Scream A Little Scream Of Persecution…

Christian Persecution

(Hat tip to the Freethinker for this one)

The Christian Legal Center. Nice ring, no? To those of us who are acquainted with the capacity of faitheists to fabricate and holler about injustice, it’s a red flag. So get this one:

A Christian couple from Blackburn, Lancashire, have had their application to be foster parents terminated by the Council because of their orthodox Christian beliefs on marriage and their belief that the best environment in which to raise a child is with a mother and a father. John Yallop and his wife Colette had told Lancashire Council that they were Christians but had been assured that they were still welcome to apply to be foster parents.

I confess to being curious – does this apply to single mothers and fathers? Likely decided on a case-to-case basis (contingent on whether the parent[s] in question are religious, I’ll bet).

However, during the process, problems arose for John and Colette Yallop when the Council asked them whether they would have any objections to prospective homosexual adoptive parents coming into their home for the ‘handover process’ which normally involves a number of visits.  John and Colette Yallop proposed that any meetings with prospective homosexual adoptive parents should take place at a children’s centre rather than in their own home, as they were concerned that it may cause confusion to their two young children aged 5 and 7. As a result of this request, their application was terminated by the Council, causing John and Colette Yallop great distress.

To shave off the sugar coating, it means they didn’t want to have to explain this to their kids. Nice.

It would appear that John and Colette Yallop have been discriminated against due to their Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and that children do best when they have a mother and a father.

Contrary to the studies that say otherwise (even though the data is somewhat flawed).

The CLC is headed by a major league delusionist – one Andrea Minichiello Williams, whose antiquated views are stealthily alarming. The CLC (the ‘clique’, no doubt) also blew money on the Christian Wandsworth case, where a homelessness officer in London ranted for a half an hour at a sick woman, also telling her not to go to a doctor for her illness.

The CLC doesn’t seem to win any cases (except for the Johns’ case), and while we all applaud how they keep throwing good money after bad, remember:

A. Enough exposure solicits sympathy, and
B. there’s a large base of followers to draw upon.

So, this is happening in the UK. Bring in across the Atlantic, multiply it by a hundred, and be thankful torches and pitchforks are out of vogue.

Till the next post, then.

This entry was posted in Absurdity, Boo-fucking-hoo!, Crazy fundies, Delusion, Family, for fuck's sake!, Mythology, Politics, Sexuality, Skepticism, Stupidity, Superstition. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Scream A Little Scream Of Persecution…

  1. Tony D says:

    When I hear non-believers say, “as long as they don’t disturb anyone, and they derive comfort from their beliefs and activities, let them do it,” my skeptical brain goes into overdrive. This kind of reasoning scares me because this is exactly what was said of the Nazi party during Hitlers insidious rise to power.

    Mankind has the innate ability to progress, inch by inch, toward whatever direction he is allowed. Much like evolution via natural selection; if you wait long enough things will change and they may either be benign or malignant changes. It follows, that in order to prevent malignant changes from occurring an ounce of prevention, at its first appearance, is essential.

  2. John Marley says:

    Tony,

    While we do need to be vigilant against the (inevitable?) creep of theists attempting to push their beliefs into society/government, theists have the right to believe what they believe.

    If “they don’t disturb anyone, and they derive comfort from their beliefs and activities”, then the most you can do is say “I think you are wrong.” and maybe provide reasons. Any more than that, and you risk violating the same principals we are trying to protect from the theists.

  3. jimmer54 says:

    It doesn’t surprise me that they would feel persecuted. their entire life they have been indoctrinated into the belief that they would be persecuted for their belief in jesus. I geuwss though that this would be more of a self-fulfilling prephesy than anything else. It is also unlikely that the Yallops would even understand that they were denied the children based on an entirely different set of standards. A set of standards they are unwilling to accept.

  4. Tony D says:

    John Marley,

    The essence of the principle I suggest is between rationality and superstition. I am afraid that their superstition concerning homosexual contact with their children is beyond “they don’t disturb anyone, and they derive comfort from their beliefs and activities.” Just the irrational thought that somehow homosexual contact would or could be detrimental to their children, is a decision based on their superstition and this does disturb me!

