THE right-wing head of Spain’s Catholic church, Cardinal Antonio María Rouco Varela, has expressed outrage over just about every reform introduced by the country’s socialist government – but nothing could have shocked this posturing old ninny more than seeing a picture of his niece on the cover of a best-selling soft porn magazine, Interviú.

Topless and dressed in suspenders, Magdalena Rouco Hernández stripped off to embarrass her uncle, who is head of the Spanish Episcopal Conference and also a friend of Pope Benedict XVI.

According to the Guardian, the mother-of-two posed bared her breasts on eight pages of the magazine – a curious mix of female flesh and serious investigations.

The 27-year-old, who went to mass every day as a girl, said she chose to do the photoshoot to expose her uncle’s “hypocrisy” following her father’s death.

My uncle never tires of repeating that the family is sacred and that you have to respect it. But then he does not respect it and abandons his own. When my father died, [Rouco] did not come to the funeral, didn’t send flowers or tell my mother of his sorrow. He told us he had a meeting with Pope John Paul II, but it was not true.

Magdelena also claimed Cardinal Rouco did not call her family after her mother’s death and failed to help her when her husband lost his job.

I wanted to bare naked the hypocrisy of my uncle.

Cardinal Rouco, 72, leads a conservative wing of the Spanish church which has clashed repeatedly with the socialist government over social reforms including the legalisation of gay marriage, quick divorces, educational reforms and stem-cell research.

The Cardinal’s hypocrisy appears to go further than just family matters.

It was recently revealed that he has been investing heavily in the Pfizer pharmaceutical company Pfizer, which manufacturers both Viagra and an injectable contraceptive, Dep-Provera, used by 30 million women worldwide.

Alas, as a result of the recent crisis over sub-prime mortgages, his investments of some 80,000 Euro a year have slumped by around 20 percent.

Awww!

THE Religion of Perpetual Rage has found something new to annoy it – an Islamic studies course at the University of Western Sydney which they claim is too sexually explicit, promotes lesbianism and derides the Koran as misogynistic.

According to The Australian:

Students, community members and the Australian National Imams Council have complained about the content of the course, Women in Arabic and Islamic Literature, being taught at the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies. They say it gives a negative view of women in Islam.

The imams’ council has circulated a petition recording its

Deep concern with regards to the course structure and content which involves repeated and unjustified attacks upon Islam.

Another group of nutty rug-butters, Muslims for Peace, has branded the centre as “evil” and demanded lecturer Samar Habib be dismissed and the course abolished. A bulletin on the Muslims for Peace website reads:

Now that its wicked nature should be crystal clear for all to see, Muslims should fear Almighty Allah and break all connections with this diabolical centre of Kufr (non-believers).

The course includes excerpts from The Perfumed Garden by Sheik Nafzawi, a book on Arabian erotica written in the 16th century and translated into English in 1886 that has been likened to the Indian Kama Sutra.

Dr Habib, who has written her PhD thesis on female homosexuality in the Middle East and has written an introduction in an erotic lesbian novel published overseas entitled I Am You, has been accused of promoting lesbianism.

Dr Habib has also been accused by Muslims for Peace of teaching that it is not obligatory to wear the hijab, that the Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) are just Chinese whispers and that Muslim scholars can be ignored because they are males.

The imams’ council does not believe the course represents the normative traditional Islam as practised by most of the world’s Muslim population.

ANIC president Sheik Moez Nafti wrote:

The subject’s emphasis on sexuality and its explicit sexual content is not reflective of normative Islam, which is what we thought the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies would attempt to portray.

Habib’s Female Homosexuality in the Middle East: Histories and Representations (ISBN: 0415956730, publisher, Routledge, 2007) is the first full-length study of its kind.

It dares to probe the biggest taboo in contemporary Arab culture with scholarly intent and integrity – female homosexuality. Habib argues that female homosexuality has a long history in Arabic literature and scholarship, beginning in the ninth century, and she traces the destruction of Medieval discourses on female homosexuality and the replacement of these with a new religious orthodoxy that is no longer permissive of a variety of sexual behaviours.

