Gay Marriage, Atheist Marriage and the Church. Sunday, Mar 4 2012

Once again a celebate man in a dress tries to tell the world we have to believe his mythology

From the BBC today

The government’s plans for gay marriage have been criticised by the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in Britain.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the plans were a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

He said the idea of redefining marriage, which David Cameron has said he supports, would “shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world”.

Full article here

Dr John Sentamu, Arch-Bishop of York said similar on the 1st Feb.  They are, of course, both wrong.

Oddly they both say they agree with Civil Partnerships for the gay community.  Do they know the legal difference between a Civil Marriage and a Civil Partnership? It is Absolutely Nothing (apart from the second word).  Both partners have EXACTLY the same rights as people in a marriage. Legally they can’t be called ‘marriages’, but everyone does – ‘civil partnershipped’ is such an awkward phrase.

At this point I’d like to give a belated ‘Congratulations’ to Suzie, a friend of mine, who proposed to her girlfriend on Christmas day- two years to go and I’m already looking for a new suit!  Here’s the thing.  They haven’t been going to civil partnership fairs, they haven’t been looking at civil partnership dresses, nor trying to find an affordable civil partnership photographer.  Guess which word is used instead?  It turns out they are the same events as straight people go to.

I asked the LGBT rep at work how the gay community felt about the legality of the word ‘Marriage’.  She said while they would prefer the word ‘Marriage’, it is the only difference, and the Gay community have better things to try spend their time on.

So what the clergy are arguing about is a word.  They want it to keep it associated with religeon.  Orwell pointed out in ’1984′ if you control language you control the way people think.  They seem to want to redefine the history of marriage.

Modern marriage in the UK is a reletively recent phenomenon – the law was tightened up in 1753, mainly to stop disputes about who was actually married to who. Before then it wasn’t uncommon for a couple to just live as married, often after a short informal ceremony along the lines of ‘Oh well, if you really must’, though with no legal rights, and every one in the village knew they were ‘married’. (Today’s fact, many of these informal marriages were ‘solemnised ‘ by the couple jumping over a broom, hence the phrase ‘living over the broom’ for an unmarried couple living together.)  Sometimes a ‘wandering priest’ would give a blessing, though this still had no legal validity. Basically the law of 1753 said “You have to tell everyone in advance what you are going to do, where you intend to do it (in case of objection) and sign a legal document to say you have done it.”  It was less about religion, and more about record keeping.  Every village had a church, so the bureaucracy was already in place.

Which brings me on to Civil Marriage.  In the UK a civil marriage ceremony may make NO reference to religeon (one couple were told they couldn’t have ‘Angels’ by Robbie Williams playing at the ceremony).  If two atheists who can’t have children get married it is still ‘a marriage’, not a ‘civil partnership’.  The Church knows that the boat sailed long ago on that one, and don’t object.

So exactly what ‘values’ is calling it Civil Marriage, rather than a Civil Partnership undermining?  It can’t be religeon – there is no religeous test for marriage.  It can’t be parenthood, there is no requirement married couples have children.

So, Cardinal, how is gay marriage a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.  Exactly how are you being subverted?  If it is a “universally accepted human right”, then how is denying it to gays making it a “universally accepted human right”?

Or is the clue in the word “grotesque”?  Could it be that O’Brien (who was against civil partnerships) and Sentamu find the whole ‘gay thing’ just a bit icky?

One Response »

 

Dear Ireland Monday, Jul 13 2009

From Ireland’s new ‘blasphemy law’

Section 36

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

As Les notes at StupidEvilBastard.com, this part of the bill makes it illegal to criticize any religion either verbally or in writing.

SO. Here goes.

There is no evidence of any god, Abrahmic or otherwise.

There is no evidence that anything in Genesis is true.

There is no evidence, indeed no reference outside of the Bible, of Jesus Son of god.  There may have well been a wandering rabbi/heretic called Jesus, but the Romans never mention him.  Don’t quote Pliny and Josephus, they talk about ChristIANS- it’s like says seeing Tom Cruise in a movie proves Scientology is correct.

You may be interested to know I have seen it argued that ‘Jesus’ was a name of a number of Jews, and had no special connotation- this is why Pilate is so careful with asking the crowd who to release, maybe Barabbas’ name was also Jesus (Bar Abbas=son of Abbas).

Whatever the truth of 2000 years ago, that cracker and wine certainly doesn’t turn into his flesh and blood.

Denying contraception on the basis of religious texts from thousands of years ago is evil,  using them isn’t.

Ditto “Teh gays”.

While I’m about it.

There almost certainly is no god (see above re lack of evidence), not even Allah.  Ergo Muhammed was not his prophet. (Cos there is no prophet Atheism; boom-boom. I’m here all week).

