Church gives women marching orders

A church in Sydney has given the organisers of the annual International Woman's Day an early Christmas present in the run up to the fortieth anniversary of the Sydney event. They've banned them from their traditional starting point. It's a timely reminder on the one hundredth anniversary of International Women's Day itself that we do not yet live in utopia.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald Anne Barber, one of the organisers said ''It's a traditional meeting point and somehow the church has right of veto.'' It's quite understandable that after forty years for the church to suddenly tell these marches to bugger off has created friction.

Another organiser, Gabe Kavanagh, was shocked. ''The rally has been held there for decades,'' she said. ''There's never been a problem with rubbish or noise.''

It's quite bizarre that this event is being banned when the square is the location of the Town Hall, a natural point for any public demonstration to focus on, and one that should not have to have to say so of the church to go ahead.

However, I'm going to make a prediction - while last year's event was on the smallish size this year will see a bumper turnout of women all determined to tell the church where they can get off.

NB People might remember the last time I spoke about the church in Sydney when the archbishop there advised against voters turning out for the Green Party who were "sweet camouflaged poison". I don't think we've heard the last of them somehow.

Salmaan Taseer murdered

Just a few days ago I wrote about the tensions building in Pakistan over the proposals to amend the blasphemy laws. I mentioned in passing high profile Punjabi governor Salmaan Taseer who was an outspoken advocate of the reforms. He was the focus of much bile and criticism from the religious right. Today he was murdered. Shot by a member of his own security detail.

Pakistan is in crisis. Caught in a vice like grip between the West and the East, between democratic values of equality and tolerance and murderous religious fundamentalism.

The government is both violent, weak and split. The economy is in a poor state and much of the country is still suffering badly from flooding. These are not happy times.

Although Taseer and Shahrbano Rehman, the outstanding woman moving the amendment, are both members of the ruling party the government has been at pains to distance themselves from the proposals and, it seems, that numerous death threats against themselves and their supporters have been ignored by the authorities - leaving reformers exposed.

But while the government has taken no action against leading religious figures condemning Taseer and Rehman it seems that one man did react. After Taseer's guard shot his charge dead he handed himself in. "The police guard who killed him says he did this because Mr Taseer recently defended the proposed amendments to the blasphemy law. This is what he told the police after surrendering himself."

Just a few days ago Taseer had spoken at a rally commemorating the third anniversary of the death of Benazir Bhutto at the hands of an assassin. There are strong forces for progress in Pakistan, but they have a huge mountain to climb. Meanwhile, good and principled people like Taseer are dying.

Post script: “You live life once, you live it by your principles and you live it courageously — that’s what it’s about.”

• NY Times has more details on the assassination.
• Mosharraf Zaidi on the implications for Pakistan's politics.
• DNA India on political reactions.
• Hindustan Times on worker protests at the assassination.
  

Religious strikes rocks Pakistan

A one day strike rocked Pakistan yesterday against proposed changes in the blasphemy laws Currently those who 'insult Islam' can be sentenced to death and, according to the BBC, this has led to around thirty people being killed. Critics add that the law is used to persecute religious minorities or to pursue vendettas.

Reports indicate that the strike, called by the religious parties and supported by a number of industrialists, had a wide ranging support closing down most major cities and public transport.

The proposals are being brought by Shahrbano Rahman, right, a founder of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan who was present when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. Rahman may be a member of the ruling party but she is a strong advocate for human rights and has previously brought the Women Empowerment Bill, the Anti-Honor Killings Bill, the Domestic Violence Prevention Bill, the Affirmative Action Bill and the Hudood Repeal Bill as well as the the Freedom of Information Bill and the Press Act that opposed the arbitrary arrest of journalists.

Her bill seeks to eliminate the death penalty, criminalize incitement, and penalize false accusations. The government has distanced itself from her proposals although the governor of the Punjab Salmaan Taseer has been an outspoken advocate of the reforms.

Protesters demanded the death of Aasia Bibi, right, the first woman to have been sentenced to death under the law (in November), who fell foul of the law for her Roman Catholic beliefs. One leading campaigner said he'd give 6,000 dollars to anyone who killed her.

Since the law was enacted in 1986 1,060 people have been charged under the blasphemy law including 133 Christians, 450 Muslims, 456 Ahmadis and 21 Hindus. While executions are not carried out around thirty people have been lynched due to these prosecutions and it is thought that seven "committed suicide" while in police custody.

Rehman said that it was necessary to “remove the teeth and infamous use of the blasphemy laws, but to understand the way forward for our society, as minorities remain the most exploited members of society... We need to seek out a way of removing these laws from the statute books”.

Politicians like Rehman, whose Parliamentary track record is excellent, are fighting a dangerous battle to try to push their society forwards. She'll be more than aware of the murderous track record of the religious forces and the military that are ranged against her - but yet she carries on anyway because of a deep commitment to human rights.

It's a shame that her struggle has not received more attention in the Western press, because Pakistan is a central political player on the global stage. Arguably anyway that Pakistan tips could see whole sections of the world follow. If they are moving forwards on women's rights, religious freedom and against corruption then it could potentially help those in other nations who are also engaged in those struggles.