A RELIGIOUS discrimination lawsuit has been brought this week by a burqua-clad Detroit Muslim against a district court judge.

Ginnah Muhammad claims that she was discriminated against by Judge Paul Paruk, who would not allow her to testify in a 2006 small claims case unless she removed her veil
She then indicated that she was willing to lose the case rather then compromise her religious principles.

But, according to the Detroit Free Press, when she showed up on Tuesday at the federal courthouse in Detroit to testify against the Hamtramck judge, the 44-year-old Detroit Muslim not only removed her veil, but also her black burqua. She also produced a Michigan driver’s license bearing a photo of her unveiled face.

A contradiction? Not so, Muhammad and her lawyer, Nabih Ayad, said after a 30-minute hearing before US District Judge John Feikens.

Muhammad said she would have removed her veil in Hamtramck had Judge Paruk allowed her to testify before a female judge. But Paruk is the only district judge in Hamtramck. He also declined her request for a change of venue.

Paruk demanded she remove her veil so he could assess her credibility. But Ayad said judges in other countries assess the credibility of Muslim women by watching how they use their hands.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Feikens hinted that he might take no action. If that happens, Ayad said he would appeal to the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. He said he was willing to take the case to the US Supreme Court.

Muhammad, who runs a skin-care business in Oak Park, sued a car rental company for $3,000 in 2006 after it tried to charge her to repair damage caused by thieves.

Ayad told Feikens that Muhammad, who runs a skin-care business in Oak Park, is a devout Muslim who has been wearing a veil since she was 10, and argued that Paruk violated her right to practice her religion and denied her access to the court. The lawyer added:

She feels she is fighting for all similarly situated Muslims.

HUMANS alone practice religion because they’re the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

That’s the view of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics, who has challenged the popular notion among some anthropologists that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding.

According to ABC News, Bloch argues that at first:

We had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don’t physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they’ve died.
Bloch believes our ancestors developed the necessary neural architecture to imagine before or around 40-50,000 years ago, at a time called the Upper Palaeological Revolution, the final sub-division of the Stone Age.

At around the same time, tools that had been monotonously primitive since the earliest examples appeared 100,000 years earlier suddenly exploded in sophistication, art began appearing on cave walls, and burials began to include artefacts, suggesting belief in an afterlife, and by implication the “transcendental social”.

Says Bloch:

The transcendental network can, with no problem, include the dead, ancestors and gods, as well as living role holders and members of essentialised groups. Ancestors and gods are compatible with living elders or members of nations because all are equally mysterious invisible, in other words transcendental.

Religious-like phenomena in general are an inseparable part of a key adaptation unique to modern humans, and this is the capacity to imagine other worlds, an adaptation that I argue is the very foundation of the sociality of modern human society. Once we realise this omnipresence of the imaginary in the everyday, nothing special is left to explain concerning religion.

DUTCH film director Paul Verhoeven has got up the nose of America’s Catholic League President Bill Donohue by suggesting, in his forthcoming biography of Jesus, that “the son of God” may have been the result of a union between Mary and a Roman soldier who raped her during the Jewish uprising in Galilee.

Donahue said the director’s claim was “laughable”, and ranted:

Here we go again with idle speculation grounded in absolutely nothing. He has no empirical evidence to support his claim, which is why they say ‘may have.’ He’s been working 20 years trying to sell this argument and hasn’t come up with anything. This won’t make a dent with Christians, nor with scholars somewhat wary of the biblical account. It’s a European version of Hollywood. He should go back to Sharon Stone’s legs.

He was referring to Verhoeven’s Basic Instinct, featuring Stone, who topped a poll in 2004 to find the sexiest leg moments on screen.

The actress beat the likes of sex sirens Marilyn Monroe, Halle Berry and Cameron Diaz in the survey, for the moment when she uncrosses her pins in Basic Instinct. The poll of 600 men and women was conducted by the Veet company.

The 69-year-old Dutch-born director also directed Showgirls — starring Elizabeth Berkley in one of the most panned films of the ’90s – and sci-fi action movies like Total Recall, RoboCop, and Starship Troopers.

