The Journal of Integrity

The most senior judge in Saudi Arabia has said it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV channels which broadcast immoral programmes.

I hate religion…

For the second time in as many months, budding Northern Irish theocrat and general uber-bitch Iris Robinson MP has descended to new levels of wanton ignorance with her pronunciation before a Northern Ireland Grand Committee that “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children”.

Iris Robinson MP, in her human form above.

This would-be-laughable-if-she-wasn’t-an-elected-offical statement is apparently typical of the heterosexual life partner of the North’s First Minister Peter Robinson, who recently had these words of advice for a local homosexual man who had been assaulted because of his orientation:

“I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals – trying to turn away from what they are engaged in,”

Mrs. Robinson punctuated these particular shitstorms with her declaration that “It is the government’s responsibility to uphold God’s law” during a radio debate regarding abortion laws in the North.

There is a final metaphorical kick in the nads- Did I mention she happens to be the Chair of the Health Committee?

In any case, as all good liberal boys and girls know, Mrs. Robinson is entitled to spew whatever invective she likes in the name of free speech. Perhaps, if we are feeling generous, we might even applaud her honesty. After all, it does say in the Bible, that homosexuality is an abomination. At least Mrs. Robinson is being consistent.

Well…sort of…

“What I say I base on biblical pronouncements, based on God’s word. I am amazed that people are surprised when I quote from scriptures. It shows the churches either aren’t preaching God’s word or are watering it down,”

In the interests of the Biblical consistency Mrs. Robinson aspires to, I have taken the liberty of pointing out/paraphrasing a few other divine edicts which are also mandated in Leviticus, which, unlike Mrs. Robinson, is not simply obsessed with the notion of anal sex. Bear in mind, that the government is supposed to be upholding these laws, according to Iris.
[The following is derived from material found in The New Gay Book of Lists by Leigh W. Rutledge]

1: Dear Mrs. Robinson, please be careful never to use the Lord’s name in vain, or you’ll have to be put to death. (Lev. 24:16)

2: Make sure never to cook your husband a nice fry-up of sausages and rashers in the morning. It’s unclean you see, something to do with cloven feet and chewing the cud… (Lev. 11:7–8) [ If you look elsewhere you’ll find shellfish are also prohibited, so no prawn cocktail for lunch today either!]

3: Have you got any pets? They’ll be handy if you sin unwittingly, although you’ll have to be specific. Depending on what sin you commit you’ll be sacrificing anything from bulls to turtledoves. (Lev. 4:1–10)

4: Better get your husband to make sure none of those psychic hotlines are operating out of Northern Ireland. As you know from reading Leviticus, these people are to be put to death. (stoned, if we’re being specific) (Lev. 20:27)

5: If you’re finding this all a chore to follow, having to buy animals every day to atone for your various sins, creating a healthy and nutritious diet that avoids pork, shellfish, and blood pudding (Lev. 3:17) why not buy a slave to take some of the work off your hands? (Lev. 25:44–46) says it’s ok, so long as you buy from the nations around you. Or tourists, they’re fair game too.

6: I know it doesn’t apply to you, paragon of femininity that you are, but you might want to warn your clean-shaven husband that he’s violating the word of God. Lev. 19:27 clearly prohibits the trimming of the hair or beard.

7: While you’re busy upholding God’s law, don’t forget to make it illegal for disabled people to go to mass. (Lev. 21:18–23) Especially not the dwarfs.

8: Better tell the farmers, no breeding cattle of different kinds, no sowing two kinds of seed in the same field and for the love of all that’s good and holy, under no circumstances must you let a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee!!! (Lev. 19:19)

Perspective is a wonderful thing.

What a retard…

Vote No

I found these today, and I don’t think I’ve posted them before.

Also, I mentioned this motivational image to some friends the other day.

From the Middle Ages.

The handbooks listed recommended penance of bread, water, and abstinence for exotic congress. A consensus on the punishments included the following:

Dorsal sex (woman on top): three years
Lateral, seated, standing: 40 days
Coitus retro — rear entry: 40 days
Mutual masturbation: 30 days
Inter-femural sex — ejaculation between the legs: 40 days
Coitus in terga — anal sex: three years (with an adult); two years (with a boy); seven years (habitual); 10 years (with a cleric)

Theologians were divided on the punishment for coitus interruptus, the withdrawal method that frustrated procreation, arguing for a penance of between two and 10 years, while semenem in ore (semen in the mouth) could attract anywhere from three to 15 years. Pierre de La Padule added that sex during menstruation, sex in churches and sex preceded by kissing and fondling were almost as bad as the previously mentioned positions. Masturbation was so common that it only incurred a 10-day penalty for men and 30 days for monks, but women who used “erotic devices” did penance for one year.

Notice how anal sex with a boy is deemed to be less egregious than anal sex with an adult. Plus ça change…

The whole article is well worth reading. It’s a great example of religious attitudes towards human pleasure. It also kind of reminds of something Matt Skiba said in an interview I saw the other day, where he said that, were heaven and hell to exist, he’d much rather go hell than heaven, since heaven sound like the most boring place imaginable. I believe his exact words were something like, “If I’m going to be stuck somewhere for eternity then at least I’d like to have some options.”

Via Andrew Sullivan.

From the BBC.

Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God. And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.

How do so many intelligent people go along with such nonsense? (And no, I don’t mean the part about “intelligent beings in outer space”). The whole idea of sin is such craven bullshit. But what would I know, since I’m an atheist, and am obviously going straight to hell when I die? Enjoy your praying.

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”.

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4’s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

BBC News source.

While I’m sure that the Archbishop’s suggestion is well-motivated and intended to resolve what he sees as a dire problem, it’s a monumentally stupid idea. Even if it would initially work quite well in practice, which is by no means assured, in the long run it would totally undermine societal cohesion. Everyone is a state has to follow the same laws, this is a principle as integral to liberal democracy as anything else. There are methods of incorporating society’s values into law via democratic procedures, and there’s no need to set up a system to cater for a certain segment of the population. You can’t have special rules for different groups; if you go down that route then you’ve set your state on course for Balkanisation a few decades down the line.

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts – I think that’s a bit of a danger”.

It’s “a bit of a danger” if we all follow the same laws? Does this man realise what he’s saying?

I’m not trying to be alarmist here, and this post is not motivated out of any particular hostility to Sharia law, but seeking to institutionalise special/different treatment for any sector of society is profoundly undemocratic and runs counter to centuries of liberal thought. If a state goes down this route then in an important sense it’s no longer a proper state.