Step forward religionist former PC Graham Cogman, of Norfolk, who couldn't bear to treat gay people equally and felt obliged to circulate anti-gay material via his work email.
If their brand of religionism doesn't allow them to treat people decently then they have no right to hold the jobs they do. Why can't they hold their views but behave professionally at work and accept that gay people have every right to be treated fairly and equally?
Their job is to serve the public - not to inflict their religious prejudices on the job they hold, which is secular and requires respect for diversity.
I really wish we could hear from the Christians who don't agree with these bigots. the problem is that the evangelical extremists, such as those who frequent Anglican Extreme (sorry, Mainstream (sic)), cannot accept any sort of recognition of the right of gay people to live their lives and be respected and recognised in the public sphere. Ideally, they want us to disappear altogether, but if we have to be tiresome enough to exist, accept our place under a stone.
Sorry, fanatics, but those days are gone, and if you wish to work in public service, you need to accept the law as it is and view gay people as equal within civil society. If you can't do that - don't work in any service providing context. The anti-gay view is no longer acceptable under the law with regard to either the equal provision of goods and services, or employment. if you cannot live with that reality - thats your problem.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tory scum
You know, they say it only needs a crisis to make you realise that really, there still are 'sides' in politics.
The Tories behaviour over the past few weeks has been disgraceful. Showing themselves in their true colurs, it appears that laissez-faire is once again the order of the day.
Question is - should I rejoin Labour?
The Tories behaviour over the past few weeks has been disgraceful. Showing themselves in their true colurs, it appears that laissez-faire is once again the order of the day.
Question is - should I rejoin Labour?
Friday, November 21, 2008
The whine of the reactionary....
Just heard the whining tones of the evil Nadine Dorries, Tory MP, and mouthpiece of the fundamentalist Christian lobby. The existence of this waste of oxygen is ample reason to question the idea that the Tory party has changed - if so why are they continuing to select reactionary backwoods individuals such as this?
In any case - hasn't Cameron shown this not to be the case by embracing monetarism and spending cuts in their latest economic policy statements.
Same old Tories.
In any case - hasn't Cameron shown this not to be the case by embracing monetarism and spending cuts in their latest economic policy statements.
Same old Tories.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Remembrance Sunday
In my strongly-pacifist days, I always felt very uneasy about Remembrance Sunday. Its still something I can't really feel any great affinity with - just too militaristic for me.
That aside, I wonder how the day will change should those who remember WW2 finally die. I don't think that those of us who cannot remember can give the day anything like the same sort of dignity.
Moreover, as a way of remembering conflict, can the politicised and divisive wars of the post war era bring people together in anything like the same way? The Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan have all been anything but uniting.....
That aside, I wonder how the day will change should those who remember WW2 finally die. I don't think that those of us who cannot remember can give the day anything like the same sort of dignity.
Moreover, as a way of remembering conflict, can the politicised and divisive wars of the post war era bring people together in anything like the same way? The Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan have all been anything but uniting.....
The latest from Vatican plc....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/psychological-tests-for-priests-to-screen-out-homosexuals-1001059.html is the link...
Essentially, it is a link to an article detailing the Vatican's latest plans to root out gay men from Catholic seminaries. Nothing new there, particularly under Gauleiter Ratfinger, well known former member of the Hitler Youth.
There are some questions worth posing.
1. Given that clearly this sort of thing has not made any difference to the intake of gay men into British Catholic seminaries, is there any reason to think it will do so now?
2. This clearly gives the lie to the nonsense that they really only hate us when we do things they don't like. their loathing is far more visceral
3. Given this stance, can we really be sympathetic to gay men who opt for the self-oppressing mode of remaining within this anti-gay institution? They are clearly not wanted and breaking the rules. So why stay within a place where they are clearly not wanted? The only way this can be done is to lie. Is that either healthy or advisable? Should those who follow this path be supported or are they contributing to the oppression of gay people by remaining within such a homophobic institution?
I don't want to sound overly critical. But when does the hypocrisy have to stop and when do these gay men have to say - enough. No more.
Essentially, it is a link to an article detailing the Vatican's latest plans to root out gay men from Catholic seminaries. Nothing new there, particularly under Gauleiter Ratfinger, well known former member of the Hitler Youth.