According to Worldwide Religious News, Verhoeven claims that he and co-biographer Rob van Scheers have written the most realistic portrayal of Jesus ever published.

The book, due to be published in the Netherlands in September, also states that Christ was not betrayed by Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 original apostles of Jesus, as the New Testament states.

HOT on the heels of the Indiania “In God We Trust” licence plate controversy comes the news today that the Florida legislature is to consider a speciality plate with a design that includes a Christian cross, a stained-glass window and the words “I Believe”.

According to this Google report, it’s the brainchild of Craig Dobson from Faith in Teaching who submitted the design for consideration. The group supports “faith-based” schools activities.

If approved Florida would be the first US state to have a licence plate featuring a religious symbol that it is not part of a college logo. The plate would cost drivers an extra $25 annual fee.

Democrat representative Edward Bullard, the plate’s sponsor, said people who “believe in their college or university” or “believe in their football team” already have licence plates they can buy. The new design is a chance for others to put a tag on their cars with “something they believe in,” he said.

But Bullard isn’t sure all groups should be able to express their preference. If atheists came up with an “I Don’t Believe” plate, for example, he said he would probably oppose it.

His plan is not without opposition.

Said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida:

The problem with the state manufacturing the plate is that it sends a message that Florida is essentially a Christian state, and gives the appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference.

Simon added that approval of the plate could prompt many other groups to seek their own designs, and they could claim discrimination if their plans were rejected.

That could even allow the Ku Klux Klan to get a plate.

And some lawmakers warn that the state should be wary of the plan. Rep. Kelly Skidmore, a Roman Catholic, believes the “I Believe” plate is inappropriate for the government to produce. Said Skidmore, a Democrat who voted against the plate in committee:

It’s not a road I want to go down. I don’t want to see the Star of David next. I don’t want to see a Torah next. None of that stuff is appropriate to me …

This isn’t the first time a Florida license plate design has created religious controversy. In 1999, lawmakers approved a bright yellow “Choose Life” license plate with a picture of a boy and girl. It raises money for agencies that encourage women to not have abortions.

That generated a court battle, with abortion rights groups saying the plate had religious overtones. But it was ruled legal, and about a dozen states now have similar plates.

A “Trust God” license plate was proposed in Florida in 2003. It would have given money to Christian radio stations and charities, but was never produced.

FOOTNOTE: I don’t know whether Americans are as wary of vehicles bearing religious slogans as we are in the UK.  Certainly, the most dangerous drivers I have encountered in 30 years of motorcycling in London and the South East have displayed the fish and other Christian symbols, and on one occasion I was almost wiped out by a driver whose bumper sticker read:  “God is the driver, I am only the passenger.” When I furiously banged on his window and asked where the hell God got his driver’s licence, the quivering driver stared straight ahead, and maintained a white-knuckled grip on his steering wheel.

PROBABLY the worst-turned out Darth Vader in the entire galaxy – he had a black binbag for a cape and a metal crutch for a light sabre – found himself before a magistrate today charged with assaulting two Jedis.

According to the BBC, Arwel Wynne Hughes, 27, from Holyhead, Anglesey, admitted assaulting Barney Jones and cousin Michael with the crutch. They suffered minor injuries.

Wearing his rubbish costume, Hughes jumped over a garden wall, then, shouting “Darth Vader”, first attacked Barney Jones, an avid Star Wars fan who had founded a local Jedi Church with his brother.

The court heard that Hughes had the best part of a 10 litre box of wine inside him when he carried out the drunken assault.

When Hughes failed to arrive in court on time, District Judge Andrew Shaw issued an arrest warrant, saying:

I hope the force will soon be with him.

In the event, Hughes turned up and the case at Holyhead magistrates court resumed.

Outlining the case against Hughes, prosecutor Nia Lloyd said Barney Jones had recently started the Jedi church in Holyhead - in honour of the Star Wars’ good knights. It had about 30 members locally and “thousands worldwide”.

The cousins had been filming themselves playing with light sabres in the garden before the attack.

She said that Hughes hit Barney Jones over the head with the crutch, leaving him with a headache. He then laughed and hit Michael Jones on one thigh, causing bruising. She added:

The pair believe very strongly in the church and their religion.

