ACTS OF TRUTH

The massive mega church was packed to the gills.
The pews were full, people raising their hands and singing praise to their god.
Outside, in front of the marble steps, on the pavement, sat a small scruffy boy, crying.
A gentle bearded man came and crouched by him;
"What is upsetting you so, little one?"
"Oh, sir." The little boy lifted his tousled head and turned his dirty face up to the man, "them in that church won't let me in."
The man stood and gazed over the building, the marble trimmings, the smooth brickwork, the Ten Commandments picked out over the oak door in gold letters.
He shook his head and smiled and rested a hand on the small boy's head.
"I know, son. They haven't let me in there for years."
And Jesus turned and walked away.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. - Mahatma Gandhi

REDEFINING THE ISSUE

And the number one secular* argument against the coalition's plan to allow civil marriage in the UK;
We mustn't allow gays to redefine marriage.
?
How?
How do two adults who just happen to be of the same gender making a commitment to one another in front of their friends and family redefine marriage?
I know the classic term, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is the union of a man and a woman, but well, how many people use (or even think of) the classic terms for wallpaper, sweep and physician?
That is, words evolve, but not in a Darwinian way, more of a Lamarckian way, that is, they alter to fit in with their surroundings and then pass that meaning to the next generation.
If the meaning of marriage is expanded to cover any type of consenting adult couple, then humanity will settle in with it, just like when they talk about a corner they don't mean someone who represents the crown in criminal proceedings, rather like a barrister today.

(Note : I have purposefully avoided taking the well worn defence paths of, 'how will redefining marriage effect your marriage?' And, 'just because same sex marriage is legal doesn't mean you will have to get divorced'. Because not only have those paths been worn down so nothing fresh grows on them, that technically isn't what is meant by those who claim 'same sex marriage will redefine the meaning of marriage').

*Yes, secular. Because you don't have to be a theist to think that those disgusting poofs shouldn't be allowed to mix with decent people.

NOT IMPOSSIBLE

In an alternate universe;
Churches go out and picket and demonstrate at funerals and political and social meetings with their signs;
GOD HATES GOATS.
GOD HATES GOAT-ENABLERS.
LEFT HANDERS ARE ON THE SIDE OF THE GOATS.
Christians (and to a smaller extent non-theists) set up groups where left-handers can find healing and freedom from their sinisterist orientation.
It can't be easy being a left-hander. We must reach out and help them into freedom, to find their potential as the right-handers they were meant to be.
After all, the opposite of 'right' is not 'left' but 'wrong'.
Let's look at the facts, shall we?
Left-handers die earlier than right-handers.
They suffer from more fatal conditions,.
They are more likely to drink and do drugs.
The majority of young left-handers commit suicide because they hate themselves and their left-handed lifestyle.
Even non-theists insist what the media have been feeding them;
Left-handers are disgusting perverts and shouldn't be allowed to teach children.
They recruit normal, healthy right-handed youth with promises of freedom from parental oppression.
Left-handers are unnatural. They take over the streets in their filthy Sinisterist Pride parades with their pens in the wrong hand, shouting;
SINISTERISM IS NOT A SIN.
When it is, it is a perversion against God and human nature.
NO ONE IS BORN LEFT-HANDED.
It is a condition, an illness, brought on by childhood abuse, neglect, a lack of love and warmth, being loved or hated by the wrong parent.
We must not hate the left-hander, but we must not encourage him in his behaviour.
For a person to be allowed to give in to his left-handed nature and pick up that pen is to allow them to overeat, to drink alcohol, to do drugs.
Of course, there is no such thing as left-handed. It's just righties doing it to rebel, or they're going through a phase.
It's a choice. Whoever says no one would choose to be left-handed because of the persecution and abuse has not met the all pervading Hollywood anti-family idea pedalled to our youth;
Left-handed is fun.
Left-handed is free.
To be left-handed means you are able to break every taboo.
We must not allow the left-hander to find acceptance. They must be forced to see their perversion will never be accepted as normal.
In some countries, left-handedness is a capital crime.
A good warrior of Lord God would kill a left-hander and make the world cleaner.
THE GREAT MAJORITY OF SERIAL MURDERERS WERE LEFT-HANDERS.
Left-handers are murderers, killers of the soul, of families.
Left-handedness is contrary to nature, or all that is good and clean and moral and healthy.
LEFT-HANDEDNESS IS NOT FOUND IN NATURE.
No left-hander can be truly happy, aware of how they are different, wrong, abnormal, in a right-handed world.
Left-handers are looking for an equality they were never find. It is a right-handed world, sinisterist, live with it. Change or die.
THERE IS NO LEFT-HANDED GENE.
Silly, eh? Annoying? It would never happen here. I'm glad I don't live in that universe where such stupid prejudice happens.
Now, read through it again and change every example where left-handedness is mentioned, or a slang word like 'goat' or 'sinisterist' and change it to 'gay' or 'faggot' or 'poof' or 'queer' or something.
Doesn't sound so silly and impossible now.
Are you glad to live in a universe where that kind of prejudice and hatred does happen?
If you think 'that's different.' ask yourself, honestly, why is it different? Why do you have no problem with picking on LGBT people and not left-handers?