Australian Greens are sweet camouflaged poison

The signs are looking good for the Australian Greens whose rise in the polls has gone hand in hand with the right veering wildly into climate denial and Labour descending into an organisational crisis. However, in a bizarre election twist the Catholic Church has stepped in to denounce the Greens as horrid lefties.

The Archbishop of Sydney no less, Cardinal George Pell, took time out from his busy schedule to warn voters off voting for the Green Party in the up-coming election describing the party as "sweet camouflaged poison". Mmmmm, sounds delicious.

Pell went on that "One wing of the Greens are like watermelons, green outside and red inside, a number were Stalinists, supporting Soviet oppression." He added that they were "thoroughly anti-Christian".

Glorious! You couldn't by this kind of publicity. If you can get someone to denounce you, do make sure they're clearly absolutely bonkers, so well done Cardinal McCarthy, or whatever your name is.

The Sydney Diocese followed up the remarks with an intemperate press release that made it clear that the objection to the Greens was based on the "Greens' hostility to private schools", that they wish to "replace the Judaeo-Christian beliefs at the heart of Australia's values with the law of the jungle", their "enthusiasm for abortion and euthanasia" and that "they favour homosexual marriage".

These Greens sound like the worst sort of fiend don't they? Abortion and gay marriage? Whatever next? Votes for women? They also expressed concern that the Greens economic policy would lead to hardship for the poor. Of all the criticisms at least this one would be worth having, if it were true. Which it isn't.

I suspect this story, which highlights the progressive social policies of the party, will do everything to help attract disaffected Labour supporters *to* the Greens and cause great embarrassment among the many Australian Catholics who have absolutely no sympathy with the Archbishop's red baiting nonsense.

Religion: women, know your place.

I was interested to read in Haaretz that Anat Hoffman (a leading activist for Movement for Progressive Judaism) was arrested at Jerusalem's Western Wall for holding a Torah whilst in possession of a womb.

Apparently it's not just frowned on for women to read the Torah in this holy site it's actually an imprisonable offence.

In November a woman was arrested at the same location for wearing a prayer shawl. I've heard of the fashion police but this is ridiculous.

Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz said "We must distance politics and disagreement from this sacred place," which is hilarious because in fact he means people should not disagree with him by promoting gender equality - politics that he evidently doesn't like.

I wish these people would be a little more honest. If Rabinowitz was a man of his convictions he would have said "Women should know their place and stop disagreeing with me" but he's a spineless, reactionary coward so he tries to make out women who get arrested for expressing religious freedom are just horrid troublemakers.

I wonder what Rowan Williams thinks about this?

When the General Synod, democratic institution of the Church of England, voted that it intended to allow the ordination of women bishops last week it rejected his suggestion of creating no go zones for women bishops. He argued that some parishes could opt out of the twenty first century, although he made no mention of whether they would be allowed to stone adulterers.

This comes hot on the heels of his veto of the decision of the Southwark diocese to appoint Dr Jeffrey John as their bishop. The problem with John is that he is openly gay, although he insists that he is chaste - which means Williams is practising that good old tradition of hating the sinner and not the sin.

Not that gay sex is a sin (unless you do it really well or claim it on expenses).

Of course Williams, who twice in one week has sought to over turn the democratic will of his Church, has done all this in the name of holding back progress. While the synod thought that women bishops were "theologically justified" and the bible has nothing bad to say about gay people who don't have sex Williams decided that Realpolitik trumped his God.

Wouldn't want to be him when/if he reaches the pearly gates. Some people say his god can be an angry one.

Is it the Jews?

Sorry about the blogging gap, I've been enjoying the sunshine and pretending not to be a nerd. However, if I hadn't been out I wouldn't have picked up a fascinating "Christian" leaflet from a man who was very keen to tell me that he'd written it himself. I restrained myself from saying "You don't say" as I admired the clip art party balloons and point eight size font.

Anyway, I only got a chance to read it just now and, as you can imagine, the quality of the content was of the highest kind. I'm not referring to the piece on back which, with classic British deadpan, declared that before Adam ate the apple "there were no weeds" or that the author had "seen articles that suggest the existence of gay animals". Glorious.

It had a great style to it that tickled me. For instance "Adam and Eve were naked year round. With "The Fall" began the fashion industry." Brilliant.

More seriously though when the lead article claimed that there is a "group [who] gained control of the economy, industry and military of most of the world over generations" that we have to watch out for. Don't worry though because you'll be able to recognise them as "God himself has a hook in their noses". Oh. Does he.

He then goes on to remind us of Habakkuk's thoughts on the "sins of Israel" and how God punished the sinners by using the Babylonians (pictured), even though they were "even more wicked than Israel."

He then points out, apropos of nothing, that Hitler was also a wicked man just like those Babylonians who God used to work his will. We need, he goes on, "radical surgery" to cure society's ills, otherwise "evil International Bankers" will wreak a terrible hurricane upon us.

Obviously he's done us all a great service by bringing to our attention this horrid bunch who control everything, especially the banks, and have hooks in their noses, but who can they be? They aren't named, which is inconvenient. Hmmm, they exemplify the sins of Israel and we might need someone a bit like Hitler to sort it out, even though Hitler wasn't very nice - like the Babylonians.

