So you’re offended. So fucking what?

“So you’re offended. So fucking what?”

- Stephen Fry, on the offence caused when speaking about religion.

When Saint Thomas Moore refused to take the oath of supremacy, that stated the King was the head of the Church in England, and not the Pope; he was executed. Bishop Fisher followed the same fate. As did many other Catholics who refused the oath. It was used as an instrument of propaganda and a power tool. The oath itself went on to inspire the wording of the US oath of citizenship (also nothing more than a power tool and instrument of propaganda, swearing an oath; your life, to an abstract concept of Nationalism), which ends with the line ‘so help me God’. It would appear that with over five hundred years, and countless Christianity inspired murders, Christianity itself still has a debilitating strangle hold over people, especially those who do not wish to indulge in primitive cult worship. We have not learnt a thing, as a species.

It is no secret that I find organised religion to be massively intolerable. It offends my sense of rationale. It’s bloodshed history disturbs me. I also find it particularly funny. Something to be laughed at. I do not like how much power it has over the World.

In 2006 a group called Christian Voice picketed outside the Student Union of St Andrew’s University, where a play called Jerry Springer The Opera was being performed. The musical is written by one of my favourite comedians, Stewart Lee, and is a satirical look at the World and Christianity, based on Jerry Springer Show. Christian Voice threatened members of the audience, and so many extra security guards were brought in to protect the audience. The show inside, got a standing ovation.

In the same year, and for the same reasons, Christian Voice threatened to picket strongly in force outside of the Cancer Care centre Maggie’s Centres, if they accepted a £3000 donation from Jerry Springer The Opera. Christian Voice told Maggie’s Centres that to accept the donation from a show full of ‘filth and blasphemy’ would be a public relations disaster. Maggie’s Centres therefore rejected the donation through fear and intimidation from a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. The donation would have been used to provide a better standard of palliative cancer care for sufferers and their families. But apparently that’s not as important as offending a few nutjobs and their make-believe fantasy World. The Christian Voice website, almost brags incessantly about how they successfully harassed theatres into dropping Jerry Springer The Opera, with threats of private prosecutions for blasphemy under the Incitement To Racial and Religious Hatred Act.

The show failed to gain massive audiences, due to the fact that theatres across the UK pulled out, because of the intimidation from Christian Voice. The group however said that the show’s failings was due to divine intervention rather than their own actions. Clearly divine intervention didn’t reach far enough, because Jerry Springer The Opera won four awards at the 2004 Laurence Olivier Awards, including Best Sound Design, Best Actor in a Musical, Best Acting in a supporting role, and Best New Musical. Best Musical at the Critics’ Circle Awards, Best Musical at the Evening Standard Awards, Best Touring Production at the TMA Awards, and Best Musical at the Whatsonstage.com Theatre Goers Choice Awards. This all suggests that a magic man made God had nothing to do with the lack of viewers, and more to do with the threats, intimidation, and outright bullshit of Christian fundamentalists and their rather pathetic cult.

Fundamentalist Christians are just as much of a roadblock to the betterment of humanity, as fundamentalist Muslims who insist on calling for the deaths of anyone who draws a picture of the Prophet Mohammad. The very fact that a historical speculation rather than fact is taken so seriously to the point where threats upon a man’s life are made, is evidence to me that we have allowed organised religion to dictate our way of thinking far too much over the years. I have no doubt that those muslim fundamentalists find a picture of Mohammad offensive and derogatory, and that is our fault as a society for allowing it to get that far. Generation after generation of indoctrination, and teaching our children not to think for themselves has created a bunch of angry mindless robots who think that their imaginary man in the sky is worth dying and killing for. We are teaching our children that a person is a religion or a nationality first, and a human being second. Why should it matter?

Whilst a large number of US citizens spend their time complaining that Obama is some evil Marxist for extending a decent standard of healthcare to a higher number of Americans; they had absolute no problem when President George Bush spent billions of US$ sending thousands of soldiers to their pointless deaths, and the deaths of many many innocent Iraqi’s including Children. They took it as a sign that their thuggish imperialistic temperament was endorsed by their God, when George Bush told the Palestinian delegation at peace talks in 2003 that:

‘I am driven with a mission from God’. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me.’

