It doesn't appear to be difficult to offend Muslims these days, cartoons of Mohammed, television programmes, even a child's toy seem to raise their ire quicker than you can say "bacon sandwich Mo?" In another fine example of how Muslims in the UK are making a concerted effort to integrate into society Councillor Talib Hussain has called for 'cultural sensitivity' in predominantly Muslim areas of Birmingham.

No it's not the Muslim community he wants to be culturally sensitive. That would be an outrageous demand surely? That Muslims living in the UK should somehow make an effort to respect the society that has opened up its doors for them? That would never do. What has provoked Councillor Hussain's statement? An advertising hoarding that's what, yep a billboard containing a swimwear ad for Matalan.

The hoarding, close to mosques in Anderton Road and Golden Hillock Road and visible to parents and children walking to Montgomery Primary School, promotes Matalan's new swimwear range and features three scantily-clad models.

Scantily clad models? In a swimwear ad? Such Blasphemy.

"I have received complaints on a number of occasions not to put adverts like that in Sparkbrook (said Coun Hussain). "The city council should not give permission to advertising like that in these wards. "Having families seeing naked pictures does not bring the community together, it provokes things."

Naked pictures Coun Hussain? Or scantily clad models? You wouldn't be attempting to utilise inflammatory rhetoric to exacerbate the situation at all would you? I have perused the Matalan site (purely for research you understand) and can find absolutely zero naked pictures. Whilst I have yet to identify the exact ad that was placed in Sparkbrook I have no reason to believe that it would be any different from any other Matalan swimwear ad.

Is it your stance Coun Hussain that Muslim families living in a UK city should not be exposed to images such as this? I can only assume that Muslim families in Sparkbrook shield their eyes from such blasphemous images when the deign to leave the area and shop in Birmingham city centre for example?

The simple answer Councillor Hussain is that these images are not illegal in the UK, in fact they are not even deemed as 'close to the bone'. The average UK citizen will encounter images like these, and far worse, on television, at the cinema, on advertising hoardings and even in shop displays. The average UK citizen though doesn't attempt to live their life as if they are still in the dark ages, where females are second class citizens and the mere sight of an inch of female flesh is enough to inflame the libido of a misogynistic chauvinist such as yourself and your constituents.

Should you or your constituents not wish to see images such as these may I suggest you move somewhere where they are prohibited. I hear Saudi Arabia is quite nice this time of year.

I come across a lot of unsavoury articles about religion. I would like to say that it takes a lot of effort and it is hard to find a bad word said about religion or its adherents, meaning I have to spend a lot of hours pouring over obscure web pages, gossip columns and dubiously sourced opinion pieces.

I would like to say that, but I can't. The truth is that a simple wander through the main daily newspapers, a cursory glance at the evening news or simply listening to the radio on the way to work provides more than enough material to keep this blog sourced until the next millennium. Were I to blog about every scandalous incident containing a religious angle I'm sorry to say that there just wouldn't be enough hours in the day and there is a fairly good chance that I would exhaust the memory capacity of the WWW.

Therefore I have to discriminate. It would not be humanly possible for me to create a blog entry for every single incident that riles me, my time is finite and I have work and family commitments that prevent me spending every waking hour tapping away on a keyboard (although PZ Myers of Pharyngula seems to spend 26 hours a day doing just that!). The posts on my blog therefore represent a balance between the things that have really pissed me off and the time I have available to comment on them. Make no mistake dear reader, for every religious fuckwit mentioned on my blog there are another hundred waiting in the wings to take their place.

It is frustrating of course, not being able to highlight all of the idiocy practiced by religious fruitloops. Frustrating because it deserves to be highlighted, held up to ridicule and exposed for the anachronistic behaviour that it is. I firmly believe that these people and organisations should be held to account, there is no place in the 21st century for benefit of clergy* or any other such undue respect for supernatural, superstitious beliefs. I refuse to give respect to any belief that is based on the words of an imaginary friend.

I'm sure I had a conclusion to this post in mind when I started typing it, unfortunately it is Saturday night and as I have now consumed the best part of a bottle of Chardonnay I can't for the life of me remember what the fuck it was! Still a good rant is always cathartic and I have enjoyed spouting off, I may well make this a regular occurrence. On the other hand I may well read it tomorrow and consign it immediately to the recycle bin!