There are some questions worth posing.
1. Given that clearly this sort of thing has not made any difference to the intake of gay men into British Catholic seminaries, is there any reason to think it will do so now?
2. This clearly gives the lie to the nonsense that they really only hate us when we do things they don't like. their loathing is far more visceral
3. Given this stance, can we really be sympathetic to gay men who opt for the self-oppressing mode of remaining within this anti-gay institution? They are clearly not wanted and breaking the rules. So why stay within a place where they are clearly not wanted? The only way this can be done is to lie. Is that either healthy or advisable? Should those who follow this path be supported or are they contributing to the oppression of gay people by remaining within such a homophobic institution?
I don't want to sound overly critical. But when does the hypocrisy have to stop and when do these gay men have to say - enough. No more.
The BBC.....
I haven't talked about this yet.....
I'm not a fan of Brand, and Ross is OK but can be a bit self-indulgent. That being said, this is SUCH a storm in a teacup and a total over-reaction.
The original comments were not wise. Its not a god idea to make comments about someone not on the end of the phone. However, it is clear enough that permission was in fact given to broadcast the call or it wouldn't have happened. Changing your mind after the event doesn't give a lot of credibility. Neither does whingeing about something said about one's sex life when proud to be a self-titled Slut. And perhaps a bit less whining from Sachs, famous for one solitary role which takes the piss out of Spaniards, wouldn't be a bad idea. He's complaining again today - 've lost any respect I had for him, and I didn't have a lot in the first place - third-rate bit-part actor who happened to be given a good script.
What this is really about is money. people don't like the idea of Ross getting lots of public money in hard times. Fair enough. But then don't complain when the BBC isn;t able to attract 'big names'. And if the BBC thinks it can continue to win new viewers whilst trying not to offend Daily Mail readers in Torquay - well, you can't please everyone all the time....
I'm not a fan of Brand, and Ross is OK but can be a bit self-indulgent. That being said, this is SUCH a storm in a teacup and a total over-reaction.
The original comments were not wise. Its not a god idea to make comments about someone not on the end of the phone. However, it is clear enough that permission was in fact given to broadcast the call or it wouldn't have happened. Changing your mind after the event doesn't give a lot of credibility. Neither does whingeing about something said about one's sex life when proud to be a self-titled Slut. And perhaps a bit less whining from Sachs, famous for one solitary role which takes the piss out of Spaniards, wouldn't be a bad idea. He's complaining again today - 've lost any respect I had for him, and I didn't have a lot in the first place - third-rate bit-part actor who happened to be given a good script.
What this is really about is money. people don't like the idea of Ross getting lots of public money in hard times. Fair enough. But then don't complain when the BBC isn;t able to attract 'big names'. And if the BBC thinks it can continue to win new viewers whilst trying not to offend Daily Mail readers in Torquay - well, you can't please everyone all the time....
Saturday, November 08, 2008
More religionist hilarity
Sometimes I think that I write too much about the pathetic and risible activities of religionists. But its just so tempting......
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/martinbeckford/blog/2008/11/06/gay_wedding_dudley_insists_there_was_no_apology_and_no_frank_discussions
is a link to a daily Torygraph (apologies for such infecting of the blog with this unpleasant rag) blog which tells us the latest about Martin Dudley, a London vicar who carried out a blessing for a gay couple.
The church hierarchy wanted to make it appear that he had been severely disciplined. of course, he hadn't. Now, the churchman involved in this case is the entirely vile 'Bishop' Pete (Call Me Pete) Broadbent, who holds deeply homophobic views, yet tries to pretend he is some sort of left wing progressive. He once sat as a Labour councillor, even though he is to the right of Thatcher, and if you talk to anyone who has met this man, the vitriol is only too plain. You never hear anything but negativity about him. My contact has been a series of rude and badly-written emails from when I was still in the church. He is the epitomy of why we should all leave the Church. He is also remarkably easy to wind up.
