Ad attacking gays an 'abomination'

Sandown Free Presbyterian Church in Belfast is upset with the Advertising Standards Authority for ruling against its recent advertisement condemning 'sodomy' as an 'abomination' on the grounds that it breached the section of the code that governs 'decency'.  The church claims that the ad should have been allowed because it merely quoted what is in the Bible, Leviticus 18:22 to be precise: 'Thou Shalt not lie down with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination.' Our news story is here. You can download the document here with the text of the original advertisement.

This is the kind of thing, seen at a Gay Pride march, that the church was objecting to.

The ad, which ran in the Belfast News Letter, was headlined 'The Word of God Against Sodomy', all in caps, claimed the text in Leviticus to be an unequivocal statement that 'clearly articulates Gods judgement upon a sin that has been only made controversial by those who are attempting to either neutralise or remove the guilt of their wrongdoing.  As a result, we are now witnessing a hostile spirit being exerted against the testimony of Gods precious Word and those who adhere to its teachings.  It is imperative that everyone whose faith is centred upon the authority of the divinely inspired scriptures maintain a strong and public stand for the ethical and moral standards that will ultimately exalt the nation.  (Proverbs, ch14 v34, Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people.)'

The ad went on to cite 1 Cor 6:9-11, the verses about fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and 'abusers of themselves with mankind'.  The ads were promoting a parade intended to be a 'gospel witness against the act of sodomy'.

The ASA was not impressed. It received seven complaints, and the news letter received more. The authority rejected the complaint that the ad would provoke violence against the lesbian and gay community but found that it did cause 'serious offence'.

This was the adjudication:

'The ASA noted the ad prominently stated "Published by the Kirk Session of Sandown Free Presbyterian Church" and recognised that readers would understand that the text was representative of the beliefs of a specific group and indicative of their opinion only. 

'We considered, however, that some of the text used in relation to homosexuality, for example, "... declaring it to be an abomination ...", "... God's judgement upon a sin ...", "... remove the guilt of their wrongdoing ...", "... a cause for regret that a section of the community desire to be known for a perverted form of sexuality ...", went further than the majority of readers were likely to find acceptable. We considered that particular care should be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of sexual orientation, and concluded that this ad had caused serious offence to some readers.  On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency) but did not breach 8.1 (Matters of opinion).

'2. Not upheld We understood that the complainants were concerned because the ad called for an outdoor meeting to be held in protest of the act of sodomy and to voice disapproval of the Belfast Gay Pride parade on the same day as the parade was arranged; they believed this action could be read as an attempt to spread hatred and incite violence against supporters and members of the Pride movement and LBGT community. While we appreciated the complainants' concern, we considered that the ad did not in itself incorporate language likely to incite a violent emotional response.  We considered that it would be clear to readers that it represented the views of a specific group, which were not universally held, and would be deemed extreme by some.  We acknowledged, therefore, that the ad conveyed an opinion that was controversial for some readers but concluded that it was unlikely to provoke hatred or violence against the LGBT community. On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 8.1 (Matters of opinion) and 11.1 (Violence and anti-social behaviour) but did not find it in breach. Action The ad should not appear again in its current form.  We told SFPC to take more care in future to avoid causing offence and advised them to seek a view from the CAP Copy Advice team before publishing future marketing material.'

I called the minister, the Rev David McIlveen, to see what he thought.

He said: 'Obviously we are very pleased with the second part of the judgement, that they recognised that the advertisement itself would not lead to an act of violence against the gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgender community. I think that is a vindication of the true spirit of the statement we were making.

'But we are disappointed with the way in which the authority adjudicated on the issue of the homophobic  offence complaint. They used the section of the code on decency. They are therefore saying that to quote a text from the Bible is indecent in regard to homosexuality. We find that unacceptable and in fact we find it offensive.

'We find it very strange that an authority which is out to protect other people from being offended has no scruples in offending Bible-believing Christians.

'We also are very conscious that the actual adjudication is really a form of censorship against the Church.
When they make reference to the fact that the ad is not to appear in its present form, we can live with that. Then they go on to this directive that they have told the church that in any future marketing material we are
to seek advice from the committee of advertising practices.

'We see that as an interference in church affairs. It is totally unacceptable and totally unwarranted. An imam in the Islamic faith would not answer to an outside body, nor would a Roman Catholic priest. It is unacceptable that the Advertising Standards Authority or any authority impose something on the Church to take away our democratic right to freedom of speech. We believe that that is what they are doing.

'We will look at our options. We do feel it is a very severe adjudication. It affects people throughout the UK who hold a copy of the Bible. Are we now going to find that it is indecent for someone to print a Bible with verses of Scripture that say homosexuality is an abomination? It is a serious adjudication and one that will have serious effects on the Church.'

Comments

[J Pearce]

Dave,

There is nothing remotely unrealistic or extreme in expecting a public servant to carry out the entire range of duties expected of their office.

Allowing a Christian marriage registrar to duck out of certain duties, just because she holds private views that conflcit with said duties, is the thin end of a particularly dangerous edge.

It would leave the door open for all sorts of special treatment claims, based entirely on religious prejudices, from any number of victim-mentality religious zealots. I'm pretty certain that even civil service employment contracts don't have get-out clauses for the religiously impaired.

And its not as if civil servants have it difficult anyway, what with gold-plated pensions, generous holidays and the like. Our overbearing State is already bloated with workshy loafers as it is - weeding out the victim-mentality whingers can only make it more efficient, with the added bonus of saving you and me some money into the bargain.

Like I said before, pragmatism is the key - if another registrar can carry out her duties, then try and accommodate her views as best as possible.

If not - she does the job she's paid to do, or she can take her chances in the private sector - where I sincerely doubt her embarrasing prejudices would be received with quite the same sympathy.

[j]

On pinny strike, someone else can do the next lot of turkey sandwiches...

Jill, you posted:

"You need to look at countries which are not even nominally Christian. Places where rival gangs kill each other as a matter of course; where ‘honour’ killings are frequent occurrences; where women are subjugated, where polygamy is accepted; where extreme poverty alongside extreme wealth is the norm; at police states where ordinary citizens are imprisoned and tortured for their beliefs. There is no place in Christianity for any of this. Every human being has equal value, from the moment of conception to natural death. Since the efforts of NuLab to suppress Christianity, it has undoubtedly become a nastier place to live. Those who wish to suppress - or dispense with - Christianity should be careful what they wish for."

I think there are a number of things here.

You argue that Christianity protects against these things that are admitted atrocities. Obviously we both agree they are atrocities, the discussion is here (a) whether Christianity specifically has a protective effect and (b) if it does, whether recognising modern scholarship in textual criticism of the Bible undermines that protective effect.

Now on (a) I think we have to recognise that there are also very serious social ills in countries that are Christian. Think of poor Zimbabwe, South Africa, DR Congo.. come out of Africa and look at South America, at the drug trade in Peru, Bolivia, and elsewhere. Closer again, we can look at the mafia and the other gangs of Naples and Sicily.

These countries suffer because they are poor and because there is no credible national authority to maintain decency and order. Christianity is not a protection. The lessons it teaches are good ones but Islam also believes that every human counts. Bad people ignore Christianity as much as they ignore Islam. It's poverty, Jill, not one faith rather than another. Polygamy and subjugation of women are not big features of the muslim states of Egypt or Turkey- no more than you would expect from their relative poverty.

Why are muslim countries poorer? very interesting question but you have to accept- they are poorer at the moment. If we had asked this question halfway through Christianity, around 1,000 AD, we would have looked embarrassed at our behaviour during these dark ages and compared it with Islam scholarship.

I do agree Jill that if the heads of these suffering countries became decent, honourable and sincere Christians overnight and lived by their faith, that much would change. The same would be true of they were decent, honourable and sincere Muslims, Jews and Hindus. Or atheists/ agnostics. Which many of our prime ministers have been. NuLabour was unusual in being led by a committed christian, in fact.

But I do not agree that we are suggesting that all faith is destroyed from our society. asking for proper standards of scholarship to be applied before demonising an entire section of our community is not an invitation to gang warfare. Nor do you believe that, really. It is a lazy argument, born of fear and the wish to force people to see how important faith is (according to your sincere belief).

I know it is frustrating, Jill, that most people do not care about something that matters so much to you. But they do care about the same social values as you do. They just dont link them to retaining the right to demonise normal decent gay people- or, as Ruth and TTH write movingly on the other thread- others who maintain a decent and honourable family life outside the strict limits of catholic marriage rules.

[David Smith]

I WISH YOU, RUTH, AND ALL MY FELLOW BLOGGERS (whether friend or foe on specific issues) A VERY HAPPY AND ENJ0YABLE AND LOVE-FILLED TIME TOMORROW WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS!

I love a good party, though as I am not a practising pagan, I will not be ‘celebrating Christmas’.

You will understand that, as a Christian, I’m not much into the Babylonian feast of the Son of the goddess Isis; the Roman Saturnalia and Festival of the Unconquered Sun; the false ‘christian’ church’s Christ-mass; and all the other pagan celebrations of nature-as-a-god and of material and sensual excess that take place on the Winter Solstice day of 25th December.