Hope the rest of you enjoy your evening as much as I am.

Regards

PA




*Yes, I am aware that Benefit of Clergy is no longer applicable in 21st century society. It was an analogy OK!

This is just brilliant. It also ties in quite well with some of the comments from one of my previous posts.



Hat tip to The Friendly Atheist who has lots more of these!

A visitor named Slim has left a loooong comment on one of my previous blog posts. He(?) has decided to weigh in after I posted Did Jesus Exist? Slim exhibits almost all of the traits that I have learned to identify with religious fanatics, see how many you can spot in the following and I'll comment after the fold.

"anonymous fuckwit?" LOL! That comment screams visionary.

The point is many "Christians" and "Atheist" argue and debate over faith? Faith cannot be argued. It’s simply a matter of one’s belief. You're an atheist... that is your faith. You believe it with conviction, you are an apologetic for it, you have your saints, and messiah(s) just like Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist and a whole host of other religions throughout history. Atheists are as fanatically religious as any other group, possibly more so and at the very least, Atheists certainly are as militant as some groups. Why? What purpose are you trying to serve? Are you bent on hurting people? 95% of the world believes in some sort of god or gods. So, are you among the “so-called” enlightened 5%? What happens if you convince all the Christians to be Atheists? Are you going to proselytize the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu, and the whole host of other religions in the world next? Why are you seeking to convert? What is that you are hoping to achieve? What is that you hope for when you die? Is it nothing? Than what’s the point of living, kill yourself now! Just kidding about the killing yourself…that is not recommended (even if I think you are psycho). I digress….

QUOTING
YOU >>>>“I'm intrigued as to your final comment, you seem to belittle both believers and non-believers alike for their apparent 'lack of vision'”

I’m not really belittling anyone, you or them. I’m simply making an observation. You seem to be defending your “religion” as avidly as any other “faith group”. It is your prerogative to do so, but I only see further human division and no effort for unity. That is one reason I see as a “lack of vision”, because we are all more alike than we are different. Think of it this way, what if every Christian actually lived up to the mandate given by Jesus? What if everyone in the world did? What was his mandate? To love your neighbor (fellow man) as you love yourself. However, Buddha, Confucius, and the Vedas say almost exactly the same thing Jesus taught. Furthermore the concept is in Judaism and is suggested in many other “religious beliefs” throughout the world (polytheistic and monotheistic) and throughout history.

The lack of vision is many people of many different beliefs know that “loving your fellow man is right” but don’t actually seek to understand what that concept means let alone actually strive to apply it in their lives. What kind of world do you think this would be if we all actually lived by that concept? If I loved you as I love myself why would I kill you, steal from you, lie to you? What if I didn’t desire your car, house or wife? What if I gave my life for your life? This world would be that paradise wouldn’t it? That really isn’t such a bad idea is it? You see the lack of vision rests on not understanding selfishness and selflessness or to put it in a more dramatic way; “survival” or “sacrifice”. So, regardless if Jesus exists to you or not is irrelevant the ideas of Jesus exists and have existed since the beginning of time, and it exists in other “faiths”, even if they don’t realize it. I rail on Christians lack the vision because they know the drill but don’t do it, so many are hypocrites (not all, some really try) but it isn’t really about them or us is it? It is really about the "individual”.

My hope for humanity rests in Jesus’ ideal existence because it can be real if only we at the very least tried to live by it. Could that reality of “paradise” be worse than were each of us are now? But the hard cold fact is I can’t tell you what to do or how to live, no more than you can tell me, which leaves us with this thought. The world can only change when each individual decides to change. That change from “survival” to “sacrifice” will be what saves humanity. “Survival” can only lead to one “survivor” who is still mortal and so there will be none who “survive” in the end.

P.S. By the way my screen name is Slim, not that it matters, you don’t know me anyway, but I only did Anonymous simply because it is easier. It has nothing to do with the size of my Balls… it was about laziness. How’s that for vision? heheh.

Let's have a look at Slim's comment in more manageable pieces.

