It would have escaped the notice of most of the world that, in recent weeks, threats, bombs and physical attacks have been aimed at the manager of Celtic Soccer club in Glasgow, Scotland.  It’s actually a strange situation in Scotland, and Glasgow in particular.  The two biggest teams in Scotland are Glasgow Rangers and Glasgow Celtic.  Religion is thread right through them, with Celtic being formed specifically as a fundraising exercise for a religious charity.  The rivalry between these two highly successful clubs goes beyond the soccer pitch.

Roughly speaking, 70% of Celtic fans are Catholic whilst 70% of Rangers fans are Protestant (source [PDF]).  This creates a rivalry that goes beyond that usually seen between local teams.

This rivalry has really boiled over this season, and taken an ugly turn.  The focal point of the troubles has been Celtic manager Neil Lennon.  Apart from being a rather controversial individual, with a temper and taste for provocation, Lennon is of Northern Irish descent and was raised a Catholic.  Lennon’s personality, religion and nationality has created somewhat of a perfect storm in the already cloudy city of Glasgow, where sectarianism has been a long standing issue.

And it’s important to point out that this is sectarianism.  These two factions believe in the same God, the same book, and share broadly the same values.  It makes the events that have been unfolding over the years even harder to understand for those of us not clouded by the idiocy of religion.

Neil Lennon is not a stranger to sectarian trouble.  Whilst still a player he had to retire from international football after receiving death threats from certain sections of the Northern Irish fan base.  Northern Ireland being the spiritual home of sectarian violence and other idiocy.  Even back then he was being sent bullets in the mail.  Lately the issues surrounding Lennon have escalated somewhat, culminating with a “fan” attacking him on the side of the pitch during a recent cup game.

Make no mistake, this is a real mess.  And these are not idle threats being made, a viable parcel bomb has been sent to Lennon and other high-profile Celtic fans from a Scottish address, whilst another was intercepted on its way from Ireland.  It’s also entirely unfair to paint the Celtic party as the victim, as this is a rivalry that goes both ways.

The links to Northern Ireland are both prominent and disruptive.  It’s not unusual to see the Union Jack being displayed at Rangers whilst the Ulster Banner hangs at Celtic, demonstrating the desire to remain in/separate from the United Kingdom.  Much of the racism that rears its head around these events is linked to Northern Ireland, and not Scotland (although some of it is anti-Irish and emanates from the Scots).

Whilst the source of these issues clearly go beyond religion, touching on ideology, politics, regional tribalism, racism and lots of other shameful traits, the pervasive core is sectarianism.  Scotland is making attempts to address these issues, but clearly they underestimate the amount of hate certain factions feel towards those who believe in the same God.  And this is all happening against a background of an increase in hate crimes, with a 10% rise in sectarianism.

The reason I’ve brought this up is that these troubles simply do not get enough coverage.  Soccer, especially Scottish Soccer, doesn’t exactly set the heart a flutter for many, so these things can get glossed over.  You’ll notice that the links scattered throughout this article are to British media sources, as very few American or International agencies have decent coverage of the events and underlying issues.  After picking up on this story a few weeks ago, and doing a bit of research, I’m staggered by the actions of those involved, and I think many would share that opinion if only they knew about it.  The fact that someone can be threatened, attacked and ostracized simply for subscribing to a certain ideology and being associated with a Soccer club, in a developed country, in the 21st Century should be a source of shame not just for those directly involved, but Scotland and the rest of the world.

To an atheist such as myself, the entire concept of sectarianism is baffling.  It’s as if Team Edward and Team Jacob started sending letter bombs to each other.  These are groups of people arguing, fighting, over the way a book is to be interpreted (and the scope of influence of things outside of the book – for a quick reference to the differences between Team Edward Catholics and Team Jacob Protestants there’s a handy chart here).  It’s a step beyond the idiocy involved in arguing which fictional book you should base your life on, the usual source of religious hate.

Madness doesn’t begin to cover it.  Oh, and on the pitch?  Glasgow Ranger won the Scottish Premier League Title whilst Glasgow Celtic won the Scottish Cup, not that anyone cares.