Those who think that I am an isolated lunatic (and I know that I have many such ‘fans’ on this blog!) may be surprised by reading the excellent Introduction to Nigella Lawson’s latest seasonal bestseller ‘Nigella Christmas’, in which she sets out the true pagan nature of Christmas with excellent and succinct clarity – mentioning all the above ingredients, and more – and tells how the false political ‘christian’ church has (very successfully by its own terms of reference) simply infiltrated and used the pagan festivals of the natives in the different countries it has invaded to forward its own influence and hold over them. Some who do may find themselves, by Friday morning, having come to a deeper understanding of how 25th December is just another glitzy production from the promise-much-but-deliver-nothing-of-much-lasting-let-alone-eternal-value religious politicians of our main institutional churches. Others may simply enjoy taking in a little history, along with all their new stuff, and good food and wine!

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
' ..if Ms Ladele...cannot perform her duties towards the taxpaying public, then she shouldn't be in the job.

See how easy it is to hold sensible, balanced views?'

Translation from J Pearce speak to plain English:

'taxpaying public' = 'taxpayers who think like me'

'she shouldn't be in the job' = 'anyone who isn't willing to be forced to think and act as I would in the doing of their job should be sacked'

'sensible, balanced views' = 'in my eyes, these views of mine are sensible and balanced, however extreme, intolerant, or fascistic they may look to others'

PS
J Pearce:
'It is ridiculous that the council have allowed themselves to be manipulated by gay activists.. '

Spot on with this, though, 'J'. Credit where credit's due!

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
' ..if Ms Ladele...cannot perform her duties towards the taxpaying public, then she shouldn't be in the job.

See how easy it is to hold sensible, balanced views?'

Translation from J Pearce speak to plain English:

'Taxpaying public' = 'taxpayers who think like me'

'she shouldn't be in the job' = 'anyone who isn't willing to be forced to think and act as I would in the doing of their job should be sacked'

'sensible, balanced views' = 'in my eyes, these views of mine are sensible and balanced, however extreme, intolerant, or fascistic they may look to others'

[J Pearce]

"So, Merseymike, you would condemn Islington council for their discriminating practice against Lilian Ladele?"

Yes, I would - up to a certain point. It is ridiculous that the council have allowed themselves to be manipulated by gay activists who are, apparently, seeking to inflate a non-issue into a problem. They are the mirror to Christian anti-gay activists, no doubt about it.

Certainly, if there was a deputy available to administer her duties in the particular case of civil partnerships, then its just plain common sense to let that happen.

BUT - if Ms Ladele was the only available registrar and she was tasked with administering to a civil partnership, then I would have to back the council if it insisted on her doing her duties.

She is, after all, a public servant. If she cannot perform her duties towards the taxpaying public, then she shouldn't be in the job.

See how easy it is to hold sensible, balanced views? Merry Xmas!

[J Pearce]

I refer all homophobic Christians to the following article in todays Times, which entirely vindicates both myself and every other poster on this thread, who has defended homosexuality:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/
guest_contributors/article5391329.ece

[Geoffrey Smith]

"As for 'Christophobia', I think any one can believe exactly as they wish, but when that results in discriminating practice against others, that isn't acceptable."
- Merseymike, 23 DEC 2008, 16:11:37

So, Merseymike, you would condemn Islington council for their discriminating practice against Lilian Ladele? Ms Ladele is the registrar who is being victimised by the north London council for refusing to officiate at a 'civil parnership' ceremony because it violates her Christian belief. Employed by that council for the last 14 years as a registrar, her contract of employment has never made any mention of being required to assist at such a registration - until now, when the council unilaterally decides to change the terms of the contract against her wishes. Ms Ladele is being persecuted by her employers and colleagues for insisting on her rights as a citizen and a Christian.
She is simply stating that it is not only gays and lesbians who should be free from any discrimination, but also religious believers, who do not wish to be dragooned into violating their consciences by publicly approving an immoral course of action.
It is not Ms Ladele who is doing the discriminating, Merseymike, but the Islington council. They have quite happily allowed a deputy to officiate in Ms Ladele's place on a number of previous occasions. Only now, when they have been subjected to pressure from the vindictive gays, do they feel that their employee is at fault.

[Merseymike]

Dear me, Jill, you really do live in some sort of parallel universe.....you will just have to accept that when people say they are Christian, they mean either 1) I'm British therefore I must be Christian, or 2) Yes, I think there's probably 'something out there'.

If you seriously think that their religious views have any relationship to yours, you really do need to get real!

Looking at the real evidence, we have seen a range of legal and social changes which have made the lives of gay and lesbian people better. As angry as they make you feel, they are here to stay - because the Conservative party have no intention of throwing away votes where people like you are going to vote for them anyway! So, get used to the way things are now, because there's no going back.

And lets look at the court cases - you are losing every one, and in each case, only religious extremists such as yourself are bothered. Most ordinary people really don't care either way. British people tend to be moderate - live and let live.

Pride events are largely funded via commercial sponsorship, by the way....

As for 'Christophobia', I think anyone can believe exactly as they wish, but when that results in discriminatory practice against others, that isn't acceptable. Quite simple really. Unfortunately for you, the settlement reached is one which offers gay and lesbian people and their relationships equal status and citizenship, and your style of campaigning has done a great deal to bring this about, simply because British people don't like religious extremism. Its so easy to portray your views in that way, and as a result, they lose support.

Given that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are probably the most committed Christians to be PM since Gladstone, your right-wing views are not accepting reality once again.

Please do continue to post, Jill, because hyperbole and angry prejudice is always a good thing to highlight when arguing the reasonableness of our case. We have done this with almost total success in recent years.

[J Pearce]

"We are practically there, at the debasing and degrading level of Folsom Street. Gay Pride parades take place in just about every major city in the UK, and these festivals sometimes spread over several days. "

OK, I looked up the gay pride festival calender for 2009. These are the following festivals scheduled to take place next year in the UK:
Brighton, March.
Manchester, May.
Birmingham, May.
Oxford, June.
Edinburgh, June
London, June/July
Thanet, July.
Brighton (again, quelle surprise), July/Aug
Truro, August (populated entirely by "I'm the only gay in the village" types, I suspect…)
Manchester, August
Barnsley, August

Jill - I suspect a lot of people would surmise that this isn't a definitive list of "every major city" in the country. Do you think it is? Because if so, I suggest a geography refresher course.

The truth is, you are once agan endeavouring to scaremonger based on non-existent evidence. 11 festivals in 10 places. Hardly constitues the end of civilisation.

And I would even chance my arm and say that the vast majority of the UK population isn't going to be remotely troubled by any of these events. Unless, Jill, you are trying to argue that most "decent Christians" reside in and around Barnsley…

"You crease me up, J Pearce"

Ithangyew.

"you can ‘tolerate’ just about every perverted and depraved behaviour pattern"

Err…I said this…where, exactly?

"but you cannot tolerate people whose faith guides their morality"

That’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about people like you projecting - forcing, even - their "morality" onto others (i.e. the subject of this thread, the public advertisment denouncing gay people - I still haven't heard a peep from the homphobic Christians about whether they would have the moral courage to comission a similar advert condemning Islam. Gutless wonders the lot of 'em, as suspected).

Jill, you object to homosexuality but have no rational defence for your opinions. They are entirely predicated on ill-informed prejudice, statistical manipulations and utterly nonsensical "factual" pronouncements which, when investigated, prove to be utterly ridiculous (i.e. the one above, for a start).

It amounts to nothing more than crass, irrational bullying. Which is just another way of describing homophobia.

"Christophobia at its very nastiest."

No. I'm zealot-phobic, if anything. I abhor zealotry and crass bullying in whatever form it takes, whether it comes from Christians, homosexuals, Muslims, whatever.

"Places where rival gangs kill each other as a matter of course; where ‘honour’ killings are frequent occurrences; where women are subjugated, where polygamy is accepted; where extreme poverty alongside extreme wealth is the norm"

And here we have the Christian homophobe hypocrisy thrown into its sharpest relief. We're talking about Islam and Hinduism here - why aren't you ranting about Muslims and Hindu's, Jill?

Why aren't you vocally objecting to their festivals? Why aren't you trawling the net for photo's depicting Islamic or Hindu atrocities? Why are you not fighting to repatriate Muslim and Hindu immigrants?

Why are they exempt from your criticisms and obsessive pursuit of information to defame?

Because you and your fellow homphobes are cowards, Jill. You are too scared to challenge the immorality of other religions.

You are all spineless bullies, who don't lift a finger to rally around fellow Christians murdered in foreign lands (where they are, ironically, the victimised minority); but who prefer to spend their time instead indulging their obscure fetishes with the sex lives of other people and scapegoating gays for your own reactionary prejudices.

