A good article yesterday in the Guardian by Russell Blackford, on the subject du jour which is secular or atheist tactics, should atheists be "respectful" of religion and is it ok you use humour and mockery to get across important points regarding the truth of religious promises and the desirability of the separation of church and state.
I particularly liked the following paragraph, for me it provides a perfect counter to the all to frequent whining of apologists that religion is true, good and harmless and we should offer it unconditional respect.
When religion claims authority in the political sphere, it is unsurprising — and totally justifiable — that atheists and skeptics question the source of this authority. If religious organisations or their leaders claim to speak on behalf of a god, it is fair to ask whether the god concerned really makes the claims that are communicated on its behalf. Does this god even exist? Where is the evidence? And even if this being does exist, why, exactly, should its wishes be translated into law?
Either one or more religions is true or they represent the biggest con job there has ever been and billions of people have been duped into wasting emotional enthalpy, time and resources when those things could have been better spent focusing on the betterment of society, self development and our fellow beings. Our existence on this planet is all too brief, we should care more about how we spend it.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Friday, November 06, 2009
Bat fluffers
I saw this article a while ago but then promptly forgot about it, however it cropped up again today, it's such a great piece of research that I just have to share it (where do these people get grants like this from??) Anyway, the subject is "Bat fellatio", it seems unlikely that anyone other than cat woman would utter those two words together but apparently our furry little cousins indulge in a bit of oral now and again too!
The purpose of this behaviour appears to be to prolong intercourse, you can read all the gory details here but essentially 14 out of 20 bat copulations filmed involved a blow job, on average it lasted roughly one twelfth the time of the entire act and those couplings that involved fellatio lasted approximately twice as long as those without.
I wonder if it would be "PC" to leave this research paper lying around the house?
You can tell it's Friday...
Someone in my office just sent me this little Venn diagram, very Hammer horror!
Jewish zombies from heaven, now there's a film that Mel Brookes should have made ...
Jewish zombies from heaven, now there's a film that Mel Brookes should have made ...
Joke du jour
It's really hard to find decent atheist jokes but I came across this one today which is passable,
Q. How many Atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. None, they don't bother since they can't see the light anyway...
Tough crowd, hello, hello, is this thing on ?
Q. How many Atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. None, they don't bother since they can't see the light anyway...
Tough crowd, hello, hello, is this thing on ?
God grassed?
I couldn't help but be slightly amused at a story on the BBC today, although considering the subject perhaps I shouldn't be. The story concerns a man called George Maben who has been convicted of murder. George killed his pregnant girlfriends mother (we've all been there I'm sure) but George's mistake was that he prayed to his God for forgiveness and unfortunately for George that prayer was overheard by police who were bugging his car, doh!.
Silly old George, didn't he know that like celestial super routers most Gods can hear all the thoughts of all six billion people on this planet simultaneously with ease, he needn't have said a word! George now has plenty of time (13 years) for quiet reflection in order to establish a less verbal means of communication with his God.
Silly old George, didn't he know that like celestial super routers most Gods can hear all the thoughts of all six billion people on this planet simultaneously with ease, he needn't have said a word! George now has plenty of time (13 years) for quiet reflection in order to establish a less verbal means of communication with his God.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Full frontal lobotomy?
Has AN Wilson had a full frontal lobotomy, or perhaps his recent article in the Daily Mail is more a case of a full bottle in front of me?
You really should (attempt to) read this article if you wish to witness the absurdity of the anti-scientific right wing mind in full flow, it should be used as a case study of religiously inspired cognitive dissonance.
Let's take a look at some of the stupidity on display
"The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts."
One wonders which "world" Mr Wilson thinks scientists do actually work in, Legoland perhaps? and I strain my tiny scientific brain thinking about what (other than empirical facts) he would like to base his arguments on, can Mr Wilson be seriously suggesting that he would prefer to base his arguments on instinct and blind prejudice?
Clearly what this scientifically illiterate hack is trying to say is that there are additional societal considerations involved in making decisions about things like drugs over and above the scientific data; you don't need to be a scientist to understand this and if he'd bothered to read the actual report he would realise that Prof. Nutt was fully aware of that fact also. However, Mr Wilson takes this argument a step further by suggesting that there are types of "knowledge" unavailable to scientists; in a typically theological style he does not elaborate what or where this knowledge comes from or indeed how one acquires it, but with a nudge and a wink makes it clear that he knows something about the universe that the rest of us don't. He goes on to say,
"But there is an increasing presumption among many intelligent and good-hearted people that science is an absolute truth, that its methods of arriving at the truth are infallible and that scientists must be listened to at all times."
