h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6243323.stm

I mean, why is this even news? Some people who have an imaginary friend don't like the idea of a new law because it will - horrors! - force them to treat everyone equally.

Well hello and welcome to the 21st century, where you can't put a sign outside your pub saying "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish". If you're a religious nutter and you run a business, you have a clear choice in future - serve everyone equally, or get a job.

Point of principle - sexual orientation is innate. There is bundles of scientific evidence for this. Religion, on the other hand, is very much a conscious choice.

What I'd love to know is just where these people got the idea that their nasty little prejudices matter? Where on earth did they get the impression that just because some middle-eastern death cult wrote some books, they have some sort of right to discriminate today?

Religious freedom means - or SHOULD mean - the right to worship freely IN PRIVATE. It does not, or certainly should not, mean the right to take your repellent opinions into the public domain.

SoRB

Thank you. Once again you've said what I was thinking so much more eloquently than I could have.

Mind you, I wouldn't be very eloquent because I'm very, very angry.

A little more... (some of what follows is from today's Polly Toynbee column in the Grauniad)

"Lord Ferrers in the last debate said hospitals should be allowed to discriminate if they had a Christian ethos."

WHAT? What would such a hospital do if you turned up with AIDS and admitted you were gay? I shudder to think.

"He said a pro-life Catholic hospital should be allowed to turn away a lesbian for fertility treatment."

OK, hang on. First of all, there are CATHOLIC HOSPITALS? Funded my MY TAX?! I didn't realise this, and I'm extremely annoyed.

Second, they'd refuse fertility treatment because they're pro-life? Eh?

Third, and seriously - who the **** goes to CATHOLICS for fertility treatment?

Apparently the Catholic adoption society said it will shut up shop if it has to allow gay couples to apply. Good, frankly. Because by the sounds of it at the moment they're basically handing out babies to people who will inculcate in their vulnerable minds some really nasty attitudes. It's fascinating to see where these peoples' priorities *really* lie. Which is more important - the life chances of disadvantaged children, or their right to be horrible to poofs? No contest. It never even occurs to them to ask the question.

"Churches say they will never let out a hall to a gay organisation."

Excellent. Sue them, then. If there's one thing you can guarantee about a church, as an organisation, it's that it's RICH. Gay groups could make a fortune.

"Christians running soup kitchens say they want to refuse gays shelter and soup."

Sorry, hang on, run that by me again - CHRISTIANS want to refuse SHELTER, the most basic survival need, to people who need it.

CHRISTIANS.

WANT.

TO.

REFUSE.

SHELTER.

To people.

Christians. Am I missing something here? Christians? Refusing shelter to people?

I'm SURE I dimly remember a story I once heard about a good Samaritan. Who was it who told that story? Bernard Manning? Jim Davidson? Oh no, that's right - Christ.

Sorry to get repetitive there, but I really am struggling extremely hard with the concept that Christians are thinking, even *thinking* of refusing shelter to people. ANY people. For ANY reason.

"The Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool threatens to withdraw all cooperation over schools and charity programmes if the law goes through."

Again, I have to say, good. Anything that removes Catholic influences from schools is a good thing, let's have more of it.

And again, it's really, really good to have a clear demonstration of just how committed these people are to the principle of charity.

"The Bishop of Rochester says it will damage church work in inner cities."

Or put another way, if he doesn't get his way, the Bishop is going to take his bat and ball home.

"The C of E pretends that the law would force it to bless civil unions."

Eh? Clue's in the name, boys. "CIVIL" unions. I.e. not religious.



I wish I could say something more coherent about this but I'm still struggling with that whole idea of Christians running soup kitchens turfing out gays. I mean - apart from anything else, how are they going to *tell*? They're surely not going to ask, so basically if you turn up claiming to be homeless but still looking quite stylish, you're buggered. Or not, as the case may be.