However, Family Radio is an organization that managed to raise in excess of $85million (some have put the figure closer to $105 million).  So there’s clearly enough people out there willing to believe their madness.  Harold Camping isn’t just a misguided man, he’s an incredibly irresponsible misguided man.  There’s a also a case to be made that he’s manipulative and dishonest.

Whether you think of Camping as just an every day crazy, or an evil, manipulative, wicked old man will depend largely on one thing, whether you think he truly believed the world was going to end on May 21st 2011.  Given the energy and enthusiasm he put in to the claims, one might lean towards believing in him, but scratch beneath the surface and there’s a little more going on.

Firstly, let’s establish why making claims of imminent rapture is an incredibly irresponsible thing to do.  Even the most outrageous claims run the risk of being believed, just look at all the tragic cults we’ve had over the years. And, as it turns out, people believed Camping’s claims.

Unfortunately, believing the world is genuinely going to end makes people do crazy things, they have nothing to lose.  They do stupid things.  REALLY stupid things.  Selling all your belongings is one thing, murdering your child is another.

Those people really believed the world was going to end.  Harold Camping planned to spend the day at home, watching TV.

“I’ll probably try to be very near a TV or a radio or something,” he said. “I’ll be interested in what’s happening on the other side of the world as this begins.”

You’d think that if he were really confident in his prediction, he’d have some sort of rapture party for the saved.  Unfortunately, appearing in public would have left Camping somewhat exposed to the very much still here public. Note that he’s also not sold his house, or his possessions (unless he’s got some sort of magic rapture TV or Radio).

So is this where the fun really begins?  Where we watch Camping trying to backtrack and explain his way out of this? Or will he just return the millions of dollars he misappropriated from vulnerable individuals?  If past raptures are anything to go by, we eon’t get anything.  Camping’s original Rapture prediction wasn’t May 2011, it was September 1994.  Again, this was fairly widely publisized and obviously never happened.  The real shocking thing though, is that Camping has, to this day, never explained why he got it wrong.  So I wouldn’t bet on getting an explanation out of him this time either, perhaps he wasn’t meant to know.  After all, when you’ve got close to a hundred million dollars in your back pocket, there aren’t many questions you need to answer.

State Visit

As pointed out in the open letter to UK paper The Guardian, much of the opposition to the Pope’s visit is the way it has been funded. The Pope was invited by Queen Elizabeth II as a head of state, thus rendering the visit an official “State Visit”. This means that the UK taxpayer picking up the tab for large portions of the visit. The cost of letting a Pope into your country? In excess of $20 million not including police protection, which would probably run another $10 million. For a country which has more non-cathcolics than Catholics, it seems a bit on the expensive side.

Third World Country

Prior to the visit, one of the Pope’s official advisors, and member of the visiting party Cardinal Walter Kasper, made a statement that the UK was like a “third world country”.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless of how ignorant.  But the noble Cardinal went on to clarify…

Cardinal Walter Kasper told German magazine Focus that someone landing at Heathrow airport might think they were in a ‘Third World country’ as there are such a variety of multicultural faces there.

Oh, so he’s not just an idiot, he’s a racist idiot.  Such was the backlash that he pulled out of the tour before it started.  But of course, this is the Catholic Church, so they can’t just apologize and state that Cardinal Kasper is pulling out of the tour to prevent any offence, no, instead they are claiming illness.  but once again, public relations aren’t their strong point, so the illness that they chose was gout.

Affecting around 1–2% of the Western population at some point in their lives, gout has increased in frequency in recent decades. This is believed to be due to increasing risk factors in the population such as metabolic syndrome, longer life expectancy, and changes in diet. Gout was historically known as “the disease of kings” or “rich man’s disease”.

I’m sure the starving Catholics in third world countries who are dying of AIDS, and spreading AIDS because this Pope has forbidden the use of condoms have real sympathy for someone suffering the “disease of kings”.

The Pope’s Views

If you’ve read this blog before you’ll no doubt be aware that I find the Catholic Church to be one of the most despicable organisations on the planet.  We’ve had the the Church, or representatives thereof, claiming child abuse is linked to homosexuality, abusive clergymen weren’t technically pedophiles and generally sweeping the problem of child abuse under the carpet.  It is not a nice organisation that refuses to face up to its problems whilst simultaneously blaming everyone else for it’s own problems.

