Bloody God-Botherers Again

Of all the things that you think might’ve finally split the British Cabinet – Iraq, Bush poodlism, Trident, cronyism, cash for honours, general corruption, gross incompetence – in the end it may come down to religion, if Inspector Knacker doesn’t swoop on No. 10 first, that is.

Why? Because paedophile-enabler and Roman Catholic Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor‘s outrageous and blatant political pressure on individual ministers to exempt the church from anti-gay discrimination legislation means that those promiinent Opus Dei members, marital Catholics and sporadic mass-attenders that overpopulate Blair’s cabinet and his hangers-on ( the recently-arrested Blair aide Ruth Turner, for example, is the daughter of a prominent Catholic theologian) are going to have to choose between their beliefs and what few political principles they have left.

Rome and O’Connor are determined to oppose UK gay rights legislation and the church has already bullied themselves an exemption from ensuring gay equality in employment and now they’re trying it on on the issue of gay adoption rights, saying that they should be special, exempt from the law on the spurious grounds of ‘conscience’. (Spelled B_I_G_O_T_R_Y.)

Shit, I’d like to be excused from any number of laws on the grounds of conscience. For instance, what about the Rastafari? Cannabis is a sacrament in their religion: can they ignore the drug laws?

Cherie Blair ‘split Cabinet in Catholic adoption row’
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 24 January 2007

Senior cabinet ministers have told MPs privately that Cherie Blair is the cause of the cabinet split over demands to exempt Roman Catholic adoption agencies from equality laws on gay adoption.

The row intensified yesterday when the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, was accused by gay rights campaigners and some Labour MPs of trying to blackmail the Government.

The accusations flew after Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor wrote to cabinet ministers warning them that Catholic adoption agencies would have to close if they were not exempted from the new laws.

The leaders of the Church of England backed Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, warning the Government that religious people may feel that their conscience forbids them from undertaking public work under the new laws. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, wrote to Tony Blair saying: “In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups, the Government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed.”

The Equality Act, due to come into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, a committed Catholic, was accused of seeking to gain an opt-out for the Church. But Ms Kelly and the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, have privately told MPs the pressure for an exemption has come from the Prime Minister.

“They said Tony is the one who has been asking for this exemption, not Ruth, who is pretty annoyed at the way she has been presented in the media,” said a senior Labour MP. “Another cabinet minister told me it’s all coming from Cherie.”

Read More

Aren’t Fundies Funny?

Tis the season to be fundy, and the irrationality of the religious comes as no surprise wherever it’s found, whether in Texas or elsewhere:

Cheerleading bill leaves decency to eye of beholder

By KRISTEN MACK

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Exactly what constitutes a suggestive cheerleading routine was left to the imaginations of lawmakers this week after state Rep. Al Edwards declined to demonstrate the moves he wants to ban.

“We can’t describe it or demonstrate it,” said Edwards, D-Houston. “But we know it when we see it.”

Edwards’ bill would prohibit school dance, drill and cheerleading teams from performing in an “overtly sexually suggestive manner.”

The measure has gotten Edwards national attention, and Tuesday’s hearing before the Public Education Committee was at turns serious and ribald.

“I’m trying to get a feel for it,” said Rep. Rob Eissler, a Republican from the Woodlands with a propensity for puns and double-entendre, as he asked Edwards the extent of the suggestive cheerleading problem.

Edwards’ original bill called for a reduction of state funds to school districts that knowingly permit such performances.

But he filed a substitute in the committee requiring only that districts take appropriate action against dirty dancing, as determined by the district.

“You’re not taking away their money, you are just telling them to clean up their act,” said Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, the committee chairman.

Several people testified against the bill, including members of the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, who said cheerleading and school dance instructors across the state are overwhelmingly opposed to the bill. They fear it could lead to selective prosecution.

Margeaux Goodfleisch, a senior at Austin’s Westlake High School, testified that Edwards’ bill was too subjective.

“How can you expect a hard-working team to have to sit out a year because they didn’t meet an imaginary standard during their dance?” she said.

The problem with the bill is that it does not define the conduct it regulates, said Rep. Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville.

“There’s nothing to tell them what they can or can’t do. It’s got no teeth, no sanctions and no effect,” he said.

Edwards, however, said he still thinks his bill has a chance of passing out of committee and to a vote of the full House.

It was left pending Tuesday.

[My emphasis]

So basically what he’s saying is “If it gives me a big stiffy, it’s obscene.” Okaaay. He’d better get himself some blinders and one of those anti-masturbatory jobbies as well. He obviously can’t be trusted in possession of a penis at a high-school football game.