SIN!

I've been having a think about these right wing followers of Jesus who use their Bible to justify their cry;
"HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN!"
And the amount of ink and paper and web space taken up arguing over this statement, using the Bible to defend or attack this point.
Well, here is something for you Christians;
Maybe you can interpret the Bible to say homosexuality is against God's plan and therefore 'a sin', but do you know what else the Bible states?
Clearly, unambiguously, without need for interpretation, from the Words of Jesus Himself?
Feed the hungry, visit the prisoner, help the sick, love your enemies, go the extra mile.
How many of you who say 'I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I AM PRO-FAMILY AND ANTI ANY RIGHTS FOR THE GAY?' Could also say, 'I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I AM GOING TO HELP OUT AT A SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS, OR PRISON VISIT, OR OFFER TO RUN ERRANDS FOR MY DISABLED NEIGHBOUR?'
Or are Jesus' actual words a bit too liberal for you?

EQUAL TIME (LONG SENTENCE ALERT)

How come those who lobby for Intelligent Design to be taught as equal to evolution in schools so the kids can choose what makes most sense are those who cry persecution and insist on the right to alter the curriculum or if not to be informed in advance so they can pull their kids from lessons in which a school teaches LGBT people are equal with straights so the kids can make their minds up as to what makes most sense?

AGEING DYKE PERVERT ALERT

I know I shouldn't say this but the US Tory politician Christine O'Donnell drives me wild.
I know it's wrong, and I'm not about to turn in my liberal deist fair-goes-for-all card for her, but there is something about her.
There is a picture of her I've seen with her mouth open and a bit of tongue showing, like she's been delightfully surprised and, well. . .
Next subject.
A lot of Christians and right-wingers and anti-gays claim it's possible to convert straight people to gay, which is why it can't be taught in schools that gay is equal to straight, just in case a 100% hettie university student with no thoughts in that direction at all is in a lecture room listening to the words of someone of the same gender who happens to be gay and instantly changes 180 to bat for the other side.
If this had any basis in truth, I wonder how much work it would take from an undersized middle-aged Brit woman with a bad haircut and no style at all to convert Ms O'Donnell to her way of thinking.*
Still, I can dream, can't I? In the words of Frank Loesser, you can't go to jail for what you're thinking.


*Or any way of thinking. I've read about her and reading between the lines she seems asexual, no interest at all.

UPDATE : Ms O'Donnell is in fact not a Tory politician but a Republican. Keep forgetting there is a lot of difference. The fact she isn't a Brit being number one.

JUSTICE AT LAST?