I don't know a single scientist who considers themselves to be "infallible", in fact the scientific method assumes the opposite from the outset, nothing in science is ever "proven". Religion is the only discipline in our lives that assumes itself infallible, the Pope for example publicly states as much, and you have to be pretty sure you are right about something in order to strap explosives to your chest and pull the trigger in the name of that belief.
Then there is a little dig at Biology (no doubt inspired by new atheists like Richard Dawkins), he says,
"The point here is not whether he was right or wrong - it was the way in which the scientific establishment closed ranks in order to assassinate him. There was a blanket denunciation of his heresy, just as there is if anyone dares to point out some of the mistakes made by that very fallible genius Charles Darwin."
Sorry Mr Wilson, you exhibit an epic failure of understanding of both the scientific method you criticise and the motivation of scientists; firstly you will not find a reputable scientist on the planet who would deny that Darwin was wrong about some things (amazingly few as it happens) in the last 150 years we have advanced evolutionary science beyond recognition, especially in areas concerning genetics and the cellular mechanisms of inheritance and development, palaeontology, zoology and behavioural science, Darwin's original theory has been re-visited, revised and added to over and over again. However the important fact here is that reality contradicts Wilson's view entirely. If science really was this intransigent then we wouldn't have modern medicine at all, we would be like Mr Wilson's religion, clinging onto a 2000 year old myth for all his solipsistic white knuckled pseudo-intellectual grip can afford him.
Perhaps Mr Wilson is a young earth creationist, does he think the Flintstones was actually a documentary?
Then we get the classic religious bait and switch trick, discredit your enemy by accusing him of your own kind of delusion, he says,
"Science rules - and it does so with just as much energy as the old Spanish Inquisition that refused to allow any creed other than Catholicism, and with the Inquisition's need to distort arguments and control the brains of men and women who might otherwise think for themselves."
This little missive screams "straw-man" fallacy, no one is distorting arguments, no one is suppressing anyone else's viewpoint and we certainly aren't burning people alive who don't agree with a particular piece of research. The data is there in the paper, it is clear and transparent as are the methods used to get it, if anyone can provide better data or a better method then they are perfectly at liberty to do so. Apologists like Wilson detest this fact of course, they are lazy and would prefer to base policy on knowledge derived from their own imagination which is opaque to everyone else, requires no justification and should be "respected"; even when it clearly contradicts reality.
You really should (attempt to) read this article if you wish to witness the absurdity of the anti-scientific right wing mind in full flow, it should be used as a case study of religiously inspired cognitive dissonance.
Let's take a look at some of the stupidity on display
"The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts."
One wonders which "world" Mr Wilson thinks scientists do actually work in, Legoland perhaps? and I strain my tiny scientific brain thinking about what (other than empirical facts) he would like to base his arguments on, can Mr Wilson be seriously suggesting that he would prefer to base his arguments on instinct and blind prejudice?
Clearly what this scientifically illiterate hack is trying to say is that there are additional societal considerations involved in making decisions about things like drugs over and above the scientific data; you don't need to be a scientist to understand this and if he'd bothered to read the actual report he would realise that Prof. Nutt was fully aware of that fact also. However, Mr Wilson takes this argument a step further by suggesting that there are types of "knowledge" unavailable to scientists; in a typically theological style he does not elaborate what or where this knowledge comes from or indeed how one acquires it, but with a nudge and a wink makes it clear that he knows something about the universe that the rest of us don't. He goes on to say,
"But there is an increasing presumption among many intelligent and good-hearted people that science is an absolute truth, that its methods of arriving at the truth are infallible and that scientists must be listened to at all times."
I don't know a single scientist who considers themselves to be "infallible", in fact the scientific method assumes the opposite from the outset, nothing in science is ever "proven". Religion is the only discipline in our lives that assumes itself infallible, the Pope for example publicly states as much, and you have to be pretty sure you are right about something in order to strap explosives to your chest and pull the trigger in the name of that belief.
