Christian Voice breaks the ninth commandment

the Mattel Black Canary doll in question

In an unsurprising display of hypocrisy, UK “Christian” hate group “Christian” Voice has broken the ninth of the ten commandments, the one about not bearing false witness against your neighbour”, a commandment often broken by those socalled Christian groups more inspired by hate than love. This particular group has been best known for going nuts about Jerry Springer: the Opera, where they managed to convince the cancer charity Maggie’s Centres to decline a four-figure donation from the proceeds of a special performance of the opera. In a rare display of karma, their head nutcase, Stephen Green then sued the makers of the opera for blasphemy, lost the court case, was ordered to pay the legal costs of his opponents and now is in danger of going bankrupt. Couldn’t have happen to a nicer guy.

Nevertheless this hasn’t stopped “Christian” Voice from making a nuisance of themselves, this time being offended by something very important indeed: a Barbie doll! Said Barbie doll, being part of a range of figures modeled on famous DC comics superheroines, is dressed in the costume of Black Canary, a heroine with a pedigree going back to 1947. The “Christian” Voice activists however insist that this is a “S&M Barbie” and “pure filth”, which in my book is definately bearing false witness to both Mattel and DC.

As you can see from the picture, only a loon would describe this as a “S&M outfit”, but of course if Christian Voice told the truth and said they were disgusted with a mildly sexy dressed Barbie doll even more people would laugh at them than they do now. By breaking the ninth commandment they at least get their press release in The Sun, which is always in for a bit of moral panic, even if their regular page three feature hardly confirms with the kind of morals “Christian” Voice allegedly supports.

and hey, what’s more important: actually attempting to abide by some of the most important commandments of your religion, or getting your name in the papers?

A victory for rationality?

This week the UK parliament discussed the embryology bill. Brought in by the government to update the existing law on this subject, some twenty years old and becoming obsolete due to further scientific progress, it was intended to regulate several new grey areas opened up by this progress, but was hijacked by the religious anti-abortion right to reopen debate about the abortion limit of twentyfour weeks. Given a free vote on the subject (i.e. not bound to party policy on this vote) the members of parliament fortunately rejected all proposals to bring the abortion limit down from 24 to 12, 16, 20 or 22 weeks, and rejected it with fairly big margins too. A reason to celebrate?

Perhaps, but the simple fact that the anti-abortion fanatics were able to mount such a campaign in the first place is worrying. And even the most radical proposal still got 71 votes in favour. It’s evidence of the existence of a sophisticated and dedicated anti-abortion campaign in British politics, something previously only seen across the ocean. That a sizeable minority of people dislikes abortion isn’t new, but abortion as a key issue is, as is its embrace by the Tories. the campaign was spearheaded by Nadine Dorries and supported by Ravey Wavey Davey Cameron. It shows how slight ideological differences have become between the Tories and their Nu Labour mirror images that such a relatively minor issue should emerge as a rallying point. another lesson from America: when economic issues are off the table, socalled lifestyle and moral issues become the battlefield.

As worrying as the fact that anti-abortion is now a viable cause in British politics, is the way in which this campaign has been run on “little more than tawdry emotional blackmail, smears and downright demonstrable lies” as Justin put it. That despite this the anti-abortion proposals were rejected and the governmental proposals to strip out the need for inferitility clinics to consider the need for a father figure for couples undergoing IVF treatment, as well as to allow “animal-human hybrid”embryos to be created for research purposes were accepted is heartening. Personally I am somewhat disappointed “saviour siblings” –“babies born because they are a tissue match for a sick older brother or sister with a genetic condition” as the BBC puts it— were disallowed, but than this is a much more complicated issue than the other three.

Is It Because He Is (Quite Probably) White?

Yet again a home-brewed explosives case doesn’t get the full-on terrorist treatment:

Man hurt by home-made explosive

A building in north Devon has been sealed off after a home-made explosive went off, injuring a man.

The Royal Navy’s bomb disposal team also carried out a controlled explosion on a second device found at the flat in Barnstaple on Sunday afternoon.

Police said a 47-year-old man was being treated for hand injuries, apparently caused by the first explosive.

Neighbouring flats at the property in St George’s Road were evacuated. Police have ruled out any terrorist links.

Have they? So soon? Really, I thought the police needed at least 42 days to decide that?

It being Barnstaple, I realise the accused is probably white and probably not Moslem and therefore considered innocent of any terrorist intent – as per usual – but that does seem rather hasty to me.

Faradiddles and Fairytales

Have you heard the one about the jihadi on the No. 81 bus? What about the apparently professional people who believe in witches and demons?

But first the jihadi on the bus.5 Chinese crackers illustrates how an Islamophobic urban myth is slipped into general currency:

Urban myths and Muslim bus drivers praying

[…]

I thought something might be fishy when I saw ‘Get off my bus, I need to pray’ in the Sun last week. Having pictures or even video of a Muslim bus driver praying on his bus does not prove that the driver made his passengers get off so he could pray.

Via Islamophobia Watch, we can have a look at this article from the Slough and Windsor Observer, ‘Bosses defend Muslim who stopped the 81 bus to pray’, which explains:

London United Busways say they have carried out a full investigation after driver Arunas Raulynaitis rolled out his prayer mat to perform his daily prayers, facing Mecca on the number 81 bus in Langley.