Hughes said he could not remember the incident and only realised what had happened when he read about it in local newspapers, the was court told.

The court heard that Hughes had previous convictions, including affray, assault and disorderly behaviour. He was warned by the judge that jail remained a possibility. The case has been adjourning for pre-sentence reports until 13 May.

The 2001 census revealed that 390,000 people across England and Wales are devoted followers of the Jedi “faith” made famous by the blockbuster films. Census officials bowed to pressure after a massive internet campaign to include Jedi on the list of British religions.

Interviewed on BBC Radio 4 news tonight, Barney Jones was asked whether his Jedi group, based on a film, could legitimately be regarded as a Church, and that by calling it one he might offend members of “real” faiths. He retorted by saying that other religious were “just based on books”.

Touché Barney!

JUNE GORDON, 54, from Knoxville, Tennessee (“God’s Little Pasture”) is “filled with the Holy Spirit!!!”.

And she oozes Christian love from every pore – except when it comes to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Then she turns into a swivel-eyed, slavering wingnut:

The ACLJEW ain’t nothing but a pack of New Yorky Hebes hellbent on destroying American values! It wasn’t enough for them yarmulke-wearing idiots to KILL our Lord and Savior, they gots (sic) to OBLITERATE His Holy Name alsos! (sic) If you ask me, the so-called Holocaust was just a half-hearted start to a good thing! LOL.

On her Myspace space, riddled with cheesy angels, the lovely June, a self-confessed party animal – but a “LADY” for all that – declares:

This world is FULL of hateful folks, but I’m not one of them. Don’t you be either.

So what was it that turned the vivacious June (”sexual orientation: straight”) into one of them hateful folks she so despises.

Well, the ACLU had the barefaced cheek last year to challenge a decision by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles to issue “In God we Trust” licence plates without the surcharge normally levied on “speciality” plates.

ACLU brought the case on behalf of Mark E Studler, an Allen County resident who has an environmental trust plate for which he had to pay an extra charge.

This week, according to Fox News, the constitutional challenge was dismissed by a judge – but Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, said the ruling would challenged in the Indiana Court of Appeals.

When news of the lawsuit first broke, “In God we Trust” licence plates were vigorously defended by the hilarious Republican Faith Chat blog (motto: “Conservative Christians ONLY. Liberals, Atheists Not Welcomed.”)

And it was on that blog that June, whose heroes are “The Lord Jesus Christ and anyone who stands up to liberals”, posted her ACLJEW remarks.

Now it seems from June’s Myspace entry that she is in search of men:

I would like to meet Christian men who know how to treat a lady right. I’ve kept myself in shape and it isn’t asking too much for you to have done the same. I am very open minded, as long as you aren’t into Allah or other false gods …

June has a husband, but he is apparently out of the picture:

It is not an issue, as he left under circumstances I don’t wish to discuss. Please be sweet and don’t bring him up. Ever.

Her men also need to be exceedingly dumb. Why? Because our June has the hots for George W Bush. She even has a picture of the chimp-faced soon-to-be-ex-President on Myspace in full battle regalia (like he ever saw a battle except on TV). The caption reads:

What a fine man! (Now keep your eyes on his handsome face!!!)

Now, who do we know who’s an imbecile, filled with the Holy Spirit and likely to make June an ideal soulmate. Ah, Christian Voice’s Stephen (”Stay a Virgin, Marry a Virgin”) Green. They do seem to have soooo much in common.

ANOTHER day, another example of Islamic “apartheid” worming its way into British culture.

The Daily Mail yesterday revealed that a London man and his five-year-old son were turned away from a ‘Muslim-only’ swimming session at Clissold Leisure Centre in Stoke Newington.

David Toube, 39, and his son Harry were told that the Sunday morning session was reserved for Muslim men only.

However, Hackney Council, which runs the Clissold Leisure Centre in Stoke Newington, north London, claimed staff there had made a mistake.

Toube, a corporate lawyer, described his experiences on a blog:

I arrived at the pool to discover that they were holding what staff described to me as “Muslim men only swimming. I asked whether my son and I could go as we were both male. I was told that the session was for Muslims only and that we could not be admitted. I asked what would happen if I turned up and insisted I was Muslim.

