Militant secularisation - worse than militant theocracy.

There are some things you hear about that you need to do a double take with sometimes.  Take an article I read today, for example.  Lady Warsi, a British MP, has called for Christianity to be given a more central role in society and government after the latest furore over the removal of prayer sessions before council meetings.  She claims that British secularisation is "that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities."

It's not strange to hear a religious conservative stand against secularisation; at the most harmless level you can take it, they believe supporting religion is standing up for core nationalist values, that religion plays a massive part in creating the identity of a culture and society.   However, the danger with allowing religion into politics and parliament is that it's supporting one particular religion over another; religious favourtisism has never been a fair system in government and usually involves other religions being at a disadvantage at large.  Using a theocratic system I am familiar with, the Brunei government favours its Muslim citizens, allowing better benefits to them over their smaller Buddhist, Christian. Hindu and atheist citizens.  Their reasoning is that Brunei is a Muslim country, built on Muslim values.  It's by no means a fair system.  And that's in a country where a non-Muslim population is at a significantly small ratio that an uprising against that unfairness would probably take many years to overcome.  In England, where religious diversity is far more, well, diverse, favouring one religion over another would light a powder keg of dispute.  In fact, not unlike the powder keg that one Guy Fawkes had attempted. 

And it's not just favouring Christianity as a whole that Lady Warsi is advocating.  She's organising a delegation to the Vatican to argue that "Europe needs to be more confident in its Christianity".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a trip to the Vatican itself an advocation for Catholicism being the preferred Christian denomination?  Historically, England turned Protestant under King Henry the Eighth in protest against Roman Catholicism.  Doesn't that imply that Protestant Christianity is far more important to English heritage than that of Catholic Christianity? 

Lady Warsi says she doesn't want a theocracy but that faith should play a bigger role in politics.  In what way?  It's fine if a person wants to practice their faith in private.  The problem secularists have with religion in politics and public office is that it interferes with maintaining government neutrality and fairness.  If faith was allowed to dictate what was moral, that risks pulling the country back several decades, if not centuries.  Religion as a whole has massive disdain for hot political topics such as equal rights for homosexuals and women as well as abortion and marriage, to name but a handful.  By allowing the religious right to advocate their faith in office, the worst case scenario would be to face having to fight for rights we already have. 

In the midst of this whole debate, there is one thing that strikes me as ironic.  Lady Warsi herself is a Muslim.  I wonder how her Muslim constituents must feel about her pushing for putting Christianity over her roots in Islam.

Someone get this man a lesson in culture and sociology.

What do we have here?  A high ranking religious leader promoting bigotry?  When did this happen? 

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Setanmu, is telling people that whilst he's fine with homosexuals having a civil partnership, he thinks that they shouldn't get married and that is was not "the role of the government to alter social structures that had been in place for centuries".

"I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can't just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are"

Hmmm.  What is the definition of marriage, I wonder...

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. (-Wikipedia)

That sounds pretty cut and dry to me as far as definitions go.  So what's the problem with allowing gay couples to be married?  Well, according to Dr Sentamu and many other religious people from other faiths who share his view, marriage is a sacred union as endorsed by their God.  And since according to his mind that God hates men sticking their dicks up other men's arses, or women having scissor sex, these people should not be allowed to have their long relationships made into marriage unions, and thus "endorsed by God".

(On the vein of opposition to gay men and lesbians, why are more people of extreme faith against the former?  Is it because penises are going into poop holes and not vaginas?  Is it because lesbians are stereotypically thought of as page three models and therefore it's hot?  Seriously, I am curious to know why gay men are more hated on than gay women.)

Dr Sentamu goes another step further and compares the government's interference on marriage values a dictatorship.

"We've seen dictators do it in different contexts, and I don't want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way."

Well, let's examine history on social change where the government was involved.  How about one that should be close to the Archbishop's heart - slavery and equal rights for black people.  Once upon a time, black people were thought of as lower than anyone with pale skin.  They were hunted and shipped out of their home countries like cattle, sold like property, abused, unheard, ignored.  It was a massive joke to suggest to a white man to let his slaves go free, or to give them a basic wage, or even just to stop sticking his boot in their faces.  Then what happened?  White people grew a conscience.  White people started recognising that it was wrong to abuse someone because of the colour of their skin.  White people spoke up and fought back for the rights of their fellow humans, for the sake of human decency.  Obviously, they were resisted.  They were scoffed at or accused of being "black lovers" like it was a sin (which it was thought of at the time).  There were fights, battles, wars.  And the thing with fights and wars is that they build up in scale.  The government would HAVE to get involved.  The government would HAVE to listen to their people.