Then there is a little dig at Biology (no doubt inspired by new atheists like Richard Dawkins), he says,
"The point here is not whether he was right or wrong - it was the way in which the scientific establishment closed ranks in order to assassinate him. There was a blanket denunciation of his heresy, just as there is if anyone dares to point out some of the mistakes made by that very fallible genius Charles Darwin."
Sorry Mr Wilson, you exhibit an epic failure of understanding of both the scientific method you criticise and the motivation of scientists; firstly you will not find a reputable scientist on the planet who would deny that Darwin was wrong about some things (amazingly few as it happens) in the last 150 years we have advanced evolutionary science beyond recognition, especially in areas concerning genetics and the cellular mechanisms of inheritance and development, palaeontology, zoology and behavioural science, Darwin's original theory has been re-visited, revised and added to over and over again. However the important fact here is that reality contradicts Wilson's view entirely. If science really was this intransigent then we wouldn't have modern medicine at all, we would be like Mr Wilson's religion, clinging onto a 2000 year old myth for all his solipsistic white knuckled pseudo-intellectual grip can afford him.
Perhaps Mr Wilson is a young earth creationist, does he think the Flintstones was actually a documentary?
Then we get the classic religious bait and switch trick, discredit your enemy by accusing him of your own kind of delusion, he says,
"Science rules - and it does so with just as much energy as the old Spanish Inquisition that refused to allow any creed other than Catholicism, and with the Inquisition's need to distort arguments and control the brains of men and women who might otherwise think for themselves."
This little missive screams "straw-man" fallacy, no one is distorting arguments, no one is suppressing anyone else's viewpoint and we certainly aren't burning people alive who don't agree with a particular piece of research. The data is there in the paper, it is clear and transparent as are the methods used to get it, if anyone can provide better data or a better method then they are perfectly at liberty to do so. Apologists like Wilson detest this fact of course, they are lazy and would prefer to base policy on knowledge derived from their own imagination which is opaque to everyone else, requires no justification and should be "respected"; even when it clearly contradicts reality.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Cross about crosses
Interesting that the BBC chose to run this story on the news yesterday, it's about a recent ruling by European Court of Human Rights Judges that Crucifixes should be removed from school classrooms in Italy.
Crucifixes were required to be placed in classrooms back in the 1920s when Catholicism was the state religion of Italy, the status of the church was diminished in 1984 but I guess the crosses remained. This is a really good decision in my view, the focus of the verdict was on the rights of the children rather than the rights of the parents (somewhat of a breakthrough in these kinds of cases!) however in predictably ironic responses the Christian apologists are claiming that the symbol is one of "love" (er, it's a man being tortured to death?) not divisive and not exclusive, how can they possibly claim this, are they living in an intellectual vacuum, so hypnotised by their beliefs that they cannot possibly step into the shoes of others, even for a moment?
When you put a poster showing the water cycle on the wall of a classroom you are saying to the children that this is a tested view of reality, even so this is something that is discussed and justified with evidence. Similarly for paintings or designs, it is clear that the content has a different meaning and purpose however the merits are similarly discussed; but what would it mean if you hung a flag in a classroom? For me this would mean we ARE Italian or American or whatever, no debate no question, similarly for a crucifix, to me it implies we ARE Christians full stop (this is entirely the intention of putting them there of course). The assumption that any particular religion can make this claim of young children is both laughable and contradictory to the whole purpose of education. Religions would clearly love to have the same status as nationalities (in some places they still do) but it cannot ever completely hold this position (you can't fool all the people all the time) because in reality it's just a set of ideas, ideas that can be chosen but not implied purely by birth.
Of course in the particular classroom that teaches religious education then all these symbols should be displayed and discussion encouraged about all of them, i.e. comparative religious studies should be central to any balanced education, a subtle but important distinction in my view. Schools should be places of learning, not places where vested interests of any kind are able to exercise a monopoly of thought over malleable minds, religion is a private matter for parents and children to address at home, anything else is indoctrination.
Crucifixes were required to be placed in classrooms back in the 1920s when Catholicism was the state religion of Italy, the status of the church was diminished in 1984 but I guess the crosses remained. This is a really good decision in my view, the focus of the verdict was on the rights of the children rather than the rights of the parents (somewhat of a breakthrough in these kinds of cases!) however in predictably ironic responses the Christian apologists are claiming that the symbol is one of "love" (er, it's a man being tortured to death?) not divisive and not exclusive, how can they possibly claim this, are they living in an intellectual vacuum, so hypnotised by their beliefs that they cannot possibly step into the shoes of others, even for a moment?