No. Can't think who it might be he's referring to, but I do feel slightly ill about being quite so friendly to him earlier. Quite some moral trick though, to say that being evil is to do God's work and that good people tend to stand idly by when there is God's work to be done, which makes them evil and they will be punished.

Cameron on abortion

Party leaders tend to shy away from abortion and leave anything that comes before Parliament to a free vote. The basic necessity of this is that all the parties contain both pro-choice and anti-abortion supporters and the trick is to keep both sides on board to maximise your support.

However, Cameron has decided to come out in favour of reducing the term limits on abortions and restricting the woman's right to choose. Brave, very brave Dave. Actually I mean stupid. Stupid and wrong.

In fact he had a whole raft of reactionary policies designed to suck up to the most illiberal sections of the Christian communities.

So we have a commitment to allow faith schools to handle sex education as they please, leaving teenagers at greater risk from sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. This comes hot on the heels of preventing legislation ensuring that schools are required to provide sex education as a matter of course.

Speaking to the Catholic Herald he said he would defend faith schools saying that “I think parents who have chosen a faith-based education for their children should have that decision respected. I’m a big supporter of faith schools and I think it’s really important that their rights are protected".

What's so puzzling to me is not that a Tory has reactionary views, one look at My Gay Vote (h/t Bob) shows which way the wind blows in the Conservatives. No, it's all the time and energy Cameron has spent trying to convince everyone that the Tories were no longer the nasty party, that they had left their bigotries behind, and then in the space of the few weeks around the election he has gone out of his way to remind us that they cannot be trusted when it comes to issues like abortion, gay rights or sex education. He's undoing all that good work covering up their reactionary instincts and just because his reactionary instincts couldn't be held in check.

It looks like, if the Tories win this election, we'll be fighting the same old battles all over again - and it's not a prospect I relish to be honest. However, if we have to fight to maintain a woman's right to control her own body then fight we will.

Vote Labour or you're going to hell

This article on Labour List is utterly bizarre. Andy Flannagan, the Director of the Christian Socialist Movement, regales us with why he thinks Jesus would vote Labour. What next? John the Baptist on the Euro? St Paul on gay marriage? Actually, probably not the gay marriage thing.

Flannagan even ends the piece reminding people that "Jesus warned against the hypocrisy of speaking on his behalf yet actually turning him away". Self aware at all? No, thought not.

I was tempted to go through the list one by one demonstrating that the piece is based on desperate wishful thinking but I've decided there comes a point where something is so embarrassingly weak people it defies argument.

However, I would be grateful if someone could out the Biblical references that show that "Jesus was passionate about families as the building blocks of community". I have absolutely no idea what the Big J might have said or done to demonstrate his "passion" for SureStart. Maybe it's in the appendix, or the sequel "Bible Two: the gospel according to Lord Mandelson".

My main criticism of the piece though is that the author's left off number eleven. "11. Jesus loved shooting missiles at people and, as the parable of the Sadducee and BAESystems shows, he was a trained bomber pilot who flew on numerous missions over hostile territory." Perhaps Christians are allowed to brush this sort of stuff under the carpet, after all God can't see *everything* can he?

It can't be a coincidence that this piece come out this weekend when we celebrate Jesus getting crucified, which is exactly what's likely to happen to Labour in just five weeks time.

Haiti: children kidnappers

Before I begin: If you didn't donate to Haiti and regret it it's not too late. You can still check out my earlier post for suggestions on who to send your cash to.

Ever since it was revealed that religious groups were sending people to take 'orphans' out of Haiti to give them a 'better life' I've had a heavy feeling in my stomach on top of the heavy feeling created by seeing the suffering the people of Haiti have had to endure over the last period.

I'm more than happy for religious groups to mobilise people to help out and do good deeds. There's a question about how useful that can be, but without being on the ground it's difficult to know how (in)effective that help is and I'm not willing to criticise the aid effort.

However, when it comes to people trafficking it's another matter frankly.

There's a number of reasons why, even before we get to the specifics of this case, stealing children is wrong. First of all most orphans have living relatives. Taking kids out of the country means creating a permanent separation. There is no reason why you should be allowed to own children and indoctrinate them into your sect whilst denying them a reconciliation with their blood.

Second of all, during a disaster there is a fog where people lose people. It may be that people you thought were dead weren't, and it certainly is the case that kids that are lost because they have been taken away will be untraceable to their surviving relatives. Using the word orphan about a child creates the impression they have no one, but it's not necessarily true and the missionaries certainly do not know whether it's true - it's an assumption.

Third, waltzing into someone else's country and taking their children because you've decided they will have a better life isn't ok just because you're American. There is no entitlement that goes with US citizenship that says you have the right to circumvent the authorities in any country you go to.

The specifics

When you get to the details of the case it is even more worrying though. The missionaries might say they are "completely innocent" and they were legitimately taking 33 kids out of the country to a new life in their Idaho Baptist inspired utopia where they would also be eligible for adoption.