As history has proven in the Western world, slavery was abolished but not without the backing of the governments.  Not without the changing of laws that allowed the atrocity to happen.  Yes, it took a very long time.  Even now, race crimes are not uncommon, but they are just that now - crimes.  You cannot deny a black person's basic rights to welfare, work, relationships, marriage based on the colour of their skin.  And that extends to other races as well.

How is that fight any different to now?  People are fighting in this day and age to help another disadvantaged group; the LGBT community.  They are still people, they are still humans.  You wouldn't know them to be any different to another straight person unless they told you.  And yet people still think it's okay to deny them the same rights a straight person enjoys, that it's okay to sneer at them, to abuse them, to kill them because they love the wrong gender.  The government has to get involved now because the public WANTS them to. 

The problem Dr Sentamu has with the government getting involved is that he knows the public domain is supportive of gay marriage. Hopefully in March, when the government has had their consultation regarding gay marriage, Dr Sentamu and the people who agree with this homophobic bigotry will see that social change can and will happen at a government level, but not because the Prime Minister is a dictator, but because the British public have voted for equal rights instead of religious privilage and bigotry. 

(Sourced from The Guardian)

I was expecting to burn since I was little anyway...

The speaker for bigotted British Muslims has reared his head for his pre-Christmas hate speech again this year.  Anjem Choudary is telling Muslims that celebrating Christmas is a pathway to Hell and calls for his fellow bigots to boycott Christmas.

'In the world today many Muslims, especially those residing in Western countries, are exposed to the evil celebration Christmas,' he raged in a sermon broadcast on the internet. 

Many take part in the festival celebrations by having Christmas turkey dinners.  Decorating the house, purchasing Christmas trees or having Christmas turkey meals are completely prohibited by Allah.  Many still practise this corrupt celebration as a remembrance of the birth of Jesus.  How can a Muslim possibly approve or participate in such a practice that bases itself on the notion Allah has an offspring?  The very concept of Christmas contradicts and conflicts with the foundation of Islam.  Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. 

Protect your Paradise from being taken away - protect yourself and your family from Christmas.'

I wish this guy would shut his trap; it's guys like this who ruin it for others, especially the Muslims who do enjoy this season.  This year, my family's been quite lucky that my mother hasn't descended into her annual tradition of guilt-ridden rants of banning Christmas in our house.  Our tree's up, presents wrapped, Christmas table's been set and we intend to celebrate Christmas as we do every year - with as little religion as possible, because we are gathered together as a family. 

And if celebrating being a family is going to land us in Hell, I will gladly be first in line to face Satan down myself. 

(Nod to Maryam Namazie; sourced from The Citizens Report and The Daily Mail)

These are the real demons

Evil has penned another name for itself, in the name of the Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN).  An undercover report by Sky News has found out that this so-called church has been telling HIV sufferers that go to them to throw away their medication and go start families because they have been cured by the power of God.

WHAT THE HELL!?

A sprinkling of water and a few words shouted over a person isn't going to drive any illness out of a person's body and yet these people have the audacity to claim a 100% success rate at curing HIV sufferers!  And as a result of people believing this, at least 6 known people have died.  People who didn't need to suffer and die when real medicine and real professionals can help keep them alive and living as comfortably and normally as possible!

One pastor, Rachel Holmes, told one of the undercover reporters (who is a real HIV sufferer) that if she continues to vomit or suffer from diarrhea, she should not take her medication - it's evidence that the disease is leaving her body.  Never mind that this is already a recognised condition associated with HIV!  It's easy to say perhaps they deserved to die for beliving this drivel, but these people would have been desperate and looking for a permanent cure.  So they become easy prey for these vultures who call themselves pastors and prophets. 

And to me, the cherry on this sundae of disaster is the fact SCOAN is registered in the UK as a charity.  It's almost ironic, but I seriously hope the Charity Commision revokes that.  Why should these people get rich off the backs of vulnerable people and the country by peddling death and stupidity?

What has the church got to say about this whole debacle?

