Another ghastly old duffer

One old duffer's been on the radio describing marriage as an act of faith and a statement of trust and a risk demanding 'quite a step' on the part of the two parties to said union. Given all that and the capacity of humans to make an error why then the problem with people having easy access to an escape route?

Another old duffer's about to go on air to lament the decline and fall of 'traditional marriage' if it is made easier for lesbians to create (with assistance) and raise babies.

During the long(ish) course of human history the 'traditional marriage' he harps upon has been a remote fairy tale for the overwhelming majority of people because for most of that time life has been nasty, brutish and short. Those who lived long enough to procreate were the exception rather than the rule, they then had a limited life expectancy and so surviving parents made do and mended.

We've survived that and we'll survive a few lesbians raising children.

One of the above mentioned old duffers is an archbishop. So is the other one.

At least one of them has some life experience to draw upon in pontificating (ahem) and presuming to comment on the normal flawed lives lived by ordinary people. The other is a decrepit celibate who doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

Callous off-hand post

On the matter of this young new mother who has died after refusing a blood transfusion that, in the view of the medical profession would have preserved her life and even enabled her to recover her full health there clearly many potential approaches to take.

Generally the tone of reaction has been outrage. Fellow Jehovas Witnesses aside almost everyone with an opinion has taken the view that this young mother was either deluded or grotesquely selfish (or both).

JWs interpret passages in the bible that warn against consuming blood (or imbibing or partaking or ...) as effectively not just precluding being a practicing vampire but also making it impossible to receive a blood transfusion when required for pressing medical reasons.

A young woman leaving behind a widower and new-born twins is being portrayed as the tragic denoument to a misguided life. Yup, and that's one less god-botherer too. Perhaps her husband will reconsider his beliefs before they're inflicted on the unsuspecting babies.

Wholly irrational crossness

I should be hammering away at the 50,000 word rock face.

I'm not because of Andrew McClintock, a 63 year old magistrate doesn't want to handle cases that might give rise to adoption placement with a same-sex couple and so has had to remove himself entirely from family court panels. He has made me a bit cross, because of this. He thinks it wrong, in conflict with his christian beliefs, to be a position where he might be required to place a child or children with an adoptive couple who happen to be of the same sex.

McClintock is using as a central plank of his claim for discrimination and unfair dismisal the work of an american academic who has produced a research paper suggesting that there is some if not conclusive evidence that placement with same sex couples is not absolutely always totally successful. Wow.

I can't find the identity of this particular academic in anything being published today on this case and McClintock's appeal, but it does occur to me that it cannot have been terribly difficult to find, among all the academics working in American in the field, one who had produced a paper containing data useful to anyone arguing the line against adoption by same-sex couples.

Whether McClintock is wrong or right to be opposed to such adoption is, however, a bit of a red herring. Since when have those sworn to uphold the law pick and choose which bits of the law are convenient to them and their conscience, and which are a trifle discomforting and therefore to be discarded? To wish for the freedom so to do is however in keeping with being a biblical fundamentalist, spouting Leviticus at the drop when convenient, but happily scoffing roast pork for Sunday lunch and keeping spare cash in an interest bearing bank account.

What I'm really cross about, however, is that this awful little man has got in the way of me doing other things this morning.

Rapid intake of breath

You can probably guess the sort of person who can put the following words on the public record with their own name attached to the utterance: "the theory of evolution is taught as well — in my view regrettably taught in science classes". What you might not get first off is the sort of political party prepared to endorse the fruit bat and be represented by it in an electorate bound to attract a disproportionate amount of media coverage.

On the other side of the globe the Victorian (how aptly named it sometimes seems) division of the Libs are running a certified god botherer in the seat held by the woman who is deputy leader of the opposition. She already holds the seat by a near double figures margin and as pollsters are predicting a win for labour across the board of 'landslide' proportions she's probably allowing herself the luxury of attending to other matters beside the onerous task of retaining her seat.

That said, such electorates are regarded by parties as suitable training grounds (in a rather Darwinian way) for long term prospects. If they don't fail utterly and seek a radically different career path then they actually might be what the party needs and get a less unwinnable as reward at some time in the future.

So what was behind the decision of the Liberal Party of Australia (Victoria Division) to endorse Pastor Peter Curtis as its official candidate in this electorate - and for the second time.

It is a reality of the party's structure that this vile political creature's origins lie in a chintz laden sitting room in a brick veneer home on a quarter acre block in a fringe suburb. A sufficiency of like minded friends and easily influenced other individuals are all that is required to set up a prospective party branch. With acceptance comes access to the local politican at state and federal level, the chance to submit proposals to state council, to send delegates (who might or might not have the opportunity to speak) to state council. Getting to state council is the way to get onto committees and working groups and assemblies and so forth where the party membership thrashes out exactly what it is going to tell the parliamentary wing to think and do.

This is, you will note very, very unlike the machiavellian way in which the other lot go about things as their way results in the unelected union monster holds the labour parliamentarian in its vice-like grip.

From state council, as noted, the sky is the limit. The trick is to be heard. It helps to sound stupid. Sounding truly stupid is memorable. You want people to remember you; they're bound to forget why they remember you so get in touch with your inner idiot, today.