Let’s not just pick on Texas though, quick, dirty and gratifying release that it is. In India their own fundies are railing against another excess of the modern world:

Muslim clerics slam Koranic ringtones

‘Un-Islamic’ verses

By Lester Haines
Wednesday 22nd November 2006 10:42 GMT

Get Indian Muslim clerics have condemned the use of verses from the Koran as mobile ringtones, Yahoo! reports.

Mohammed Asumin Qazmi, an official at the Dar-ul Uloom seminary in the northern Indian town of Deoband, said the verses were “not meant for entertainment”, and declared that “anyone who persists in using these should be ostracized from society”.
The practice is said to be common among among Muslims in Uttar Pradesh, especially those in their mid 40s and 50s. Bank manager Faiz Siddaqui defended his Koranic ditty thus: “Whenever my phone rings, I hear these verses that stress the values of hard work and honesty, and I feel closer to my religion.”

Mufti Badru-Hasan, a leading cleric in Uttar Pradesh capital of Lucknow, was having none of it: “One should hear the complete verse of the Koran with a pious mind and in silence. If it is used as a ringtone, a person is bound to switch on the mobile, thus truncating the verse halfway. This is an un-Islamic act.” ?

Bugger un-Islamic – it’s just horribly bad-mannered.

Destruction to all ringtones that aren’t just a muted beep or ring, and ostracisation from society to all nubile young cheerleaders who inadvertently give sad middle-aged men a hard-on! It’s what any all-knowing benevolent deity would want.

Read more: Fundies do the darndest things

And Now For Something Completely Different

Dubai’s Khaleej Times op-ed columnist Mohammed A.R. Galadari takes an unexpected view on Jack Straw’s call for the doffing of the veil:

Beyond the veil
By Mohammed A.R. Galadari
9 October 2006

IT IS so sad to see the newspapers in the UK make fun of the Muslim British citizens over this new controversy about veil or hijab. But it is not the media’s fault. They are in no way responsible for this state of affairs.

Unfortunately, many British Muslims do not understand that when they choose to become citizens of a country and make it their home, they also embrace its culture, customs, habits and social behaviour. This is a reality that is as clear as daylight. All Muslims have to do is accept it. Unfortunately, most Muslims who came to Britain decades ago do not understand this fundamental reality.

Dear readers, in this respect, there are lessons for British Muslims in the example of British Jewish community. Many Jews, who came to live in Britain, changed their names to fit the new social milieu. Some married people outside their close-knit community. So much so that today British Jews ? strikingly different from orthodox Jews ? are difficult to differentiate from the indigenous English people.

Why did the Jews do all this? Because they wanted to integrate with the host society and its social values and norms. That is how they managed to achieve eminent position in power and society as well as earn respect. Britain even had a Jewish Prime Minister in Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli was the British PM for two tenures.

This of course became possible thanks to the liberal and generous nature of the British people. The British are essentially good-natured and most welcoming to new arrivals in their midst, helping new-comers easily integrate. They do not discriminate and distinguish between people. I know it. I have lived long years in Britain.

Unfortunately, some British Muslims at times behave in irrational ways. The other day, a blind woman called for a cab when she had her dog with her. A Muslim taxi driver apparently refused to take the dog in although she needed the dog as a guide and escort. As a result, she took the taxi driver to court and won the case.

Coming back to this row over the remarks made by former British foreign secretary Jack Straw on the chador or veil worn by Muslim women; as far as I know, Islamic law calls for covering one’s hair, not face. Now Jack Straw is considered as one of the most sympathetic leaders when it comes to Muslims. There is a huge number of Muslims in Straw’s parliamentary constituency of Blackburn. But they voted against him in last election on issues that concern Muslims. Now Straw has come up with this advice to Muslim women saying their veil may be holding them back from integrating with British society.

Dear readers, reasons like these antagonise people who are generally sympathetic to Muslims. And these are the kind of things that antagonise British people too. We must look at how Jews integrated with the British society but never changed their religious beliefs. They continued to pray in their synagogues and held on to their faith. I believe this is what the Muslims living in Britain and other countries in the West need to do. As long as the Muslims do not truly integrate with their host societies, they will continue to face hostility.

Readers? response may be forwarded to marg@khaleejtimes.com

It’s very difficult as a feminist to come to terms with veiling. One’s innate instinct is to condemn it as an imposition on women, which it often is, and to campaign against it. But I don’t, and there’s a reason why – because I believe if there’s to be change it has to be from within. Empowerment can’t be imposed.

I don’t agree with this article’s basic premise – it seems to hark back to a time when the world was a sight less global and a lot more insular and when you moved to another country you blended in. In today’s global culture with such easy access to travel, cultures are much more fragmented worldwide and less closed to outside influence. Difference is much more accepted these days. But I do agree with what the writer says about how previous minority groups have assimilated – that it has not been by force but by time and internal change.

