tesco's on the grounds that one is a shoplifter. One blindingly simple reason for the huge amount of child abuse in the Catholic church (on one estimate, up to 9% of clerics are implicated) is that the perpetrators know they will almost certainly get away with it. For almost a quarter of a century, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the man who is now Pope, was in supreme command of this parallel system of justice – a system deliberately hidden from the public, police and parliaments and run, so Robertson maintains, in defiance of international law. Those who imagine that the Vatican has recently agreed to cooperate with the police, he points out, have simply fallen for one of its cynical public relations exercises. In the so-called "New Norms" published by Pope Benedict this year, there is still no instruction to report suspected offenders to the civil authorities, and attempting to ordain a woman is deemed to be as serious an offence as sodomising a child. There have, however, been some changes: victims of child abuse are now allowed to report the matter up to the age of 38 rather than 28. If you happen to be 39, that's just tough luck. As Robertson wryly comments, Jesus declares that child molesters deserve to be drowned in the depths of the sea, not hidden in the depths of the Holy See. How can Ratzinger get away with it? One mightily important reason, examined in detail in this book, is because he is supposedly a head of state. The Vatican describes itself on its website as an "absolute monarchy", which means that the Pope is immune from being sued or prosecuted. It also means that as the only body in the world with "non-member state" status at the UN, the Catholic church has a global platform for pursuing its goals of diminishing women, demonising homosexuals, obstructing the use of condoms to prevent Aids and refusing to allow abortion even to save the life of the mother. For these purposes, it is sometimes to be found in unholy alliance with states such as Libya and Iran. Neither is it slow to use veiled threats of excommunication to bend Catholic politicians throughout the world to its will. If Pope Benedict were to air some of his troglodytic views with full public force, Robertson suggests, the Home Office would have been forced to refuse him entry into Britain. In fact, he argues, the Vatican's claim to statehood is bogus. It dates from a treaty established between Mussolini and the Holy See, which Robertson believes has no basis in international law. The Vatican has no permanent population, which is a legal requirement of being a state. In fact, since almost all its inhabitants are celibate, it cannot propagate citizens at all other than by unfortunate accident. It is not really a territory, has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in its precincts and depends for all its essential services on the neighbouring nation of Italy. Nor does it field a team in the World Cup, surely the most convincing sign of its phoniness. "Petty gossip" is how the Pope has described irrefutable evidence of serious crimes. His time as the Vatican official in charge of overseeing priestly discipline was the period when, in Robertson's furiously eloquent words, "tens of thousands of children were bewitched, buggered and bewildered by Catholic priests whilst [Ratzinger's] attention was fixated on 'evil' homosexuals, sinful divorcees, deviate liberation theologians, planners of families and wearers of condoms". Can he be brought to book for this? As a widespread and systematic practice, clerical sexual abuse could be considered a crime against humanity, such crimes not being confined to times of war; and though Ratzinger may claim immunity as a head of state, he is also a German citizen. The book comes to no firm conclusion here, but the possibility of convicting the supreme pontiff of aiding and abetting the international crime of systemic child abuse seems not out of the question. The Vatican, in any case, is unlikely to escape such a fate by arguing, as it has done already, that the relations between the Pope and his bishops are of such unfathomable theological complexity that no mere human court could ever hope to grasp them. This is a book that combines moral passion with steely forensic precision, enlivened with the odd flash of dry wit. With admirable judiciousness, it even finds it in its heart to praise the charitable work of the Catholic church, as well as reminding us that paedophiles (whom Robertson has defended in court) can be kindly men. It is one of the most formidable demolition jobs one could imagine on a man who has done more to discredit the cause of religion than Rasputin and Pat Robertson put together.

UNQUOTE

UPDATE (Friday 17SEP2010 16.45 BST) Commenter James Higham below has, subsequent to his somewhat ironic and 'smiling' comment here, written a very cowardly article in which he refers to me in the most unpleasant terms - because I believe in being open and honest in what I write and believe - unlike the weasel James Higham - I am linking to his article so that anyone inclined may read his rancid thoughts, although my own view is that two-faced bigots like Mr Higham deserve scant attention.

