Christian preacher arrested

From The Telegraph today:

A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God.

The story concerns Dale McAlpine a 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for a number of years.
He was apparently overheard by a PCSO who after an exchange with the passerby informed McAlpine that a complaint had been made and he could be arrested.

He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

Following futher exchanges he was then arrested and charged under Sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act and released on bail on the condition that he did not preach in public.

Now it’s true that all the facts of this case are yet to come to light. Did this preacher merely explain his interpretation of the scripture or was he actually being abusive, offensively homophobic or inciting others to violence?
If the former then this arrest seems to be an abuse of the law and a curtailment of free speech.
It should not be the case that someone can be arrested for stating their opinions about the LGBT community and certainly not for pointing out that the Bible is anti-homosexual as this is just an unfortunate statement of fact.
I say again, no one has the right not to be offended, including gay people. They do however have the right not to be intimidated, oppressed or discriminated against.
By the same token though, those of us who know the Bible is tosh and that Dale McAlpine is a gullible pratt should also be able to say so, without fear of arrest. If all this man is doing is peddling his particular superstition, let him do so as long as he is prepared for others to point out where he has got it wrong.

Wear "skinnies" to avoid being raped.

An Australian jury has acquitted an alleged rapist because his victim was wearing skinny jeans
I’m going to declare my interest up front here. I know the victim (although for obvious reasons I will not identify her) and that is the reason I am deviating from my usual blog topics.
This woman was raped, as is so often the case, by someone she knew and to whose house she had gone willingly. In her account of the event the defendant, Nicholas Gonzales, led her upstairs on a pretext, lay on top of her and removed her jeans, before forcing her to have sex.

The Sydney jury sent a note to the judge during the trial asking for more information about 'how exactly Nick took off her jeans'.
The note from a jury member added: 'I doubt those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration.'

For some reason this jury believes it is not possible for skinny jeans to be removed without the consent of the wearer, a concept I find ludicrous.
For one thing a strong enough and determined enough assailant can remove pretty much any article of clothing by force, especially if his victim, like this one, has an exceptionally petite figure (she is barely 6,1/2 stone).
For another the act of pulling down a tight pair of jeans tends to bring any underwear down with them, making rape even easier (and yes this is from experience, albeit in play).
Knowing the victim personally I do not doubt her side of the story and that a jury can aquit on such a flimsy conjecture is in any event a serious miscarriage of justice. They just seem to assume with no empirical evidence that a pair of skinnies is an effective rape deterrent, a concept which, if it is remotely true, denim labels everywhere should use as a marketing ploy.
This woman has been waiting a long time for justice, what she got was a sick joke.

this video says it all.

Relate therapist's appeal refused

Sacked therapist Gary McFarlane has been refused leave to appeal his dismissal in the high court.
In a welcome ruling Lord Justice Laws said

legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds cannot be justified.

and that it was also

divisive, capricious and arbitrary

As I reported here Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury has attempted to influence the way our courts treat Christian beliefs, and it appears that Justice Laws agrees with me saying

it was possible that Lord Carey's mistaken suggestions arose from a misunderstanding of the law on discrimination.

It is encouraging that the court has rejected the special pleading that some Christians assume as their right in flouting anti-discrimination laws and hopefully this will end attempts to gain legal exception.

ASBO and fine for U.K atheist

So this is the special protection the British courts are prepared to give to religion. It seems an atheist called Harry Taylor left some religiously offensive cartoons in an airport prayer room and he was found guilty of three counts of causing religiously aggravated harassment during his trial at Liverpool Crown Court.
He has been fined, given a six month suspended prison sentence and an anti social behaviour order preventing him from from carrying anti-religious leaflets in public.
As has been said many times, nobody has the right not to be offended and although Mr Taylor obviously did this on purpose to provoke, his conviction opens the door for any self righteous religious idiot to bring a similar case.
Note the ASBO prevents him carrying this material “in a public space” and not just into religious establishments with intent to offend. Where does this leave atheist stand-up or secular posters challenging religion? Bearing in mind that even the suggestion that their precious sky fairy is a myth offends many theists.
The material Mr Taylor left in the prayer room mocked several religions,

Among the posters, one image showed a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of "no nails" glue
In another, a cartoon depicted two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: "Not for women or gays, obviously."
Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise were told in another: "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." ...