The Catholic Church needed a bold leader who would front up to its problems and weed them out.  A leader who would change the public image of the Church by being more open, honest, accountable and inclusive.  Instead they got Pope Benedict XVI.

His views on contraception and women’s rights are antiquated.  His protection of those who abused children is disgusting. His demonisation of homosexuality appalling.  This does not make him popular in relatively liberal developed countries, such as the UK.

His Speech

Given the controversy of the visit for the points noted above, the Pope (or his advisors assuming he is not the one who writes his own speeches) chose to court yet more controversy.  In his opening speech he decided to associate atheism with the Nazi party.

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny”

There are a few things that need to be pointed out in response to this ridiculous gibberish.

Firstly, perhaps we should consider that this isn’t an insult at all.  After all, he was in the Hitler Youth and later served as an anti-aircraft gunner in the German army during WWII.  He knows Nazis, and maybe he liked them.  He may have been comparing us to people he likes.

Furthermore, I’d like to refer you to this:

Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany’s entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years.

A reasonable person might draw some similarities between the views of Pope Benedict XVI and the speech above.  So who is this person that seems to share the Pope’s views?  Why it’s everyone’s favourite Nazi, Adolf Hitler.

So what other pearls of wisdom did the Pope have to pass on?

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.

What are the “sobering lessons of atheist extremism”?  Let’s take a stab at them, shall we?

1. Don’t put people who are ordered to suppress their sexuality in charge of minors and entrust them with their care.
2. Allow the use of condoms because they prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS and HIV.  Emphasise this especially in poorer countries where good healthcare is not available.
3. Don’t oppress women.
4. Don’t oppress homosexuals.

Ah, I see the problem there.  Those are the lessons we’ve learned from the actions of the Catholic Church, not atheist extremism.  The problem being that the Catholic Church has not learned these lessons, and probably never will.

The Demonstrations

Sir Ian McKellen at the protest

As I write this there are reports coming in of more than 10,000 people peacefully protesting against the Pope’s visit in London.

What’s interesting about this protest is the wide range of communities it has pulled together.  In many ways, this is one of the great benefits of the Pope’s visit.  There are secularists, gay rights activists, women’s rights activists, people campaigning for justice on the issue of child abuse and even Catholics who are opposed to the direction in which their church is heading.

But of course, despite all the negative media coverage world wide, the criticizm from all corners and now a major protest, the catholic Church still thinks the Pope has been “well received”.

That level of ignorance is so out of character for the Church and its leaders I’m shocked.

I am, of course, referring to the ongoing, and growing, child sex abuse scandal.

They could have admitted responsibility, fronted up to their issues and addressed them.  This might then give the church an opportunity to grow after the events.  To be reborn, if you will.  And while I’m not particularly keen on a zombie Pope, it’s painful watching the Catholic Church lash around, in its death throws.  Someone needs to put them out of their misery.

But rather than taking responsibility, and fronting up to a problem that’s been described as “systemic“, the Church has continued with its tactics of misdirection and avoidance.  The latest developments are nothing short of shocking.

Let’s start at the top.  The Pope, himself accused of shielding abusers in the Church, avoided the topic entirely in his Easter Sermon.  There were mentions of  profound crisis facing humanity and the need for a “spiritual and moral conversation”.  I’ll offer a tip here, if you genuinely want a “spiritual and moral conversation” avoiding the topic at hand yourself is not conducive to triggering an open conversation.  But perhaps that’s the point.  I doubt many other people feel like we need a conversation on this point.  We know what the individuals is wrong, and we know they should be punished.  We know the actions (or inactions) of local, national and international Church leaders were wrong, and should be punished.  The average person on the street does not need to discuss these issues, they need action to be taken.  And that goes doubly for the victims.

Taking a step down, The Pope’s personal preacher, Raniero Cantalamessa, decided to compare the current position of the Church to anti-semitism.  To quote from the sermon, which was published in full on the front page of the Vatican’s NewsPaper:

The use of stereotypes and the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism

It should be noted that Father Cantalamessa was supposedly quoting a letter from a “Jewish friend”, however I’m yet to meet any Jewish person who would compare the atrocities committed in the name of anti-semitism with the fair and justified accusations being levelled at the Catholic Church.