I was rather snarky with Slim over his initial anonymous post. I mean c'mon, how hard is it to put those 4 letters into the name box Slim?

"anonymous fuckwit?" LOL! That comment screams visionary.

The point is many "Christians" and "Atheist" argue and debate over faith? Faith cannot be argued.

I beg to differ, 'Faith' as you put it has been argued throughout history, mostly between those who profess the same beliefs.

It’s simply a matter of one’s belief. You're an atheist... that is your faith. You believe it with conviction, you are an apologetic for it, you have your saints, and messiah(s) just like Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist and a whole host of other religions throughout history.

I'll concede that I believe atheism with conviction, after all atheism is no more and no less than a dis-belief in a supernatural deity and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the existence of same. So yes, I strongly believe in my dis-belief. Should evidence arise that points towards the existence of a celestial superman I am open to re-evaluating those convictions.

I must have missed the memo about the atheist saints and messiahs, perhaps you could point them out to me?

Atheists are as fanatically religious as any other group, possibly more so and at the very least, Atheists certainly are as militant as some groups.

Fanatically religious? No dogma, no holy book, no priestly hierarchy, are you sure that word means what you think it means?

Why? What purpose are you trying to serve? Are you bent on hurting people?

Last I checked there was no athiest bible denigrating homosexuals or condemning those that believe differently to eternal suffering. If by hurt you mean shatter your superstitious delusions then yes, I suppose I am bent on 'hurting you'.

95% of the world believes in some sort of god or gods. So, are you among the “so-called” enlightened 5%?

Actually it's more like 80% but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

What happens if you convince all the Christians to be Atheists? Are you going to proselytize the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu, and the whole host of other religions in the world next??

Proselytize? No athiest holy book remember? Should Christians suddenly decide to be atheists I'll leave the proselytizing to them, they seem to be rather good at it.

Why are you seeking to convert? What is that you are hoping to achieve??

How about a world based on the here and now, rather than one where 'who's God is the biggest' dominates political and private life?

What is that you hope for when you die? Is it nothing? Than what’s the point of living, kill yourself now! Just kidding about the killing yourself…that is not recommended (even if I think you are psycho).?

I hope for nothing when I die, other than that people will remember me fondly and that I lived a good life. I can think of nothing worse than being sentenced to an eternity of servitude and constant praising of an ego-centric, malevolent dictator.

I digress….

QUOTING
YOU >>>>“I'm intrigued as to your final comment, you seem to belittle both believers and non-believers alike for their apparent 'lack of vision'”

I’m not really belittling anyone, you or them. I’m simply making an observation. You seem to be defending your “religion” as avidly as any other “faith group”. It is your prerogative to do so,?

I'm not defending anything mate, all I ask is that the religious types in the world provide evidence for their outlandish claims (and the words in a dusty, bronze-age tome don't count as evidence) or I will continue to point out the stupidity of their position.

but I only see further human division and no effort for unity.?

Remind me friend, which religion is it that claims unbelievers will suffer an eternity in hell? How much more divisive do you want?

That is one reason I see as a “lack of vision”, because we are all more alike than we are different. Think of it this way, what if every Christian actually lived up to the mandate given by Jesus? What if everyone in the world did? What was his mandate? To love your neighbor (fellow man) as you love yourself.?

He also mandated giving away all your worldly possessions and praying in private. Who decides which of Jesus' mandates you get to pick and choose?

Should 'Christianity' ever reach a concensus within itself, no Baptists, no Pentecostals, no Seventh Day Adventists et al then your thought experiment might have merit. In the meantime however it's as real as the tooth fairy's socks.

However, Buddha, Confucius, and the Vedas say almost exactly the same thing Jesus taught.?

Interesting that Buddha, Confucius and the Vedas all pre-date Jesus. It's almost like nothing in Christianity is particularly original.

Furthermore the concept is in Judaism and is suggested in many other “religious beliefs” throughout the world (polytheistic and monotheistic) and throughout history.

Like I said, hardly original. Perhaps because altruism is an inherent human trait and common across cultures.