"We are not the Healer - God is the Healer. Never a sickness God cannot heal. Never a disease God cannot cure. Never a burden God cannot bear. Never a problem God cannot solve.
"To His power, nothing is impossible. We have not done anything to bring about healing, deliverance or prosperity. If somebody is healed, it is God who heals.
"We must have a genuine desire if we come to God. We are not in position to question anybody's genuine desire. Only God knows if one comes with true desire. Only God can determine this.
"That is why, if anybody comes in the name of God, we pray for them. The outcome of the prayer will determine if they come genuinely or not."

  You hear that?  It's not their fault if you're still sick and on death's door.  It's all God's work, so if you don't go in believing in his all-powerful healing, then it's actually your fault you're not cured.  Way to pass the buck, guys.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need something sweet to wash the bitter taste of rage and horror from my mouth.

Awww, just kiss and make up already.

Advertising is designed to get certain emotions going to sell their products or ideology.  Quite a few adverts cause controversy.  United Colors of Benetton have released one such ad campaign which has sent people up in arms.

Benetton's Unhate campaign is trying to spread the message of tolerance and "unhate".  Quoted from their website...

What does UNHATE mean? UN-hate. Stop hating, if you were hating. Unhate is a message that invites us to consider that hate and love are not as far away from each other as we think. Actually, the two opposing sentiments are often in a delicate and unstable balance. Our campaign promotes a shift in the balance: don’t hate, Unhate

I think this is a WONDERFUL message to spread.  It's not everyday that a big firm would release a specific campaign urging people the world over to stop hating each other.  Unfortunately, this message is a little lost on some people.  First in line to argue this "controversial advertising" is the Vatican, on behalf of Pope Benedict.

Don't they make a lovely couple?

Locking lips with the Pope in that image is Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, a prominant imam and scholar of Sunni Islam from Cairo.  Other images in the campaign has Barack Obama kissing the leaders from China and Venezuela, Angela Merkel kissing Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of Palestine kissing the Prime Minister of Israel, and another personal favourite of mine, Kim Jong-il kissing the president of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak.

Unfortunately, the Pope's poster hasn't been up for more than an hour before they were forced to pull it from their website due to complaints from Vatican City. 

"This shows a grave lack of respect for the Pope, an offence to the feelings of believers, a clear demonstration of how publicity can violate the basic rules of respect for people," said Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's spokesman.

The posters were unveiled in a "series of guerilla actions" according to the company, with the posters of Benedict/Ahemd, Merkel/Sarkozy and Obama/Hu Jintao being revealed in Rome, Paris and Milan respectively.  As of yet, the Pope is the only one considering taking legal action against the company for his particular poster, although I would be very interested in hearing the reactions of the other posters from the other featured leaders.  Alessandro Benetton, the deputy head of the company, knew what he was doing in this provocative campaign but wanted to share the ideal notion of love through these posters.  Good on him, I say; I love this campaign.

"The central theme is the kiss, the most universal symbol of love, between world political and religious leaders," Alessandro Benetton said in a statement.

 I suggest heading over to their website and check out the other posters.  It's like looking at movie posters for an upcoming rom-com next summer.  

(News source: Daily Telegraph)

Faith in World essay competition

I have to admit, I was a massive geek in high school. Essay writing was my forte; there was something about researching a topic and writing it out in your own words with your own opinions that always stirred something in me. 

So, hearing about the Faith in World essay competition really picqued my interest, and really made me wish I was back in high school so I could join in (though what I would have written then would probably make me cringe now).  Run by the Archbishop of Canterbury, I wrongly thought he would only extol essays that lauded over faith and belief in God.  Indeed, the essays that have won or received honourable commendations have ranged greatly in their handling of faith.  And as said by the Archbishop, it's encouraging to see the level of thinking teenagers nowadays extending to something greater than who the next X-Factor winner should be. 

It would be interesting to read the full essays of the winners and commended writers, but for now, I will put down my favourite quote from one of the commended writers, by Richard Picardo, aged 15.

“We, as an intelligent race, are born with the innate ability to empathise with others, and with a strong desire to help people, even if our efforts go unrecognised or unrewarded. Indeed, many values which are fundamental principles of our modern society were not acquired because of religion, but rather due to visionaries who had the courage to fight organised religion and the state for what they believed in. Do we need to be religious to be good? Absolutely not.”