The murderer has been found guilty of killing fifteen human beings.
He stands in the dock flanked by several large security guards in front of the judge ready to here his sentence.
The victims families stand in the public seating waiting to hear the sentence.
"Prisoner at the bar," The judge begins, "you have been found guilt of fifteen murders. Heinous, cruel, sadistic crimes, tailored to make your victim suffer as much agony as possible for your own pleasure before eventually, sometimes after many hours, sated at last you finished them off. You killed both men and women. Three of your victims were under ten when you kidnapped them. You will be punished according to the full force of the law. Do you have anything to say before I pass sentence?"
"Only one thing, sir. I believe you killed your son for me."
"You do?"
"Yes, sir. I believe you killed your son, who had never broken the law, to take the punishment of people like me."
"In that case, you are free to go."
Horror. Consternation. Cries of 'no!' and 'why?' from the public section of the court. 'He killed my baby!' 'He can't go free!' 'He'll do it again!'
The judge turns to the horror stricken family members as the smiling murderer shrugs off the security guards and steps out of the dock and out into freedom.
"This is the law. If a person, no matter what they have done, believes I killed my innocent son they are allowed to go free."
The forewoman on the jury cries out;
"This isn't justice!"
Everyone in the land cries out, 'this is not justice!'
Christian, do you agree that this is justice?
If not, then why do you accept it from your god?

TRADITIONAL TRADITIONS

Did you know that traditional families are the best for bringing up socially, morally healthy children?
You know, where Dad goes out to work and Mum sees the kids off to school and then takes the younger ones out shopping with her and comes back in the afternoon to meet the kids coming home and then makes the tea for Dad and when he comes home they all sit around the table and eat and at night watch telly or play board games together till bed time? Just like Fred and Rosemary West.

TO CHOOSE

Following up on my previous posting, some people believe that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore is a choice.
Putting aside the notion that someone would choose to be of a group that was persecuted because of it's main reason.
Putting aside the notion that even if it is a choice it still should be protected under the laws of fairness.
Suppose is it. I don't know. I am of the theory that everything is genetic, we are mostly products of nature, but nurture, our upbringing, can either encourage or temper this,* or we can learn the ability to mimic and fake a certain behaviour to fit in.
But suppose being a LGBT person is a straight choice, writing the pros and cons or just to rebel or annoy your parents or whoever? Do you know what else is a straight choice? So much so that it's proponents loudly and proudly declare it, that no one can be born this way, they have to actively make the decision to become one?
Christianity.
That's all. . .

*The best (only) example I can think of is someone genetically predispositioned to lung cancer growing up in houseful of smokers and being encouraged to take it up themselves.

A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE

A law has been passed which allows churches to marry homosexual couples, ie officiate at gay weddings if they so choose.
Hot on it's heels comes a statement from the General Synod of the Church of England which declares that no Church of England church will automatically marry gay couples.
And, you know, through the hysteria on both sides, the General Synod have a point.
Just imagine if a vegetarian went to work at McDonald's and tried to force the restaurant to not handle bits of murdered animal? Not just that restaurant but all of them? It wouldn't be right, would it?*
It's not like a chemist refusing to serve a woman with the morning after pill. It's us going onto their territory and telling them they must do things that in all conscience, not to cause trouble and annoy people (the CofE is very liberal in many ways)they believe are wrong.
Peter Tatchell is a good man and a courageous man and unlike a lot of armchair protesters puts his money where his mouth is, so to speak (suffered mild brain damage from beatings he received by the local police in countries where he stood up for gay rights). But to say churches have to follow their conscience and then saying they are being stopped from doing so only if they don't do what we want is not right.
Some people believe a certain way is wrong. Like the vegetarian in McDonald's, for someone to go onto that person's territory and tell them they must do what they believe is wrong shouldn't be.
Gay people are treated well under the law in the UK, unlike some countries where the religious are trying to (or have) take the rights of gays to even exist. Those who want to marry in church and aren't allowed should live with it. There are churches who will perform gay marriages ceremonies. To go to the CofE and insist they do something their conscience tells them is wrong is like (a milder form) tell a gay man or woman, yes you can marry, you have the right, but someone of the opposite gender. It's not natural, if you like.
Of course, McDonald's is a bad example. The example the CofE gave, of a gentleman's outfitters not being forced to sell ladies clothes is also not a perfect example. That is business, not personal. It isn't against McDonald's conscience or the gentleman's outfitter's conscience to go against what the business is about, but then today conscience is a state to be mocked and compromised with, overridden and gone round.

*Yes it would. Killing anything for any reason, apart from to end suffering and in (genuine) self defence is wrong, but that's another story.