SoRB

the bible preaches against the act of being gay. you cant refuse help to anyone but you can preach against the act of homosexuality. plus we dont have the right to judge it lies with God

"the bible preaches against the act of being gay."

And? The bible condones slavery. Do you therefore condone slavery?

Wake up, it's the 21st century.

"you cant refuse help to anyone"

And yet Jews, Muslims and, yes, Christian leaders are holding a torchlit protest tonight outside Parliament, SPECIFICALLY DEMANDING the right to "refuse help to anyone" they judge to be gay.

"but you can preach against the act of homosexuality. plus we dont have the right to judge it lies with God"

And if you and people like you kept your opinions to yourselves, nobody would be any the wiser. However, as the news reports - representatives of all three major imaginary-friend groups will be outside Parliament tonight demanding the right to discriminate against gay people. Demanding the right to judge.

Can you explain that?

SoRB

christians face so much persecution in the country the have to now stand up for their beliefs. i personnally dont agree with refusing help to gay people but unfortuanetly while ever we are persecuted for our beliefs why shouldnt we stand up for them and do the same to others. we are told to be salt of the earth. we are supposed to be different and this is one way of telling people about christianity.

Just a couple of other things "the bible preaches", just so we're clear on exactly where little miss nicky is coming from:

She is presumably completely and utterly subservient to men. This is documented in Genesis 3:16 - ""thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." I trust you live by these words, little miss nicky.

Also I assume that any boy born in your home, you will have circumcised, including the children of any of your slaves, in accordance with Genesis 17:12.

I trust also that if a child of yours ever hits you, for any reason, you will immediately kill it, in accordance with Exodus 21:15.

Because it would be terrible if we ignored what the Bible preaches, wouldn't it?

SoRB

ok so youve read the old testament. have you read the new testament where it says that circuscision is of the soul not of he body?

when i do get married i will allow my husband to take charge. the bible teaches i should ,let him rule over me and he should love andprotect me. im ok with that.

will check the context of the exodus 21 later after my exam before i make a reply. just to make sure im accuratly presenting my bible

"christians face so much persecution in the country"

How many Christians have been executed for their beliefs in Britain in the last 100 years, nicky?

How many have been imprisoned for their beliefs, in say, the last 10 years?

You have no idea what persecution means.

"we are told to be salt of the earth. we are supposed to be different and this is one way of telling people about christianity. "

And I have to say it's a very effective way of telling people about Christianity. It might perhaps occur to you to connect these things:

1. Telling people about Christianity
2. Church attendances falling.
3. People "persecuting" you for your beliefs.

People "persecute" you for your beliefs, nicky - and by "persecute" in this context I of course mean "rationally disagree with you verbally" - because, and here's the problem, your beliefs are abhorrent to rational, civilised modern people. People similarly "persecute" the BNP for their "belief", sincerely held, that nig-nogs ought to be sent back where they came from. That is a repellent position, rightly abhorred by civilised people. And civilised, educated people see your Christian superstitions, particularly when they are expressed on this subject, in the same light.

SoRB

Sorry, can't resist this...

"circuscision"

Roll up, roll up! Oh, hang on, you can't any more...

SoRB

"ok so youve read the old testament."

Am I the only one who detects a note of annoyance there?

SoRB

Can I just clarify something here?

Nicky- are you adhering to the teachings of just the new testaments are do you look at both equally?

Are there a certain number of contradictions between the old and the new?

i look at both. the new testament tells us that the old testament has laws fo Gods people to follow which we dont need to anymore because of the major event of he new testament - Jesus.

ive told you before SoRB that i cant spell. id appreciate it if you could ignore that problem and concentrate on the thing at hand.

now your comment on educted people seeing my beliefs as superstition. just for yr information i am just as educated as the next person.

So do you have teachings on the subject of homosexuality from the new testament Nicky?