The selfish, stinking, white, middle-class arrogance and hypocrisy is palpable. Perhaps this Xmas, Jill, you might reflect on who the real victims of this world are, and hopefully feel a deep shame that you are engaged in much the same cultural war on gays, as those religions who would see your Christian brethren ostracised and demonised in their homelands.

[Jill]

Well, J Pearce, I have thought a lot of things about you, but I never thought you were a complete fool. We are practically there, at the debasing and degrading level of Folsom Street. Gay Pride parades take place in just about every major city in the UK, and these festivals sometimes spread over several days. And just look at the fury of the gay lobby when Boris cut £10,000 from the Soho Pride event (which the rest of us poor saps have to finance). This is in spite of him having given support to other gay pride events. When Ben Summerskill drops the handkerchief, which the toadies in Government will doubtless fall over each other in their haste to pick up, and manages to get his highly exaggerated (and doubtless carefully selected) ‘quota’ of LGBT people into top jobs, what chance then of putting the brakes on? For crying out loud!

As for ‘spotlighting’ activities, yes, I will, and so will David I suspect, and others. People need to know these things. I don’t suppose many people have seen those images from Folsom Street, and I would stake my life on them horrifying the average Brit, Christian or not. You crease me up, J Pearce – you can ‘tolerate’ just about every perverted and depraved behaviour pattern, but you cannot tolerate people whose faith guides their morality. Christophobia at its very nastiest.

J – if you are looking to this blog – or even this country – for evidence of what shapes people’s morality, I suggest you are looking in the wrong place. For we still have a basic Christian ethos, and the secular humanists who think their ideas are just as good base their principles on this. Our very culture is shaped by Christianity. Around three quarters of Brits define themselves as Christian. A truly liberal democracy is based on Christian precepts of the worth of every human being, not just special interest groups. You need to look at countries which are not even nominally Christian. Places where rival gangs kill each other as a matter of course; where ‘honour’ killings are frequent occurrences; where women are subjugated, where polygamy is accepted; where extreme poverty alongside extreme wealth is the norm; at police states where ordinary citizens are imprisoned and tortured for their beliefs. There is no place in Christianity for any of this. Every human being has equal value, from the moment of conception to natural death. Since the efforts of NuLab to suppress Christianity, it has undoubtedly become a nastier place to live. Those who wish to suppress - or dispense with - Christianity should be careful what they wish for.

Geoffrey, my dear chap – chill!! Who cares about a few insults? They say much more about the person delivering them than they do about you or me. These people have lost the argument before they even start, if they can’t come up with anything better than that. Who knows when any of the seeds sown here will be fruitful? As we know, God works in a mysterious way – he can pluck the amoral, and purveyors of sexual incontinence, when they least expect it and change their lives. Besides, lots of people read this blog, and there is plenty of food for thought for those who may not be aware of what is going on under their noses.

Anyhow, enough of this. The time has come when I must put on my pinny, and shut myself away in my kitchen for several days with some early sacred polyphony to feed my soul, after which I may be let out for good behaviour. I would like to wish Ruth and her family, and the many friends I have made via this blog, a very happy and blessed Christmas – and to the people who loathe what I stand for – well, a very happy Christmas to them too.

[ElizabethR]

"...the first people to knock at my door would be people like you; homphobic Christians, hysterically detailing to me the "inevitable" acts of depravity that would occur on my doorstep; ranting Bible-bashers, conjuring up fantastical allusions to Sodom and Gomorrah;..."

Abso-bloody-lutely JP. This Jill woman cannot apparently see the wood for the trees, although she presents as concerned. It may be learned behaviour or the company she keeps I couldn't possibly comment - and it's none of my business.

Some of the other precious highly-sensitized obsessives have the hide of a rhinoceras and the brains of a rocking horse. They specialize in taking offence and substitute it for argument.

Jill's post seems typical of all the others of hers, if I am understanding correctly what I read - prejudice skilfully crafted into loose public concern, a trumpeting bandwagon affair with a search for a 'like mind' (enter DSkin - what a relief!) but, like his, her posts consist of wholly inaccurate extrapolations of all 'facts' regarded as suitable fodder for regurgitation.

You are right. NOTHING in the Folsom Street link has any real relevance in Surbiton, or says anything about a wider social sphere. It is NOT a trusted, typical source of concern, which indicates tension or determines future civilisation. Subsequently gloomy and obsessive predictions may be seen as yet more false ordure piled on the dungheap of neurotic speculation, but eagerly seized on by armchair bigots attempting to justify themselves.

Whatever the hell they think they are doing publicy, the sexually obvious denizens of Folsom Street are NOT advocating killing people or justifying it through perceived godly support or evangelism. NOBODY has to sit and watch. (or trawl through gay porn sites, or read Gagnon to feel OK or to dilute self-loathing) The worst they have so far achieved is to offend shrunken-headed religionists who, standing on the wardrobe in order to see, can only EVER shout their heads off at the anatomical variance of homosexuality, in real terms, by which all other aspects are defined.

Some of these people protest too much.

[andrew holden]

"On balance I came to the conclusion that there is too much which is negative about the Christian view of humanity and the contents of the Bible..."

Is that really the case or is it merely a sub-set selected by some? You see I find that the Bible is both fully realistic and yet also optimistic about human nature. Christianity teaches that human beings are made in the image of God and, although that image is flawed, it is not totally eradicated - nor, because of the incarnation, will it ever be, in fact the imago Dei will be restored.

Of course I accept that people who have a downer on God himself won't be too impressed with that......

As to your pessimism about the direction of Christianity towards increased fundamentalism I couldn't disagree more - increased fundamentalism is a temporary blip so long as our society remains plural.

[Merseymike]

Andrew: I really don't have a problem with liberal Christians, after all, I have been one for most of my life, and its only in recent years that I have moved away from that position. Unfortunately, I think that the Church is becoming more and more taken over by modernity-loathing fundamentalists, and that what you view as Christianity will , as the church becomes weaker, be almost entirely obliterated by the fundamentalist brigade.

On balance I came to the conclusion that there is too much which is negative about the Christian view of humanity and the contents of the Bible to want to remain in that setting any longer, but I appreciate that others will see things differently. But its quite a relief that I no longer have to excuse my affiliation with the Jill's and David Skinner's of this world!

[J Pearce]

Jill,

Your entire side-argument regarding this Fulsom Street is based entirely on a red herring - that we can expect these "Fulsom Street" activities to occur on every street in Britain if we…err…treat homosexuals as normal people. It’s an utterly ridiculous precept and a deliberate misrepresentation.

We don't do parades in suburban streets, Jill. It’s a non-question. It wouldn't happen in this country. All public events are now carefully managed by the relevant authorities - if they even caught a whiff of potential controversy, it wouldn't get the go-ahead. How many gay pride marches occur each year in the UK?

Carnivals such the one in Fulsome Street are organised such that they are as much in the public space as possible. The whole point is to move them out of family communities and into public spaces where people can choose to attend or not.

Their frequency is rare; and reserved to major urban hubs. Hardly rubbing uptight middle-class home counties Christian noses in it, are they? And the Rio Carnival is hardly a bastion of Christian values either; I don't see you or Mr. Skinner posting gratitiously titillating URL's of Brazilian dancing girls (I wish!). I presume because David's PC is chock-full of links to gay porn instead?

Mr Skinner is in the curious position of deliberately advertising the very activities he wants to repress. Doesn't that strike you as odd? That Mr Skinner - and yourself and Geoff - spend an inordinate amount of time researching and spotlighting activities which are occur extremely infrequently at best and involve a minority of people? It all has the whiff of irrational, desperate obsession, Jill. Time to wake up AND smell the coffee - for God's sake.

As for the "debauched" sexual acts - anyone giving head in broad daylight on my street, whether they be gay or straight, is going to get into problems by offending the sensibilities of the residents. Their sexuality isn't going to make a blind bit of difference, it’s the perceived offensiveness of the act that’s the problem.

I think, Jill, that if there were to be any proposed "gay march" down the street where I live, the first people to knock at my door would be people like you; homphobic Christians, hysterically detailing to me the "inevitable" acts of depravity that would occur on my doorstep; ranting Bible-bashers, conjuring up fantastical allusions to Sodom and Gomorrah; prejudiced zealots, stirring the s**t up, telling me that my children would be permanently scarred by witnessing those evil sodomites at close range.

And you know what? The first thing I'd say would be "**** off the lot of you" - and then I'd go and find out what was really happening for myself. Because I wouldn't trust a Christian zealot with the truth, any further than I could spit one.

[Christopher]

"Marvellous! Not families that come in all shapes and sizes, or any number of partners, or lasting of any duration, but the family model as intended by Jesus Christ.

What model is that then, David Skinner? It certainly wasn't your "family values" Thatcher-Reaganesque model, for sure.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Matt 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

[J Pearce]

I take great pride in being labelled a Pagan. Mucho history attatched to that round my former way. Paganism blured with early Christianity created many wonderous granite constructions upon desolate and inspiring moors and clifftops.

All this is sadly lost on the rancorous religious misanthropes that now populate suburbia, their soulless housing estates and concrete ghettos about as morally uplifting as a decaying corpse. Much the same as their outlook on life, in fact.