Musical Monday (a day late) - Strange choice this time,

It's been a couple of months since I did a Musical Monday post, mostly because I am admittedly a lazy wench, and partially because I couldn't decide on a song to post up.  However, on Sunday, a pang of reminiscence caught me out of the blue and I went searching for a melody that always haunted me in my childhood.

Haunting is the best way to describe this song.  Song is probably not quite the word to use either.  I am referring to the Azaan, or the Islamic call to prayer.  Like I said, odd choice.  Whilst I hold no particular reverence for the religion behind the call to prayer, nor did I ever enjoy the ritual itself, I did always enjoy the sound of it.  I guess it's the talent of the imam to make it sound just so. 

That's something I wondered about religious music.  As humans, we are attracted to certain melodies, chords, rhythms and sounds, so it wouldn't be any wonder why religion would use music as a way to attract followers as well and bring together the communities.  In this case, the Azaan is calling the community to pray together.  I remember the evening calls in particular, mostly because it would just start to turn dark, so the sky would be a heavy mix of pink and purple with dark and white clouds, the air would be cooling down but still carry that hint of humidity and I would have just finished my homework, dangling my feet over my grandparents' balcony as I ate or drank something sweet.  I suppose, ironically, those moments were when I cared least for the call of religious obedience and just revelled in my childhood freedom. 

Of blasphemy and double standards

Personal story time!

I work in a rather enclosed office in a supermarket with five other women, although at most there is only three of us in at a time.  Coversation varies greatly between us all depending on which mix of women are in there.  Today, I was in work with two of them - one of them being the oldest in the office (for ease sake, let's call her Mary).  I was happily going about my work, filling in some forms when I come across something in one of them that made me exclaim in surprise.  Both women turned around in shock and berated me for swearing.

So what did I say?

"BLOODY HELL!"

It was my turn to turn to them in shock - it's barely swearing, I argued.  Worse had been cried out before by people on the shop floor.  Then Mary looked at me quite poigniantly.  I was being told off because I was blaspheming.  I don't know whether I hurt my situation with them at the time by laughing out loud.  Neither of them had ever come across as hugely religious, though Mary had proven herself to be quite conservative in the past.  It got me thinking though; my Dad had raised me to respect language but to also realise that sometimes words are just that.  Words.  At the time, he was trying to teach me that swearing wasn't all that a big deal if used right (humour, anger etc).  As such, I treat a lot of my own speech like that - I try to think about what I say and how I say it (easier written than spoken, I'll admit) but in the end, I'm not going to spilt hairs over how I use words to whomever, relevant censorship and borders applied, of course (I'm not going to openly swear in front of children, for example).

But what really tickled me was when one of the managers came in for their usual checks - mid-conversation, he declared "JESUS CHRIST!"  I immediately turned to Mary and cheekily responded "He used Jesus' name in vain, how come he can get away with blasphemy?"  She was ready for me, with a less than witty comeback. 

"It's unbecoming for a lady to swear."

Well Jesus Christ riding on a pogo stick from the bloodiest pits of Hell.  I guess I'm no longer a lady then.

Some monstrosities know no bounds

Religion is often an inspiration for people to do good in the world - a ready moral compass for some.  For others, religion is nothing more than a mask - a horrible, mangled mess of a facade to hide their cruel and heinous behaviour behind.  It's an easy tool for the spiritually immoral to wave around and manipulate those who are scared or weak-minded to do the bidding of those less scrupulous people. 

It doesn't strike me as too odd that this story came out of Africa, but nonetheless, I am in shock that a community in South Africa allowed such an incredible monster into their midst. Paseka Mbhoro Motsoeneng claims to be a prophet, a son of God and performs "demon banishing rituals" in his Incredible Happenings Church.  The explicit stories that reporters have bourne witness to and subsequently reported have done nothing but leave an uneasy sickly feeling in my gut.

Sitting on the lap of a female congregant, Motsoeneng placed his hand on the head of a 17 year-old teen, who cannot be identified due to her age, and started praying for her.

Motsoeneng told the congregants her tummy had swelled up because some sorcerers had cast an evil spell on her.

 As he was praying for her she collapsed. Motsoeneng then told the teenager, who was lying on her back, to open her legs, which she did.

He then plunged his fingers into her private parts and started moving his fingers inside her vagina.

There's just no words for this.  But wait, there's more!