Many, mostly male, cultural commentators and pundits are spouting off about the huge cultural and social rifts caused by one simple item of clothing, the niqab, as though it encapsulated some simple black/white clash between their own, enlightenment, values and some upstart, barbarous desert religion. They forget that the Moslem world is as far from homogenous as the West is and veil-wearing’s not always about religion and politics. Sometimes it’s just about clothes; particularly so in a consumer culture.

There as many differences as similarities between Moslem co-religionist countries as there are between say, Britain and Bulgaria for example; both are Christian but there the similarity ends. The culture is different, the style of life is different, the fashions are different – just as they are in many countries where a significant proportion of the population are Moslem.

The burqa and niqab and similar face-covering dress originated in desert countries and arose from the necessity to cover one’s eyes and mouth during a sandstorm. This combined with the Koranic injunction to be modest in dress has resulted in the head-to-toe coverings we see today.

Full covering is as much a cultural statement about where you’re from and what your subculture is as it is a religious one (though that is not to minimise the attempt by some Moslem missionaries to impose a one-size-fits all, Wahabi style veiling to countries such as the Maldives where it’s at least climatically if not culturally inappropriate).

As all cultural artifacts change and evolve, so do the niqab, abaya and hijab and their variants. These items of clothing are as much subject to the whims and changes of fashion as are handbags, or a pair of shoes. You can tell as much about someone by the fabric, cut and colour of a hijab or burqa as you can by any designer label jacket.

The cultural and social signifiers of dress don’t disappear because they’re not native, you just have to get your eye in. Pattern, colour and cut can tell you where someone originates from, what their income level is, whether they’re educated, even to which branch of their religion they belong.

It just so happens that this drastic style of dress and life is what’s fashionable now in a particular British demographic, in the same way that adopting an anarchist-gothy-vegan-dressed-in-black pose or that of a full-on hip-hop queen is for some other young women. Sometimes it’s just what it seems, a lifestyle choice – and sometimes a veil is just a piece of fabric and nice fabric at that.

I see young women in Amsterdam in every shape, style and possible variation of the veil. They are modern young women with modern ideas and they mostly make their own choices. Moslem women all over Europe are making their own peace with their often-clashing religious and cultural beliefs. Perhaps we should be celebrating that rather than blaming?

It wasn’t so long ago that a respectable Englishwoman wouldn’t have gone out in the street without her head covered. My own mother rarely went out without a headscarf when I was a child – she’d’ve felt undressed without it. Widows wore shawls and veils well into the 20th century, as did Anglican first communicants. Catholic women still regularly wear veils to prayers. It’s just fashion. Times change. This drive towards complete covering by young British Moslem women’ll change when men particularly white men, stop paying so much attention and projecting their own cultural signifiers of radicalism and violence onto what Moslem women wear. They also need to have some self-examination about their orientalist curiosity about the imagined exotic beauty beneath the fabric.

Strict Moslem patriarchs and the likes of Jack Straw have this in common at least – they’re equally threatened by what women choose to wear or not, and that says more about them than about the women in question.

Change’ll come, if it does, when people are ready and it’ll come from within – either when those who veil are sick of it or when the majority of the population accept it as a style of dress like any other. I suspect that once niqab becomes accepted as mainstream a lot of the shock value will be gone and the fashion will subside to hijab only, if any veil at all. What’s important is that change is by choice and made because women themselves want it. To try and push change with the kind of argument Straw is using is as bad as forcing women into veiling.

Read more: UK politics, Islam, British Moslem Women, Veiling, Niqab, Fashion, Jack Straw, New Labour

Holy Tax Evasion, Batman!

Is it godly to avoid paying your taxes?

But of course. It must be – for did not Jesus himself invite the moneylenders into the temple? Or do I misremember? It seems all you have to do in the US is call yourself a religion, slap on a dogcollar and presto change-o you’re exempt from the law of the land.

No wonder so many dodgy characters become ‘pastors’ and start their own churches. It’s a license to print money, with no oversight.

The New York Times lays out just how free from any sort of tax or regulation being a ‘religion’ can make you:

At any moment, state inspectors can step uninvited into one of the three child care centers that Ethel White runs in Auburn, Ala., to make sure they meet state requirements intended to ensure that the children are safe. There must be continuing training for the staff. Her nurseries must have two sinks, one exclusively for food preparation. All cabinets must have safety locks. Medications for the children must be kept under lock and key, and refrigerated.

The Rev. Ray Fuson of the Harvest Temple Church of God in Montgomery, Ala., does not have to worry about unannounced state inspections at the day care center his church runs. Alabama exempts church day care programs from state licensing requirements, which were tightened after almost a dozen children died in licensed and unlicensed day care centers in the state in two years.