However, it transpires that many of the kids have at least one living relative, they were told that the kids were simply going to be schooled and would be able to return, not if they've been adopted they wouldn't. It is also clear that the group had no authorisation from the Haitian authorities, and don't even appear to think they needed any.

That's even though they were told before the attempt that they could not take the kids across the border. The Wall Street Journal reports that;

"the Dominican Republic's consul general in Port-au-Prince, said in an interview that he met with the group's leader, Laura Silsby, on Friday at the consulate in the Haitian capital and told her she lacked the documents to transport children."

She told Mr. Castillo she had applied to Dominican authorities for a permit to cross the border, he said. But Mr. Castillo checked and found no such application. "I told her I could authenticate Haitian documents but she had no Haitian documents of any sort,"

I'm afraid I've no sympathy for these people languishing in a Haiti jail. I'm not a hang them and flog them sort of person but I was very pleased to hear that they would be charged and face trial. It simply cannot be right for organisations to use their wealth and the weight of their government to determine the fate of children just because they live in a poorer nation.

ps good piece from Mike Gonzalez at the Guardian on Haitian reconstruction.

Sectarian bunfight!

It can be strange to watch the in-fighting between groups that you assumed were all on the same side. As they denounce each other for letting the world go to hell in a handcart it's possible to see that the issues are really, really important to them but it's just not possible to work out why.

Such was my reaction when listening to the news tonight where a Scottish bishop was denouncing Devonshire monks for 'leading people into sin'. This is not within the remit of being a monk and is, therefore, a serious charge.

It seems the monks produce Buckfast, a potent mixture of caffeine and booze. Bishop Bob Gillies (pictured) has had enough of the licentious and criminal behaviour conducted under the influence of Buckfast and has called in the big guns in the form of an old white man in a beard saying “St Benedict, I would have thought, would have been very, very unhappy with what his monks are doing nowadays.”

That's not really him in the picture, obviously. This is him.

On PM the good Bishop went even further than the claim that someone most people know little to nothing about would not have approved by claiming that Christians should not be involved in producing harmful substances at all. That's quite a strong claim and I look forward to his coming denunciations of the cigarette industry, bacon sandwiches and channel five. Let no one put this man in charge of the economy, we'd all be on the dole.

You don't get Buckfast round my way much but apparently it's a popular tipple in Scotland where it is affectionately known as "commotion lotion", “liquid speed” and “wreck the hoose juice”, at least it's known as these things according to The Times, and they move in those circles I'm sure.

Part of the problem is that this is no ordinary wine but a rocket powered 15% brew injected with an impressive dose of caffeine, presumably to ensure you don't fall asleep in a bush on your way home. A bush you are almost guaranteed to have ventured into if you've had a few glasses.

The local police certainly seem to think it's the devil's lubricant, linking it to a large number of crimes - including with the bottle. It may well be that this is the mischief makers booze juice of choice but can we really lay the blame for Scotland's woes at the door of the wrong kind of monk?

Come on guys, Bishops and Monks shouldn't be fighting each other, you should be picking on the Jews, Muslims and Buddhists surely.

Springer singer harrassed by Christian Right

Just a quick one I'm afraid but I just saw this in the Independent about Wills Morgan the opera singer who played Jesus in Jerry Springer the Opera (my 2005 review).

It seems he's had a nervous breakdown and ended up living on the streets partly due to the nightly confrontations with the Christian Right who neither understood the play nor had any inclination towards tolerating those they despised in society.

Mr Morgan, who is himself a committed Christian, felt compelled to confront the protestors which became an exhausting nightly process.

“As a man of faith I had to challenge them because they were claiming an ownership of God that was inappropriate,” he said. “The fundamentalists just couldn't understand that members of the cast were also active members of churches.”

What upset him the most, he said was that the protestors had seemed to miss the opera’s real message. “Most of the protestors never bothered coming to see the production and had decided from the word go that it was somehow blasphemous,” he said. “Yet whenever people asked me what Jerry Springer: The Opera was about I said it was very simple. It is an opera about how awful television could be, not an assault on faith.”

Ultimately it's a good news story as Morgan is back on his feet and back in work. As he says “I guess my story shows how anyone, from any walk of life, can end up homeless – particularly during the recession which has forced so many people out of work,” he said. “But the flip side is that there is help out there if you’re willing to ask for it.”

I'm glad Morgan is back on track and working again. His story shows that whilst the unkindness of strangers can hit you hard if they catch you at the wrong time it also says that that as human beings we can be good to each other and when we are it can make a difference.

Bad Barry Bites

The Archbishop of Wales has come out against people being able to opt out of religious services at school. Barry Morgan thinks that prayer offers pupils the opportunity of "recognition, affirmation and celebration of shared values", and people should not be allowed to opt out of our shared values, particularly if they don't share them.

He made the statements as Wales followed England in allowing over 16s to opt of religious service as part of their school day. I should point out that if you're under 16 you're still forced to sit through prayers, et al, even if you have firm convictions in another direction, like atheism.

Morgan appears to believe that school prayers are "a shared spiritual experience", well that's not how I remember them at all. The idea that you have sports halls packed full of adolescents wrapped in some sort of aesthetic wonder, touched by a divine hand, was somewhat far from the reality I remember.