  5. Ray Garton says:

    John Marley, that is the emptiest — and DEADLIEST — non-statement I’ve ever read. You think theists pushing their beliefs into society and government is INEVITABLE? Well, if we all think like you do, yes, it is. With that attitude, we might as well just slap fish on our bumpers, put crosses around our necks and start snacking on Jesusflesh crackers and sacramental wine right now and save time. Let’s paint up some signs and picket a women’s clinic or grab a club and go hunt down some queers — it’ll help us blend in.

    Of COURSE they have the right to believe what they believe and no one is saying they don’t — but that’s as far as it goes. They do NOT have the right to force their belief on others, inject their beliefs into government, spend tax dollars on their beliefs, legislate their beliefs or use their beliefs as an excuse to persecute, harass, harm or limit the rights of others. And yet they are doing all of those things. And they are GETTING AWAY with all of those things. Do you know why? Because there are far too many people who think “the most you can do is say ‘I think you are wrong.’” This country was not founded by people who believed “the most you can do is say ‘I think you are wrong.’” If it had been, it wouldn’t have been founded at all. We’d still be back in the Old World sitting on our hands whimpering, “I think you are wrong” — and probably getting severely punished for it. But don’t worry — if we follow your advice, we’ll be back in the Old World soon enough!

    We have just as much freedom of speech as they, and we are free to say whatever we like. I suggest we use that freedom against these fascists — loudly and clearly — before they get enough of a leg up to take that freedom away from us.

  6. ChuckA says:

    There’ve been some really great comments lately in all of the recent AO Posts…obviously brought on by so much of the general, IMO…obviously CRESCENDOING (speaking musically?)…incredible stupidity in the pre-midterm election hoopla buildup.
    I have to say that I personally agree VERY much, in particular, with Ray’s often blunt appraisals.
    There’s not much I can really add to the Frey without wasting a lot of time repeating the same old shtick that I’ve said more than once in various comments during the last few years on GifS; but here’s a Site that I sort of stumbled on which might be good for all of us to keep handy as a reminder of some essential basics…
    and of course for passing on to anyone who’s either totally forgotten, or needs to learn from scratch…it’s…
    Clambake presents: “Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit” (with a handy link to Michael Shermer’s YouTube on the same theme):
    http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

    Of course, baloney is WAY too kind a word, IMO..
    Personally, I’ll stick with using bullshit.
    By the way…It’s lunch time, as I’m typing this…and I’m thinking of possibly having a turkey baloney sandwich.
    And…looking at the actual contents on the Oscar Meyer package…
    it IS bullshit! ;)
    What!…at least there’s no “Guar gum” in it…
    ROIT…and WTF is Guar gum, anyway?
    Oh…of COURSE…
    more (unnecessary) bullshit!

  7. John Marley says:

    @ Ray Garton

    Reading comprehension fail, dude.

    While we do need to be vigilant against the (inevitable?) creep of theists attempting to push their beliefs into society/government,

    I said theists will inevitably attempt to insinuate their beliefs into law.

    Of COURSE they have the right to believe what they believe and no one is saying they don’t

    Except that seems to be very similar to what Tony D is saying.

    — but that’s as far as it goes.

    Which is what I said.

  8. Ray Garton says:

    John wrote: Except that seems to be very similar to what Tony D is saying.

    I wasn’t responding to John. I was responding to what you wrote, which was: “theists have the right to believe what they believe.” What does Tony have to do with our exchange? You haven’t responded to anything I wrote. Dude.

  9. John Marley says:

    @ Tony D

    Just the irrational thought that somehow homosexual contact would or could be detrimental to their children, is a decision based on their superstition and this does disturb me!

    How is that any different from theist who are offended by the mere existence of atheists?

  10. John Marley says:

    Really Ray? I didn’t?

    You wrote:

    Well, if we all think like you do, yes, it is. With that attitude, we might as well just slap fish on our bumpers, put crosses around our necks and start snacking on Jesusflesh crackers and sacramental wine right now and save time. Let’s paint up some signs and picket a women’s clinic or grab a club and go hunt down some queers — it’ll help us blend in.

    Let me refresh your memory of what I originally wrote (I will bold the pertinent parts for you convenience):

    While we do need to be vigilant against the (inevitable?) creep ofheists attempting to push their beliefs into society/government, theists have the right to believe what they believe.

    How does your accusation relate to my statement?

    As for Tony D, you also wrote “…and no one is saying they don’t”

    to which I responded that Tony actually does seem to be saying that.