The lack of vision is many people of many different beliefs know that “loving your fellow man is right” but don’t actually seek to understand what that concept means let alone actually strive to apply it in their lives. What kind of world do you think this would be if we all actually lived by that concept? If I loved you as I love myself why would I kill you, steal from you, lie to you? What if I didn’t desire your car, house or wife? What if I gave my life for your life? This world would be that paradise wouldn’t it? That really isn’t such a bad idea is it?

And we could all sit around praising Jeebus all day. Wouldn't that be wonderful? As I said mate, when there is one Christianity and you all agree on everything then maybe you can start looking at the rest of the world. When Christianity ceases to be responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history then maybe your vision of a completely Christian world would be more appealling. Until then I'll be keeping my eye out for the Inquisition.

You see the lack of vision rests on not understanding selfishness and selflessness or to put it in a more dramatic way; “survival” or “sacrifice”. So, regardless if Jesus exists to you or not is irrelevant the ideas of Jesus exists and have existed since the beginning of time, and it exists in other “faiths”, even if they don’t realize it.

I agree with you here, and as I hinted at before, altruism is a basic human trait so you are right, regardless of whether Jesus existed or not, humankind would still be striving for a utopian society. Which leaves the need for Jesus exactly where?

I rail on Christians lack the vision because they know the drill but don’t do it, so many are hypocrites (not all, some really try) but it isn’t really about them or us is it? It is really about the "individual”.

My hope for humanity rests in Jesus’ ideal existence because it can be real if only we at the very least tried to live by it. Could that reality of “paradise” be worse than were each of us are now?

Constant servitude and never-ending praise? I couldn't think of a worse existence.

But the hard cold fact is I can’t tell you what to do or how to live, no more than you can tell me, which leaves us with this thought. The world can only change when each individual decides to change. That change from “survival” to “sacrifice” will be what saves humanity. “Survival” can only lead to one “survivor” who is still mortal and so there will be none who “survive” in the end.

Very poetic, but everyone dies, it's the nature of life. Making the most of this world without the delusion that a better one lies beyond would be an ideal start from where I am sitting.

P.S. By the way my screen name is Slim, not that it matters, you don’t know me anyway, but I only did Anonymous simply because it is easier. It has nothing to do with the size of my Balls… it was about laziness. How’s that for vision? heheh.

You can write a screed like this but not type 'Slim' into a comment box? Shows distinct lack of vision if you ask me.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this poor kid.



Hat tip to Pharyngula. Where does he find all this stuff?

I love the way that the kid in the video can parrot convincingly, without a hint of irony, that it's ludicrous to believe we came from nothing a la evolution (a common creationist canard), yet it's entirely feasible that a celestial superman created us from dust. It's almost as if he has had that little voice inside him that says "You're talking bollocks mate" removed at birth. Mind you, the way the audience (congregation?) are eating it up, it appears that a 'talkingbollocksectomy' is mandatory in that neck of the woods.

It may have come to your attention that usually on this blog I will highlight and ridicule the inane ramblings of religious types. Once in a while though, like the exception that proves the rule, a religious figure will come along, open their mouth, and complete common sense will be expressed. Figures like Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, who has an excellent piece in The Guardian criticising the impact of faith schools on British society.

I write as a rabbi who is committed to my own faith and to passing it on to the next generation. I believe in the values of Judaism, want my own children to inherit them, and want the Jewish community at large to thrive and continue.

However, I do not want such education to be at the cost of relations between Jewish children and other children, so that mine are hidden away in a Jewish day school, have little real knowledge of other children, nor them of mine, and they all grow up as strangers to one another. It is not good for either group, and it leads to a society that has a very poor social cement

The same applies to Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh children. Like Rapunzel locked away in her tower, they may gain an excellent academic education (the record of faith schools in this respect has to be acknowledged), but isolation is a poor teacher for later life.

The better faith schools may teach about different religions from books, but that is no substitute for children of different traditions actually seeing each other on a daily basis, mixing in class and during the break, and frequenting each other's homes. That is what makes a society cohesive and at ease with itself.

Conversely, those who grow up apart from each other will lack knowledge and be prone to the suspicion and fear that ignorance breeds.