[andrew holden]

"my view is that a moral christian takes a great deal from his/her faith and it informs the moral behaviour that they live by..."

My own personal view is that saying "God says do x" or that "the bible says you must not y" is but a shorthand for human moral reasoning anyway. You can cut through that shorthand in a stroke by asking "why does God say do x?" or "why does the Bible say...." etc. Christians believe that God behaves rationally. He is not a moral despot arbitrarily deciding for x and against y - he has, or should have, perfectly good reasons for doing so. In my view this is because I believe that goodness is absolute rather than relative. Goodness is something that even God must serve rather than something he invents. Many fundamentalists are in fact relativists because they believe goodness is decreed by God - which means that, at least in theory, he could change his mind about something. The same goes for some authoritarian churches!

Thats why I think there is little real difference between the goods identified by different religions and cultures and why I believe it is possible for humans to eventually agree commonly accepted values.

Also my faith informs my view because I value its tradition - but it doesn't stop me using reason to decide how good that tradition is. Where I believe the tradition is wrong, eg about gay relationships, then I'm prepared to look critically at the tradition to see if I've really understood it and/or change it if necessary. I would be committed to justice even if God didn't exist - and I try to care not only because God cares but because I judge that caring for others is in and of itself a good thing.

[j]

Andrew, my view is that a moral christian takes a great deal from his/her faith and it informs the moral behaviour that they live by. Indeed, the reason I come here is to see how such morality differs from the morality of those not guided by a faith.

We can agree I think that all moral humans have much in common, and that it is reasonable that you should see that as evidence of god in all men, just as it is reasonable that I see it as one reason why man evolves the idea of god. I dont think, myself, that a christian committed to justice is devalued because they would say that they care because in their faith, god cares.

But of course it is easy for us to agree on things where we agree. Just as it is easy to love our neighbour if we like him anyway. Loving the unlovable, agreeing on the very difficult- that might be our challenge.

I do wish we could exercise our brains on something outside sex, if only because we would then not have to deal with single-issue christianity but could debate a more integrated philosophy. BUt as ever, the issue of how and when we die and how we protect the vulnerable- a big yawn for most people here, though I know you have tried.

Have a happy and christian Christmas, Andrew and thank you for your debates this year.

[ElizabethR]

"I should think by now, Jill, that you have realised what a waste of time it is exchanging posts with these pagans."

Suppose so, if you exist in a bubble.

'Pagan' now frequently used by the Christian pious in a depreciatory sense and to define 'otherness'. Add it to the list of smart Alec terminology...

[andrew holden]

"Andrew - you see, this is the problem. Liberal Christian and humanist values are actually very similar - but I think the problem with Christian ones is 1) god, 2) the Bible, and 3) the Church"

Yet Liberal Christians have the same God, the same Bible and the same Church - though some here might reject that! What varies is the way these things are applied - that's your beef not some general problem with any of them. Are you going to reject a Christians committment to justice for all just because it comes with a belief in God? Most Christians I know who are involved in causes do so for the sake of the cause itelf and don't actually have some sort of religious strings attached. Most modern missionary work, for example, is based on compassion for everyman and not stealthy prosyletism.

"Tale away those three things and take what is good from Christianity and you get humanism."

My point is similar - though I would prefer to claim that Christianity is the first true humanism! Emphasise common ground rather than irrelevant difference? Christians care because they believe God cares - does that somehow devalue or disallow their caring?

[Geoffrey Smith]

I should think by now, Jill, that you have realised what a waste of time it is exchanging posts with these pagans.
All you receive in return is an interminable rant from you-know-who, most of which is entirely irrelevant and in no way addresses the concerns you expressed in your post. This lady is 200% correct, Jill, and anything we have to say to her is bound to be wrong because she opposes it. I wish you a joyful and peaceful Christmas and a happy New Year.

[ElizabethR]

"Wake up, for God’s sake." Jill

Oh for PITY'S sake! Wake up to what exactly - your own particular notions of respectability?

Folsom Street might not be a place I would choose to spend my afternoon, although I am indifferent to the content of Mr Skinner's gleefully voyeuristic link. Attitudes to sex have for centuries been defined by repressive religionists. They have normalised disgust and osbscenity and created meaningless behavioural taboos which have infected society. Some overt sexual behaviour has become 'obscene' because it has been constantly re-inforced through culturally authoritarian programming. Some forms of language or individual words have been singled out as obscene and demonised accordingly - ridiculous. Repressive laws have been formed around prejudice and then repealed. What is obscene to one person is not to another and anybody would think that just because the panoply of sexual activities are mostly unseen, they do not occur. Well parents have all been lying to their children about Father Christmas and having filthy sex as well.

If religionists stopped attacking those they don't happen to like the look of, there would in my view be far fewer furious demonstrations - all overt resistance to criticism. Not that it matters much.

Human sexual behaviour is diverse. Children should gradually come to know what the world consists of and it is utterly pointless to advance the Christian speciality of pretending that the world is something that it is not. I would not take young, impressionable children to Folsom Street because with the current institutionalised culture, in which the vestiges of religion inspired cultural taboos are still reinforced to varying degrees, they would be unable to understand what they were looking at or deduce any meaning from it.

But you make the mistake that this is emblematic of ALL gay and lesbian mindsets, who for you are likely to be participants.

There are a range of places I would not take young children to, for example boxing contests or other forms of fighting, bullfights or other forms of cruelty, or football matches where mass hysteria prevailed or where brute violence was likely to occur - for the same reasons.

It is shame that in a world where wars and killing have been normalised as unavoidable, heroic or institutionally correct, people wildly obsessing over sexuality are not directing their efforts towards these forms of hypocrisy.

Folsom Street? You might just as well hold up third world massacres of innocents as examples and ask the same question. Would you like it in your home town? But that would not suit your prissy self-righteous little puposes would it? You dear are a professional - someone who is likely to be serially offended, seemingly by the non-issues that you define in order to demonstrate your piety. Sorry, I find it deeply unattractive and a first class example of head-burying narrow idealism.

Er... happy bloody Christmas anyway, even though we strongly disagree!

[Merseymike]

Andrew - you see, this is the problem. Liberal Christian and humanist values are actually very similar - but I think the problem with Christian ones is 1) god, 2) the Bible, and 3) the Church

Tale away those three things and take what is good from Christianity and you get humanism.

[Merseymike]

In the words of Jim Royle ...'eternal punishment. my a***'

When I die, I'll be as dead as your jesus who may or may not have existed over 2000 years ago.

And I fully intend to make my own decisions until that time as much as I am able - one of which was to ditch Christianity for good in 2008.

Thanks for reminding me why, David, and being such a good ambassador for atheism.

[ElizabethR]

"Take my advice, sir: reserve your posting for your fellow-Christians, and ignore the trolls. That way, you will be treated with respect and your views will be considered seriously..." GS

Oh absolutely! It's the definition of living in a fool's paradise DSkin!

HA! Christian 'dialogue' - that well-known universal forum for agreement, peace, harmony and spreading the love!

Happy Christmas my old Trollmeister!

(Conjures up mental picture of Geoffrey grimly wearing his paper hat and counting his Christmas cards, whilst suffering prolonged trouser explosions due to a surfeit of brussel sprouts....!)

[j]

Hello Jill and thank you. You are right that I think a deliberate mispresentation of what you say is not just rude, it's pointless because then we are not actually discussing what you are trying to say.

On selfcentredness, yes, we agree of course. There are horribly selfcentred people around, all of whom frankly ought to know better, whether because they are professing christians and ought to take their faith more seriously, or whether for other reasons.

I think that what I am seeing with both you and David is that you are sincere in your belief that the gay people you describe are the norm. I agree that they exist, and of course you would agree that weird christians exist, such as Waco, flagellation, extreme visions, murderers of sinful women etc. I dont insult you or your faith by pretending that all christians are like that- we both know its not true.

I'd be interested to understand- if it were true that gay people lived faithful and virtuous lives of modest and mature civic value, would you still be against it and still feel it is selfcentred? What I am trying to untangle is how far your views are based on the facts you cite, and how far they are immutable whatever the facts turn out to be.

What I think I see is that you start from a position and then you find facts to prove your theory. This is commonly seen as a bad method where I work- you would lose your job or at least your grant. People are supposed to collect the facts first and then form the theory after.

In this case, the theory- or the starting position that gay love is sinful- is given to you by the teaching of your faith, so it is not surprising that you start from there. What does surprise me is your sincerity in believing that the behaviours you cite are the norm and the routine future in a gay-friendly society. I cant quite see how you arrive at that view.

Some of the arguments are semantic- David says that gay people are obsessed by sex as there is sex in the word homosexual- but of course there is sex in the word heterosexual as well. There's no sex in the word gay.

You argue that they are selfobsessed, as they define themselves by their sexuality, but again so do christians who are making a point of not being gay. And of course the low key normal gay that you have probably known for ten years and who hasnt told you about it, is not that fussed about selfdefining in that way. Thats how come you dont know she's gay.