Betty Bowers on "A Bible-based Marriage"

Very amusing, although shocking - but completely based upon Bible quotations. Hypocrisy ain't quite strong enough a word for some Christians' interpretation of their 'Holy Book'. The kicker is of course at the very end of the video-clip:

New York and its Islamic Center ('mosque') controversy

Amidst all the nonsense I've been hearing from the US about whether a 'mosque' should be permitted at 'Ground Zero' or not, it is a profound relief to have someone like Keith Olbermann come out and say clearly (and as usual quite loudly - that man should watch his blood pressure!) that the US should be a defender of freedom, not its oppressor. Mind you, I've been railing for years about the US's recourse to what most civilised people consider to be 'torture' and 'extra-judicial incarceration' in its response to events since '9/11', a stain upon American deomocracy that will take many years and probably decades to erase. To be clear, the so-called 'mosque' is not a mosque at all, but a multi-purpose cultural centre and although it will have a prayer room it will also have sports facilities, nor is it 'at Ground Zero', but several city blocks away and will not be visible from the old World Trade Center site. Anyway, watch this subject being aired in Keith Olbermann's unique style; incidentally he points out that a small Islamic Center has been operating nearer to 'Ground Zero' without incident since 1970, before the World Trade Center was even built:



(thru Chicken Yoghurt)

Belgian authorities raid meeting of Catholic Bishops

The Vatican has made an official complaint about a raid carried out last Thursday by Belgian police on a meeting of Catholic Bishops there in connection with allegations of paedophilia by priests.

According to the Brussels prosecutor the raid followed a string of accusations "denouncing abuse of minors committed by a certain number of Church figures". Justice Minister Stefaan De Clerck [...] defended the raid in television interviews on Sunday, describing the Vatican's reaction as "a bit excessive" and based on false information, adding: "We must not turn this into a diplomatic incident. The bishops were treated completely normally... and it is false to say that they received no food or drink".

According to the linked report, police confiscated phones, computers and the archdiocese's accounting system in a search for documents including any correspondence between alleged victims and the Catholic authorities. It is also reported that Italy's Corriere della Sera said Belgian authorities acted out of frustration with the Church, which under a 1990s agreement was supposed to refer abuse cases to prosecutors to pursue. (my emphasis - Ed).

In a letter written by the Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, and released by the Vatican, he wrote, inter alia:

"I have myself repeated numerous times that these serious facts must be dealt with by civil law and by canon law, in reciprocal respect of the specificity and autonomy of each."

With the deepest and most sincere respect to Il Papa and with no intention to offend any of the followers of the Roman Catholic religion, I am obliged to state plainly that I find this statement deplorable, shocking and completely unacceptable. I would imagine that within the territory of Belgium, just as we do in the United Kingdom, that the supreme law is considered to be that of Belgium and that any implication that 'Canon Law' has an autonomous, equal status with national law is roundly, and rightly, rejected. It is high time that the Catholic Church realised that it is no longer going to be allowed to get away with its traditional tactics of denial and when that no longer works, delaying tactics. It has to accept that civil law in the countries where it operates is supreme and show that it is complying fully and without reservation. Then, perhaps unfortunate and embarrassing, but necessary, incidents such as the raid in Belgium last Thursday will no longer be required.

"You May Now Kiss The Groom"

The gentleman in the centre of the composition below will be visiting Britain later this year on what is, in this instance deplorably, called a "State Visit", as he is 'Head of State' of the Catholic enclave in Rome known as the Vatican City State - not some ancient entity as might be imagined, but a political development dating from as recently as 1929 - you can read more about the origins of what can best be described as an 'historical anomaly', not to mention an historic outrage, here. The practical effect of this designation for the visit of the current 'chieftain' of the Roman Catholic 'tribe' is that much of it will be paid for by British taxpayers, whether they are followers of the Roman Catholic 'sky fairy' religion or not, as the bulk of the cost of the visit of a Head of State is normally paid for by the host country.

The official stance of the Roman Catholic Church is that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered". I'd like to throw this back at the Roman Catholic Church - it is genuinely "intrinsically disordered"; it is an organisation which enforces celibacy on its paid officials (of both sexes), but which nevertheless actively covered up the sexual deviancy of a large number of said paid officials in many countries over several DECADES, until forced by legal threats and financial sanctions by the civil legal authorities in a number of countries to begin to admit its wrongdoing and mend its ways.


A painting created by
Kevin Sharkey,Allesadro Tesei and Amo 2010
@ 80 Francis Street Dublin 8

Maybe one day the Holy Father, or a successor, will repent of his evil ways and officiate at a same-sex marriage, in acceptance of the fact that love can conquer all. I'm not holding my breath though!

Finally, unlike some, I attribute my sources - here and here.

The Pope's UK visit and the Foreign Office 'apology'

This story is undoubtedly an embarrassment for the British 'do no evil'(*) Labour government. The whole point of 'brain-storming' sessions is that ANY and EVERY idea may be aired, however bizarre it might be. But in normal groups (and certainly in most private companies that I am aware of) the ones that are completely off-the-wall are briefly discussed and then dismissed and forgotten about - they certainly don't appear in the minutes of such meetings! Evidently in the public sector, which we all pay for through our taxes, things are different; no-one seems to stop and think what they are doing and what they are trying to achieve. 'Evaluation' did not seem to form any part of this particular Foreign office exercise in 'diplomacy'.