In fact, as a primary school kid one of my first memories is of being slapped by the headmaster because I didn't want to pray at school assembly. That showed me the love of Jesus and no mistake.

One RE teacher we had was a real joy. I forget his name because he didn't last long but he was a fundamentalist Christian of some sort. In his very first lesson with us he rebuked one lad who'd said he didn't believe in God by telling him "But if you don't believe in God you can't have any morals!" This was so palpably false that he instantly transformed us into a room of atheists. Spotty, greasy, Essex atheists.

Sadly Morgan has form. A couple of years ago he was in the news saying that fundamentalist atheism is one of the great problems facing the world. He described removing crosses from hospitals and the like as constituting "virulent, almost irrational" attacks on Christianity. Would I be right in thinking that almost irrational would be... rational? Whatever, that's by the by.

More importantly he described this tendency to recognise the diversity of our nation in less than glowing terms. "All of this is what I would call the new "fundamentalism" of our age. It allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion."

That would be terrible that, allowing no room for disagreement or doubt. I mean what next? Forcing people to attend religious services they don't agree with? Where would that all end... oh, hold on.

No sex please we're British Muslims

Apparently it's true - there are no gay Muslims in Britain. Not even one. Well, either that or this survey "a collaboration between Gallup and the Coexist Foundation" on the attitude of Muslims around the world needs to be examined rather carefully.

For example 77% of Muslims said they strongly identified with the UK - which is far higher than the 50% the rest of the population scored. Does this mean Muslims are more likely to love fish and chips or what?

Well, it could be that the figures are saying, as the Independent, Telegraph and BBC claim, that UK Muslims are more patriotic... or it could be the opposite as the Mail and Al Jazeera claim, although they seem to be using different figures, I do hope they didn't make them up.

Alternatively it could be that Muslims in the UK have been subject to loyalty test after loyalty test over the last decade and so when someone asks them "How strongly do you identify with the UK" they are conditioned to ensure they come across as fully integrated citizens. I suspect this figure tells us more about how pressured UK Muslims feel about national identity than it does about attitudes they might have whilst watching EastEnders.

The big headline however is around homosexuality.

Not one UK Muslim respondent thought that homosexuality was "acceptable" compared to 58% for the the UK as a whole. This may well be related to the fact that only 3% of our sample thought any sex outside of marriage was acceptable (compared to 82%) although none of the papers seem to make this important link.

The way this is reported it makes it sound like gay people are being singled out when in fact 97% of respondents (which is quite a lot) thought that all sex outside of marriage was wrong. They would have to be particularly perverse to approve of homosexuality, which by definition does not involve the sanctity of marriage (yet), and not unmarried straight couples having it away.

This is born out when you consider that French and German Muslims found both sex outside of marriage and homosexuality more acceptable than their UK counterparts. To view the two statistics separately seems to distort the information we're getting, although there is certainly no denying that these are conservative attitudes. To me it looks like an anti-sex stat rather than a specifically anti-gay sex one.

But is it right anyway?

But I want to take issue with 0% anyway. It sounds wrong to me. You take 1,500 people and you'll always find someone who thinks something out of step. Whether they think paedophilia is alright or the economy is recovering you'll always find somebody to express an off message idea. So this makes me question how the data was collected in the first place.

I've had plenty of friends who are Christian evangelicals and their attitude seems quite instructive. These friends have no problem being friends with, even flat mates of gay people, with all the boy/girlfriend ups and downs that this entails. However, if you ask them whether as a Christian they think homosexuality (or sex outside of marriage) is acceptable - they'd say no.

I remember going to a bar with a Muslim guy once who asked for a coke rather than his normal real ale "because it's Eide". I think that sums up how many religious people interact with their faith in everyday life. If you'd asked him whether it was acceptable to drink alcohol as a Muslim he'd say no. If you asked him what he was having he'd have a pint of Old Growler. The yes/no box doesn't give us the nuance that we often require.

This is a roundabout way of asking whether UK Muslims were asked the questions in the same way as those in Europe and whether the sample of respondents was collected in the same way. If you ask people at Mosque what they think I suspect you'll get a very different response than if you ask the same people on the street without referencing their religion.

I'd also say that if you got the respondents via religious institutions you'd get a different response than if you simply asked self identifying Muslims when you came across them as part of a larger survey. I don't think it wouldn't take me long to find a Muslim that finds homosexuality acceptable so if I'd conducted a survey that produced this result I think I'd have been strongly tempted not to release the data whilst I tried to find out what went wrong.

It could simply be that UK Muslims felt more aware that they were representing Muslims and were more conscious of making Islamic responses than Muslims did elsewhere. Whatever the methodological detail (which I've been unable to find) a 0% return is as suspicious as a North Korean election result and we have to be pretty careful when drawing conclusions from it.

Blessed be the boneheads

I'd heard that the British National Party were intent on comparing themselves to Jesus but had hoped, in the back of my mind, that this was some sort of joke. Apparently not.