Perhaps when God told George to go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan, he meant that he should personally go, with a sword and shield to fight them, not sit at home in luxury, sending a bunch of kids from low socio-economic backgrounds to their deaths for a few years without actually achieving a thing other than an increased threat from another bunch of crazed fundamentalists other than his own.

I have no doubt that the power that Christianity has, and the illegitimate authority it commands over our lives is a left over from the end of the Renaissance period, and beginning of Enlightenment. John Locke quite famously said that Atheism was:

“not at all to be tolerated because, promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.”

These people have always believed themselves to be the height of human morality. The problem is that hypocrisy is lurking ever so slightly beneath the surface of the claims of people like John Locke. The Popes of the time (Middle Ages/Reformation/Renaissance/Enlightenment/present day) were almost always corrupt and up until very recently, made sure those ‘promises, coventants and oaths’ were keeping entirely with what the Church’s understanding of the words meant (which were always very loose definitions; usually definitions that made the Church richer) and enforced it upon the pain of death for those who dissented.

During his reign in the 15th and 16th Century, Pope Alexander VI (Patron of Raphael, Michelangelo and Bramante) had a long term mistress whom bore him four children. She was married to someone else at the time. That didn’t stop the Pope. Before he became Pope Alexander, Roderic de Borja amassed huge wealth, and used it to bribe electors into electing him to the Papacy. His daughter Lucrezia is said to have bore him a daughter/niece. A contemporary writer in Rome wrote that Lucrezia was “the pope’s daughter, wife and daughter-in-law“. An Ambassador to the Papacy, Burchard, wrote of Alexander introducing his son to his court, and the celebration that ensued:

“On Sunday evening, 30 October [1501], Don Cesare Borja gave his father a supper in the apostolic palace, with 50 decent prostitutes or courtesans in bright garb in attendance, who after the meal danced with the servants and others there, first fully dressed and then naked.
Following the supper, lampstands holding lighted candles were placed on the floor and chestnuts strewn about, which the prostitutes, naked and on their hands and knees, had to pick up with their mouths as they crawled in and out among the lampstands.
The Pope watched and admired their noble parts. The evening ended with an obscene contest of these women, coupled with male servants of the Vatican, for prizes which the Pope presented.
Don Cesare, Donna Lucrezia and the Pope later each took a partner of their liking for further dalliances.”

It was during this period, that the Papacy had a strict control over the lives of its citizens. It was beaten into the brains of its citizens across Europe, that Christianity was not to be questions, or attacked. The penalty for heresy in most parts of the known World, was death. So it is no wonder that we are still living with the remnants of those days; angry self righteous Christians attempting to push their sense of organised communal morality onto the masses through fear and oppressive intolerance. We have seen the death and destruction caused when they have a lot of power. They should have no power.

The power of the Papacy didn’t only exist during the corruption of the Renaissance era. In March 2010, it emerged that the office of the Papacy prevented a 1996 prosecution of Priest Laurence Murphy, who had admitted sexually abusing over 200 young boys. Pope Benedict XVI at the time was in charge of the Catholic Church’s disciplinary offices. A trial was organised, but under orders that it be kept entirely secret. We wouldn’t want to taint the righteous name of the Catholic Church. Murphy then appealed to Benedict (then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) for mercy, and the case was immediately dropped. The Pope therefore, covered up child molestation, to protect the name of the Church.

The mother of one of the victims of Murphy said:

“There should be no institution that is not accountable for what they do, that is able to hide behind the faith. You know the Catholic Church is very powerful and that should not be.”

We should not allow the Papacy, or organised religion in general any kind of say as to how we run our own lives. We shouldn’t feel guilty if our standards are below those put to us by the Church or any other religious institution. I would rather not go to a heaven endorsed by the Catholic Church.

Religion should be individual. A sense of spirituality is not a bad thing in itself. If you find a show offensive to your unproven belief, then don’t watch the show. Do not try to ban it for the rest of us. We have our own minds. Personal faith is not a bad thing. Organised faith are comprised of institutions that should be mocked, laughed at, ignored, and powerless.

So you’re offended, so fucking what?