There is a process by which quite normal and decent people were anti-semitic before the least war- it was the social norm around them and they heard and repeated favourite urban myths and horror stories. Most of them knew that the stories were a bit of a mixture of exaggeration, atypical behaviour and sheer mischief making, but somehow it was a matter of social loyalty to take the urban myth at face value.

I do see something of that here. If all gay people really did all the things you report, as their normal behaviour, it would be a concern. And if gerbilling is true then I am disgusted by the pointless animal cruelty- but I would still not say that it was remotely normal behaviour for anyone, gay or straight.

[Jill]

David, thank you for posting the link to the Folsom Street Fair. Images are indeed worth thousands of words.

I invite our opponents on this blog to look at the pictures, and tell me, honestly, if this is the kind of spectacle they want their children and grandchildren to witness. This is not ‘scaremongering’, as has been suggested, this is reality. Oral sex, sodomy, and some of the most debauched and vile acts of sadomasochism are happening, in public, in broad daylight. It happens every year on the streets of San Francisco. This event is protected by the police – the San Francisco Police Department has hosted a police recruiting booth at the event. Last year’s even had an Anglican bishop, Marc Andrus, riding behind the parade, next to a well-known Nigerian gay activist (spokesperson for Changing Attitude and sexual predator who spends his life telling people how victimised he is). It is financed by corporate sponsors such as Miller-Lite. Children watch it. Last year’s event had the blessing of the Mayor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Okay, J Pearce, Kate, anybody else – look at the pictures. Would you want this in your home town, perhaps going past the window of your house, for your children/grandchildren to see? Yes or no will do. If not, how do you propose to stop it? What do you think would be the reaction of the gay lobby if you tried? Is it perhaps possible that you would get the same kind of vitriolic tirades from them that we are now getting from you?

Wake up, for God’s sake.

[j]

"JI I do really value your posts. for the simple fact that your comments express in a way that I never could, the very heart of militant, bigoted and fundamentalist homosexuality and its sponsors."

David, you then go on to quote exclusively from ER.

I do not think that many people would characterise me as militant, bigoted and fundamentalist and I suspect you deliberately replied to us together so that you could avoid replying to my last post.

Never mind. It has been an interesting debate.

[ElizabethR]

Look out, here he comes again in another salvo of abuse towards his fellow human beings “…the parade of slavering beasts…” DSkin

So, you think that up to 6% of the world population is NOT a relative minority?
You have some sort of point regarding Sir Ian McKellen? If so what? The dichotomy over classification of minorities is FALSE in your unsound argument. Perhaps you think that children should not be taught tolerance as a Christian value? Arguably, homosexuals do not want to be classified, pigeonholed or defined as a minority group by religionists or anyone else. It is also a mistake to associate minorities with attenuated value or vary levels of relevance or human rights. All people with diverse sexual proclivities should be recognized as human beings and included within society – who are YOU to say different? ( as per Peter Tatchell’s point over homosexuals.)

Harry Hammond had acted unreasonably in holding up a sign he knew to be offensive, although few other participants emerge with credit. His is a very sad story and shows the sort of permanent damage that those who conspire to encourage feelings of hatred in others can do. They convinced him. Was Harry Hammond a balanced, calm and rational person at peace with himself? Are you? How's the self-loathing?

To evaluate Hitler’s atrocities in terms of homosexuals and paedophilia is reprehensible, wholly unbalanced - although very telling.

“But the Black, coloured Asians relatives and friends, whom I know, would be deeply offended by being made equivalent to gays.” THIS to 'J' is used wildly out of context. Are your friends ALL homophobes?

“Race, gender and even, sometimes, disability are classifications that are forever defined by our genes. They are also innocuous traits in that they do not impact on the social cohesion, economy and health of a nation…Homosexuality is a socio/psycho/ideological disorder that at the very least leads to personality and emotional problems, such as bi-polar depression.”

This presumably, by virtue of the type difference when copying, is another DSkin cut-and-paste job. Where did it come from David another ‘Christian’ homophobic website? The ‘science’ is nonsense and completely unproven in terms of causation. You are using a plucked myth of genetic certainty to suit yourself.

I weep for your strangled soul and seemingly closed-down mind. There are so many other, positive things you could be doing in the name of your faith. What about a campaign designed to reduce the sales of arms or an attempt at promoting world peace? ANYTHING to assist humanity rather than attack and divide it.

Do you REALLY imagine that ignoring cogent, incisive questions from numerous contributors goes unnoticed? No-one is fooled my old sausage. We have all been here numerous times before. You are not the only 'traditionalist' homosexual policeman that ducks and weaves and is selective. You are unable to address these points.How could you? Your position is weak, the persepctive is moribund and it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to do so. Voluminous ball-aching repetition of OPINION and abstruse politically inspired 'logic' adds absolutely ZERO to the debate and simply polarizes it. It is slowly painting you into a nasty and very lonely corner it seems to me.

Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that you will at least suspend your funny little campaign have a pleasant Christmas, and that the[patronized] ‘she who must be obeyed’ and who, according to you, supplies your dinner will not suddenly self-actualize and tip it over your head!

[david skinner]

Finally, it is time for me at least to cease fire for Christmas and get together with the family, with mums and dad, husbands and wives, bothers and sisters, children and grandchildren. Marvellous! Not families that come in all shapes and sizes, or any number of partners, or lasting of any duration, but the family model as intended by Jesus Christ.

I had intended as a last post, Ruth permitting, that I would disabuse a few folks who seem hell bent on distorting what Jesus Christ actually said about the nature of sin, what hatred He had for it and the eternal punishment awaiting those who rejected his sacrificial death in dying in our place on the cross. But it can all be found here: http://www.studylight.org/con/ntb/view.cgi?number=T5143
I didn’t write it; so no one can accuse me of being unloving. Jesus Christ wrote it so all those who want to take issue with the Truth will have to contend with him.

Have a peaceful Christmas and God have mercy on us all, even Elizabeth, JI, J.Pearce, Kate, Mersey Mike et al. because our nation is going to need it, in the coming year. God Bless and keep you

[andrew holden]

"Who wants to 'live life as a Christian' when there are much better and more genuinely moral alternatives? Not me!"

Of course that's your perogative - but you really should stop teasing us by making such sweeping statements and not giving the detail.

Now, I'm not wishing to sound morally superior but I do choose to live life as a Christian at least partly because of the moral teachings of the founder of Christianity. Furthermore, whilst I wouldn't claim he is the only moral guide on offer I do reckon that he is up there with the best.

Sweeping Christian morality away because some Christians, incomprehensibly, manage to display behaviour which is completely incompatible with our 'core values' is nonsensical. Furthermore you have yet to show us the colour of your own 'genuinely moral' principles. I'll hazard a guess that they are actually largely good 'christian' values even if you would like to reject the name.

Of course, I will concede that our christian values are in fact wider based human values - though there is, of course, a theological reason for this. Human beings are 'made in the image of God and reflect his truth and light' so its hardly surprisinig that we would all share in his values of love and justice.

[david skinner]

It seems that words and reason itself have become meaningless. Pehaps pictures will express far more eloquently anything I could say. http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/

[david skinner]

Elizabeth, and JI I do really value your posts. for the simple fact that your comments express in a way that I never could, the very heart of militant, bigoted and fundamentalist homosexuality and its sponsors. Please do not stop. I am sure there is more to hear. Though frankly, I wonder how many, reading this blog, have the stomach to hear any more.

Allow me to give a tiny sample of your bent as opposed to straight way of reporting what people say: I said a few posts back,

“Whilst attending a staff meeting in a large comprehensive school in 1997, a young, anarchist teacher addressed around 80 teachers and gave us lecture on re education re-education re- education courtesy of Tony Blair. As part of Labour’s flagship, mile stone Equal Opportunities Bill, this proselytiser wanted us to include the homosexual dynamic into all our teaching, right across the curriculum.
There was paralysis on the part of everyone. Not a dicky bird. Falteringly I rose from my chair and timidly suggested that we had a duty of care to the children and that it was our responsibility to point them to the north. It was then for the first time that I heard close by someone say “ I cannot believe these views are still held today.” In other words my statement was not only medieval but should not be allowed to be expressed. In fact two weeks later a member of staff told me that in future I was to keep my personal opinions to myself ( because they were offensive to him.)

You say,

“So to get this straight, despite your constant assertions that free speech is paramount, you branded one speaker an anarchist, because he was disseminating a policy of inclusivity in the interests of others. You offended someone else and then objected to their complaint?”

It seems to me, Elizabeth and JI, that it is only homosexuals who can be offended but not Christians because their morals and world view are of no value any more. I can assure you that, judging from comments, made after that staff meeting, there were non- Christians who had been offended by what the anarchist had said but had been too frightened to speak up. The peddler of homosexuality was given the floor, freedom of speech and the only point at which he was silenced was when the science department told him, in no uncertain terms, to stop claiming bogus evidence to prove that homosexuality ran throughout the whole of the natural realm. They were incandescent with rage that their subject was being abused in order propound a false theory.