"The BNP has produced an election poster bearing a passage from John's gospel and a traditional image of Jesus. "What would Jesus do?" it asks, and then supplies the answer - "vote BNP"."

Not just that but the BNP are more holy than the Church even because "church leaders actively shun the word of God on issues like sodomy, abortion and social justice". This being a new use of the term social justice that starts with a silent "in-".

Well I guess they're being clear that when members criticise their leader, Nick Griffin (below), they're committing heresy and need to be cast out. All that democracy stuff is just for the committed and uncritical believers. This explains quite a lot of what's happened in the last couple of years, purges, intimidation, stitch ups - this wasn't anti-democratic it was a Crusade against blasphemy.

Demonstrating exactly how Christlike the BNP are it turns out the whole thing was sparked by some Christians saying nasty things about the BNP - and so this was their retaliation. When they heard that "The UK's first black archbishop, John Sentamu, said in 2004 that voting for the BNP was "like spitting in the face of God"" they just couldn't let it lie.

"The BNP's spokesman Simon Darby said: "It's something that the Church brought on themselves when they decided to interfere in the democratic process. If someone wants to take us on, they can expect the same in return.""

Yes, that's following Christ's teaching of turning the other cheek (and then smacking someone in the mouth). Let's pray they don't get in this June...

It's probably very wrong of me but this whole story reminds me of this rather amusing sketch where Jesus is outed as a racist by his "PC" followers;

Does the Pope shit on the poor?

We all know that the Pope refuses to use a condom, no matter how much you beg him. He's famous for it. On his African tour he has been speaking on the sex issue saying that "A Christian can never remain silent". Good job the Vatican's got thick walls then I suppose, don't want to keep the nuns awake any more than we have to.

Benedict XVI (pictured here dispensing sex tips) was greeted on the first leg of his tour by Cameroon's President Paul Biya who has been President for almost 27 years, surrounding himself with much the same people for his entire rule. But his aging government has not retained power through murder and torturing political opponents. That would be wrong, it's just their hobby.

However, Biya may be a murderous strongman but this doesn't stop him being a "staunch catholic" and having a hearty welcoming ceremony with the Pope on his arrival. Just because Cameroon is the second worst for journalists in Africa should not blind us to the fact that it clearly isn't the worst then! Hurray for democracy.

Although the Pope could have used the flight over to bone up on Amnesty International's reports on Cameroon he spent most the time telling journalists how many friends he has in the church (oh oh) and defending his decisions over bringing right wing screwballs back into the fold. Isn't the Church full of that sort already? Did the Church really need a top up?

Anyway, when Benedict XVI isn't rubbing shoulders with the local elites he's looking after the interests of the poor and the needy by telling them off for having sex with each other. After all, if he didn't do his best to prevent the AIDS epidemic what would he tell his grand kids? That he just flounced about in a dress all day? For shame.

The other good news is that because the Catholic Church does everything for the benefit of the poorest and most needy in the world they have decided to donate their huge fortunes to the efforts to do good works in the world. That's right - they are selling off the palaces, the huge tracts of land, the art works, emptying out the the Swiss bank accounts, the lot. Well, I expect they'll announce that anytime soon.

They'll get right on to that directly after they've finished with the sex tips. For example, one Vatican official said that in the Church "The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing". Maybe that way it feels like someone else is doing it.

Religion and prison stats

Today I'm looking at a break down of prisoners and their offences by religion. This actually came about because I was writing something else which went wrong and I didn't want to waste the number crunching I'd already done. The base figures are from home office stats for Sept. 2006.

Of those prisoners who expressed a 'preference' 32% of the total prison population said that they had "no religion" and 68% specified a specific faith. By comparing this total to the ten categories we can see which offences we see more religious people than we might expect and those where those without religion have greater representation.

The section in orange cover the offences where the religious are over represented. The section in yellow are those offences where there is a greater proportion of the "no religion" group than we might expect to see if this was evenly spread. The numbers indicate the proportion of the prison population (by offence and total).

The difference is pretty stark in some cases. Adhering to some sort of faith meant that you were far less likely to commit a motoring offence but far more likely to indulge in fraud, sexual offences, drugs and robbery.

So let's section off the Christians from the other religions for a moment. The figures you see here are the proportion of Christians compared to other faith groups so that of the various religions represented in prison just over 78% of them are Christians of one denomination or another.

What I find interesting here is that whilst drugs and fraud offences were high for religious people as a whole, Christians were significantly under represented in these areas (with Muslims taking these offences as their highest "scoring").


This calls from examination of the difference Christian denominations and once again, to my surprise, there was a massive difference between the faiths. By far the two largest groups of Christians were the Anglicans and Catholics who make up over 90% of the Christian prison population.

Of all the categories Catholics were the most under represented in sexual offences and Anglicans were the polar opposite, massively over represented. Now, I'll admit a bit of prejudice here - I always think of Catholics as, well, messed up sexually, and I was expecting to see this group over represented in this category. Quite the reverse is actually the case.