The manager suggested that they might ask the Muslims swimming if they minded my son and I swimming with them. If they didn’t object, we might be allowed in.

A few days later, Mr Toube, who lives with his wife, 38-year-old barrister Samantha, and their two sons in Stoke Newington, North London, spoke to another leisure centre employee.

He gave me an identical story. His explanation was that it was a requirement of the Muslim religion that Muslims could not swim with non-Muslims.

Mr Toube joked:

I asked him whether Clissold Leisure Centre would institute Whites Only swimming for racists. His answer was that they would if there was sufficient demand.

The swimming sessions for male Muslims were advertised as taking place every Sunday from 8am to 9.30am. Leaflets stipulated:

It is compulsory for the body to be covered between the navel and the knees. Anyone not adhering to the dress code or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim. All brothers welcome.

A leisure centre spokesman said staff were wrong to refuse entry to Mr Toube.

The member of staff the user spoke with at the time was mistaken when referring to the session as Muslim-only. The men’s modesty session is not a private hire and is, therefore, open to the public. Staff cannot ask your religion on entrance and you won’t be refused entry if you don’t appear to be Muslim.

A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

Segregating services may amount to unlawful discrimination and could create a sense of unfairness, inadvertently increasing community tension.

In 2006 the Daily Mail reported that Thornley Heath leisure centre in Croydon, London, had set aside one afternoon a week for Muslim swimmers.

The swimming sessions - which are for men only - are held for two hours every week at a leisure centre in London. Non-Muslims may swim during this time but only if they follow the strict dress code of swimming shorts that hide the navel and extend below the knee.

Women are completely banned from attending but have their own special swimming sessions outside opening hours.

During their sessions bathers must be covered from head to foot with their swimming costume covering their body from the neck down to the ankle.

Leisure centre member Daniel Foley, 44, said:

I turned up and saw a sign saying it was closing early for Muslim afternoon - I couldn’t believe it.

And Alex Craig, 34, said:

I think it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities. It seems the issue here is over modesty. Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else. To make a special provision for them is just ridiculous and strikes me as imposing an ‘Us and them’ mentality which is wrong.

But the nearby Croydon Mosque has defended the introduction of Muslim-only swimming sessions at the council pool. A spokesman said:

Muslims are not allowed to show intimate parts of their body. This is non-negotiable. Muslims have as much right to go swimming as anyone else.

A spokesman for Croydon Council said:

We are keen to ensure sporting facilities in the borough are accessible to the whole community. We appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre for the past year, with a women-only session on Saturday evening and a male-only session on Sunday evening. These have been successful and well attended.

Other examples of “apartheid” swimming sessions are to be found on Daniel Pipes’ website.

More bad news for the Church of Scientology – American actor Jason Beghe, until recently a poster boy for the cult – this week roundly condemned it.

In a YouTube video, Beghe who has appeared in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and Criminal Minds, described Scientology as “destructive”, a “rip-off” and “very dangerous”.

Beghe began taking courses in Scientology in 1994, and even appeared in promotional footage for the cult in 2005. On one promotional site he says:

If life is a game, Scientology gives you the tools to play it with a stacked deck and win consistently. Scientology has enabled me to make my dreams come true, really. I know that it can do the same for anyone. It is a rocket ride to spiritual freedom.

According to SFGate, Beghe reportedly was said to be a “top Scientologist” or “OT5,” a rank similar to Tom Cruise and John Travolta’s standing in the church.

In the YouTube video – a three-minute trailer for a forthcoming in-depth interview – Beghe says:

Scientology is destructive and a rip-off. It’s very, very dangerous for your spiritual, psychological, mental, emotional health and evolution. I think it stunts your evolution. If Scientology is real, then something’s fucked up. It ain’t deliverin’ what it’s promised. It sure has not.

Beghe insists he has recorded the video to help those who are influenced by the religion.

He adds:

I don’t have an agenda. I’m just trying to help. I have the luxury of having gotten into Scientology and after having been in it, been out. And that’s a perspective that people who are still in and not out do not have.

