±«Óătv

about anti-gay bullying. The key quote for me is:

"The simplistic, black and white lines that are drawn between conceptions of good and evil make it all-too-easy to apply these dualisms to groups of people. When theologies leave no room for ambiguity, mystery and uncertainty, it becomes very easy to identify an “us” (good, heterosexual) versus a “them” (evil, gay)."

The more I reflect on the Bible, and try to detoxify myself of fundamentalist presuppositions, and thereby try to read the texts with as open a mind as is psychologically possible, the more I have come to see that certain moral issues are not as clear cut as is often supposed.

The article relates how some teenage gays have committed suicide because of anti-gay bullying. Now if homosexuality really is an evil, in the same way that murder and theft are evils, then could we imagine the following scenario?: a teenager has an orientation to commit murder and 'comes out' about it. So he tells people that he has this deep desire to murder other people. Not surprisingly he is treated with the utmost suspicion and perhaps persecuted. He then commits suicide, because 'anti-murderer' bullies have pushed him to it. Frankly, I think any sane person would see that this is a completely ridiculous scenario. And you can use the same argument for other obvious evils, such as theft and rape.

It is obvious that there is no way realistically that we can put murder, rape and theft in the same moral category as homosexuality. But unfortunately this is what many Christians are doing. Vulnerable people do not commit suicide because they are frustrated at not being able to commit murder, theft and rape etc, and because they are angry that society is chastising them for having the desire to do those things. Common sense tells us this. And therefore common sense tells us that the reason for these suicides is in a completely different moral category than those things we all generally accept are evil.

Whatever the Bible says (and I can argue that there is some ambiguity in the Bible concerning homosexuality), it is a fact that there is much serious inconsistency within the Christian world on moral issues. And yes, I believe that some Christians do have blood on their hands when it comes to legitimising anti-gay bullying. Certainly appalling attitudes like this do not help.

Use the thread to add your links to other stories worth noting.

Last time I added a link the comment was removed because it "broke house rules".

I cannot understand how linking to the "Centre for intelligent Design's website", and copying/pasting details of Michael Behe's vist to the Crescent church in Belfast is "breaking house rules".

I'll certainly think twice about linking to anything in the future on this blog William.

Behe's visit to Belfast is certainly an event worth covering on Sunday sequence. An interview at least is an opportunity not to be missed.

Good work by King Arthur Pendragon (of Stonehenge) getting his tax sorted out, now what about a state visit or two we can chip in for as well?

'Humanists search for this year's 'enemies of reason'.'

I'm confused; is this a spoof like The Onion, or is it more of GWB 'axis of evil' kind of thing? Will there be commemorative playing cards with the 52 greatest threats to reason on them?

Hello Jonathan,

"Will there be commemorative playing cards with the 52 greatest threats to reason on them?"

Nah, humanists already have a few decks of cards (and better sense of humour):

The anti gay bullying article was interesting. I agree that we need a creative theological response.This is why many who are religious with a small *r* are estranged from the church or the spiritual connection they may want. When anti-gay rhetoric is espoused by the Pope and Priests abuse their authority in the same vein as Eddie Long, it creates a disconnect between many people and their access to faith- at least here in the UK & Ireland. Maybe in America,perhaps in some quarters attitudes harden leaving no room for dialogue and lots of room for hypocrisy & unethical behaviour. Fundamentalism in any religion obscures many human rights abuses coming to light and many suffer for that.
The only Church here I can see being able to tackle such issues and put into place a creative theological response is the Church of England/Ireland. Strong leadership from the Archbishop of Canterbury needs to uncouple from conservative elements to really bring in a larger part of the population who would place greater emphasis on going to church and spirituality if there were fairer, more reasonable elements at play. I also think one church with a large infrastructure like that needs to set a good example to the fundamentalist, more extreme Churches like the Catholic church and the other denominations you find scattered around the American deep-south and other parts of the world

Peter 2

From what I can find out about Michael Behe (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania) he appears to be a leading maverick scientist who courts controversy. Intelligent Design is Creationism by another name.

He appeared for the defence in a famous court case in America a few years ago (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al) in which the argument that ID is a science was roundly rejected by Judge Jones (a devoted churchgoer).

If there was no admission charge to hear him I would consider attending, but I would much prefer to listen to him being challenged robustly on his view that ID is science and not religion.

How can someone become a US senator with those views??? It's another world ...like the Dark Ages...Beyond me!! Just shows how ignorance combined with a good dose of religious indoctrination leads to crazy ideas!!

RE:1

LSV

You fall into the same trap of binary oppositions. Liberals (you/good) challenge Conservatives (them/bad)

D-a-a-R

To be clear - aggressive violence must be resisted.

I do not know why...but we must resist, nevertheless.

D-a-a-R (@ 9) -

"You fall into the same trap of binary oppositions. Liberals (you/good) challenge Conservatives (them/bad)"

Firstly let me say that I like your pseudonym. Mine has the unfortunate quality of being inverted by those offended by my contributions, but some of those who do so sometimes (dear dear, what ever happened to a good old classical education?). Still at least I've given them a bone to chew on.