So I thought I'd dig into the stats on sexual offences. The numbers you see here are arrived at by dividing the proportion of the total prison population a particular religion is by the total proportion of the sexual offenders that same group makes up. Those with a number higher than one are groups where there are more sexual offenders than you might expect, those with less than one there are less sexual offenders. For example if a group had a score of 0.5 it would mean there were half as many of this group than we might expect to see if that group was spread evenly among the prison population.

As an example, for clarity, this does mean there are more Jewish sexual offenders than, say, Catholics. The hard numbers are 23 Jews in prison for sexual offences and 890 Catholics. It is simply that, as a proportion of the prison population we'd expect to see less Jews here and more Catholics.

To make it easy all the orange groups are over represented among sexual offenders and those in yellow are under represented. I'm not arguing cause and effect here, just looking at correlations. We should also bear in mind that people may well change their faith after committing an imprisonable offence.

As I say these numbers came out of something else so I'm not trying to make any particular claims for these stats, I just didn't want to see them go to waste. Plus I think they're interesting. All the hard numbers are available from the link at the beginning if you want to check my working (or feel free to ask questions about something I've not explored and I might be able to give you the answer from my work sheet).

East Anglia - unexpectedly progressive

You wont hear me say that very often. For the first two years the tag line to this blog was "They created a desert and called it East Anglia", which was, well, a little controversial in some circles. My discontent is an ongoing project I'm still developing. However, I noticed something in the news today which really surprised me.

It seems that of all the English regions 61% of us East Anglians find evolution to be the best explanation of how human beings came about. 44% of us think that evolution "removes the need for God" - which is the highest proportion in the country (according to the Guardian anyways).

Now, I'm not wild about the categories on offer (evolution removes the need for God, or is part of God's plan) I certainly would not fall neatly into either category as God doesn't come into it for me but as general statements it's clear what they describe - and here in the East we have the highest level of dirty Godlessness, at least by this measure.

Well done to the tractor drivers!

Another surprise is that London has the highest number of anti-evolutionists in England at 32% of people believing in some sort of intelligent design / creationism. That certainly turns on its head the myth that urban dwellers are more progressive than the rural bumpkins. I can't think of a single, significant reason for this - a puzzle.

Update: Cath Elliott has written about this at CiF.

Turn the other cheek so I can punch that too

We all know that the disciples of Jesus love a good fight. Whether it's a Crusade, a holy bombing or just a bit of a punch up there they are armed to the teeth and champing at the bit.

Latest fight news from the ringside says that it's a tie between the Armenian monks and the Greek Orthodox contenders whose latest bout took place on the holiest of holy sites - that of the Edicule, the supposed last but one resting place of the Lord's heavyweight champ Jesus.

"Trouble flared as Armenians prepared to mark the annual Feast of the Cross. Shocked pilgrims looked on as decorations and tapestries were toppled during Sunday's clash. Dressed in the vestments of the Greek Orthodox and Armenian denominations, rival monks threw punches and anything they could lay their hands on...

"An Armenian clergyman said the Greek clergy had tried to place one of their monks inside the Edicule, an ancient structure which is said to encase the tomb of Jesus."What is happening here is a violation of status quo. The Greeks have tried so many times to put their monk inside the tomb but they don't have the right to when the Armenians are celebrating the feast," he said."

It all seems so reasonable now it's been explained. Some tosser tried to take part in their religious ceremony, but he was fucking Greek of all things. No wonder they tried to beat him up, that's outrageous behavior far from "Orthodox". That's almost as bad as being gay or something.

It puts me in mind of the parable where Jesus beat the guy up for being a Samaritan. Peace be with you all.

Update: Vicky has spotted brawling nuns in Italy, and I quote;

"Mr Esposito told police that the priest hit him over the head with a chair and the nuns followed by kicking him. Police say witnesses saw three attackers throwing tables and chairs then turning on the owner."

Is religion worth worrying about?

Some people do get in a lather about religion don't they? Just because it's provided the cloak of moral legitimacy to historic swathes of injustices, massacres and brutality throughout the ages it's bee in the bonnet time. They often forget about the jumble sale, social concern and soup kitchens side of things.

The atheist bus campaign has been interesting, partly because it's provided gentle relief to those who are rather sick of being lectured with the slogans of organised religion but also because it's tone has been consciously light and playful, probably trying to avoiding looking like a mirror image of preachy dogma.

Whilst this is not quite bombastic rationalism (with it's over modest 'probably') the campaign still received the support of Richard Dawkins, the Ayatollah of atheism himself.

Having set their sights at just over five thousand pounds they unexpectedly raised over £110,000 from a whole series of small, online donations. We can expect to see buses all over the country with a series of anti-God demands in the coming months.

As one donor said simply, "If God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist." Darren Johnson had a good letter in the Guardian the other day where he said;

"While I welcome the upfront self-confidence of the atheist bus campaign (Arriving soon, October 22), I do have reservations about the suggestion that those of us who don't believe in God have nothing to worry about, with climate change and an economy in meltdown. Central to my atheism is the knowledge that we don't get any second chances in an afterlife and we have no superior being to guide us out of the mess we are making. Yes, let's enjoy life and not live in guilt and fear, but let us also take full responsibility for our actions."