Broadbent is playing 'bad cop' here, because he knows that there is little he can do. the diocese is stuffed to the gills with closet gays, and it has, laughably, an equal opportunities policy which supposedly includes sexual orientation. You just couldn't make it up. How can you have an equalities policy when you openly and deliberately ban a whole group of people from participation unless you follow their prejudiced and arcane rules found in their Grimm's Fairy Tales 'holy' book. The Bible, think its called - makes great firewood replacement, along with the crucifixes and icons from one's religionist days - try it! Broadbent also made lots of loud noises about not attending the Lambeth conference because of the Gene Robinson issue, yet still won't own his personal homophobia. He is still under the impression that people think he is left-wing, whereas a more apposite representative of Daily Mail thinking, beneath the gloss of episcopal 'call me Pete' trendiness could not be found. A lot of evangelicals are like this - all strumming guitars and clapping, to hide a deeply reactionary set of beliefs. Don't trust them further than you could throw them - snakes, the lot of them.
One could respect these people more if they would be absolutely honest about what they really do think. But given that half the gays in the church are skulking in their closets, and breaking the rules without working for them to be changed, they are the authors of their own oppression.
There is only one logical answer. Ditch the church, ditch Christian oppression.
You know it makes sense.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/martinbeckford/blog/2008/11/06/gay_wedding_dudley_insists_there_was_no_apology_and_no_frank_discussions
is a link to a daily Torygraph (apologies for such infecting of the blog with this unpleasant rag) blog which tells us the latest about Martin Dudley, a London vicar who carried out a blessing for a gay couple.
The church hierarchy wanted to make it appear that he had been severely disciplined. of course, he hadn't. Now, the churchman involved in this case is the entirely vile 'Bishop' Pete (Call Me Pete) Broadbent, who holds deeply homophobic views, yet tries to pretend he is some sort of left wing progressive. He once sat as a Labour councillor, even though he is to the right of Thatcher, and if you talk to anyone who has met this man, the vitriol is only too plain. You never hear anything but negativity about him. My contact has been a series of rude and badly-written emails from when I was still in the church. He is the epitomy of why we should all leave the Church. He is also remarkably easy to wind up.
Broadbent is playing 'bad cop' here, because he knows that there is little he can do. the diocese is stuffed to the gills with closet gays, and it has, laughably, an equal opportunities policy which supposedly includes sexual orientation. You just couldn't make it up. How can you have an equalities policy when you openly and deliberately ban a whole group of people from participation unless you follow their prejudiced and arcane rules found in their Grimm's Fairy Tales 'holy' book. The Bible, think its called - makes great firewood replacement, along with the crucifixes and icons from one's religionist days - try it! Broadbent also made lots of loud noises about not attending the Lambeth conference because of the Gene Robinson issue, yet still won't own his personal homophobia. He is still under the impression that people think he is left-wing, whereas a more apposite representative of Daily Mail thinking, beneath the gloss of episcopal 'call me Pete' trendiness could not be found. A lot of evangelicals are like this - all strumming guitars and clapping, to hide a deeply reactionary set of beliefs. Don't trust them further than you could throw them - snakes, the lot of them.
One could respect these people more if they would be absolutely honest about what they really do think. But given that half the gays in the church are skulking in their closets, and breaking the rules without working for them to be changed, they are the authors of their own oppression.
There is only one logical answer. Ditch the church, ditch Christian oppression.
You know it makes sense.
Friday, November 07, 2008
America, gay marriage, pragmatism, and racism
I've recently been drawn to a blog I sometimes visit - Mad Priest's Of course, I Could Be Wrong - http://revjph.blogspot.com/
There has recently been some controversy over the use of the 'N' word in discussion about the rejection of gay marriage in California and the fact that black voters opposed it. I found it amusing that homophobic, gay-baiting sites such as Stand Firm, run by Gauleiter Matt Kennedy, far-right by anyone's reckoning, has come over all moral and anti-racist (I think he rather likes blacks because so many are anti-gay - doesn't seem so keen on those who aren't, such as Barack Obama!) Anyway, being criticised by that bunch of religionist swivel-eyed loons can only be seen as something to be congratulated about....so well done, Mad Priest! They banned me years ago - poor things can't cope with anything outside their rather pathetic little world-view.
Anyway, I'm not going to get drawn in to the race issue with regard to this question but I think its primarily about religion, not race per se. And I think this is the problem. The US gay movement appears to be determined to get religion on their side and so works for things which are unlikely to be fulfilled until that country is considerably more secular. The gay marriage issue is the classic example.