Wise words indeed Rabbi, why do I have the sinking feeling that that those that are pushing these 'faith schools' onto the rest of us will not hear you though? It has always been a source of amazement to me that the simple common sense observation that segregating children along ANY lines during their formative years is a really, really bad idea, cannot be seen by those that support these policies.

Still Rabbi, your pronouncement on these matters in such a public forum leads me to think that all is not yet lost. Thank you.

Neil Campbell was an elder at Jordanhill Parish Church. A respected member of the community he also volunteered at the Jordanhill Out of School Service, looking after children sometimes as young as 4 years old. A real paragon of virtue you might say.

Well, you might not say it when you discover that Mr Campbell has been charged with taking and distributing indecent photos of children. A church elder and play supervisor associated with paedophile porn? I wish I could say this comes as a major surprise, what does come as a slight surprise however is that the compulsory background check on Mr Campbell prior to his taking up a position as play leader didn't throw up any red flags. Still, if he had never been caught before there is no reason to suppose a background check would uncover anything.

The article linked to above quotes one parent as saying:

"Everyone is stunned. Campbell is one of the most respected and trusted elders in the church."

As if being a respected member of the church somehow innoculates an individual against paedophilic tendencies? Haven't these people learned anything from the experiences of the Catholic church? Perhaps they thought that Protestantism was exempt.

The linked article goes on to highlight Mr Campbell's membership of gay dating website Gaydar, where he claims to be bisexual and single and expresses his fondness for men in uniform. I think this is a little disingenuous on the part of the article, which appears to be linking homosexuality and paedophilia. Bad, bad Sunday Mail. The important part to highlight would have been the hypocrisy of Mr Campbell pretending to be a happily married man whilst trafficking child pornography and trawling the web for gay sex.

I can only hope that Campbell faces a hefty prison sentence and that individuals cease implicitly trusting someone by virtue of their position in a church.

Carnival of The Godless #89 comes to us on this occasion by Kelly M of The Rational Response Squad. It's an eclectic mix and should hold something for almost all atheistic tastes.

That's where I'll be if you need me.

Carnival of The Godless #88 is now up at Atheist FAQ. If you like your atheism in comic strip format then this is the one for you.

Why are you still here?

Christian Action, Research and Education or CARE is one of those nauseating evangelical Christian charities. You know the type, anti-abortion, abstinence only sex education, homosexuals are bad and all that stuff. At least we can console ourselves with the fact that whilst they may wish to enforce their blinkered views on the rest of us they have no real access to the decision makers. Sure they can lobby and campaign like every other group with an agenda but they have no way of directly influencing the democratic process do they?

Or do they? It appears that CARE is directly financing the employment of some MPs research assistants.

Christian Action, Research and Education (Care) faces inquiries into its lobbying activities by the Charity Commission and the House of Commons standards watchdog after accessing Parliament at the highest levels.

Twelve research assistants sponsored by Care are Commons pass-holders, allowing them unrestricted access to Westminster in the run-up to highly sensitive and potentially close votes on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Bill next month. At least two MPs face questions after they omitted to declare they have Care-sponsored staff.

Now let's be clear here. We're not talking about a lobby group who have some 'face-time' with MPs, we're talking about a right-wing evangelical organisation who have members directly working for MPs with the accompanying freedom of movement around parliament that entails:

As research assistants, Care's interns can go unaccompanied to nearly all areas of Parliament and are allowed free access to documents that are out of bounds to journalists. Their passes also allow them to interact with all MPs in Portcullis House, the main meeting area of Westminster.

I don't know about you but I for one don't want these individuals bending the ear of policy makers by virtue of the priviliged position that they hold as research assistants, it makes a complete mockery of the democratic process. In fact the only way I can see this ever making sense is for every single individual with an agenda to be also employed within parliament as a research assistant. Hardly plausible I'm sure you will agree.

Sneaky, underhand and oh so Christian of them.

A list of the relevant MPs for your perusal:

CARE connections

Stephen Crabb

Tory MP, Preseli. His entry on the register of interests doesn't mention Care. But register of research assistants lists Christina Lineen, Care intern, under his name.

Paul Burstow

Lib Dem Chief Whip, MP for Sutton & Cheam. Entry on the register does not mention Care, but register of assistants lists David Peacock from Care under the MP's name.