The anarchist had been allowed to speak for some time and yet the sum total of what I had to say was barely one sentence. Yet, because my comment offended a homosexual, I was being ordered to keep my personal comments, in future, to myself. You know as well as I do that I have no objection to anyone, even you, saying that they have been offended. What I object to is having my right to speak taken away in case it offends a protected minority group who have carte blanche to groom children, offend, humiliate, hound out of office, shut down adoption and charitable agencies, impose heavy fines and in the near future imprison those who disagree with their unrestrained, sexual life style, whilst at the same time being permitted to carry banners like the one in the photograph, saying “JESUS IS A FAG.” Not only are we not allowed to feel disgust and revulsion at the parade of slavering beasts, portrayed in the picture above, but we are not allowed to say so.

Ben Summerskill, this year was pressing for anyone who made the slightest comment that could be construed as inciting hatred towards homosexual practice to be given a seven year prison sentence.

Perhaps, Elizabeth and JI you were out of the country when our freedom to speak and debate , a freedom that has cost the blood of hundreds of thousands of our ancestors, was almost lost . Even Peter Tatchell understood the danger this posed to himself and spoke out against it. It is only through God’s mercy that tyranny has been delayed for a little while in this country.

If people never know, through using common sense and reason as to whether or not their remarks will land them up before the Attorney General, many will not want the take that risk; they will censor themselves. But even remaining silent may not be enough to save someone from falling foul of the law. A person could be deemed as inciting hatred simply by remaining silent when expected to vocally and publicly endorse homosexual behaviour. To remain seated, sitting on one’s hands when everyone else in standing ovation mode may well in the future not be an option. We will all be forced to publicly affirm and celebrate homosexual practice. In order to avoid fines, loss of job and a possible prison sentence, will we all have to attend diversity training centres as did Somerset firemen who exposed a homosexual orgy taking place in public.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2585372.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article624010.ece .

[david skinner]

According to the Telegraph, “Ian Mckellen best known to youngsters as Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, hopes to encourage tolerance and end the bullying of gay pupils. He said,
"I've been busy at quite a few schools recently. I went to a wonderful co-ed faith school in Harpenden. They were Christians and absolutely determined that their pupils did not discriminate,"
"They invited me to come and give prizes to 13-year-olds in front of the parents and to talk, partly, about being gay. I said that we were all part of a minority group - be it for being short or tall or fat or thin, or having red hair or whatever. I said, 'Hands up who thinks they are part of a minority group,' and all the hands went up. "I had Gandalf's sword with me and I knighted a pair of children 'Sir Minority' and 'Dame Minority' and it went down very well. It is essential to talk to 12- and 13-year-olds because they absorb what's thrown at them, whether it be homophobia or tolerance - and we have to make sure it's positive stuff."

Homosexuals are indeed a minority with perhaps 1% of the population self identifying as such, in spite of the bogus claims of 10% made by Alfred Kinsey and 6% by Ben Summerskill. So are homosexuals a minority or are they not? . It seems that they are free to choose either way whenever it suits them. Based upon the claim that the number of homosexuals in society has been under - estimated, Ben is pressing for more gay MPs. But based upon the claim that they are a persecuted minority group, they get their own police protection in the form of the Minority Support Police.

Mike Mersey, a few entries back, said,

"The fact is that your sort of Christianity is really very much a minority interest and I for one are thankful that your moral codes no longer dominate."

Jonathan Dimbleby, on Any Answers, with regard to upholding marriage that reflected Christian morals and values, implied that this was no longer feasible because Christians are now a minority group.

In October 2001, Mr Hammond, an elderly street preacher, was preaching in Bournemouth town centre holding a sign bearing the words, 'Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord'.
The sign drew an angry crowd of around 40 people who became violent towards Mr Hammond for displaying what they saw as an insulting message. The situation resulted in Harry Hammond being forced to the ground where some people poured mud and water on him. When two police officers arrived at the scene, there was a disagreement as to whether they should protect him or arrest him; eventually Mr Hammond was arrested. No violent members of the crowd were arrested.
Subsequently, Harry Hammond was charged and prosecuted under the Public Order Act 1986; he was fined £300 plus £395 costs. Sadly, Mr Hammond later died. Despite a posthumous appeal at the High Court acknowledging that Mr Hammond should have the right to freedom of religion and the freedom to express his beliefs, it was ruled that Harry Hammond had acted unreasonably in holding up a sign he knew to be offensive. A further appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was dismissed.

Hands up, Mr McKellen, who was in the minority here?

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press049.html

http://www.akegreen.org/

For the last ten years homosexuals have been successfully cultivating their victim status, culminating in an ad that appeared in Independent Newspaper, in 2007 that claimed that Christians were responsible for a 74% increase in violence and homophobic incidence:

http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2006/gay_rights/gpa/advert.htm

No details were given of what, where, when or how these incidences occurred and the Advertisng Standards Agency, though upholding some of the complaints of 50,000 Christians who felt offended and threatened by this add, refused the rest.

Stonewall have constructed this picture of a minority, “homosexual community,“ (a nomenclature for which they have no more claim than that of the obese calling themselves a community) as one that is oppressed and bullied, disproportionately more than any other section of the population, indeed even to the point of having been murdered wholesale during the German Holocaust. This lie must be repudiated most vigorously.
Indeed they have insinuated themselves into the holocaust week, when clearly Ernst Rohmm, a brutal and sadistic homosexual established the Brown Shirst who became Germany’s Storm Troopers. Basic arithmetic would tell us that if there were 2- 3 million homosexuals in Germany at the time of the holocaust there would have been the same visible evidence of persecution, deportation and mass killing as there was for Jews. There is evidence that 6,000 homosexuals were killed by Hitler, so where were the others? They were obviously serving Hitler as soldiers, collaborators and murderers. Hitler’s true, primary victims? Eighty-five percent of European Jewry, 23.5% of Gypsies, 10% of the Poles, 12% of the Ukrainians, 13% of the Belorussians and tens of thousands of “Righteous Gentiles” and their families were tortured and gassed. It is unconscionable for radical homosexuals to wrest “Nazi victim status” from the bones of millions of exterminated Jewish men, women and children.
History - a true guide to the future - ought not to be fictionalized to suit the interests of a modern “gay militant” class.
Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck, a Nazi pedophile who contributed to Alfred Kinsey’s research on sexual behaviour between 1936 and 1956 was regularly sending Kinsey details of his experiences with children. Kinsey was even mailing to the Nazi, encouraging him to continue his ‘research, without any regard to the plight of the man’s victims.

[david skinner]

Recently , Ian Gandalf Mckellen, the wizard, dropped in by invitation, in order to promote the homosexual lifestyle to the pupils at St George’s School, Harpendon, apparently a school with a strong Christian tradition.

I am not sure if they knew of his performance at the “Sod off God Party and his reading the of the pornographic poem, “ The Love That Dares to Speak its Name,” that describes a homosexual pouring out his lust on the dead body of Christ, they would have been quite so welcoming.

With a tap of his wand he was able to transform short, tall, ginger-hared , left handed and coloured people ( minorities)- not into loaves, fish or wine - but into the equivalent of homosexuals, lesbians and I suppose other orientations that would also wave the “born like it “card.
I notice also that you, J I, on this Blogg , a few postings back also wish perform the same Christmas party, magic trick.

But the Black, coloured Asians relatives and friends, whom I know, would be deeply offended by being made equivalent to gays.

http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/1404879.aspx

http://www.amren.com/news/news04/03/03/gaysmetaphors.html

Race, gender and even, sometimes, disability are classifications that are forever defined by our genes. They are also innocuous traits in that they do not impact on the social cohesion , economy and health of a nation.

Homosexuality is a socio/psycho/ideological disorder that at the very least leads to personality and emotional problems, such as bi-polar depression.

Allow me, JI, to introduce Isabel Quaresma, a Portuguese woman who was found in January 1980 at the age of nine, after she had spent the previous eight years shut in a hen-coop. Her growth was seriously stunted; she held her arms in the position of hens' wings, and the palms of her hands were calloused. She had been fed on scraps; the same food as the hens received.
Eventually she was rescued and taken for rehabilitation. Eighteen years later, In 1998 Isabel had not grown much and unsurprisingly having a mental age estimated at about two, she could not talk. The question arises, JI, were she able to talk, should she be claiming the right to remain as a chicken and be returned to the coup?

But even if we could say that homosexuality was a natural state ( which it isn’t) for people to leap from this to say that it is morally and ethically desirable, is not a good yardstick for human behaviour. Rape, sodomy, necrophilia , promiscuity and homosexuality are all observable in about 10% of the species; Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly; should we be using that as a platform for closing down nursing homes. What the animal studies do show is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. And species do become extinct .

The Christian must not forget that the Bible says that the fall of man effected all of nature and in Romans it describes how creation waits in eager expectation for the whole natural realm, one day, in the twinkling of an eye to be resurrected from death and decay, to a new creation, not through Evolution but through God’s sovereign power.