When you put a poster showing the water cycle on the wall of a classroom you are saying to the children that this is a tested view of reality, even so this is something that is discussed and justified with evidence. Similarly for paintings or designs, it is clear that the content has a different meaning and purpose however the merits are similarly discussed; but what would it mean if you hung a flag in a classroom? For me this would mean we ARE Italian or American or whatever, no debate no question, similarly for a crucifix, to me it implies we ARE Christians full stop (this is entirely the intention of putting them there of course). The assumption that any particular religion can make this claim of young children is both laughable and contradictory to the whole purpose of education. Religions would clearly love to have the same status as nationalities (in some places they still do) but it cannot ever completely hold this position (you can't fool all the people all the time) because in reality it's just a set of ideas, ideas that can be chosen but not implied purely by birth.
Of course in the particular classroom that teaches religious education then all these symbols should be displayed and discussion encouraged about all of them, i.e. comparative religious studies should be central to any balanced education, a subtle but important distinction in my view. Schools should be places of learning, not places where vested interests of any kind are able to exercise a monopoly of thought over malleable minds, religion is a private matter for parents and children to address at home, anything else is indoctrination.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Check out those buns!
I'm feeling frivolous this morning and this little story presented an ideal opportunity, its a tale of misplaced morality and censorship concerning the beautiful Kelly Brook and a gorgeous pair of buns.
Kelly is staring in a new West End play concerning the exploits of a bunch of Women's Institute members who bare all for charity by making a nude calendar and selling it. The story became a smash hit a few years ago and spawned a film and copy-cat calendars up and down the country. Anyway, this story is about the promotional poster that was due to be pasted up at Underground stations, apparently Transport for London deemed that the iced buns designed to protect Ms Brook's modesty were not sufficiently "large" to actually do that, who's complaining I hear you ask!, apparently the B-buns should have been D-buns.
It seems incredible that someone actually gets paid to make this kind of assessment, you couldn't make it up, anyway take a look for yourself, here are the before and after shots.
Anyone offended?
Kelly is staring in a new West End play concerning the exploits of a bunch of Women's Institute members who bare all for charity by making a nude calendar and selling it. The story became a smash hit a few years ago and spawned a film and copy-cat calendars up and down the country. Anyway, this story is about the promotional poster that was due to be pasted up at Underground stations, apparently Transport for London deemed that the iced buns designed to protect Ms Brook's modesty were not sufficiently "large" to actually do that, who's complaining I hear you ask!, apparently the B-buns should have been D-buns.
It seems incredible that someone actually gets paid to make this kind of assessment, you couldn't make it up, anyway take a look for yourself, here are the before and after shots.
Anyone offended?
Monday, November 02, 2009
Are you moral?
The Washington Post had a nice little article last week, they posed a question,
Q: Is there good without God? Can people be good without God? How can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some sort of belief in a being which is greater than they are? Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?
I agree with Paula Kirby, the author of the article, who says "My sense of right and wrong comes from exactly the same source as yours: parental upbringing, society's norms, an evolved empathy with others.", this view concurs with the mainstream evidence on the subject.
Almost all societies, regardless of religious leaning conform to the 20% rule, i.e. one out of every five people will break their societies moral rules somehow, four of them won't (except in extreme circumstances like famine or war etc.) This strongly suggests that morality comes from Humans themselves and hence our evolutionary heritage and not any specific religion or culture. This makes perfect sense if you think about it and is confirmed through studies of other higher mammal species like Chimpanzees and Bonobo's who also live in social groups like us and show similar traits of altruism and an aversion to seeing other members of their species suffer. I suppose once you evolve self awareness and can put yourself into the shoes of another, some of these other moral behaviours follow shortly behind.
Humans (in our current form) have been around for roughly 200,000 years, Judaism emerged roughly 4,000 years ago, and the other main religions even more recently; how is it possible that we managed to survive for 196,000 years without Yahweh to tell us that murder and theft are incompatible with a cohesive society?
The answer of course is that we don't need a Deity to be moral, what we don't learn from our parents and our peers is simply innate.
Nutt's sacked...
Science and Government, are they compatible?