Steve Webb

Liberal Democrat environment spokesman and MP for Northavon. His diary secretary Jodie Martin is provided by Care. Member of Parliamentary Christian Fellowship.

Andy Reed

Labour MP, Loughborough. Intern John Powner from Care. Mr Reed went on Bible Society trip to Middle East; David Landrum, researcher for the society, also works for him.

Gary Streeter

Tory MP, Devon South West. Intern Andrew Griffiths provided by Care. Mr Streeter is a Christian, registers a Bible Society visit of last autumn to Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Alistair Burt

Conservative deputy chairman, the party's assistant chief whip and MP for North East Bedfordshire. His intern Paul Brennan is provided by Care.

David Burrowes

Shadow justice minister, MP for Enfield Southgate; intern Gemma Parry provided by Care. Mr Burrowes helped to scrutinise earlier draft of Embryology Bill.

Caroline Spelman

Conservative Party chair, MP for Meriden. Intern Sarah Bridgman provided by Care. Mrs Spelman is a trustee of the Conservative Christian Fellowship.

Eleven year old Madeline Neumann died last Sunday in Wisconsin, she died from diabetic ketoacidosis a form of diabetes that leaves the individual with too little insulin. A tragedy I'm sure you will agree especially in one so young.


But hang on, isn't diabetes treatable these days? Well yes it is, but not when the girl's parents, rather than call for medical assistance, simply prayed for her for 30 days. No, not sent her to hospital and then prayed for 30 days, but put her to home bed rest and then prayed for a month.

Dan Vergin, the local police chief, said she had been ill for a month, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.

"She just got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said

Mr Vergin said the couple, who run a coffee shop in Wausau, had blamed her death on their lack of faith.

Lack of faith? Lack of fucking common sense more like! How can any parent watch their child suffer those symptoms and not call a doctor?

What we have here is a young girl suffering from an easily treatable disease, sentenced to death because of her parent's superstitions. Parents who believe that God will heal the sick and if he doesn't, well that's because their faith wasn't strong enough. Why, oh fucking why, are we still hearing stories like this in the 21st century?

I can only hope that these 'parents' are convicted of wilful neglect and child abuse and sentenced to a long, long incarceration where they can ponder just why exactly their 'God' has abandoned them.

In another example of religious charlatans attempting to impose the will of their imaginary friend on the rest of us, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of the Catholic church in Scotland has condemned the Labour government for its attempts to push through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Cardinal O'Brien said that he hoped that Catholic ministers would be prepared to resign rather than accept orders to back the legislation but, ultimately, it was a matter of individual conscience.

Cardinal O'Brien failed to mention however if he hoped that Catholic ministers would be prepared to resign rather than accept orders from their imaginary friend as dictated by him.

The press has been reporting though that certain ministers are expected to resign if not allowed a free vote on the matter. The three prominent ministers mentioned are Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Defence Secretary Des Browne, all Catholics naturally. Opus Dei, the orthodox Roman Catholic group of which Miss Kelly is a member, has declared that without a free vote it is "practically impossible to be a Labour MP and a practising Catholic".

I may be suffering from a selective memory but I fail to recall either of these MPs at the last general election campaigning on a platform of letting individuals unelected by the British people mandate their voting practices. I wonder how the voting would have differed if they had let it be widely known that the Catholic church in Rome had more influence over their decisions than their own constituents?

Other ministers have stepped up to defend the Bill in the face of the Cardinal's remarks, Health Minister Ben Bradshaw said:

"I think if it was about the things the cardinal referred to, creating babies for spare parts or raiding dead people's tissue then there would be justification for a free vote," Bradshaw told the BBC Radio 4's "Any Questions" on Friday."But it's not about those things. He was wrong in fact, and I think rather intemperate and emotive in the way that he criticized this legislation.""This is about using pre-embryonic cells to do research that has the potential to ease the suffering of millions of people in this country. The Government has taken a view that this is a good thing.""We have free votes on issues of conscience like abortion, like the death penalty, where the government does not take a view.""I think in this case the Government's absolutely right to try to push this through to the potential benefit of many people in this country."