The Right to Love

August 27th 2009 will mark the one year anniversary of the death of Dorothy Martin. Mrs Martin was a pioneer for lesbian rights, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the 1960s and 1970s across America. Dorothy Martin died two months after fulfilling the dream of her fifty year relationship with girlfriend Phyllis Lyon, by marrying in June 2008, in California. They should be commended for their work. Anti-discrimination laws, the right for a gay lady or gentleman to visit a loved one in hospital, work place regulations in support of gay rights, society as a whole owes both Lyon and Martin a great debt for their courage and their relentless fighting.
I cannot think of a more pro-marriage fight, than that put up by Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

Currently, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa all allow same sex marriage. Vermont is soon to follow on September 1st 2009, and Maine will join that list of States on September 14th 2009. And whilst I welcome the right of the State to provide it’s own definition of marriage ahead of the Federal Government, I’d suggest further that it is the individual’s right to decide what is and isn’t acceptable. It is not the State’s legislature who decide the arrangement of love. If you do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to be married, then simply don’t attend a gay wedding. Legally consenting couples, whether straight or gay have a right to express their love for each other via a ceremony of vows and commitment. It has the business of no one else. It does not impact your daily life. It does not undermine “traditional marriage” (a subject I shall come on to later).

The Defence Of Marriage Act is quite clearly anti-homosexual. I’m not entirely sure what Marriage needs defending from? It’s a thriving business as far as i’m aware. The Defence of Marriage Act, is simply a bigoted few, denying the rights of a section of society, that simply doesn’t conform to the narrow minded Republican view of what is decent and correct. It is indefensible that Congress simply assumes it has the moral authority to decide who should and shouldn’t be recognised as “married”. I’m unsure why same sex marriage is even a question any more, why it’s even debated. It is surely for the two people in any relationship, to decide if they want to take a vow of devotion or not? It is the jurisdiction of politicians on any side of the political divide to decide. As “rights” and as “freedom” goes, the freedom to fall in love and to commit to whomever you so wish, is one of the most basic rights any of us is entitled to, without being punished or alienated.

A rather vicious little group, ironically named “Alliance for Marriage” in 2001 announced it’s intention to create an Amendment to the Constitution that would have ultimately destroyed the right of homosexual couples to be married, whilst alienating them further, as they were sub human. The Amendment was referred to as “The Federal Marriage Amendment“. It would have meant that every State would be forced to recognise, the description of the FMA, which happened to be “SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” A nasty little piece of discriminatory legislation.

In short, the Amendment would have been a step backward, for diversity, tolerance, acceptance and difference. The homosexual community is not an alien race hell bent on destroying America. The homosexual community is no different to the heterosexual community, other than possessing a different preference when it comes to love. They are the Police officials who keep you safe, doctors who keep you alive, fire fighters who save you from burning to death, teachers who prepare your children for the future, they are the Oscar Wilde’s, and the Leonardo Da Vinci’s. It is simply a case of personal preference when it comes to love. Banning same sex marriage is as ridiculous a notion to me, as banning marriage between those with different coloured eyes or hair. It makes no sense. The Federal Marriage Act was a disgusting piece of legislation. The Federal Bigotry Act would have certainly been a more apt name. The Constitution is not a tool for discrimination.

Shockingly, Gallup reports that 40% of people asked, believe Homosexuality itself (not gay marriage) should not be legal. 40% of people asked would like to criminalise people, purely for being gay.

In order to pass into law, and become a Constitutional Amendment, the proposal had to attract the votes of two thirds of each House, and ratification by three fourths of the States. On July 18th 2006, a vote took place in the U.S House of Representatives, and failed by 236 yea to 187 nay votes. It needed 290 votes to pass the House. Whilst I welcome it’s failure, 236 yeas is slightly worrying, for perhaps the World’s most powerful and apparently “free” nation. The deeply held bigoted attitudes still in force.

The Constitution of the United States thankfully possesses the clause, Article IV, Section 1, which states quite unequivocally “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” States are required, by the Constitution, to recognise the marriage rights of those who were married in other States. George Bush, said at the time “A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people“. A statement that is quite frankly regressive, and a product of the eight years of the Presidency of Bush – fear. Why is it “critical to American families and American society” that same sex marriage be banned? Given the past eight years, i’d suggest that letting Texans run for President is critical not just to American society, but Global society as a whole. George Bush would have decided that because he doesn’t approve of the relationship between Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon, that it is therefore “un-American” by the standards of the Constitutional Amendment, he shamefully backed. For the 21st Century, I cannot believe an Amendment was even discussed.