And remember. The world is full of idiots. People who are so idiotic they make you sound clever. Get in touch with your inner idiot and the world is your oyster.

Pasta Peter Curtis, forty year old part-time retailer (which possibly means deputy assistant night manager, shelf stacking, at the local woolies) and assistant pastor in the evangelical Southland Christian Centre is proof of this progress to credibility. And far be it for me to draw attention to the fact that he would in his latter role have access to plenty of biddable, gullible fools to stack his branch with should he care to do so.

That one branch is giving this fruit loop its backing is not in itself sufficient explanation for his status as endorsed candidate. There are other and more onerous qualifications before such credibility is bestowed. Some one, some where within the Exhibition Street labyrinth has declined to intervene, repeatedly.

That the man is certified god bother is in itself sufficient cause to disqualify him in my book. But there are plenty of them about and I can even (just about) bear the self-abusing Ruth Kelly in the cabinet as transport secretary as long as she doesn't do too much media work.

"As a Christian, I do not agree with the idea of homosexuality. That's the reality. I can't put it any other way," And "As a Christian, I don't agree with women in a position of authority. That's the reality. I can't put it any other way"?

"I certainly could never change my views that homosexuality is a perversion, because it is a perversion." (His great x 15 grand father reported once was heard to say "I certainly could never change my views that the world is flat, because it is flat.")

"I'd offer myself as a genuine grassroots candidate who would be delighted to represent them and who would have no favouritism or negative approach to any individual based on their lifestyle. I would love to represent them, I would love to represent anybody," he said. " Er yes, I'm that desperate. I'd love to represent anybody. [If you were gay would you trust this man with what few rights you do have?]

This does matter because the party that is fighting to stay in power at the national level has endorsed this man, and the above ranting is not the worst of it. That came later and here it is.

John Howard should be taken out so some remote place and there stabbed, burned, boiled, castrated, flayed, strangled and left to feed the dingos, just for presiding over the political wing of the party foisting this incredibly dreadful individual on an Australian public, let alone for any of his other crimes and misdemeanors.

Read this and weep that this man (who regrets that evolution is part of the science curriculum) can be regarded as Liberal Party of Australia candidate material:

Facing an uphill battle to defeat Ms Gillard, with Labor holding the seat by a margin of 8.8 per cent, Mr Curtis said he wanted to bring a more Christian focus to politics.

He said that, if elected, he would be urging the Liberal Party to introduce intelligent design to state school science classes. [Intelligent design is an assertion that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by natural selection.]

"I would be very much in favour of intelligent design being taught in public schools," Mr Curtis said. "Just as the theory of evolution is taught as well — in my view regrettably taught in science classes, because I think it's a theory and not a science."

Now correct me if I'm wrong but surely Mr Vermicelli is actually proof that if it is design, it isn't intelligent. Indeed this seems to be true of most advocates of intelligent design.

How to drum up a controversy

The BBC's trying to whip everyone into a lather of outrage over the latest drivel from a anglican vicar who also happens or claims to be a scientist and who has issued a call to make science classes more comfortable for non-believers^* by incorporating creationism and 'intelligent' design into the curriculum.

The convolutions and contortions performed by those in favour of allowing creationism and 'intelligent' design into the laboratory along science are wonderful to behold:

we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory

The priest and self-style scientiest in question has asserted that that any teaching should not give the impression that creationism and the theory of evolution are equally valid scientifically, which is saying what, precisely? Nothing certain except that both have a degree or element of validity - and that's no comfort whatsoever.

This particular dangerous lunatic is Head of science at London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss, so you can avoid him and steer your children clear of him.

By his line of reasoning there's a place for Harold Shipman in medical courses, Rosemary West in Mother and Baby classes, Adolf Hitler in religious tolerance programs and the voyage of the Titanic as part of Seamanship 101.

* that is, of course, non-believers in science - who should just be told to phug of to the religious 'education' class if they won't pay attention.

Who's MAHLier than thou?

Carol Sarler's piece in the Times of 13 September and online here.

Our attention was demanded yesterday by headline “news” that, thousands of miles away in Zimbabwe, Archbishop Pius Ncubehas tendered his resignation to the Pope after rumours of sexual derrings-do – even though, in his case, his alleged partner was adult, female and consensual; hardly, therefore, an earth-shattering story except, possibly, to the small minority of Britons who are Roman Catholics.

The previous day, we had been similarly commanded to turn our thoughts to the pros and cons of subjecting Muslim faith schools, beloved of an even smaller minority, to state control. Last week conservative religious leaders of all stripes were handed ample airtime to condemn embryo research; for three straight months we have been daily reminded, amid all else, of the beliefs of the family McCann.

It is a peculiar reversal of social logic that the decline in the practice of religion should be met with such a rise in reference to it. Consider: if as many as 6.3 per cent of the population attend church (hold tight; we’ll nit-pick the figures in a moment) and if it would be fair to say that easily half of those don’t give a fig whether the bloke in the robes at the front is gay or not – why is it that the remaining 97 per cent of unconcerned people are being relentlessly subjected to the quibbling about it?