At a time when the entire Church should be grovelling for the world’s collective apologies I find it one of the most tasteless remarks ever uttered.  Even the apology stinks of self-righteousness and arrogance:

If I inadvertently hurt the feelings of Jews and pedophilia victims, I sincerely regret it and I apologize

If you, like me, are still getting the impression that the Church isn’t taking the sex abuse scandal seriously, then the latest remarks should really seal the deal.  Cardinal Angelo Sodano said the following:

The people of God are with you, and they won’t let themselves be influenced by the gossip of the moment, by the attempts being made to strike the community of the faithful

In one sentence that concisely sums up the Church’s position on the matter Cardinal Sodana called the somewhat proven pedophilia scandal “gossip” and then claimed that the accusations, mostly coming from victims who were abused as children, are attacks on the “community of the faithful”.  Quite frankly, the “community of the faithful” could do worse than completely distancing themselves from an institution that seems to entice, groom and protect pedophiles.  If there is a God, and if he/she/it/them does pass final judgement, one would imagine that the Catholic Church and its associates would be at the sharp end of a swinging axe.  And don’t think you’re safe because you weren’t directly involved, considering this is a God that is willing to punish us all for “original sin”, guilty by association seems to be in season.

Over the last few weeks the remarks coming out of the Church sends out a message that suggests a number of things.  Namely that they still aren’t taking the allegations seriously, and that there is some ongoing attempt to discredit and splinter the Church through such allegations.  The Church will never get through this problem until it faces up to it.

One might ask where the Catholic Church might start if it were to clear its ranks, purge the offenders and the conspirators.  Well, one of the most sickening cases of child abuse was a case of Father Lawrence Murphy, who for almost 25 years abused deaf children.  He was the only one they could communicate with, and he took advantage of that, and their trust.  Father Murphy died in 1998, so he’s off the hook.  So how about the person who hid him in the Church?  The person who allowed him to continue to work with children.  The person who was head of the Vatican department who dealt with Child abuse claims during that time.  Who was that again?

So it was with great interest I came across a recent study, called “Why Don’t We Practice What We Preach? A Meta-Analytic Review of Religious Racism”, that examined racism and religiosity in America. This was a meta-study, which in fact took in data from 55 separate studies, which in turn collected information from 20,000+ mostly white, mostly Christian Americans. Carl Marziali summarised the study on the USC (University of Southern California) website. To quote:

“So perhaps it’s no surprise that the strongly religious people in our research, who were mostly white Christians, discriminated against others who were different from them — blacks and minorities”

The full study can be found here (warning, requires subscription).

What’s interesting about this study is that the author has gone some way to show causation between racism and religiosity. The general concept underlying this theory stems from what appears to be two fundamental issues with religion.

The first is that religion tends to be practiced within closed social, geographically limited, racially similar groups. This is a discussion I’ve had many times with many religious friends, that were they born in a mostly Muslim country, rather than a mostly Christian country, they would be Muslim rather than Christian. Replaced country with family, or social group, and the effect is still present and clear. If you have a personality that is predisposed to believe in the intangible and unprovable, you will believe in the most prevalent ideology in your social group.

The second concept revolves around morality. The various world religions attempt to achieve ownership of morality. Each proclaims to be more morally robust than the rest. When this self-important, arrogant and “holier than thou” attitude is combined with the sort of social exclusion seen in religious social groups it is natural to see those who are not part of your closed group as immoral. And therefore inferior.

The study concludes that this correlation is strongest amongst those who are the most devout followers of religion, although a strong correlation still exists even with so-called “moderates”. The study does make reference to the fact that these moderates are more likely to want to appear to not be racist, but this was just “lip service”, and did not represent their true views.

An interesting point that is explored addresses the various degrees of correlation between religiosity and racism when compared to the respondent’s reasons for being religious. Understandably, those who are religious out of some mis-guided attempt to fit in with a particular social group became less racist as it became more socially unacceptable. Note that it is the opinion of others that is important to these people, rather than any internal or external moral compass or the desire to do what is “right”.