In the UK, we have civil partnership. It brings all the benefits, rights and responsibilities of civil marriage, but its got an official different name, and the church aren't involved. And thats because the church is homophobic. Parts of it are trying not to be, but essentially, Christianity is a homophobic religion, and the sooner gay people abandon it to its own fate, the better. That's the conclusion I have reached, in any case. So, what makes sense is to let them get on with it and to work for what is possible. And it seems to me that the US gay movement has lost a sense of pragmatism. Had we said 'nothing but marriage is good enough', then we may not have made any progress at all. But civil partnership is here, here to stay, and now relatively uncontroversial. Tie it up with religion and then wonder why it causes so much angst.
Barack Obama has made it clear that he supports civil unions, but not marriage. Fair enough. Work with him to bring forth legal equality at a federal level but don't get tied up with the unattainable. Will they do this, or will they continue to reject pragmatism - and get nowhere??
There has recently been some controversy over the use of the 'N' word in discussion about the rejection of gay marriage in California and the fact that black voters opposed it. I found it amusing that homophobic, gay-baiting sites such as Stand Firm, run by Gauleiter Matt Kennedy, far-right by anyone's reckoning, has come over all moral and anti-racist (I think he rather likes blacks because so many are anti-gay - doesn't seem so keen on those who aren't, such as Barack Obama!) Anyway, being criticised by that bunch of religionist swivel-eyed loons can only be seen as something to be congratulated about....so well done, Mad Priest! They banned me years ago - poor things can't cope with anything outside their rather pathetic little world-view.
Anyway, I'm not going to get drawn in to the race issue with regard to this question but I think its primarily about religion, not race per se. And I think this is the problem. The US gay movement appears to be determined to get religion on their side and so works for things which are unlikely to be fulfilled until that country is considerably more secular. The gay marriage issue is the classic example.
In the UK, we have civil partnership. It brings all the benefits, rights and responsibilities of civil marriage, but its got an official different name, and the church aren't involved. And thats because the church is homophobic. Parts of it are trying not to be, but essentially, Christianity is a homophobic religion, and the sooner gay people abandon it to its own fate, the better. That's the conclusion I have reached, in any case. So, what makes sense is to let them get on with it and to work for what is possible. And it seems to me that the US gay movement has lost a sense of pragmatism. Had we said 'nothing but marriage is good enough', then we may not have made any progress at all. But civil partnership is here, here to stay, and now relatively uncontroversial. Tie it up with religion and then wonder why it causes so much angst.
Barack Obama has made it clear that he supports civil unions, but not marriage. Fair enough. Work with him to bring forth legal equality at a federal level but don't get tied up with the unattainable. Will they do this, or will they continue to reject pragmatism - and get nowhere??
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Obama
The election of Obama has made me remember this blog again!
It was a convincing win, and whatever one's views, quite an amazing event. I don't think anyone seriously thought that a black American could be elected President until a year or so ago. I think Obama is highly impressive, and I like his calmness and intelligence. The fact that a liberal black Democrat from a Northern state has been elected convincingly - and encouragingly, that young Americans appear to have shifted clearly in a liberal direction - has to be most encouraging. The demographic trends are favourable.
What is more, look at the reaction of the conservatives. Mad Mel Phillips is foaming at the mouth, after having made all sorts of quite ludicrous claims about Obama over the past few months. The religious conservatives on sites such as Stand Firm are fuming. Furious.
To make them so mad, this man must have something. They recognise that their arguments meant nothing and that their reactionary creed is, again, taking a beating, particularly amongst younger voters.
It was a convincing win, and whatever one's views, quite an amazing event. I don't think anyone seriously thought that a black American could be elected President until a year or so ago. I think Obama is highly impressive, and I like his calmness and intelligence. The fact that a liberal black Democrat from a Northern state has been elected convincingly - and encouragingly, that young Americans appear to have shifted clearly in a liberal direction - has to be most encouraging. The demographic trends are favourable.
What is more, look at the reaction of the conservatives. Mad Mel Phillips is foaming at the mouth, after having made all sorts of quite ludicrous claims about Obama over the past few months. The religious conservatives on sites such as Stand Firm are fuming. Furious.
To make them so mad, this man must have something. They recognise that their arguments meant nothing and that their reactionary creed is, again, taking a beating, particularly amongst younger voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