Of course, it might not be exactly 6.3 per cent; this happens to come from the religious think-tank Christian Research, but religion and statistics are notoriously awkward bedfellows. Census results have been criticised for the phrasing of the question “Which religion are you?”, which produced twice as many “Christians” as another survey found believers in God. The Catholic Church, enjoying something of a boost from Polish and other migrant workers, claims more than 900,000 Mass attendances per week – which sounds healthy until you ask how many of the devout
go more than once a week.

Our Muslim population is 1.6 million, but considerably more than half of those are children, while the Jewish population is believed to be alone in undercalculating its size, given an understandable reluctance – especially among older Jews of Eastern European origin – to tick boxes marked “Jewish”. Nobody, however, sensibly denies the overall decline in religious practice. Even the top-up provided by ethnic minority immigration does not help; in London, black churchgoers now outnumber whites, but declining churches are still losing more people than growing churches are gaining.

And yet, our pal from Mars, dropping by for his first visit in a generation, would be hard pressed to believe it. Last time he called, the British enjoyed a comfy relationship with their religions, whereby more people worshipped but far fewer mentioned it. Weeks would go by without religious reference in the media beyond
Thought for the Day and Songs of Praise; these days, by contrast, it is routinely the stuff of front pages.

When I was a child, archbishops were kindly, benign coves, wheeled out on big occasions; they didn’t, by and large, jump into newsprint to tackle “issues” in the name of their cloth. Even half a generation ago, Ann Widdecombe’s sincerely held religious commitment, one which must have informed her work as a minister, was regarded as just part of an amiable eccentricity that elevated her to a national treasure; today, Ruth Kelly’s comparable commitment has become her defining characteristic.

This is not to say that the tenets of religion have opened to greater debate: indeed, if only. Good manners today disallow the questioning of a man’s belief as sternly as they disallow jokes about it and to offend by either means may be, at least, a sacking offence or, at most, a matter of law. It has become a sine qua non of courteous interaction that those of us without a religious bone in our bodies must defer to those who have, and even determined antitheists are to hush our mouths lest we “cause offence” (in vain might we cry of the offence that we often feel).

The more liberal the person or the institution, the more likely it is that they accommodate the illiberal – as long as it comes in religious guise. Take, for instance, schools; all progressive schools worth their label will, these days, boast of their efforts to teach children about each other’s “cultures”. In fact, they lie. What they are teaching is each other’s religions.

If they really meant culture, it would involve song, dance, art, literature, dress, drink and food; all we actually get, in most cases, are religious festivals – and if food gets mentioned, it is only to explain that the reason child X cannot eat the meal as enjoyed by child Y is because child X has a god who says he must not.

It cannot be coincidence that this deference towards religion in general has paralleled the muddled, if well-meaning, response specifically to the growth of Islam. Muddled because of a confusion between ethnicity and religion; well-meaning because it was the same commendable urge to show respect for ethnicity that widened to insist upon respect for the religion that often came with it. And if endless news bulletins bowed to “From a Muslim point of view . . .”, it is hardly surprising that, in the name of all things equal, every other small minority possessed of a deity has demanded prominence too.

It does not, however, make it any less absurd. At the moment, there are in Britain more practising anglers than practising Anglicans – but it is unimaginable, is it not, that in an effort to give properly representative nods to similarly consuming passions we might afford the same attentions to the sexuality of a carp that we give to a priest’s?

Nobody should seek to deny the right to worship. Whatever gets you through the night and all that. But a sense of proportion is running overdue; the interests of a minority are, by definition, a minority interest and deserve no more, if no less, consideration than any other.

Certainly not out of fear of “causing offence”, when secular sense is there to remind us that nobody, ever, has the right not to be offended. God-given or otherwise.

Community Service Awards

I imagine no-one gives a bugger but I'm going to do it anyway; I'm going to dish out a handful of well deserved community service awards. This was to have been a longer post, but I haven't time. Lucky aren't you?

Californication sounds like total tosh (and so will probably go on to win other awards). To its producers and to Network Ten which is screening it in Australia my heartiest thanks for your sterling work which has managed to upset the United God Botherers Brigade (Down Under Branch). This fruit loop fringe is otherwise known as the Australian Christian Lobby and they're upset about the sex. They're right about there being too much sex about, of course. If only their parent had never indulged, what a wonderful world this would be.

Crackpots also don't like the fact that there's violence in a program called City HOMICIDE (congratulations to Seven) and that a stand up comedian says Rude Things. Now if they were forced to watch, they might have something to complain about. But forcing us Not To Watch, by driving this stuff from the nation's screens. That's an entirely different matter.

Spectral visions

I caught a glimpse of something terrifying today. The possibility that this might be it. As good as it will ever be for me. If only he knew. If that ever took hold of me there really would not be any point in bumping him off, because this is purgatory. God knows what I did in a previous life to deserve this. Perhaps I was Hitler, or Pol Pot (even if he was still alive when I was born) or Stalin or George W Bush's grandfather.

There. That's more like it.