I agree that SoRB may have worded his point somewhat harshly (you have probably noticed that the whole issues arouses some strong feelings) but I would be interested to hear you seriously defend your assertion that Christians have been persecuted in this country. I have no doubt that they have in some parts of the world, but I don't think this is one of them.

"just for yr information i am just as educated as the next person"

In the teeth of the evidence...

OK, if you're so very well educated, you can perhaps offer an answer to this:

How can I, an educated, highly intelligent objective observer, distinguish between your chosen superstition (Christianity) and, for example, astrology?

Put another way, what is it about your chosen superstition that makes you think it's NOT a superstition?

SoRB

In another thread (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=3783996&skip=0&show=20) I made a very similar point to SoRB about 'no blacks, no Irish' but it's also worth noticing that actually a lot of the 'Christian' campaigning around this bill is frankly scaremongering nonsense. This is what I posted previously "From the Northern Ireland version of the legislation (reformatted to make clearer), which I understand will be pretty much identical to the rest of the UK. See paragraph 16: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2006/20060439.htm#16 (a) if it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation; or (b) so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religions followers. [then a religious group is entitled...] (a) to restrict membership of the organisation; (b) to restrict participation in activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices; (c) to restrict the provision of goods, facilities and services in the course of activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices; or (d) to restrict the use or disposal of premises owned or controlled by the organisation" The freedom to have (or not to have) religious belief is an important freedom, and it would be a problem for me if anything in this legislation affected what I regard as a basic right. But the truth is that it doesn't. Interesting to read in that BBC article that Peter Tatchell is quoted as saying that no mainstream religious group is part of the protest - perhaps because, if they've read the legislation, they don't need to be.

As I understand it that's not the point, though. Religious GROUPS, i.e. churches, can go on being just as repellently narrow minded and bigoted as they've always been.

The people up in arms in this case are people who run businesses such as hotels or bed & breakfasts. These are businessmen, not religious groups, and therefore they WILL be required by law to treat everyone equally. And the thing is some businessmen are narrow-minded bigots.

They're no longer allowed to specify "no darkies", but they're worried that until now they HAVE been allowed to specify "no poofs" (pooves?). And they're protesting that they're having that "right" taken away, and that it's in some way a restriction of their freedom of religion.

To which my response is - stop running a business then. Because this, a civilised country, requires that if you run a business, you treat all customers equally, black or white, straight or gay. If your religion disbars you from running a business like that - stop. Easy.

SoRB

I would reply to this, if it didn´t seem like you´re just letting off steam.

Hang on. Am I understanding this right?
You're saying that it's permissible for me to hold a particular belief in private, but not act on it in public?
In what sense, then, can I be said to hold it at all?

<The people up in arms in this case are people who run businesses such as hotels or bed & breakfasts. These are businessmen, not religious groups, and therefore they WILL be required by law to treat everyone equally. And the thing is some businessmen are narrow-minded bigots.

To which my response is - stop running a business then. Because this, a civilised country, requires that if you run a business, you treat all customers equally, black or white, straight or gay. If your religion disbars you from running a business like that - stop. Easy.>

Even easier and more effective, leave the bigots alone. Let them refuse to service(*ahem*) gay people. Get a website up and running that, from experience, lists all businesses that are run by homophobes and allow people their freedom not to frequent those businesses and they will either quickly go under or start serving everyone.

Of course,Agreeing not to bring in the anti-'anti-gay' legislation should have a caveat: that blasphemy laws be repealed and anyone trying to close down plays or organisations that both satirise and criticise religion should be considered anti-freedom of speech and be prosecuted. After all, 'they' would have to agree that someone criticisinf religion is 'just' following their own believes and are therefore no different to people who will still, legally, be able to tell homosexuals to 'take their sinful, sexually-perverted, satan-loving sexual preferences elsewhere...we don't like your kind here'...etc etc (continue with the bigot quote list as you will.)

But that would mean equality of 'non-believers' with 'believers' and that could never do could it?