And Wiccans- No, you are not a Witch of any sort, black, white or spangly (A “Do what?” possibly, but not a witch). There is no Earth spirit.

MOST IMPORTANTLY.

It is wrong to hate someone because of a belief in something that isn’t your belief. 

Now as an atheist I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own home or place of worship.  However

1. Don’t expect me to fund it through taxation.
2. Don’t expect me to agree with you, and if I spot a flaw in your religeous arguement dont expect me to gloss over it if you rely on that flaw.
3. Don’t assume that you get extra rights because of your belief. (well ok- in Ireland you do, but don’t expect me to agree with that).
4. Don’t expect me to be quiet if you want it taught as ‘Scientific Fact’ in schools.
5. or indeed want your private beliefs to be considered more protected than my private beliefs

See, depite what you may think there is no such thing as a Militant Atheist- Not even Richard Dawkins.  We don’t go around pushing newspapers through doors asking “Have you heard the Good News about Science?”.  We don’t stand in town squares reading bits out of ‘Origin of Species’, or complaining when science shows that something we believe in isn’t true.

I’ll admit I was put out when Pluto was declared ‘not a planet’, but that is emotional attachment to a world view that proved to be wrong.  Einstein felt the same way when Nils Bohr showed some of Einstein’s theories to be wrong. But it is just that- emotional attachment to a childhood. I’m never going to go there, and classification is an artificial Human construct. I am certainly not going to support a crusade or jihad demanding it be re-instated as a planet.

Now Ireland; I’ll admit the fact the Irish Sea is between you and me has made me a bit braver in posting this: I’m assuming you won’t go for the whole extradited thing via the EU (though I must say that is actually worrying me a little).  But what are you going to do if the University of Dublin comes up with a bit of research that proves something that offends your Catholic mindset?  Declare Science blasphemous and demand your fine?

8 Responses »

 

Worlds Worst definition of ‘Mixed Marriage’ Tuesday, May 26 2009

Those who know Scottish football know that [Glasgow] Rangers is a Protestant club, and [Glasgow] Celtic is a Catholic club, and this is part of their fierce rivalry.  I’ll let you absorb that.  The SPORTS club you follow depends on which particular interpretation you put on the SAME MYTHS.

Now consider the story of Kevin McDaid, the man in Northern Ireland apparently beaten to death in a sectarian attack by Rangers supporters after the team won the League over Celtic.

He was beaten to death, murdered in a brutal way, because his religeon was identified with the opposing club.  Not because he was a Celtic Fan.  Not because he was a Catholic. No, it was because his religeon was identified with the opposing team from a different country.  The man didn’t come into it at all.

Sectarian violence: arguing about who is more right when worshiping the same freaking God.

In the immortal words of Les at http://stupidevilbastard.com/ ”What the Fuck is wrong with you people?”

And here is the final twist of the knife.  His wife is Protestant, and so, because this is Ulster, it is described with a perfectly straight face, as a ‘Mixed Marriage’.

Oh for fucks sake Christians. Grow up.

3 Responses »

 

Not an Atheist Sunday, May 3 2009

I don’t like calling myself an atheist. Atheism has the idea of rejection behind it, and I do not think too many atheists actually REJECT a god, but rather they do not come to a god in a first place.  We reject the notion of teaching/arguing there is a god, but then we also reject the idea of pixies and pink unicorns running the universe, but no one would ever label themselves as an apixiest or anunicornist.

I’ve decided to use ‘Humanist’ more often- because I know that is one set of Intelligent Designers who CAN change the planet, for good or ill.

4 Responses »

 

God Hates Christians Wednesday, Apr 29 2009

Swine Fever/Pig Flu is close to becoming a pandemic, just 100 days after President Obama took office and started to reverse the lunacy of Bush II, and three US states recognise gay marriage.  So when do we start getting the religious loonies over there saying “IT’S A PUNISHMENT FROM GOD!”. 

Please, Please, PLEASE tell us it is a punishment from God, because I want to get in the queue (hell, I’ll start the queue) to point out Muslims and Jews consider pigs dirty creatures, and they would not have been intensively farming them, unlike CHRISTIAN Mexico, causing this problem.

Oh No- If only Obama REALLY WAS Muslim, and REALLY INTENDED to force you all to become Muslims, maybe you would all be saved by Allah. (Yeah, I know, there are cases in the Middle East now, but hey, when did the Religious Right let the facts stand in the way of a good rant?)

One Response »

 

Islam beats the Pope in “idiotic religeous outview” competition. Tuesday, Apr 14 2009

When the Pope lied about condoms making AIDS worse, he wasn’t personally infecting people- he was right that carriers do have a choice about sex, no matter how blinkered he is on the practicality.

The Taliban will happily pull the trigger because of their pretend sky-fairy.

 

Taleban ‘kill love affair couple’

The Taleban in Afghanistan have publicly killed a young couple who they said had tried to run away to get married, officials say.