Note: I’d like to point out that the potential causation has to be taken at face value. The results of the study do not confirm nor deny this causation. Additionally, the suggested causes are more closely associated with the social situations religious people tend to find themselves in, especially when growing up, as opposed to religion itself. I’ve not seen a similar study that uses respondents from social groups that are closed for reasons other than religion in order to perform a fair comparison. One could certainly argue that if there was no religion, these closed (and closed minded) social groups would not exist in the first place, which would in turn break down certain barriers in society.

Is this campaign just wanton scaremongering by religious extremists as a cover for retaining the right to irrational prejudice? Or is the government really trying to narrow existing law so as to curtail the exemptions from employment discrimination law to which religious organisations are entitled under the law?

Interesting, no? Interesting not because the British Government is looking to clarify these laws (some might say extend), but rather because the exemption for religious organisations in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations Act 2003 existed in the first place.

The best part of this debate is, by some way, the statement issued by three Bishops on the matter for the Church of England.  The statement, entitled “Churches must not face further restrictions” could be a work of comedy genius, but instead it’s a rambling, contradictory and bigoted response to a law that should do no more than provide equal rights.  Even the title is telling.  The Church sees this potential change as “restrictive”, despite the fact that any normal person would be hard pressed to describe the law as anything other than removing extant restrictions imposed by the Church.  Are they talking about the Church being restricted from imposing their own restrictions? If so, do they have any concept of just how ludicrous that sounds?

As if that wasn’t enough to make you dismiss them out of hand as a group of outdated hypocrites, they also throw in this:

At stake is how we, as a liberal democracy based on Christian values, strike the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of different groups to be protected from harassment and unfair discrimination and the rights of churches and religious organisations to appoint and employ people consistently with their guiding doctrine and ethos.

I think that’s pretty clear.  On the one hand you have those fighting for “the rights and responsibilities of different groups to be protected from harassment and unfair discrimination” and on the other side you have the Church.  When that’s the argument you’re trying to make, there must a point where you look in the mirror and wonder why you want to discriminate against fellow human beings for no reason other than a 2,000 year old book tells you to (or is it just because they fear change)?

It showed that microscopic worm-like structures found in a Martian meteorite that hit the Earth 13,000 years ago are almost certainly fossilised bacteria. The so-called bio-morphs are embedded beneath the surface layers of the rock, suggesting that they were already present when the meteorite arrived, rather than being the result of subsequent contamination by Earthly bacteria.

This is being described by the scientists involved as “strong” evidence for Martian life.

Whilst clearly fascinating from a scientific point of view, I’ve always wondered what impact the discovery of extra-terrestrial life would have on religion (just for the sake of clarity, I’m not claiming this is a discovery of extra-terrestrial life).

In particular, how does the existence of extra-terrestrial life fit in with the Genesis account of creation?  It could be interpreted such that “earth” refers to any solid land mass, regardless of planet (how else would the existence of planets be described?) or that everything extra-terrestrial could be considered to be part of “heaven”.  Of course, these are questions on the literal interpretation of the Bible, which, as we all know, is not quite as popular as it used to be (Genesis in particular).

The question is pertinent for scientists as well.  What impact would the discovery of extra-terrestrial life have on modern day science?  I suspect the answer to both questions would be dependant on the stage of development that life is in.  If the discovered life forms had developed faculties such as cognitive reasoning, would we look to them for guidance?  What if they had no concept of a God? What if they could accurately explain the origin of the universe, beyond doubt?  Or what if they did believe in Gods, and what if they were different to the popular “earth” Gods? What if they weren’t?

We live in such exciting times.

Alien image by Mujitra.  Picture is not of Martian bacteria, in case you hadn’t guessed.

One might argue that anyone who is taken in by the claims of any religion might be considered gullible, or vulnerable, but there are certainly those who are more gullible than others.  I’ve written previously about psychics and mediums, and the way they exploit certain members of our society (and there were some fantastic comments on that post by people who had been taken in by those scammers) but these tactics certainly aren’t limited to the less mainstream belief systems.