Beghe’s denunciation came shortly after international protests were held against the cult. See earlier post here.

ANGRY Roman Catholic activists are hoping to embarrass the Pope during his forthcoming visit to the US by highlighting his sexism, his homophobia, his failure to curb child abuse among the clergy, and the Vatican’s continued ban on contraception.

It seems as if they really, really want to give the reactionary old bastard hell!

Next Monday evening, the eve of his arrival, supporters of women’s ordination will host what they are calling “an inclusive Mass” at a Methodist church in Washington, presided over by Catholic women – including two who were recently excommunicated.

Said Sister Donna Quinn, coordinator of the National Coalition of American Nuns:

We cannot welcome this pope until he begins to do away with the church’s continuing violence of sexism.

Gay Catholic activists, who plan to demonstrate on Tuesday along the papal motorcade route in Washington, have compiled a list of statements by Benedict during his career which they consider hostile to gays and lesbians. These include outrageous denunciations of gay marriage and of adoption rights for same-sex couples.

Said Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of Dignity USA:

He has issued some of the most hurtful and extreme rhetoric against our community of any religious leader in history, and we want to call him into account for the damage that he’s done.

Another divisive issue being raised is the Vatican’s ban on contraception. Gay rights groups and others say the ban undermines programs promoting condom use to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS.

In a conference organised by Catholics for Choice, four Catholic theologians will examine the impact of the 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” which defined the Vatican’s opposition to artificial birth control.

Said Catholics for Choice president Jon O’Brien:

Catholics wonder why there’s this huge disparity between what the hierarchy says we should do in regard to contraception and what Catholics on the ground actually do.

He said the ban was “a great tragedy … a policy that lacks compassion and understanding.”

According to a report today in World Religious News:

For many American Catholics, the most distressing church-related issue of recent years has been clerical sex abuse. Thousands of molestation allegations have been filed against Catholic clergy, and dioceses have paid out more than $2 billion in claims since 1950.

David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abuse by Priests, said:

It’s as plain as day that three years into his papacy, Benedict has done literally nothing to protect the vulnerable or heal the wounded.

Clohessy said his group will make use of the papal visit to press for tough disciplinary action against bishops who covered up abuses by their priests and to urge pre-emptive steps by the Vatican against abuse by priests in other nations.

These and other planned protests have left the Vatican’s envoy to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, well pissed off:

Even in the Catholic church, nobody has the right to instrumentalise the visit of the Pope to serve their personal interests. The problem is that there are too many people here who would like to be the Pope … and who attribute to themselves a strong sense of their own infallibility.

MAD Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, popular in the Muslim world for his anti-gay and anti-Semitic rhetoric, and his support of suicide bombing and wife beating, has found himself in hot water over alcohol.

The Egyptian cleric – a prolific issuer of fatwas ranging from the fatuous to the inflammatory – created a storm of protest when he declared that tiny amounts of alcohol were permissible in Islam.

Qaradawi’s latest fatwa says a level of 0.5 percent is allowed, which goes against Islam’s blanket ban of alcohol in any quantity.

The sheikh, who was recently refused entry to Britain because the government felt that his views might spark violence, issued his fatwa in response to a question about high energy drinks and food items containing small quantities of alcohol, which are available in local markets.

The 78-year old ruled there was no religious ban on consuming drinks with minute quantities of alcohol in them if it was formed naturally through the process of fermentation, and not manufactured.

The doddering blowhard argued that any person who consumed a large amount of high energy drink would not become intoxicated, therefore they were permissible, even though they contained tiny amounts of alcohol.

But others expressed surprise if not strong opposition at Qaradawi’s edict.
A scholar at Qatar University, who asked not to be named, told Gulf News:

It sounds really new and surprising to me. In Islam nobody had ever set a standard for alcohol consumption before.

And Abdullatif Al Mahmoud, editor in chief of Qatar’s leading Arabic daily Al Sharq, strongly argued against Qaradawi’s fatwa, accusing him of stirring ‘confusion’ among Muslims.