The overwhelming answer from the media last week was no they are not. This story interests me because it so closely mirrors the friction between religion and science in that we have "reality" pitted against vested interest. Alan Johnson is no more willing to look "soft on drugs" than the Pope is willing to look "soft on contraception" it's not reality or evidence that is the issue it's "face". This dispute goes to the core of the difference between the reality based constituents and the wish thinkers, the scientific method is designed to deliver the truth (or at least the closest we can get), a description of reality that conforms to the data we see, it can help inform our decisions but more often than not shows that our intuition is wrong, however it does not provide a moral framework nor can be relied upon to provide the answers that we wish for, if you want to know which policy best supports your majority, don't ask a scientist!
We have a slightly flippant but never the less accurate truism in the software business, we say something like "if you don't know how to handle a condition, don't test for it"; Alan Johnson is clearly not a stupid man, he must appreciate the distinction between reality and desire, he has declared himself to be an Atheist so I can't pin the old faith based logic shuffle on him, so I am left wondering, why ask a question when you already know the answer?
The overwhelming answer from the media last week was no they are not. This story interests me because it so closely mirrors the friction between religion and science in that we have "reality" pitted against vested interest. Alan Johnson is no more willing to look "soft on drugs" than the Pope is willing to look "soft on contraception" it's not reality or evidence that is the issue it's "face". This dispute goes to the core of the difference between the reality based constituents and the wish thinkers, the scientific method is designed to deliver the truth (or at least the closest we can get), a description of reality that conforms to the data we see, it can help inform our decisions but more often than not shows that our intuition is wrong, however it does not provide a moral framework nor can be relied upon to provide the answers that we wish for, if you want to know which policy best supports your majority, don't ask a scientist!
We have a slightly flippant but never the less accurate truism in the software business, we say something like "if you don't know how to handle a condition, don't test for it"; Alan Johnson is clearly not a stupid man, he must appreciate the distinction between reality and desire, he has declared himself to be an Atheist so I can't pin the old faith based logic shuffle on him, so I am left wondering, why ask a question when you already know the answer?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Camels through the eyes of needles
I love the attitude that this video portrays, perhaps I'm being naive but the desire to collaborate and learn seems to radiate from the scientists in this little clip, and the subject is pretty cool too. They are trying to invent a molecular device that is able to sequence human DNA in a couple of hours. Currently this is an expensive process (the first human genome sequenced cost $3Bn and took many years to do!), these guys want to get the cost down to a 1000 bucks per sequencing.
The scales at which they are working are just mind boggling, never mind passing a camel through the eye of a needle this device will need to control a single thread of DNA passing through a hole which is measured on the nanometre scale, that's 1 billionth of a metre, to put this into perspective an HIV virus is about 400nm long, even smaller than MP's pay rises this year!
The scales at which they are working are just mind boggling, never mind passing a camel through the eye of a needle this device will need to control a single thread of DNA passing through a hole which is measured on the nanometre scale, that's 1 billionth of a metre, to put this into perspective an HIV virus is about 400nm long, even smaller than MP's pay rises this year!
I picked a bad week to give up crackpot religions
Scientology got a good "kicking" this week, first there was the announcement that the French authorities consider it to be a fraudulent organisation (no s**t Sherlock!) as they handed out a 600,000 euro fine and a 2 year suspended sentence to its leader. France have a pretty rational approach to organisations like this, they refuse to acknowledge that Scientology is a religion at all, preferring to call it a commercial "sect", which of course is exactly what it is.
Following up on the heals of this blow Scientology in the USA received a slap down from one of it's high profile Hollywood members who left because of accusations of homophobia and persecution. Oscar winning director Paul Haggis published a detailed statement outlining his reasons for quitting the cult, which included "gay bashing" and the harassment of his wife who was instructed to "disconnect" from her own parents because they offended the cult 25 years ago.
Mainstream religion has some pretty odd medieval beliefs, the previous story about the homophobic granny is an example of that but Scientology takes the biscuit, combining wacky beliefs with a foundation in pseudo-science, it's even got aliens.
Some people clearly have more money than sense.
Following up on the heals of this blow Scientology in the USA received a slap down from one of it's high profile Hollywood members who left because of accusations of homophobia and persecution. Oscar winning director Paul Haggis published a detailed statement outlining his reasons for quitting the cult, which included "gay bashing" and the harassment of his wife who was instructed to "disconnect" from her own parents because they offended the cult 25 years ago.