Bosses have analysed evidence, including CCTV footage, and say the driver was actually on his 10-minute break when the incident took place at around 1.30pm on Thursday.

They added that the control room had in fact radioed Mr Raulynaitis to terminate the bus outside Langley Fire Station in London Road because it was running late due to road works. Passengers were asked to leave the vehicle while they waited for another bus to pick them up to complete their journey.

[…]

But a 21-year-old passenger – who was hoping to join the bus before it terminated – told the Observer: “People were fuming because they said the driver had asked them to leave so he could pray.

“Most people ended up waiting for 15 minutes and weren’t happy. I was late for work so I got a lift with my friend. But it was a hassle I didn’t need.”

So, the driver was told to stop the bus because it was behind schedule, and he decided to pray at that point because it was time for him to take his break. Not really worth reporting in a national newspaper. Unless you make dodgy assumptions about the guy’s motives.

It’s exactly this sort of story that led the passengers on the bus to believe that the driver had told them to get off so he could pray. If you’re primed to think a particular group are arrogant and prone to demanding other people bend to their whims to accommodate their needs, you’re far more likely to conclude that anything a member of that group does that you don’t like has been done for that reason.

We visited friends in Langley (close to Slough) quite recently and I was surprised – hardly any of the locals were noticeably Moslem or even non-white, oddly so considering it’s so close to Heathrow. Other than at Heathrow itself and in Tesco in Slough did I once see a hijab or a brown face. (Though to be fair, we were only there two days. Perhaps it was the weather.) Funny how these kinds of stories emanate from mostly all-white enclaves, though.

That said, I don’t think anyone should get prayer time at work anyhow, no matter what their religion and/or job is. Do it on your own time and if your prayer schedule doesn’t fit the normal working day, or your Sunday is sacrosanct, then you should look for work that will specifically accomodate that, or be self-employed as many religious do, quietly and with no fuss. But some religious make a hell of a fuss and think their religion should be the way of life for everyone, regardless of their beliefs or lack of them, and many of them are Christians.

Perhaps the media might choose to report on that, or on the increasing stridency of religious people in secular life generally? What about reporting on the government-funded, class and race-based faith schools, currently institutionalising religious sectarianism and embedded privilege into yet another divided generation? The situation can only worsen once this ghettoised cohort of British children gets into the workforce.

As it is a Christian doctors’ association has already pressured the doctors’ ruling body, The General Medical Council, to release new guidelines that allow them, the religious, to refuse treatment to patients for conditions which they find personally morally suspect, on the grounds of a vague all-encompassing ‘conscience.’

The lobby groups, some funded by spiritual/political mentors in the USA, are triumphant, having already successfully bullied UK pharmacists over the matter of refusing contraception and particularly the morning-after-pill.

even that isn’t enough for some religious:

David Jones, a Roman Catholic professor of bioethics at St Mary’s University College, London, said that doctors with a strong objection to abortion may feel like “an accessory to murder” if they directly referred patients to other doctors for the procedure, as the GMC suggests. “How this guidance will be implememented is crucial,” he said.

Jafer Qureshi, a co-founder of the Islamic Medical Ethics Forum, which advises Muslim doctors on issues including medical euthanasia and organ transplantation, added that medical students had recently complained about a “climate of intolerance” to their beliefs.

But where are the lurid red-top headlines about medical missionaries and foreign fundies interfering in the NHS and policing our morals?

If I saw the tabloids campaigning against fundamentalism generally – if only in defence of Page 3 stunnas – and there were a few more disapproving (and true) stories of fundamentalists of other religions than just Islam interfering with the rights of others, then I’d be less inclined to think this Langley item is a made-up story designed specifically to appeal to the average BNP voter.

Fundamentalists of all types seek to overcome their own weakness and ultimate lack of faith by imposing on us. Many (and they’re usually the most visibly pious) secretly lack the ability or the will to hold to the tenets of their religion or to live a right life acording to their chosen beliefs; they know they are weak and it’s so much easier to comply when all the discipline comes from outside.

So they seek to construct a society in which to sin is impossible, a place where they won’t have to try at all and can just go along with the rules, parrot the right words, and be saved with no exertion at all. Which slightly misses the point of the spiritual life, which is all about the personal effort.

But to get back to the way the media treats fundamentalism and the religious; Islamic fundamentalism is demonised because of the way many Moslems look. Many British Moslems are non-white, an artifact of postcolonial immigration patterns. But Christian fundamentalism is nothing to worry about, the media think; after all it’s homegrown, sort of, and mostly practiced by whites (though becoming less so, witness the influence of African evangelicals and EU Catholics). Nevertheless the tabloid news equation can be ultimately reduced to Moslem=non-white=bad, Christian=white (ish)=good.

Myself I’m much more concerned about the GP who’s goes all ecstatic and happy-clappy on Sundays and who thinks dominionism is no bad thing, or the cabinet minister who shirks his duty to his constituents in order to appease an archbishop, than I am about a tired bus driver taking a restful little contemplative break on his own time.

UPDATE: Now see, this is exactly what happens when you give any public ground to the religious.