 You will note from the BBC article

“Three Taleban mullahs brought them to the local mosque and they passed a fatwa (religious decree) that they must be killed. They were shot and killed in front of the mosque in public,” the governor said.

At least the ex-nazi in a dress hasn’t actively encouraged murdering people.  It is time Islam dragged all of itself kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Bastards.

Leave a Response »

 

To be fair to Catholics, it’s not just them… Monday, Mar 23 2009

… who are still rooted in medieval nonsense,

A group of hard-line Saudi clerics urged the kingdom’s new information minister to ban women from appearing on TV or in newspapers and magazines.

Complete article at AOL

FSM only knows what would happen if they read Jesus and Mo

Leave a Response »

 

Catholic Church still rooted in… Oh, you know how it goes by now! Tuesday, Mar 17 2009

Pope Benedict has said that the distribution of condoms is not the answer in the fight against Aids in Africa.

According to AOL

“You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem,” he told reporters on board a papal flight to Africa, where he is to tour Cameroon and Angola.

Or from the BBC

Speaking en route to Cameroon, he said distribution of condoms “increases the problem”.

Words can not express the jaw-dropping stupidity of these pronouncements.  But then if you are stupid enough to believe birth-control is evil you end up trying the most unbelievable arguments to defend it.

One Response »

 

An Angry Man in Corduroy says it best. Tuesday, Mar 10 2009

After Marcus Brigstocke, what more is there to say?

(Audio from the BBC’s ‘Now Show- Radio 4)

Leave a Response »

 

Elitest Bastard (aka Hussar goes off on one) Tuesday, Mar 10 2009

See that blue button with Richard Dawkins on it?  Click on it (not yet- I haven’t finished ranting at you) and you will go to the Carnival of the Elitist Bastards.  Who?  A bunch of bloggers generally pissed off with everything being so damn stupid.

Why am I proud to be an elitist?  The question should be why are you so unconcerned not to be?

We are people who are just annoyed that there is a movement against intellectualism.  I am sick and tired of being clever being seen as somehow a bad thing.  Someone who can kick, throw or hit a ball gets paid millions of pounds, while those who actually work worry about the recession.

People revel in not being good at maths.It’s seen as something funny.  I know I’m good at day to day maths, but I am amazed how many people don’t understand basic principles.

“How does this affect you?”  you say “why should you care?” Because a dumbed down population affects the economy and the planet.

People who don’t understand basic maths GET TO VOTE, often based on what they think will be best for the economy.  They can’t do percentages, for FSM’s sake, how are they supposed to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of a Keynsian solution?

It is a fact that people, all of us, even Stephen Hawkins, are stupid to one degree or another.   We are very good at ignoring evidence that doesn’t back up our personal beliefs.  Jeremy Clarkson doesn’t like the fact that cars are contributing to destroying the planet. Solution? Insult environmentalists.  Republicans don’t like the fact that Neo-Con ideas have screwed up the market. Call Obama a socialist. The Religious Right don’t like the fact that science shows the Bible isn’t literally true. Solution? Attack anyone who relies on evidence rather than 4000 year old fairy-stories.

And where does it leave us? Click on the break, and I’ll tell you. Forcefully.

4 Responses »

 

Catholic Church still Rooted in nonsense (redux) Sunday, Mar 8 2009

A nine year old is repeatedly abused by her step-father, and becomes pregnant.  When it is discovered she is given an abortion.  I’ll say that again- NINE YEARS OLD.  What is the Vatican’s response? To excommunicate the mother and doctors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7930380.stm

Oh fer fucks sake.  Personally I believe there may be a valid debate to happen around the latest date for a termination.  BUT this happened at 4 months (?18 weeks), inside the limit for many countries.  This is what happens when you wed your world view to a mythology, and one that considers a foetus a human at the point of conception.

There is no happy ending to this story, but the idea that a nine year old could give birth to twins with no ongoing negative effects beggars belief.  Her life is screwed up as it is.  Why is the Pope giving her a kicking?

Leave a Response »

 

Middle East Crisis Sunday, Jan 11 2009

More tit for tat killings, and it is the innocent who suffer, not the ones casuing the violence.  The problem is that Hamas is committed to the destruction of the Israeli state.  A BBC article -  Here 

I am not condoning Israeli actons, indeed the state of Israel was born from terrorism against the British (I used to have a friend who had a hobby of getting thrown out of historical sites by correcting the tour guide’s spin and gloss.  In Israel he pointed out that the ‘two brave Jews’ hanged in a particular prison were there for planting bombs in a British barracks that killed soldiers).  However the reality is Israel is not going to go away, and rocket attacks and suicide bombings are not going to advance the Palestinian cause one jot.