The fatwa will open the door to those who want to consume drinks containing small proportions of alcohol under the pretext that neither the Koran nor the Sunna (the Prophet Mohammed’s sayings and doings) defined the proportion.

IT is so rare to hear something sensible from a Muslim, that, when we do catch one making sense, we feel obliged to give him or her a hearty pat on the back.

That was our original intention when we heard Dr Abdul Majid Katme use the words “silly and stupid” to describe the following except from today’s You and Yours programme on BBC Radio 4:

Some Muslim medical students last year refused to attend lectures, and answer exam questions about alcohol-related, or sexually transmitted diseases, because they claimed it offended their religious beliefs. One student also allegedly refused to examine women.

Dr Katme responded that doctors had a duty to deal with all conditions and all patients. He also made the point that among patients suffering these conditions there would also, inevitably, be Muslims.

Then it all went pear-shaped. The name Katme suddenly sounded bells. Alarm bells. Was this the same Katme, an NHS psychiatrist and head of the Muslim Medical Association, who last year urged British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps, and rubella because they contain substances making them unlawful for Muslims to take?

Indeed it was.

He said almost all vaccines contain un-Islamic “haram” derivatives of animal or human tissue, and that Muslim parents are better off letting childrens’ immune systems develop on their own.

If you breastfeed your child for two years - as the Koran says - and you eat Koranic food like olives and black seed, and you do ablution each time you pray, then you will have a strong defence system.

The Department of Health and the British Medical Association criticised Katme at the time, saying his suggestions were likely to increase infection rates of children in Muslim communities. Other Muslim groups also condemned the suggestion.

At about the same time last year, Katme urged Muslims to join protests against the “unjust” Sexual Orientation Regulations designed to boost gay rights.

Katme made his plea to Muslims in a letter circulated to several hundred supporters and 40 imams, who were expected to publicise the issue during Friday prayers. Urging Muslims to “join our Christian friends in their campaign against the new proposed law on sexual orientation”, he trumpeted:

It is against our religious rights and against our human rights and against our conscience and religious beliefs to have this new unjust law forced on all of us British Muslims.

So, the pat on the back is rescinded, and replaced with a well-aimed kick up the arse.

We now switch our congratulations to another member of today’s You and Yours panel – LibDem MP Dr Evan Harris, an honorary associate of the National Secular Society – who gamely stood up to a tidal wave of tosh spouted by Peter Saunders, general secretary of the Christian Medical Fellowship:

There is a lot of literature linking faith with good health. People who have religious faith live longer lives with less illness, and enjoy better physical and mental health. They have less divorce, less suicide, less alcohol and substance abuse … this is very well documented.

All Harris could get in, before being interrupted, was:

I don’t think that’s true …

Indeed, it is completely untrue, as this 2005 report from The Times indicates.

In a programme examining how the religious beliefs of doctors might impact negatively on their patients, Saunders also claimed that a whopping 83 percent of patients in the UK “desire spiritual guidance from their doctors.”

Harris had more luck here:

I do not think it can be allowed to be said that there is ANY role for a doctor to provide spiritual guidance. A doctor can say to a patient, by all means, go and see your priest, because that’s the job of a priest … but as soon as doctors go down that path [of providing spiritual guidance] they will be at real risk of breaching new General Medical Council guidelines.

The new guidelines were drawn up in response to the growing number of doctors asking the GMC for ethical guidance on how they should treat patients. The new guidelines say that doctors must be open with patients about any ethical objections they have which might influence the way they will treat them.

A court has refused to ban Geert Wilders’ internet-based film, Fitna, which robustly criticises the Koran.

A group representing Dutch Muslims had sought an injunction banning the right-wing Wilders’ film which links terror attacks by Muslim extremists with texts from the Koran.

In a written judgment a civil judge at The Hague District Court said Wilders’ right to free speech allows him to criticise radical Islam and passages from the Muslim holy book.

Mr Wilders put the film on the internet the day before lawyers representing the Netherlands Islamic Federation argued it should be outlawed because it was insulting to Muslims.

Meanwhile the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has condemned the film in “the strongest terms,” saying that it was “a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims” designed to “provoke unrest and intolerance.” Thi