So while not perhaps the most sensitive thing to leave around a non secular building they are for the most part either extremely apposite or just plain funny. Not worth a prison sentence, suspended or not.

Science on the Beeb

D’ya know? I’m not the nationalistic type. There are very few things that cause me to promote the country and culture I happen to have been born in above any other. But sometimes one particular British institution inspires in me a modicum of union flag waving.
The BBC, funded as it is by the British T.V license payer seems to me to fulfil its remit to educate, entertain and inform with such consistent rationality I almost relish my license renewal reminder.
In case you haven’t noticed the Beeb has been doing science particularly well lately. We have just finished the excellent Museum of Life which, as well as taking us behind the scenes of the British Natural History Museum, gave us excellent science history presented by scientists, without any creationist apologetic or post modernist equivocation.
Now we have The Story of Science explaining how the evolution of scientific thought and method has brought us to the understanding of the world we have today.
In the opening sequence of the first episode presenter Michael Mosley says

Of all human endeavours, science has had the most impact on our lives…it is a tale of power, proof and passion

He then proceeds to take us through a historical rollercoaster of evidence about the extent of the universe, taking in along the way; Tycho, Keppler, the reformation, Galileo, Halley, Newton and Hubble.
He is constantly mindful of the social, political and religious context of the advances that were made and presents them factually, debunking the orthodoxy when necessary without fear or favour. I'm scheduling this one on Sky+ for sure.
Given the international reach of the BBC, particularly in the de facto theocracy of the U.S I am truly proud of this cultural ambassador of ours which is fast becoming one of the best advocates of science in the world.

Nick Glegg declares himsef atheist on live T.V. Cool!

I can hardly contain my joy at this point. In U.K politics a serious contender for the post of Prime Minister of this country has declared himself to be an atheist.
On the live Prime Ministerial debate Nick Clegg, in response to a question on the imminent visit by the Pope said

I am not a man of faith.

Sweet!
It gets better because his wife is a Catholic and they have agreed to instruct their kids in her faith, meaning that he is demonstrating tolerance along with rational atheism.
I’ll declare a political intrerest here: I am (surprise!) socially and politically Liberal and liberal which means I will as always vote for the Liberal candidate. But this statement on national television vindicates every vote I have ever cast. Fuck me! Even Gordon had to admit to being a Presbyterian in order to answer the question.

Just a rant about trolls

What is it with theist trolls that post on atheist websites? I mean, it’s not as though atheists object to challenges to their world view, in fact most would welcome them if they offered something new to think about; but they so rarely do.
The usual modus operandi of these individuals is to ignore the subject of the original post, tell you that you know naff all and then threaten you with hell and damnation.
The bizarre thing is that that all of them think this is valid argument, likely to either persuade you of the error of your ways or influence other commenters. It has to make you wonder how these people negotiate their everyday social and professional lives. Presumably some of them must work for a living; have families, colleagues, friends and acquaintances they talk to? How do they miss the basic etiquette of debate and disagreement? How do they navigate the offline world? It honestly makes not an ounce of sense to me.
The thing is, whenever I’ve found myself on theist blogs or news items, the atheist commenters always (well mostly always) comment rationally, politely and with responses inviting debate and discussion; I’ve never seen an atheist troll (“There’s no God: Nyah Nyah!”).
To be fair there are some very good theist commenters on the web who will engage atheists in reasonable debate and I hold them in high regard (not least because it is a difficult logical position to defend) but they really are few and far between on the atheosphere.
Unfortunately I am drawn to the obvious conclusion that theism is essentially an irrational belief that attracts irrational people. If there are any rational theists reading this who would like to demonstrate that I am wrong, you know what to do…