Bill Muehlenberg, in a recent article said,

“It is nice to get a bit of honesty on the issue of homosexuality. It does not come our way very often in the mainstream media. And when this honesty comes from homosexual activists, it is even more refreshing. Indeed, when heterosexuals tell the truth about homosexuality, they are dismissed as homophobes. So what happens to homosexual truth tellers? Are they homophobic as well?”

He quotes Peter Tatchell who reluctantly denies that homosexuality is genetic:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5375/

Bill then went to say.

“A number of other homosexual activists also admitted to such truths. Consider Australian activist and Latrobe University lecturer, Dennis Altman, who wrote this in 1986: “To be Haitian or a hemophiliac is determined at birth, but being gay is an identity that is socially determined and involves personal choice. Even if, as many want to argue, one has no choice in experiencing homosexual desire, there is a wide choice of possible ways of acting out these feelings, from celibacy and denial . . . to self-affirmation and the adoption of a gay identity.” “Being gay,” says Altman, “is a choice”.
Another Australian homosexual activist has said similar things about homosexuality and genetics: “I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, ‘it’s not our fault’, as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions. I think we should be recruiting people to homosexuality. It’s a great lifestyle and something everybody should have the right to experience. If you believe it’s genetic, how are you going to make the effort?” Or as he put it elsewhere: “On the question of recruiting to homosexuality – well, of course, I am in favour of this. I believe homosexuality to be a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. . . . I am naturally keen to encourage people to participate in [the gay lifestyle].”

[Geoffrey Smith]

Well, Mr Skinner, are you convinced now? Your critic is actually horrified that you have had anything to do with education!
Take my advice, sir: reserve your posting for your fellow-Christians, and ignore the trolls. That way, you will be treated with respect and your views will be considered seriously.

[Kate]

Dear Ruth

A happy and peaceful Christmas to you and yours and to all of goodwill who post here.

I do not disagree with Andrew Holden when he writes that it is a good thing for organisations like Sandown Free Prebys or, anyone posting hate and demonisation, to be exposed.

But, in these quantities - the flayer and the Medusa+ - it is mind-boggling. Boring, repetitive and insulting to all rational intelligence but dangerous. The new reader approaching this blog 'might' surely expect a balanced, open-minded debate on 'faith'.

They will find instead a demented minority claiming unprecedented personal space? Why, for example, does not the 'flayer' of all not in his own deluded 'image', set up his own website?

Likely because he could not even hope for the response he gets here. Note the frenzy grow in each posting - verging on the orgasmic!

Compelled to post reams of subjective, flawed, irrational, unverifiable opinion, oblivious that they reveal themselves as, at best deluded, at worst, deeply unpleasant obsessives. Pressing upon our consciousness, dull mediocrity, unearned self-esteem, self-referential stupidity, all presented as compelling evidence of personal omnipotence!

I would aver that Andrew H, is only partly correct in his wish for exposure. Active dissemination of damaging pseudo research, false psychology, bloated subjective opinion and hatred is very dangerous. Hysterical propaganda KILLS.

Too much for me I'm afraid, I'm signing out. Got to go search for a few Reds down my lavatory bowl; applied to join the John Birch Society, they'll stop 'faggot commies' takin' over the world. Lovely people the John Birchers!!

[ElizabethR]

"There I would remind you that the archbishop says that you are wrong on this..." J

There is not a CHANCE he will go for this. He doesn't care WHO tells him he is wrong. He is creating his own morality in his own glorious image. This issue is nothing to do with God or faith. Unless I have misunderstood him he is happy to remove the bishops from the legislature.

"I think setting yourself up against the archbishop is quite a brave step..."

Brave my arse. Arguably, people in this mindset are setting themselves up against society, politicians, and the majority of people of their own faith.

[Jill]

Oops, I think I might have posted this post on the wrong thread (I had two threads opened) so am reposting it here. Apologies, Ruth!

Christopher, do put away your Dr Seuss primers - or have you been watching back-episodes of ‘Allo ‘Allo (the candle with the handle on the gateau from the chateau)? – it is ElizabethR who is the troll, and David who is on a roll.

Seriously, though, I would like to thank you, and J, Merseymike and Andrew H and perhaps some others, for courteous responses, and for not deliberately misrepresenting me and my posts – it is noticeable how much more readable this thread has become since some of the loud-mouthed ranters and false witnesses have taken themselves off.

Mike, it is plain to see that in your tiny corner of the universe ‘my sort’ of Christianity is a minority interest and my moral codes no longer dominate, but that is just wishful thinking on your part. If you look at the Wikipedia pie chart on the demography of faith, you will find that Christians represent around a third of the world’s population and Muslims around a fifth. Actual non-religious people are less than 12% and atheists less than 2 ½%. Further investigation will show that most of these Christians are from the Global South, who have very little tolerance of homosexual practice (and Muslims none!) Of the Christians in the UK, according to Peter Brierley of Christian Research, published in this week’s CEN, liberal Anglicans are declining numerically and Mainstream Anglicans have doubled over the last few years. The RC position is perfectly clear (but I don’t know how nonconformists are faring).

See http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/12/19/churchmanship-of-anglicans/

So it is not a minority interest, and never will be.

J – you mention self-centred behaviour. Indeed! But the main focus of Christians is upon God, not upon the ‘Self’ – that is secular humanism. We are all called to become more Christ-like – not easy for some of us (and I do mean me!) But how much more self-centred can you get than the likes of Ben Summerskill, with his tick-list for Tony Blair, all meekly conceded, and his ridiculous idea of having a ‘quota’ of gays and lesbians. What next – a quota of ginger-haired people? They might tell you that they are very unfairly treated, as well as being bullied profusely at school – and they also have a much better claim on their genetic makeup. This would be hilarious if it were not so worrying – thankfully Gordon Brown is not Tony Blair, so we can hold out hope that he will not kowtow to pressure to appoint people by what they do with their sexual organs rather than by their competence to hold office. The whole homosexual identity is geared towards sex the Self, otherwise why define oneself by one’s sexual preferences? I refuse to do this – gay people like any other people have multiple talents, faults, behavioural traits – it is these on which I prefer to discern what people are like. It is when they thrust ‘sexuality’ in my face that I cavil, and thus it is with most other people, I suspect.

And Mike, you say Peter Tatchell is on the fringe. Well, hardly. I have already mentioned the very tiny number of actual same-sex ‘partnerships’ and the different views on what constitutes fidelity. Tatchell is everywhere; he was the one who trampled all over people’s human rights by ‘outing’ them whether or not they wanted this. He is the first one to be interviewed on TV whenever any gay issue comes up. He is very influential. Besides, how do you think you are going to stop this ball from rolling down the slippery slope? It has gathered pace at an alarming rate, with people now being criminalised and losing their jobs, being threatened and physically assaulted, merely for holding the opinion that gay marriage is not actually marriage, or that homosexual practice is harmful. It is out of control, you can’t stop it. It is my belief that there is still some way to go before the public realises that it’s been ‘had’ and this will eventually put the brakes on – but some people are going to get hurt on the way. And please, Christopher, a lot of violence on gays is from within their own community, as you well know. (Gerbilling? You are having us on! Although I do know from working for a doctor who dealt with victims of torture that homosexual torture methods were truly horrifying.)

[George Parr]

I have been reading with incredulity the utterances from Mr Skinner. He is radical enough to inspire Mr Smith, even to present tenuously, in some respects at least, as of a like mind to be hastily grabbed at. I have to say that very little of what he writes makes logical sense and he appears to provide vastly more personal opinion than fact. The issues over ‘free speech’ and veiled references to Marx are non sequitur within the context of who is afforded rights and who is not. The long and tortuous rhetorical questions to ER he uses both ways and cannot have both his cake and eat it.

There also seem to me to be a significant difference in the manner, polite, robust or formulaic, in which some issues here are addressed, which may be a matter of style or passion - and concepts such as the depleted value of fellow human beings, their perceived flawed sexuality, an intrusive disapproval of their sexual practices and their unworthiness as Christians which, in themselves are intrinsically very ill-mannered and offensive.

Three or four authors here have outed themselves as obsessed with the sexuality of others and variously tried to synthesise notions of science and religion to their own advantage, although they are disparate bedfellows (NPI). Since the social and political issues that Mr Skinner magnifies out of all proportion are far fewer and of less importance than he could ever allow himself to imagine, having embarked on what appears to be a renegade desertion of common sense, the (approx) 10% of the world’s population living at the homosexual end of the long spectrum of sexuality have little to fear.

Disappointment appears to stare self-styled moral arbiters like Mr Skinner, Mr Napier and their few impressed supporters in the face, as the sexual practices they salaciously describe as bestial, abnormal and in danger of sending society to hell in a handcart are also part of a wide spectrum; they are found in all humans and only highly advertised by a very small minority, sometimes in reply to unbalanced criticism.