Part way through this ridiculous farce, another woman brought and fed him ice cream.  So, he's sat in the lap of one woman, fingering a teenage girl and being fed ice cream by another woman.  This scene would probably have made a straight-to-dvd movie in a sex shop somewhere, but no, this was one man claiming to wield divine power when he's really just getting his rocks off.  And all the more unfortunate for the poor girl being sexually assaulted, the ordeal isn't over.

He then invited a woman he said was a “medical doctor” and whom he called Zozo to examine the teen.

“This is a qualified doctor who will tell us what the problem is with this woman,” he said. 

By this time a group of female congregants had draped her lower body with what looked like a towel and surrounded her to prevent voyeuristic people from seeing her private parts. 

“Dr” Zozo then inserted what she said was pregnancy test apparatus into the girl’s vagina, with Motsoeneng looking on.

“The pregnancy tests came out positive. She is pregnant. I could also feel the limbs of the foetus,” Zozo announced .

Pregnant?  This girl needs a PROPER medical professional, a hospital and a clean and safe environment AWAY from this monster's grasp.  But unfortunately, what happened next is all the more sickening and tragic.

As Zozo was leaving the scene, Motsoeneng screamed: “Zozo, she is bleeding and her tummy has subsided.”

Zozo went back to inspect her before she rushed outside. She then came back wearing gloves and holding a pregnancy test kit.

She inserted them into the teen’s vagina and took them out.

She announced: “Now the kit shows neither positive nor negative results.”

Motsoeneng chimed in: “It is because she was sleeping with an animal.”

 ~~~

Motsoeneng then asked a women(sic) to fetch a bucket.

The young lass was then lifted from the ground and made to sit on the bucket with her legs wide open, bleeding profusely, while Motsoeneng looked on.

Let that sink in.

This horrendous monster, this scum of humanity, stood by and watched as a poor girl miscarried in front of an entire congregation, offering no help, no real medical expertise or heck, even any hint of sympathy.  Even more amazingly, the same girl appeared on his TV show a fortnight later with two stones, claiming she had given birth to them, when no such thing even happened!  I don't know which is more incredible, the fact Motsoeneng was able to get away with such deplorable behaviour, or that the girl went along with his scheme. 

This girl wasn't his only victim - he also "helped" a woman have better sex with her husband by feeling her up in front of him (but it's okay, the hand he used was sprinkled with holy water!) and also accused another girl of being a Satanist (the girl was spared expulsion after pleading from the congregation, but not until after he ordered her vagina be checked if it was wet.  How that became grounds for Satanism, I cannot fathom.)

It completely and utterly blows me away how this filth could get away with these crimes in front of EVERYONE - it's sexual and indecent assault.  It's deplorable, it's despicable and it's WRONG.  But because he's hiding behind religion and manipulating the weaker wills of everyone else, it's okay, because he's sent from God to help them.  I can only hope these people will one day wake up to the monster in their midst.

Not my turn yet.

So, I hear that from the 20th of March until the 26th, it'll be 'A' Week. As the website states:

'A' Week is not about being disrespectful to religion or people who have religious views, it’s about quietly showing that there are more people than may be realised who are ‘Good without God’ and who don’t need religion to influence their lives. 

It's kinda encouraging, really.  But as much as I would like to join the ranks in this movement, the time is not right for me just yet to come out.  One friend knows, and I suspect more have their suspicions, but no point in me coming out as agnostic/atheist yet.  Why?  Simply, because I don't think my otherwise traditional Muslim family know.  I wouldn't say they're fundamentalist in their thinking and practice, but I don't think they'd take too kindly to one of their own blood coming out as a heathen.  Especially my mother, who as of late has been rather morbid and developed a very skewed and hypocritical religious viewpoint.  No, once I move out of the family nest, and by the cultural rules am thus my own woman, I can come out a bit more freely.  Although I will say that if everyone in my family is surprised then (extended family and immediate family included), I would be shocked and maybe even a little bit appalled at their apparent short-sightedness.  After all, I haven't been a model Muslim woman since I was born, so why would it be any surprise if I told them I thought it was bull?

So yeah, to those of you who are out, or are planning on coming out very soon, well done.  Whilst I may not be waving my flag on Facebook, I will at least do so here.  Heck, I doubt anyone I know reads this anyway, so it's not like I'm burning my own boat down or anything.