Bloody Bible ad – GPA fight back
Pink News carries most of a rather verbose press release from the Gay Police Association. It defends its publication of the bloody bible ad, while reassuring faith groups that it wasn’t attacking ALL religion, mentions freedom of expression which comes with “responsibilities” etc etc.
Here’s a snippet:
In recent years and months, the gay community has experienced an onslaught of vociferous, homophobically motivated campaigns from religious extremists, frantic in their desire to prevent gay people enjoying the same legal rights, freedoms and protections they take for granted.
Perversely these groups used their religious belief as justification in securing discriminatory exemptions within equalities legislation such as the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and the impending Equalities, Provision of Goods & Services Bill. They also campaigned actively against an equal age of consent, lifting the ban on gay people serving in the armed services and more recently the introduction of The Civil Partnership Act 2004. The flagging, yet residual influence of certain faith groups cannot be underestimated. Their determination to deprive gay men and women of equality has to be recognised as divisive and damaging to the cohesiveness of society, of which gay people are an integral part. It was perfectly acceptable for the police service to contribute to the debate and formation of racially and religiously aggravated offences.
The GPA are right, but the don’t half go on.
UPDATE: The head of the GPA Ch Insp Paul Cahill has received an email death threat, saying he would be “struck down in God’s name” and that his “days on earth are numbered”. Which, of course, just goes to prove his point.
This term faith group really gets on my pectorals. I make a point of calling them religious groups, religious schools etc., robbing them of the rather cuddly, would-hurt-a-fly quality that the word faith connotes. One campaigner on an e-group I subscribe to took to referring to religious schools as sect schools, and urging everyone to do likewise, but if you say it too fast over a bad telephone line it sounds like ‘sex schools’. Seriously, though, if those of us who care about such things make a point of calling them religious schools, religious groups and so forth, and urged others to do likewise, it might just alter perceptions.
I was going to suggest calling them cult schools, but that could also be misheard….
That problem goes away if you call them ‘sectarian’ schools, which is more accurate as well as sounding a lot nastier…
Or centres of religious brainwashing. I wonder why I didn’t succumb to all that bollox, I went to a cat lick school and a lot of the others were/are out and out god squadders. Going off on a tangent, I noticed one of those god fishes on the back of a car the other day, except this one had a crucifix for an eye. From a distance it looked like a dead chrome cartoon fish.
I’ve ended up using the term “supernaturalist”. Even though it’s unwieldy, it’s useful in encompassing all the various religions, spiritualisms, and assorted no-evidence-but-we-know-we’re-right-isms out there. It also has the benefit of technical precision, while annoying fundies who don’t like their particular flavour of irrationalism being lumped in with the voodoo crowd…particularly useful when debating (? maybe not – that implies two sides with valid arguments ?) with fundies of the American persuasion. [Or, indeed, Australian – mustn’t forget old Ken Ham!]
[…] (Via MediaWatchWatch) Posted by Paul in UK (August 4, 2006 at 9:11 pm) […]
But then to be fair, we have to rename the secular schools “centers of secular brainwashing”, or humanist schools.
If you really wanted, you could name them “religious schools” too, as the American Heritage dictionary gives as a definition of religion “a cause, principle or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion” Richard Dawkins certianly fits that one… 😛
[/flamebait]