  11. Ray Garton says:

    I responded to your entire post, John, not just bits and pieces. When I respond only to a particular passage, I repost that particular passage. You’re avoiding the topic of the exchange in favor of nitpicking, which suggests you have no response. I’ll leaving you to your bolding. I don’t have time for a pissing match.

  12. John Marley says:

    I responded to your entire post, John, not just bits and pieces. When I respond only to a particular passage, I repost that particular passage. You’re avoiding the topic of the exchange in favor of nitpicking, which suggests you have no response. I’ll leaving you to your bolding. I don’t have time for a pissing match.

    Okay, Ray, I’ll play.

    I responded to your entire post, John, not just bits and pieces.

    No, you responded to a comment I didn’t make. That’s why I said you failed at reading comprehension.

    When I respond only to a particular passage, I repost that particular passage.

    Which is exactly what I did, too.

    You’re avoiding the topic of the exchange in favor of nitpicking, which suggests you have no response.

    No, my response was that you completely misread my original comment. Which I’m pretty sure is the topic of this exchange.

    I’ll leaving you to your bolding.

    Whatever.

    I don’t have time for a pissing match

    I’ll even reply to your whole original comment.

    John Marley, that is the emptiest — and DEADLIEST — non-statement I’ve ever read. You think theists pushing their beliefs into society and government is INEVITABLE? Well, if we all think like you do, yes, it is. With that attitude, we might as well just slap fish on our bumpers, put crosses around our necks and start snacking on Jesusflesh crackers and sacramental wine right now and save time. Let’s paint up some signs and picket a women’s clinic or grab a club and go hunt down some queers — it’ll help us blend in.

    Of COURSE they have the right to believe what they believe and no one is saying they don’t — but that’s as far as it goes. They do NOT have the right to force their belief on others, inject their beliefs into government, spend tax dollars on their beliefs, legislate their beliefs or use their beliefs as an excuse to persecute, harass, harm or limit the rights of others. And yet they are doing all of those things. And they are GETTING AWAY with all of those things. Do you know why? Because there are far too many people who think “the most you can do is say ‘I think you are wrong.’” This country was not founded by people who believed “the most you can do is say ‘I think you are wrong.’” If it had been, it wouldn’t have been founded at all. We’d still be back in the Old World sitting on our hands whimpering, “I think you are wrong” — and probably getting severely punished for it. But don’t worry — if we follow your advice, we’ll be back in the Old World soon enough!

    We have just as much freedom of speech as they, and we are free to say whatever we like. I suggest we use that freedom against these fascists — loudly and clearly — before they get enough of a leg up to take that freedom away from us.

    Here we go:

    John Marley, that is the emptiest — and DEADLIEST — non-statement I’ve ever read. You think theists pushing their beliefs into society and government is INEVITABLE?

    No. I wrote that theists attempting to push their beliefs into society and government is inevitable.

    Well, if we all think like you do, yes, it is. With that attitude, we might as well just slap fish on our bumpers, put crosses around our necks and start snacking on Jesusflesh crackers and sacramental wine right now and save time. Let’s paint up some signs and picket a women’s clinic or grab a club and go hunt down some queers — it’ll help us blend in.

    Do you speak some strange dialect where “vigilant against” means “support”?

    Of COURSE they have the right to believe what they believe and no one is saying they don’t

    That was the entire point of my original comment, which was a response to Tony D, who seemed to be saying that they don’t (or shouldn’t, maybe).

    — but that’s as far as it goes. They do NOT have the right to force their belief on others, inject their beliefs into government, spend tax dollars on their beliefs, legislate their beliefs or use their beliefs as an excuse to persecute, harass, harm or limit the rights of others. And yet they are doing all of those things.

    Hence my “vigilance” statement.

    Because there are far too many people who think “the most you can do is say ‘I think you are wrong.’”

    You seem to have missed the first part of that statement: “If “they don’t disturb anyone, and they derive comfort from their beliefs and activities”, ”

    This country was not founded by people who believed “the most you can do is say ‘I think you are wrong.’” If it had been, it wouldn’t have been founded at all. We’d still be back in the Old World sitting on our hands whimpering, “I think you are wrong” — and probably getting severely punished for it. But don’t worry — if we follow your advice, we’ll be back in the Old World soon enough!

    Non-sequitur. Glenn Beck would be proud. (hey, I can do it, too!)

    We have just as much freedom of speech as they, and we are free to say whatever we like. I suggest we use that freedom against these fascists — loudly and clearly — before they get enough of a leg up to take that freedom away from us.