There will never be peace until both sides commit to respect the original borders.  I can not see this happening in the near future, with a mix of Islamic lunacy and militant Zionists setting up ‘settlements’ because ‘God said so’.

1st The US MUST negotiate with terrorists.  Wars end in negotiation.  The British government negotiated with the IRA despite ‘policy’.  Of course it will never be that simple- there is a chance of a democratically agreed united Ireland- there is no chance of ‘no Israel’.

Hamas and other extremists need to agree for an Israel.  In return for that there will have to be massive  investment making sure that ‘New-Palestine’ is a viable country.  I don’t just mean aid, I mean a proper infrastructure.  The reason Hamas is DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED is that it is about the only organisation running schools and hospitals for the Palestinians.

Once attacks on Israel stop the US can use its muscle to force Israel into acting responsibly.

Of course none of this will happen without both sides being willing to compromise.  And while ‘God’ is directing both sides’ land-claims this won’t be anytime soon.

Leave a Response »

 

Catholic Church still rooted in medieval nonsense Part 2 Tuesday, Dec 23 2008

…Because this time it’s personal

The Pope says in his Christmas message that ‘Teh evul Gays’ (This may not be a direct quote) are as big a threat to the world as the destruction of the environment

When the Roman Catholic Church defends God’s Creation, “it does not only defend the earth, water and the air… but (it) also protects man from his own destruction,”

It is not “outmoded metaphysics” to urge respect for the “nature of the human being as man and woman,” he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican’s sumptuous Clementine Hall.

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. It teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are.

from this BBC article.  The problem of course it feels that we need protecting from loving someonewho happens to have the same plumbing as us.  Because if you are looking for understanding about Gay issues, sex and other such topics, then who wouldn’t go to an ex-Nazi who’s been celebate most his life?

2 Responses »

 

The Burgess Shales- Creationists miss the boat. Tuesday, Nov 25 2008

Those who try and argue evolution is a myth, and we were all created use all sorts of arguements, that have been refuted time and again.  Oddly none of their so called “scientists” seem to have latched on to the Burgess shales. 

The Burgess Shales are part of the Rockies in Canada.  The area has a rich mixture of fossils, and much of what we know about the “Cambrian Explosion” has come from them.  What paleontologists haven’t been able to explain is WHY the fossils are so well preserved- it has long been thought that the geological processed should have destroyed them.  Two scientists have put in detailed work and found the answer

High above the tree line in the Rocky mountains of British Columbia, on a ridge running between two jagged peaks, a thin strip of slate grey rock breaks the surface.

To the untrained eye this nondescript seam of sedimentary rock hardly rates a second look, but to palaeontologists, it’s worth its weight in gold. The Burgess Shale contains some of the oldest and best preserved fossils anywhere in the world, and offers a unique insight into the blossoming of marine animal life known as the Cambrian explosion some 500 million years ago.

All the more remarkable because the Burgess Shale really shouldn’t be there. Everything we know about the geophysical processes involved in mountain formation tells us the intense heat and pressure generated as the rocky mountains were thrust up should have destroyed these fragile deposits long ago.

Instead we’re treated to a fantastic array of spiny, bug-eyed and armour plated monsters preserved in the kind of exquisite detail that even includes imprints of their soft fleshy parts – the eyes and internal organs – that almost never survive the process of fossilisation.

So what happened? Why are the Burgess Shale fossils there at all?

To answer that question, Dr Alex Page, at Cambridge University, and Dr Jan Zalasiewicz, at the University of Leicester, have painstakingly re-examined hundreds of Burgess Shale fossils, but this time paying much closer attention to the geophysical processes that were occurring as the shallow seabed these animals inhabited was sucked down into the earth’s crust and then thrust back up again to form a ridge in the Rocky mountains.

They’ve shown that as the delicate organic tissues of these fossilised animals were heated deep in the earth’s crust they became the site for clay mineral formation. These new minerals picked out the intricate detail of gills, guts and eyes we see today, enhancing their preservation.

As Alex Page says: “Far from cremating these unique specimens the processes that thrust up the rocky mountains actually baked the Burgess Shale fossils in.”

See an actual “Huh” bit in Evolution.  Never mentioned anywhere I’ve seen by Creationists, but answered anyway, because scientists (real scientists) like answers, even if it changes what they thought before.

(Article from Radio 4′s “Today” programme, ‘net article.  Another arguement for the Licence Fee and Public Service Media)

2 Responses »

 

The inerrant word of God? Monday, Oct 6 2008

It turns out the Bible that many people wave at Athiests as proof is just plain… well… Wrong.

The BBC has a story that there is a version of the Bible 1,500 years old, which contradicts newer versions.

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What’s left out?

 The world’s oldest surviving Bible is in bits.

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found – or stolen, as the monks say – in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today’s bible.

In places it just plain contradicts the versions used now (continued below the break)

3 Responses »