I was personally thinking of raising money for a bus that simply shrieked "WE'RE ALL DYING! WAKE UP!" in huge dripping letters, you know, just to shake people a bit. I've thought better of it since though, because there may be something in this light touch thing. I know the House Martins thought describing people as sheep was useful but I suspect that sort of thing can be counter-productive.

Over all I'm for the campaign because it's caused a little bit of a stir and made secularists a bit more confident, but I am slightly puzzled about what it's supposed to achieve. I'm assuming the organisers don't think there will be many 'road to Dagenham' moments with people rejecting their faith on the number 42.

Dawkins wants to make people think. I suspect it has succeeded in generating some debate, and a few nice comedy moments like this one from Have I got news for you. So that modest aim has been met, and I don't think they've gone up on any buses yet.

The campaign even has support from those who would not describe themselves as atheists like Sunny Hundal who says "the speed at which donations have been raised shows that when Britons get excited about specific political issues they’re as likely as Americans to donate money online. Surely its only a matter of time before organisations here try and exploit that?"

Sadie however considers the whole thing less than satisfactory. Or in her words "smug, liberal, metropolitan, self-satisfied bull emanating from the usual penne-munching, ethically-sourced cocaine snorting, north London mafia that we've been subjected to in recent years this, people, THIS really takes the biscuit."

I think she's wrong to be quite so incensed about this, but there is a small part of me that thinks there may be a smidgen of a point in there. If you just tell people you're cleverer than them and something they fundamentally believe to be true is just silly and further proof of their idiocy it can rather resemble smug, can't it?

The 'is there a God' debates seem slightly sterile to me, even if I have taken part in them occasionally. I think those of us on the left really need to be concentrating on what unites us, rather than focusing on why we think we're better than everyone else. If we want to combat sexism, homophobia or intolerance let's, but let's not pretend that all religious people share those values and that roundly denouncing religion helps those causes.

I'll always remember organising an event with some Christians who, when I mentioned the left, said they wanted to keep distanced from it because "the left hate Christians". It was pretty difficult to disagree with and extraordinarily frustrating. Rightwing religious organisations and campaigns *are* a problem but it's the reactionary part that's the problem - not the spirituality.

There are plenty of churches that can be a vehicle for mobilising progressive social change and we need to welcome them as part of the mix. It's not necessarily going to be expressed in a way we're used to or come without specific problems - but I'd like to see which left organisation doesn't come with difficult baggage or idiosyncracities that would have to be dealt with too.

Anyway, the scale of support for the campaign has been really interesting to witness as well as the tactical nouce to keep it fluffy. I guess it shows what can be achieved when you really don't believe in something.

Only religion makes doing evil feel quite so good

Not my words but those of Philip Pullman on those who've been attempting to erase the excellent His Dark Materials trilogy from the shelves of American libraries.

"Religion grants its adherents malign, intoxicating and morally corrosive sensations. Destroying intellectual freedom is always evil, but only religion makes doing evil feel quite so good,"

Many of the opponents of these books seem to regard them as an unending tirade against Christianity in favour of a cold hearted Dawkinsite atheism. Fans of that sort of thing would be very disappointed if they were lured to the series for this reason. In fact the trilogy is far more subtle, and if anything argue for the elimination of the power structures that grow up around organised religion rather than for its total abolition.

As Pulman says;

"Religion, uncontaminated by power, can be the source of a great deal of private solace, artistic inspiration, and moral wisdom. But when it gets its hands on the levers of political or social authority, it goes rotten very quickly indeed."

But whilst Christians in the US attempt to take Children's books off the shelves for being too intelligent, the home and offices of an Islington publisher were firebombed on Friday night for publishing "The Jewel of Medina, a romantic tale about Aisha, the Prophet Muhammad's youngest wife."

Whilst Pulman has always taken an overtly critical look at religious institutions - if done with a light and humanist touch - this new book, which has yet to alight on any shelves so can't possibly have offended anyone by what it actually says, appears to be more of an historical adventure with no intention to cause offense or even say anything in particular about Islam.

Indeed the strongest literary criticism I've seen, coming from a Muslim poet, was that, like many historical romances, it wasn't particularly historically accurate when it came to its portrayal of pre-Islamic Arab culture. Hardly a book burning offense.

Whilst I'm opposed to those who posture and preen themselves taking pride at offending Muslims (or anybody) it seems difficult to see this publication in a similar light. Nor in fact has this book seen anything like the widespread offense caused by the tactless publication of cartoons in Denmark which seemed to wear cultural insensitivity as a badge of honour.

Those responsible for the firebombing not only do their cause a massive disservice, and serve to promote a book they wish to see eliminated, they bring into disrepute those Muslims who would find this sort of response to an historical romance absolutely abhorant.

Just as the Christian right tar all Christians with their unblinking, uncheek turning intolerance so do those strands of Islam that offer hate whilst their brethren offer love.

Personally I'm not one of those who'd see all religion abolished, nor would I see an end to the right to fight for your beliefs - but that doesn't mean I have to roll over when there are those who'd cause fire and mayhem against those who'd publish what appears to be a fairly harmless fiction, nor those who'd take off the shelves an interesting discursive fantasy on how institutions and spirituality do not mix.