Now that is my assessment of this deplorable lapse from a management point of view. It is yet one more sign of how useless Labour is at managing anything, let alone planning for the visit of what is technically the Head of State of a foreign 'country'.

Having written all this though, I do find it difficult in this particular instance to become too exercised about the Foreign Office lapse. The Catholic Church has become an increasiingly ridiculous organisation in recent years; it preaches certain moral codes to its adherents and to the world generally, then proceeds to cover-up for the criminal behaviour of its 'paid agents' (i.e. priests) in many of the countries of the world where it operates; it is only the vociferous action taken in many countries to expose the 'paedophile' behaviour of priests by victims and the civil authorities that has forced the Church, finally, to begin to address the cancer at its heart. That action, in the case of the US, backed up by justifiedly swingeing financial penalties. The Church is, when it comes to the essentials, as interested as any other party in protecting its 'patrimony' and the financial costs of allowing its miscreant behaviour to continue have had to be made too severe for it to contemplate allowing them to be perpetuated - as it had tried, for decades, to do.

A number of the suggestions in the Foreign Office document, whilst completely unacceptable in the context of a Papal visit, neatly highlight the contraditions and just plain 'wrongness' of a number of the policy stances of the Roman Catholic church:
- celibacy for its 'paid agents' (aka priests), with no outlet for the sexual urges of some of these people. There may well be many priests (and nuns) who are capable of channelling these desires into their lives of devotion to their faith, but it seems than more than a few have failed to live up to the standards expected, over decades and probably centuries, although we will probably never know about cases beyond living memory in the majority of cases;
- suggesting a 'Benedict' brand of condoms is quite funny, but it neatly highlights the monstrous banning by the Church of abortions or birth control methods, including condoms, even in cases of rape or to aid in the prevention of disease transmission. Truly evil policies.

As for suggesting that Pope Benedict should be invited to bless some civil partnerships during his visit, well this is just ridiculous of course, but it does again highlight just how out of touch the policy of the Church is. The suggestion was of course particularly offensive, and presumably designed to be so ('as a joke'), but of course the Church's policies on matters relating to homosexuality are not only outdated, but singularly offensive to millions of British and other gay and lesbian citizems of various countries, including me.

To summarise my whole attitude toward the forthcoming Papal visit, conditions should be arranged such that this visit may occur without undue incident and for those who wish to take part in the various gatherings that will be organised during his visit to do so in safety. So far as I am concerned that is the extent of the government's responsiblity. I certainly do not want our government to acquiesce in deed or word to any of the Catholic Church's teachings which offend against our laws and I do not want it to remain silent should the Pontiff criticise our laws whilst he is actually on British soil; he will be an 'honoured' guest here, but that gives him no special right to intervene in our domestic affairs - we certainly would not tolerate any other foreign Head of State (i.e. American or French, to take two random examples) making negative comments about our laws whilst on a visit here and I don't think an exception should be made for the Pope. The government's first responsibility is to its own citizens (including of course those who adhere to this particular faith, provided such adherence does not offend agasinst the legal rights of other citizens). If the Pope behaves himself whilst here, then he should of course be treated with courtesy, but certainly under no circumstance with 'adulation' at an official level and he should be told firmly that any criticism he makes of our domestic laws whilst he is here will not be tolerated. Any adulation that may be shown should be limited to fellow-adherents of his faith.

There is an excellent French saying which neatly encapsulates my attitude toward this Papal visit: "Faites comme si vous êtes chez vous, mais n'oubliez pas que vous êtes chez moi." ("Treat this country as if if were your own home when here, but don't forget you are [in fact] in my home.")

(*) - irony alert.

Über-"sky-fairy" enforcer Pope Benedict may be invited onto R4 'Thought for the day'

In terms of the 'logic' of the BBC this is probably not unexpected. It is a programme I usually listen to, because I have BBC Radio4 on in the morning when I'm still in bed, although the alarm clock is actually set to Radio3 when it 'goes off' in the morning and I switch to Radio4 a little later. It has always struck me as bizarre, however, that it seems to be implied by the BBC's resourcing policies that only persons who believe in 'sky-fairies' are considered eligible to take part. Don't people who are 'humanists' or 'atheists' have useful things to say? I hope we're not potentially going to be subjected to this horrible old bigot simply because the Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson, is an adherent of this particular brand of 'sky-fairyism'.

The Pope tries to justify his support for inequality ...