Ex Republican Congressman, Richard Curtis voted against banning discrimination against Homosexuals, he also voted against domestic partnerships for Homosexual couples. In 2007, Curtis (who is married and has two daughters, and is very very anti-gay rights) was forced to resign his position, because he was found to have dressed in women’s clothes, and had sex with a male gay porn model named Cody Castagna, in a hotel room, in Washington. A smile was brought to my face when I read this story.

It seems the American Right is unwilling to move forward. Although, that’s nothing new.

In 1924, the Virginia Legislature passed a law entitled “The Racial Integrity Act” which made interracial marriage illegal. The idea, was to kill off any It was not until 1967, in the case of Loving V Virginia, that the United States Supreme Court overturned the ruling, when interracial couple Mildred and Richard Loving were sentenced to a year in Jail, simply for marrying. They worked tirelessly to overturn the Racial Integrity Act and were successful in 1967. To us here in 2009, the entire idea of blocking interracial marriage, is abhorrent. The Judge presiding over the case of the Loving’s, which sentenced them to a year in Prison, is quoted as saying:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Religion. Of course it’s Religion. Whenever someone feels the need to discriminate, or impose bigoted judgements on others, they tend to use the Bible to help justify the unjustifiable. As with the Lovings case, the fundamental argument against same-sex marriage, comes from the frankly ridiculous religious notion that traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, and nothing more. It sounds as if the Bible is strict and straight forward in it’s proposals on marriage. It simply isn’t. It is therefore perplexing as to why those with such deeply held Christian principles of the Religious Right, are wasting their time focusing on same sex marriage, when they should also be focusing on Biblical insistances they otherwise tend to pretend don’t exist?
1 Corinthians 11:8-9, which states “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” is pretty straight forward in suggesting that women should exist simple to serve men. Can I expect a “Role Of Women in Society Act“?
David is admired, by Christendom, and so perhaps those with such strong opinions against Gay marriage from a Religious stand point, could help introduce legislation to allow polygamy, because as 2 Samuel 5:13 quite clearly states, the role model that is David “…took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.“
I’m guessing it’s only a matter of time before those guardians of all that is moral and decent in the World, over at “Alliance for Marriage” really do themselves proud by truly sticking to what the Bible says of family life, especially in relation to Genesis 19:31-32, which says:
“One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
Only recently has marriage started to become more about love, than strengthening family ties. Nobles throughout 16th Century Europe would almost invoke Exodus 21:7, by “selling” their daughters into prominent Catholic families, to strengthen relations. A great example of this, would be of Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, who was set aside to marry Arthur Tudor, the son of Henry VII of England, purely to strengthen the claim of the Tudor’s to the throne of England due to Isabella’s Royal English ancestry. This wasn’t a match made out of love. Neither was Catherine’s subsequent marriage to Arthur’s brother Henry, who of course became the tyrant, Henry VIII. Love and marriage (whilst a fantastic Sinatra song) did not go together like “a horse and carriage“, until very very recently. “Tradition” is irrelevant.

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that homosexuality is unnatural and damaging to society. No it isn’t. Religious intolerance though, now that’s damaging to society. Wars, death, torture, inability to accept the diversity of humanity, is so disastrously detrimental to the future of society, to blame homosexuality is pathetic at best and shockingly ignorant at worst. And surely it is not unnatural to disagree in principle with Aquinas’ teachings on the theory of Natural Law. It is surely unnatural though, to repress your desires and your very human needs, just to suit the narrow minded, homophobic views of a few bigoted individuals and their pretty damn evil God. Religion, is far more unnatural.

I’m not entirely sure that dogmatic Religious nonsense is to blame though. I’d suggest that homophobia comes is simply an illogical prejudice, and that the Bible is purely used to apply justification for such ridiculous prejudices. The Bible is nothing more than a tool to advance individual bigotry.

If the opponents of same-sex marriage could give me legitimate reasons why homosexual couples, in loving relationships, should not be allowed to marry, i’m more than willing to debate this with you.