A recent example of this is the case of 10,000 people turning up to Knock in Ireland because two visionaries predicted that an apparition of the Virgin Mary would appear.  Yes, unfortunately you read that correctly, 10,000 people.  By now you’re probably assuming that one of two things happened.  Either the apparition did appear, converting every heathen atheist in one foul swoop or it didn’t, and these “visionaries” were laughed out of town.

Well, this blog is still here and active, so I guess option 1 didn’t pan out, so they must have been laughed out of town, right? Again, unfortunately not.

Mr Coleman left the shrine before 4pm, claiming he had witnessed an aparition, as he had anticipated. He said he had received communication from the Virgin Mary but insisted that he was as yet unprepared to reveal the nature of the message.

So one of the “visionaries” saw the apparition he predicted, provided no proof, no verified witness accounts and doesn’t even want to describe what happened.  Those of us who are inclined to question things might, at this point, be crying foul.  Fortunately for the “visionaries” their target audience are those who do not question, those who are used to believing absurdities, Catholics.

Like most scams, there is an ingenuity to this.  The “visionaries” announced that:

…the visitation would only be visible “to people who come with an open heart”.

This is a statement that crops up whenever supernatural acts come under scrutiny.  If you don’t see/experience/feel it, then you aren’t worthy/open (delete as appropriate).

There are two very interesting aspects to this case.  Firstly, this has been done before by the same visionaries.

Earlier this month an estimated 5,000 gathered at Knock Shrine for a similar gathering with some people claiming to have seen the sun dancing in the sky.

The sun dancing in the sky.  The sun, dancing in the sky.  To qualify that claim, I’d like to point you to this description of the TV coverage:

I saw it on TV here in Ireland yesterday. The camera panned across the crowd and there was a 50ish woman using binoculars to get a better look - of the sun! Yup, this stuff truly is for idiots.

So clearly the only logical explanation for that is the sun moving in the sky, but only being visible in that particular part of the world.  Witnesses doing damage to their eyes by staring at the sun couldn’t possibly explain what they saw.

The second interesting aspect to this is that it’s very nearly illegal to actually criticise this event in Ireland.  The absurd, draconian blasphemy law is doing it’s best to allow the vulnerable to continue to be exploited by people like these “visionaries” (to be clear, I’m not suggesting that they are directly gaining in financial terms from these apparitions) because no one dares speak out against them for fear of prosecution.  A law like that curtails free speech, permits the vulnerable to be exploited and pushes back progress in religious discourse decades.

And this really brings me back to the point of this post.  Atheists, at times, do things that I don’t agree with. They, occasionally, make me embarrassed to be an atheist.  Fortunately, this is a rare occurrence.  If I were religious, I’d be incredibly angry at events like this which make theists look unstable, deranged, jealous, paranoid and incredibly gullible.  How can theists be expected to be taken seriously when things like this happen again and again?  As I’ve learned, you sometimes get tarred with the same brush as the worst of your kind.

Sheep picture by jetteketet.

The quotes are taken from a Guardian article that quotes Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN.

The first thing that Archbishop Tomasi addresses is pedophillia, or rather that he believes that the majority of clergy members involved in child abuse would better be classified as ephebophiles.  An ephebophile is someone who has sexual preference for pubescent males.

“Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17.”

This is PR drivel of the highest order.  Developed society considers those who have a sexual preference for those below the age of consent as pedophiles.  The 11-17 age range also seems somewhat broad and open to interpretation.  The breach of trust that is so often a defining factor in clergy abuse cases tends to apply more to the lower end of that age range.

The objective of the Church here is to disassociate itself from the negative connotations of pedophillia, and reclassify the crime as something else.  Something that doesn’t immediately cause common society to gasp in horror.  I’ve called this PR drivel, but let’s be honest, this is a rebranding exercise.  The Catholic Church is trying to rebrand their pedophiles.

The other nugget of information Archbishop Tomasi slipped out was that only 1.5% to 5% of Catholic Clergy were involved in Child abuse.  Two things should astonish you about this.  Firstly, the numbers involved.  According to numerous sources ( e.g. here) the number of Catholic Clergy is currently around 400,000 and growing.  That means there are approximately 6,000 to 20,000 pedophiles in their organisation.  And not only that, but we have to remember, these are the ones the Church knows of.  Given the track record of this particular organisation, one would be justified in assuming that the actual number is significantly higher.