Catholic Labour MP Jim Devine has also weighed in, saying:

"Statements attributed to the cardinal over the past few days highlight a lack of understanding of the process."

MP Alan Johnson, who is responsible for piloting the bill through the Commons, has tried to defuse the issue by saying that "no MPs would be forced to vote against their conscience", but stopped short of a commitment that MPs would be entitled to vote against parts of the bill.

In the meantime, scientists have offered to meet Catholic bishops and MPs to explain the need for legislation to allow experiments on embryos that are part-human and part-animal. In a letter to The Times Professor Colin Blakemore, a former head of the Medical Research Council (MRC) says:

“The Bill is not about creating monsters or mocking the sanctity of human life,” he writes. “Indeed, it will reduce the number of human eggs and embryos used in the production of stem cells for research. "

“Scientists should not challenge the spiritual authority of religious leaders, but they are entitled to question the factual evidence on which moral pronouncements are based.”

Professor Blakemore says he would also be happy to arrange for scientists to brief MPs who want a better understanding of the issues before they decide how to vote.

Uninformed rhetoric from a virgin in a dress or scientific insight from those in the know? Which way will the Catholic ministers go do you think?

In a report published on the 18th March, the Council of Europe calls on all member states, who have not yet done so, to decriminalise abortion. The report also highlights that even in those member states where abortion is legal that:

"(C)onditions are not always such as to guarantee women effective access to this right: the lack of local health care facilities, the lack of doctors willing to carry out abortions, the repeated medical consultations required, the time allowed for changing one’s mind and the waiting time for the abortion all have the potential to make access to abortion more difficult, or even impossible in practice. Women must be allowed freedom of choice and offered the conditions of a free and enlightened choice."

If you are one of those individuals who does not believe that ALL women should be allowed access to abortion facilities if required, I challenge you to explain why the last sentence of the quoted article above should not be so - "Women must be allowed freedom of choice and offered the conditions of a free and enlightened choice."

The Council of Europe also nails it I think with this view:

Lastly, the report states that abortion can in no circumstances be regarded as a family planning method and must be avoided as far as possible. It is therefore necessary to ensure access to contraception at a reasonable cost and to introduce compulsory sex education for young people in schools.

Increased sex education, easier access to contraception and freedom to choose for ALL women, who in their right mind would oppose that?

People like The Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child or SPUC, a UK 'non-profit' organisation who claim to 'defend human life from conception to natural death'. It may come as no surprise to regular visitors to this blog that SPUC does indeed have ties to evangelical Christianity with its claim to the 'biblical sanctity of life' and its desire to deny women basic human rights.

Why is it always the religious fuckwits that are behind this kind of archaic thinking? Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer, it is because they base all of their reasoning on the contents of a book written a couple of thousand years ago by bronze age goatherders. If any of those aforementioned fuckwits are reading this please be kind enough to explain to me why we should base any decisions in the 21st century on the collected wisdom of a group of people whose knowledge of biology, chemistry, technology, fucking everything! was, well fucking negligible really compared to the advances today.

I won't hold my breath.

As mentioned in my previous post, the relocation of myself and family is now complete. Most of the boxes have been unpacked and some of the pictures have been hung on the walls and life is slowly approaching something resembling normality.

Apart from internet connection that is. My ISP, who shall remain nameless at this point although I reserve the right to rant, name and shame at a later date, have informed me that it may take up to 4 weeks to achieve broadband connection at my new address. Four weeks! WTF? I've seen houses being built round here in less time than that and it takes 4 weeks for some IT geek to flick a switch and give me broadband?

My ISP, in a display of infinite generosity, have informed me that in the meantime however I can have 'free' dial-up connection. I highlight the word 'free' because it strikes me that I am still paying for the broadband connection that I don't fucking have! Free my arse! I always knew that this country was going to the dogs but this really takes the cake.

I suppose technically at least it means that I can resume blogging, don't be surprised though if it remains sporadic for the next few weeks as the frustration of coping with dial-up coupled with my extremely low attention span may result in my PC being thrown to the floor on more than one occasion.

I shall just have to content myself with reading some of the other atheist blogs out there.