Such false words from the holder of what is supposed to be one of the world's great religious organisarions in support of policies designed to marginalise whole sections of the community:

"Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. "Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. "In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

- the temerity of this odious creature in professing to be a 'Christian' appals me. I suspect strongly that 'the Son of God' (if you believe in this particular 'sky fairy' myth, which I don't) would have folks like the present Pontiff slung out of the temple if He came back amongst us.

As anyone who reads my blog knows I am not exactly a supporter of our present Government, but I acknowledge readily it is they who have brought more equality to the LGBT community than any other in our history.

The Pontiff tried the same kind of pretty crude pre-election progaganda in Spain early in 2008 prior to the last General Election there, to express his [tediously predictable] opposition to the marriage law brought in to allow gays and lesbians to marry by the present ruling Party a few years ago. Needless to say even a staunchly Catholic country such as Spain traditionally is, wisely chose to ignore the views of this dreadful old bigot when it came time to vote.

I certainly don't want my taxes used to pay for this visit!

Iris Robinson - says it all really!

PS/ Personally it bothers me not in the least that Iris Robinson had an affair with a young man 40 years her junior; both were adults and NO laws were broken in this regard. Good luck to both of them. On the other hand the lady is an unmitigated hypocrite because her own personal beliefs certainly would not condone her 'adultery'. As for the rest, her homophobia, well her personal beliefs are hers and she has the right to hold them - except that her being a legislator (as an MP and an MLA) does concern me a great deal. Then there's her financial probity, or more correctly her lack of it - that I do take GREAT exception to.

Hope she gets better soon ... then she can serve her prison sentence, which is certainly something she deserves.

Iris Robinson and the NI political fallout

I had begun to prepare a lengthy article about the recent 'revelations' relating to Iris Robinson, MP MLA and her financial and personal arrangements several days ago. However, I have decided to hold that article in abeyance for the present.

Basically, and not to put to fine a point on it, even though I have no religious faith and certainly do not consider myself a 'Christian', whatever else I may be, I prefer to show more sensitivity and understanding at this difficult personal juncture for Iris Robinson and her husband Peter, currently First Minister of Northern Ireland, than she and some of her co-religionists have shown toward the 'gay community' of which I am a part. I have grown quite tired of hearing over the years the excuses of and for religiously-motivated bigots such as Iris Robinson toward homosexuals and others whom she considers morally deviant, and she is merely the latest in a lengthening number of such people whose own moral failings, according to their own standards, both in the UK and in the US, have been brought by their own behaviour into the public domain, not to mention in this case her own apparent flouting of the law in regard to matters of financial probity.

However, because I do have some human decency, unlike these odious hypocrites, I am not going to write more at this time. I hope very sincerely that the psychiatric treatment that Iris Robinson is said to be undergoing at this time has positive results for her and that she will recover her mental stability in the course of time.

If there are major constitutional developments in Northern Ireland flowing from this in coming days/weeks as seems at present to be a distinct possibility then I will obviously have to write about it, but will endeavour to do so in as sensitive a manner as I can - because I am a decent person, unlike Iris Robinson and those who think like her.

What did they do wrong?

I must confess to being startled when I first heard that Gordon Brown and David Cameron had felt it necessary to apologise for visiting the Field of Remembrance on Armistice Day. What exactly has either man done that is wrong?

It all seems to boil down to the fact that a) they didn't ask prior permission of the Westminster Abbey authorities (although David Cameron said this morning on the Andrew Marr show that he had, but only on the day at the last minute) and that b) they both used it as a 'photo opportunity'.

I don't wish to be rude (be honest, you do - Ed.), but I really do think the Westminster Abbey authorities need to get over themselves! The Church of England is the 'established' Church and by virtue of that status receives a lot of benefits, both material and in terms of the influence it wields (and that's the right word in this context!), far beyond what its current levels of membership nationally justify. Like all churches (as charities), it receives significant tax breaks. As for the photographers, well I think there may be a slight case to answer, but only a minor one. Does anyone really think it is credible that either Brown or Cameron coould have carried out a low-profile visit to such a nationally-symbolic spot, specially if they had already arranged it as a major feature with the Westminster Abbey authorities?

It is really sad to me that this non-story has been talked-up by the Westminster Abbey authorities, naturally enough gleefully taken up by the ever-hungry 24-hour media machine. Brown and Cameron have obviously been left with no choice but to apologise, because it would be political madness for either man to do anything else, given the media-driven and changing (i.e. fickle and easily-manipulated) public opinion that we all have to live with. However in my view neither man had anything to apoligise for - I'd have been far more upset if they had simply toddled off and not bothered to visit the Field of Remembrance.

PS/ It perhaps needs to be said that if this so-called 'gaffe' had been made by Gordon Brown alone and not by David Cameron as well, I would still have formed the view of the kerfuffle that I have; I don't care for Brown at all (that's no secret), but fair is fair.