[…]

An analysis by The New York Times of laws passed since 1989 shows that more than 200 special arrangements, protections or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents were tucked into Congressional legislation, covering topics ranging from pensions to immigration to land use. New breaks have also been provided by a host of pivotal court decisions at the state and federal level, and by numerous rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch.

The special breaks amount to “a sort of religious affirmative action program,” said John Witte Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at the Emory University law school.

Professor Witte added: “Separation of church and state was certainly part of American law when many of today’s public opinion makers were in school. But separation of church and state is no longer the law of the land.”

The changes reflect, in part, the growing political influence of religious groups and the growing presence of conservatives in the courts and regulatory agencies. But these tax and regulatory breaks have been endorsed by politicians of both major political parties, by judges around the country, and at all levels of government.

“The religious community has a lot of pull, and senators are very deferential to this kind of legislation,” said Richard R. Hammar, the editor of Church Law & Tax Report and an accountant with law and divinity degrees from Harvard.

As a result of these special breaks, religious organizations of all faiths stand in a position that American businesses and the thousands of nonprofit groups without that ‘religious’ label can only envy. And the new breaks come at a time when many religious organizations are expanding into activities, from day care centers to funeral homes, from ice cream parlors to fitness clubs, from bookstores to broadcasters, that compete with these same businesses and nonprofit organizations.

Religious organizations are exempt from many federal, state and local laws and regulations covering social services, including addiction treatment centers and child care, like those in Alabama.

Federal law gives religious congregations unique tools to challenge government restrictions on the way they use their land. Consequently, land-use restrictions that are a result of longstanding public demands for open space or historic preservation may be trumped by a religious ministry’s construction plans, as in a current dispute in Boulder County, Colo.

Exemptions in the civil rights laws protect religious employers from all legal complaints about faith-based preferences in hiring. The courts have shielded them from many complaints about other forms of discrimination, whether based on race, nationality, age, gender, medical condition or sexual orientation. And most religious organizations have been exempted from federal laws meant to protect pensions and to provide unemployment benefits.

Governments have been as generous with tax breaks as with regulatory exemptions. Congress has imposed limits on the I.R.S.’s ability to audit churches, synagogues and other religious congregations. And beyond the federal income tax exemption they share with all nonprofit groups, houses of worship have long been granted an exemption from local property taxes in every state.

As religious activities expand far beyond weekly worship, that venerable tax break is expanding, too. In recent years, a church-run fitness center with a tanning bed and video arcade in Minnesota, a biblical theme park in Florida, a ministry’s 1,800-acre training retreat and conference center in Michigan, religious broadcasters’ transmission towers in Washington State, and housing for teachers at church-run schools in Alaska have all been granted tax breaks by local officials or, when they balked, by the courts or state legislators.

These organizations and their leaders still rely on public services, police and fire protection, street lights and storm drains, highway and bridge maintenance, food and drug inspections, national defense. But their tax exemptions shift the cost of providing those benefits onto other citizens. The total cost nationwide is not known, because no one keeps track.

Read whole article

Do read the whole thing if you can ( registration required). The way that the Christian Right has pushed its moneymaking agenda disguised as the practice of religious freedom, all the while bleating that they’re being victimised by those mean ol’ atheist liberals boohoo, ( you know, those atheist liberals who actually pay their taxes) is quite shocking even to a confirmed cynic like me.

This isn’t religious freedom, it’s rampant capitalism disguised as religious freedom – and doing what capitalism does best, making a fast buck. It’s also theft from the taxpayer.

Who do you think is paying for all these ‘pastors’ tax breaks and the public services they use? It’s surely not them.

Read more: US politics, Taxation, Tax breaks,Religion, Fundamentalism,. Evangelism, Christianity

‘Greed’, Painting by M. Connors.

‘Buy Walmart Toys Or an Elf Gets It’

Yes, it’s that time again already – October. Just listen to the sound of the hysterical Christmas marketing campaign revving up to full power. Crooked Timber has and finds that Walmart is already deliberately scaring children into making their parents buy them toys:

Walmart’s Christmas Site

Posted by Harry

Susan Linn from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood was just on the Chris Evans show (of all places) describing Walmart’s new website, on which kids can choose a bunch of toys to add to a list which Walmart will email to their parents. Evans clearly didn’t believe Linn’s description of the site, especially the bit where she says that when you reject a toy one of the elves says that the other elf will lose his job. I think Linn is terrific, but I, too, thought she must be making that bit up, despite, like Evans, having already heard the astonishing accents the elves have been given.

No. Try it. It really is unbelievable. Come on folks, defend poor old Walmart. What good could come of this for the wider world?

Read more: Internet, Websites, Christmas, Shopping,Retail, Children, Parents, Walmart, Advertising, Marketing, Unprincipled greedy bastards