At this point I should point out that this article was written a number of weeks ago and left languishing in my drafts folder.  I decided to finish it, and release it to the world after reading about Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens winning a debate on whether the Catholic Church was a force for good.  They argued, successfully, that it was not, citing amongst other things:

“institutionalisation of the rape and torture and maltreatment of children”

As an aside, if you enjoy reading news articles that were clearly written through gritted teeth, I’d recommend reading the linked story from The Catholic Herald.

Some might argue that it would be difficult to prove the Catholic Church is a force for good even without the systemic child abuse, but with it, it’s somewhat of a laughing stock.

The first one is from the BBC, which describes the case of a Jewish couple who are taking legal action after the management company in charge of their holiday apartment installed motion-triggered lights.

This is, apparently, religious discrimination because their religion dictates that they are not allowed to switch on any lights during the Sabbath (or Shabbat). That anyone can even begin to think this is a valid legal claim seems absurd.

The orthodox Jewish rules surrounding the Sabbath are certainly some of the strangest in major religion. Many Jews find ways of circumventing the rules, enabling them to live reasonably normal lives on the Sabbath. This includes setting electrical equipment on timers and the employment of “Shabbot Goys“, people who perform tasks on the Sabbath. It seems like the rules are being technically adhered to, but not spiritually adhered to.

The issue here is that the other residents of the apartments will end up paying the legal fees to fight these absurd claims (personally, I don’t think they should dignify it with a response. To respond is to lend credibility). One the one hand you’ve got the entirely sensible, responsible approach of having motion triggered lights (not only are they ecologically friendly, but as they are triggered when needed they also represent a safe environment) while on the other hand you’ve got ridiculous religious beliefs that are only tolerated because they are based on religion. If this couple claimed that they were simply scared of these lights (witchcraft!), they would be laughed out of court.

And let’s not forget, it truly is fear that’s driving this, the punishment for breaking these rules is death. So if these people are to be believed, simply walking out of their door and inadvertently turning on a light on the Sabbath means they should be put to death. If that alone doesn’t sum up the ridiculousness of the situation, then I’m afraid nothing will.

The second story comes from opposing views and it titled “Religious Right Pushes Creationism Into Ohio School“. I mention the title specifically because it underplays the severity of the situation. The story, originally sourced from The Columbus Dispatch, talks of the case of a teacher who has filed a lawsuit against the school board claiming that they have violated his constitutional and civil rights by trying to stop him from promoting his religion in the classroom.

A more sensible view to take would be to say that the children’s human, constitutional and civil rights would be violated were he allowed to promote Christianity in the classroom. But we shouldn’t really be expecting anything sensible from the religious right, should we. So in what way was he trying to promote his religiousness?

“The board announced last June that it intended to fire Freshwater for preaching his Christian beliefs about how the world began, discrediting evolution and deviating from the required science curriculum. An investigation initiated by the board found that Freshwater used a high-voltage lab tool to burn crosses into the arms of students and that he told them gays were sinners.“

Wait, what? This isn’t about religion, this is about common assault and his views on sexuality. He burned children’s arms with a lab tool. He told them homosexuals were sinners. This isn’t someone we should be allowing the freedom of legal action, he should be locked up with the key thrown away. He branded children with a religious mark, can you imagine the outrage that would occur were this a pentagram he scared them with and not a cross?

There are certainly some oddities in this story. Not least the teacher involved, John Freshwater, who is actually an eighth-grade science teacher. In my mind, anyone who accepts creationism, or intelligence design, or any deity, is inherently unqualified to be a science teacher. How can you talk with any experience of the scientific method when you accept ridiculous claims that simply crumble when exposed to any level of scrutiny. In my mind, the two things are simply incompatible.

It’s easy to be outraged by any aspect of this story. We have a science teacher peddling lies to trusting students, a teacher physically abusing students and then the perpetrator of these acts trying to claim he is a victim. I really don’t know where to begin, so I’ll just end there and throw it open to you.