Regarding recent assertions of what fits where anatomically and notions of sexual purpose, one great freedom of humankind is the ability to do what it likes with itself or consenting others in private. What on earth generates your own claimed self-loathing Mr Skinner?

I note from his replies that Mr Skinner tends to assume that all defenders of the sexual rights of others in all contexts, are either gay or lesbian. For me this issue is just another in the list of human rights which religion either attacks or does not afford respect to.

[George Parr]

"Another early bird, I see! Like Mr Parr, you are up with the lark to see what post of mine Ruth has put up on her blog.." GS

Well just as I suspected, Geoffrey thinks that 8.15am is 'early', suggesting that he has absolutely nothing to get up for. How are the bed sores! In the much criticised but refreshingly direct parlance of ElizabethR - 'Like I care what you might be dreaming up!'

[J Pearce]

Jill,

Still trying to use fear to manipulate, I see. Trying to scare me with dire allusions to Muslim world domination. All so much easier than actually rationalising things, isn't it?

"Christianity is a lot safer", is it? History tells us a different story. History tells us that zealot Christians like yourself, Jill, are the first people to wage terror on the defenceless. History tells us that zealot Christians are as bloodthirsty and murderous as their Muslim counterparts. History tells us that Christianty has blood on its hands from day one, right up until the present day (the Iraq campaign that Sarah Palin so enthusiastically condones).

Frankly, Jill, if I were to briefly indulge in some of the paranoid armageddon scenarios that Mr. Skinner is fond of, then if it came down to it, I'd expect someone like you to stab me in the back, rather than defend me.

[J Pearce]

I see Mr Skinner has pulled the old Christian one-two on LizR: failing to respond to her intial challenges on his posts, repeating the same irrational paranoid mantras ad nauseam, then using LizR's wholly justifiable impatience with his faiure to respond to perfectly valid criticisms, to pervert the argument to make him look like some sort of victim.

Jill should be proud of you, Mr Skinner! She wrote the book on this sort of silver-tongued chicanery, after all.

You last post makes it clear exactly how far you are prepared to go to actually bury the truth. In your opinion, it is clear that children should be force fed the Christian lie that homosexuality is "intrinsically wrong". Even when you cannot realise any rational, intellectual argument to support this opinion.

This is not education, Mr Skinner. It is poison. It is deliberate propoganda. It is anti-education. You are not concerned about a duty of care for children; you are only concerned with promulgating Christian homophobia, under the flimsy pretext of "protecting" them.

Hmosexuality exists Mr. Skinner and will continue to do so as long as humanity exists. Many children who are currently being taught in schools right now will grow up to become homosexuals themselves. You would inculcate into them guilt, fear and self-loathing and teach them that they are sub-human. Under the fantastical theory that homosexuals are some sort of "5th column" for a world wide Marxist conspiracy.

That’s not education, Mr. Skinner - that’s child abuse.

[Merseymike]

But, David, 'the majority' do 'tolerate'. And as racism is no longer acceptable - although it still exists - the same is true for homophobia.

Let's face it - you really haven't done very well with your campaigns. You can't even convince the Conservative party any more!

[Merseymike]

Because, Geoffrey, I don't actually like the ides of the sort of society your beliefs would encourage. Of course, the reason why I am relaxed and you are so angry is because your perspective is that of yesterday - gone forever. You don't like that, hence all the anger and bitterness.

Whereas I am essentially optimistic. The 'gay issue', for example, is really not much of an issue except for conservative religionists, and I think, more broadly, there is undoubtedly a feeling that religion - any religion - should not have a role in the secular state . British people generally like religion to be understated and private. Which is why its extreme strands tend not to do well here.

Who wants to 'live life as a Christian' when there are much better and more genuinely moral alternatives? Not me!

[ElizabethR]

David Skinner, in your imaginary Orwellian hell, you actually have an absolute right to think what the devil you like – they can’t touch you for it. You can also express it, within reason, in this country unlike some others. These freedoms help to identify those who produce long, highly fallible and biased ‘arguments’ or use an inversion of false logic surrounding the concept of ‘free speech’ to try to justify their outrageous attacks on the rights of others.

OK, you don’t like my writing style – tough. Perhaps you would prefer that in future I send my posts directly to you so that you can sanitise and censor them until they fit the Procrustean bed you wish me to lie in? Clearly a clinical regurgitation of the words of those who challenge you would be a distinct advantage in defending the indefensible. And you ramble on, vaguely using the trope of Marxism. Don’t make me laugh!

So to get this straight, despite your constant assertions that free speech is paramount, you branded one speaker an anarchist, because he was disseminating a policy of inclusivity in the interests of others. You offended someone else and then objected to their complaint? This fired off the dynamite of obsession regarding homosexuals. Well that makes complete sense. It’s a good job you are prepared to go to prison. God may appear before you as a tall man in a hat.

If your last homage to sophism was a living example of the ‘Christian truth[s]’that Geoffrey Smith thinks you share - then God help both of you. I am horrified that you claim to have been a teacher.

Thanks for the (presumably) clever link. I can’t be even slightly bothered.

[j]

David, thank you for explaining your view.

I can see that you feel very strongly that you are right. What is interesting is the assumption you make, that children can be, as you put it, pointed to the north. I think children point nowhere at their age, but as they grow up their faces will turn to whatever sun is natural to them.

Diana is a committed christian who is prepared to show no love whatsoever to gay people, in her church, her home, in a restaurant. They have done nothing to harm her, nor do they seek to.

Now we have all met someone who is a committed racist, who hates all black people, or asians, and doesnt want them anywhere near them. They would prefer their grandchild to be taught with other white children, they reject the help of a black nurse, they move seats on buses.

Most of us find this attitude wrong, embarrassing and shameful if it is someone we feel associated with.

The problem is, David, that the public sphere belongs to us all. School is for everyone. Church ought to be for everyone as well.

Now I do realise that the problem is that you see this as a matter of "truth itself" and therefore you feel you are giving witness. There is nothing I can do about the fact that you think it is the truth, because the essence of faith is that people "know they are right". I would point out to you that muslim suicide bombers also "know they are right". It is a particular mindset and we have to live with it, as we do with racist old ladies.

One way of guarding against this danger is the authority of the church. There I would remind you that the archbishop says that you are wrong on this. You may dislike that, but I think setting yourself up against the archbishop is quite a brave step.

YOur faith teaches you that you will have to account for this crusade later. All I can ask of someone in your position, I think, is that you keep your mind open to the possibility that your god will tell you that you are wrong after all- which means interpreting the evidence with the utmost fairmindness and seeking after truth by getting to know the real, normal gay world and not the extreme versions peddled on the internet.

But I suspect that you do not really want to risk that.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"The fact is that your sort of Christianity is really very much a minority interest, and I for one are (sic) thankful that your moral codes no longer dominate."
- Merseymike, 18 DEC 2008, 08:16:43

So much easier to look after No.1, eh, Mike? As Jill said, it's not easy to live life as a Christian, but obviously too strenuous for you.

[david skinner]

Finally, Elizabeth, J.Pearce, Christopher and J, I have been asked why I have fetched up ( using the Australian term for this expression) on this blogg. What set me on the road to become a sad, compulsive campaigner?
Whilst attending a staff meeting in a large comprehensive school in 1997, a young, anarchist teacher addressed around 80 teachers and gave us lecture on re education re-education re- education courtesy of Tony Blair. As part of Labour’s flagship, mile stone Equal Opportunities Bill, this proselytiser wanted us to include the homosexual dynamic into all our teaching, right across the curriculum.
There was paralysis on the part of everyone. Not a dicky bird. Falteringly I rose from my chair and timidly suggested that we had a duty of care to the children and that it was our responsibility to point them to the north. It was then for the first time that I heard close by someone say “ I cannot believe these views are still held today.” In other words my statement was not only medieval but should not be allowed to be expressed. In fact two weeks later a member of staff told me that in future I was to keep my personal opinions to myself ( because they were offensive to him.)

In a blinding moment of illumination I saw that what was under threat was not just freedom of speech and freedom of thought but truth itself. What was school for if it was not for searching after truth rather than being forced to recite evolutionary Marxist mantras.

In 2007 I read this statement from a Diane Mullaly. I don’t know who she is but I thought yes; I will put my name to that . I too am prepared to go to prison for exactly the same reason.

Diane wrote:”

I am a committed Christian aged 63 and so very grieved that a minority in this country could push things so far that the majority of
us could be forced into tolerating their views in our churches, schools, businesses and homes or risk prosecution. I for one will not accept that my church will be unable to refuse to marry same-sex couples or hire out halls for gay parties/events or even to accept gay couples into a Christian bed and breakfast. In all these issues including the adoption one - I will gladly go to prison but I will not have these things forced upon me or my family. ………….. I want the right to choose what I teach my children and grandchildren - not have it forced upon me that I must teach them about “another kind
of love” as they put it in a leaflet being prepared - I will not teach my grandchildren this, nor stand by and agree to someone else doing so, and I sincerely hope that there are many, many women like me
who feel the same in this country. If this law is passed in this country my freedom to choose will have been taken away. “