No, I don't think I'm promoting an "us-and-them" polemic. In fact, I rather think I'm doing the exact opposite and emphasising that there is some moral ambiguity in the Bible.

I'm a realist not an idealist (or, at least, I like to think I am). I tend to read the Bible 'realistically' ('realistically', by the way, is not a synonym for pessimistic or demythologising - the 'realism' of God is both optimistic and miraculous). This realism means that the Bible cannot be reduced to a set of legal prescriptions. For example, did you know that the Bible condones lying in certain situations? Some fundies kick and scream about this, but it is absolutely true: Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 (the prostitute Rahab was praised for her faith and good work and an indispensable and integral part of that obedience to God was the lie she told - see Joshua 2:2-6). The Hebrew midwives of Exodus 1:18-20 is another example (God blessed them because they kept the babies alive which necessitated them lying to Pharaoh.)

And yet the Bible says "you shall not bear false witness". Of course the cynics will say that this is just another example of a contradiction in the Bible. I take the view that the concept of 'bearing false witness' has to relate to the context (i.e. lying is sometimes the "lesser of two evils" in certain situations, where you are faced with an unavoidable choice between 'betrayal' and 'deceit').

So if the Bible can allow for some 'room for manoeuvre' concerning something as so obviously wrong as lying, then why is it so difficult for many Bible believing Christians to accept that other issues are also not 'cut-and-dried' (such as issues about which the Bible says very little, e.g. homosexuality)?

That was the point I was trying to make in my comment above. Do vulnerable teenagers really commit suicide, because they are frustrated at not being able to do something they know full well is wrong? I think not. These cases therefore lead me, as a Christian, to question seriously whether it is right to view homosexuality as an absolute evil. I know that may put me in the 'liberal' camp, as far as some Christians are concerned. But I really don't care about these labels. It's the truth that matters, not tribal posturing. And the truth in this complex universe is not always 'simple'.

Druids

The representative from the Druid Network downplayed the significance of tax breaks for his organisation saying that:

"You have to apply [for charitable status] if you're an organisation that is taking money off people because the Inland Revenue want to know what you're doing with it."

He further said that his organisation had around 350 members who each paid a tenner annually for membership.

Is this true - must an organisation apply for charitable status simply because it receives membership fees? I know little about The Church of Scientology, but if it charged each of its members a tenner for annual membership would they HAVE TO apply for charitable status?

(dear dear, what ever happened to a good old classical education?)

Dog Latin is perfectly adequate for taking the p***ium.

The issue of universal benefits was discussed in today's Sunday Sequence, and it turned out to be a very unbalanced affair. Elaine Storkey was faced with two relatively right-wing Ulster economists, Burrnie and Simpson, with William joining in on their side, interrupting her frequently but letting them rabbit on with their reactionary views on the Welfare State. This is typical of what happens when an idea takes hold of the media - in this case that cuts in benefits must be made and those who don't 'deserve' them shouldn't get them. The idea takes on a momentum of 'respectability' and those who oppose it are marginalised and seen as 'eccentric'.

The same thing happened on the build-up to the Iraq War. Opponents of it were heard less often than the 'authoritative' opinion. Night after night on Newnight the latter were wheeled out - politicians, generals, commentators (the number of times Richard Perle was heard on Newsnight trumpeting his hawkish views must have been a record). On the other hand, critics of war, including Chomsky, Pilger, Arthur Miller, Pinter, and so on were treated as if they were bookish intellectuals who didn't live in the real world. Apparently, the 'real' world is one where you kill over a million people to impose your will on another country. S'truth!

The same thing is happening with the Welfare State. Simpson and Burnie quoted Beveridge. But he'd be turning in his grave at the policies of the present coalition.

The way they talk, you'd think there was an unprecedented crisis - all the fault of Labour, of course - and that the UK was unique. In fact, the national debt as a percentage of GDP after the last war was 180%. It is not particularly high in the UK at present at 64%. It's actually higher in the USA (71%) and in Japan where it's 194%.

Newlach - # 12

I have been, in my time, a trustee of both a local NI charity and UK-wide charity based in England. I received fairly extensive training on charity governance and my statutory duties and responsibilities for the UK organisation (none at all for the NI one).

Unless there have been recent radical changes to legislation I can say without hesitation that the statement you quoted in not true. HMRC does not require an organisation which simply receives membership fees to register with them. Generally speaking the Charity Commission for England and Wales (an entirely separate body from the Revenue) will only register an organisation as a charity when its income exceeds ÂŁ 5,000 per year. The Druids' subscription income from the figures provided would not reach the required level so they must have other income: that other income, depending on its nature, might well be of interest to the revenue service and registration with them might then bring tax breaks for the organisation. The statement appears therefore at least somewhat disingenuous.

Parrhasios

Your use of the word "disingenuous" is apt. I suspect that the Druid Network wishes to increase some of its activities (perhaps prison chaplaincy?) and to benefit from the tax advantages that charitable status confers.

It is interesting, however, that non-registered charities can gain substantial tax advantages too. The Church of Scientology, for example, is not a registered charity but it is exempt from VAT on various payments that it receives. The Church also pays only 20 per cent in rates for its properties and as a consequence saves millions of pounds.

This story was in Friday's Guardian.