    There are lots of ways to say “I think you are wrong.” Some are less polite than others. Then there’s that “vigilance” I mentioned. And I wasn’t discussing dominionists. The “they don’t disturb anyone, and they derive comfort from their beliefs and activities” part is rather important here.

    There you are, Ray.

  13. Ray Garton says:

    John, I don’t think YOU know what you’re talking about, so why should I try to figure it out? I’m done. Have fun dissecting this post.

  14. John Marley says:

    You could have just written “TL:DR”

  15. Stardust says:

    Trying to dissect that above is hurting my brain. :roll:

    “While we do need to be vigilant against the (inevitable?) creep of theists attempting to push their beliefs into society/government,”

    Using the word “inevitable” means that we are powerless to do anything to stop attempts or the actually pushing of their beliefs into society/government. While many fundamentalist theists may inevitably try to interject their beliefs into our secular government, it doesn’t mean that it is inevitable that we allow them to succeed. Which in that case, I see Ray’s point. Tolerance does not mean we step back and let theists take our freedoms away while allowing them to exercise theirs.

    Now, what were we talking about?

  16. John Marley says:

    Stardust,

    While many fundamentalist theists may inevitably try to interject their beliefs into our secular government,

    =

    the (inevitable?) creep of theists attempting to push their beliefs into society/government

    it doesn’t mean that it is inevitable that we allow them to succeed

    =

    While we do need to be vigilant against…

    I don’t know what Ray was talking about, but I was responding to Tony D (first comment), and meant that we can’t restrict their freedom to believe. My original comment does have a second paragraph.

  17. Stardust says:

    “we can’t restrict their freedom to believe”

    John, I think we all are in agreement with that. We can’t restrict their freedom to believe purple flying dinosaurs exist if they so choose, but we don’t have to stand back silently and let them express those beliefs without rebuttal. We need to do more than just tell them they are wrong. We take action in campaigning against what they say at the public podiums and in the voting booths.

  18. John Marley says:

    Stardust:

    That is what I meant by being vigilant.

    “then the most you can do is say “I think you are wrong.” was preceded by “If “they don’t disturb anyone, and they derive comfort from their beliefs and activities”. I thought that was pretty clear in my original comment.

    Really, we are all saying the same thing. I was only upset because Ray’s interpretation was the polar opposite of what I meant.

  19. Ray Garton says:

    John wrote: “While we do need to be vigilant against the (inevitable?) creep of theists attempting to push their beliefs into society/government, theists have the right to believe what they believe.

    “If ‘they don’t disturb anyone, and they derive comfort from their beliefs and activities’, then the most you can do is say ‘I think you are wrong.’ and maybe provide reasons. Any more than that, and you risk violating the same principals we are trying to protect from the theists.”

    If you want to say we should be vigilant, John, then why on earth would you follow that up with “they have the right to believe what they believe?” That sounds like
    1.) You are defending them, and
    2.) Someone suggested they did NOT have that right.
    Why would you begin that sentence with the word “while” and follow that opening statement with what appears to be a defense of the fundies AND a response to someone claiming that they do NOT have the right to believe what they believe?

    Then, as if that’s not enough, you go on to say “THEN THE MOST YOU CAN DO IS SAY ‘I THINK YOU ARE WRONG’ AND MAYBE PROVIDE REASONS.”

    THAT is the empty non-statement I was referring to. You virtually contradict yourself, and then say “THE MOST YOU CAN DO.” No, it is NOT the most we can do, and as I pointed out, if that is ALL we do, AS YOU SUGGEST, then they are going to roll us right into the ground.

    My response may have been the polar opposite of what you MEANT, but it was not the polar opposite of what you WROTE, and as it turns out, here on this forum, without the benefit of clairvoyance, what you write is all we’ve got to go on. The problem was not my comprehension, the problem was that your post was not well thought out, not clearly structured and obviously stated the opposite of what you intended to say.

  20. John Marley says:

    Okay Ray.

    If, when I wrote “Reading comprehension fail, dude.”, you had replied with something like “No, dude, coherent sentence construction fail.” then I would have apologized and explained what I meant.

  21. Ray Garton says:

    I would have done that had I known that was the problem. It took me this long to figure out that there was a difference between your post and what you actually intended. I was honestly confused.

Comments are closed.