Mainstream religion has some pretty odd medieval beliefs, the previous story about the homophobic granny is an example of that but Scientology takes the biscuit, combining wacky beliefs with a foundation in pseudo-science, it's even got aliens.
Some people clearly have more money than sense.
Granny bashing?
Pauline Howe (67) looks like any other granny and if she's anything like the grannies in my family I'm sure she spoils her grandchildren rotten and probably detests a "fuss"; unfortunately for this granny her mind has been infected with a meme that causes her to believe hateful nonsense which has no basis in reality, this brain infection is called "Christianity".
Like many of her ilk Pauline has a big problem with Homosexuality, recently, in objecting to a gay pride event in Norwich, she referred to gays as “sodomites” and blamed their “perverted sexual practice” for sexually transmitting diseases as well as the “downfall of every Empire”. Rather than keeping these medieval views to herself Pauline chose to express them in a letter to her council, the council decided to treat them as hate speech and duly sent the rozzers round. In a statement Ms Howe said,
"I’ve never been in any kind of trouble before so I was stunned to have two police officers knocking at my door. Their presence in my home made me feel threatened. It was a very unpleasant experience."
On reflection I'm quite glad that this old lady had an unpleasant experience, perhaps she will be better able in future to appreciate the unecessary offence that her own mumbo-jumbo words cause innocent gay people. However, this case illustrates perfectly why censorial legislation such as blanket "hate speech" laws are inherently stupid and unenforceable. Ms Howe is perfectly entitled to her warped views, she is wrong and stupid but those things are not a crime. Now if she was standing on the pavement as this gay pride march was passing throwing bottles and shouting this nonsense then sure, throw her in the cells for a night but otherwise my own preference is simply to expose her and this way of thinking, mock her and criticise her in ways that are proportional to the humiliation she inflicts onto the targets of her verbal abuse, raise awareness that such superstitious medieval crap is alive and well and residing in the brains of Abrahamic religions followers the world over (not just grannies).
This case has stimulated a predictable response from several Christian groups, who, showing their usual penchant for irony are claiming victimisation and persecution. Here is a statement from the Christian Institute,
"Whether people agree or disagree with Mrs Howe’s views, everyone who cares about freedom should be alarmed at the police action. For democracy to survive people must be free to express their beliefs – yes, even unpopular beliefs – to government bodies without fear of a knock at the door from the police. It’s not a crime to be a Christian, but it increasingly feels like it."
Funny how that "freedom of speech" thing works in some Christian minds isn't it.
Like many of her ilk Pauline has a big problem with Homosexuality, recently, in objecting to a gay pride event in Norwich, she referred to gays as “sodomites” and blamed their “perverted sexual practice” for sexually transmitting diseases as well as the “downfall of every Empire”. Rather than keeping these medieval views to herself Pauline chose to express them in a letter to her council, the council decided to treat them as hate speech and duly sent the rozzers round. In a statement Ms Howe said,
"I’ve never been in any kind of trouble before so I was stunned to have two police officers knocking at my door. Their presence in my home made me feel threatened. It was a very unpleasant experience."
On reflection I'm quite glad that this old lady had an unpleasant experience, perhaps she will be better able in future to appreciate the unecessary offence that her own mumbo-jumbo words cause innocent gay people. However, this case illustrates perfectly why censorial legislation such as blanket "hate speech" laws are inherently stupid and unenforceable. Ms Howe is perfectly entitled to her warped views, she is wrong and stupid but those things are not a crime. Now if she was standing on the pavement as this gay pride march was passing throwing bottles and shouting this nonsense then sure, throw her in the cells for a night but otherwise my own preference is simply to expose her and this way of thinking, mock her and criticise her in ways that are proportional to the humiliation she inflicts onto the targets of her verbal abuse, raise awareness that such superstitious medieval crap is alive and well and residing in the brains of Abrahamic religions followers the world over (not just grannies).
This case has stimulated a predictable response from several Christian groups, who, showing their usual penchant for irony are claiming victimisation and persecution. Here is a statement from the Christian Institute,
"Whether people agree or disagree with Mrs Howe’s views, everyone who cares about freedom should be alarmed at the police action. For democracy to survive people must be free to express their beliefs – yes, even unpopular beliefs – to government bodies without fear of a knock at the door from the police. It’s not a crime to be a Christian, but it increasingly feels like it."
Funny how that "freedom of speech" thing works in some Christian minds isn't it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
