London Bridge Has Squalling Clowns: The Catholic Church Anti-Gay Squad Gets Slapped Down

Shit like this just tickles me pink (figuratively speaking, that is):World-small-violin

Boris Johnson faces legal action over banned anti-gay bus adverts

Evangelical Christian groups who funded ads say they may seek judicial review, claiming their human rights have been breached

Boris Johnson is facing legal action after cancelling bus adverts paid for by evangelical Christian groups that promoted the idea that gay people can be converted from homosexuality.

The groups behind the “Not gay … and proud” adverts, which were pulled by the London mayor earlier this month, said they were likely to seek a judicial review of the mayor’s decision on the grounds that it breached their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression as guaranteed under the European convention on human rights.

Anglican Mainstream and the Core Issues Trust, whose supporters advocate that gay Christians seek counselling and treatment to curb or even reverse homosexual instincts, said it might also take legal action for breach of contract against the advertising company that booked the adverts, CBS Outdoor.

“Since Boris Johnson intervened, there seems to be a much broader issue about freedom of speech at stake and that is weighing heavily upon us,” said the Rev Lynda Rose, a spokeswoman for Anglican Mainstream. “We feel it is not right that people are not able to express legitimate views that are not an incitement to hatred.”

The adverts were due to start running last week on London buses. The slogan, “Not gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it!”, was a response to an ongoing bus advertising campaign being run by the gay rights group Stonewall which states: “Some people are gay. Get over it.” Within two hours of the Guardian revealing that the ads had been booked, they were cancelled by Johnson, who said: “It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.” His rivals in the campaign to become the next London mayor, Ken Livingstone and Brian Paddick, also condemned the adverts.

Critics of the evangelical groups have claimed that “reparative therapy” for gay Christians can cause considerable distress and stores up problems for people who suppress their homosexuality and enter into marriages or have children in heterosexual relationships. But the leader of the Core Issues Trust, Mike Davidson, has said: “Homoerotic behaviour is sinful.”

The row over the adverts blew up during the government consultation on opening up marriage to same-sex couples, which continues until June, and Anglican Mainstream and the Core Issues Trust are set against the proposals. On Tuesday, they accused liberal bishops of imposing a “neo-pagan worldview” by supporting gay marriage and claiming there should be “a recognition of God’s grace at work in same-sex partnerships”.

On Saturday, a group of Church of England bishops wrote to the Times complaining that recent statements by church leaders had given the mistaken impression that the Anglican church was universally opposed to the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples.

“The fact there are same-sex couples who want to embrace marriage should be a cause for rejoicing in the Christian church,” said the letter, signed by the Very Rev Jeffrey John, dean of St Albans, the Right Rev Alan Wilson, bishop of Buckingham, and 13 other senior clergy and lay members of the General Synod.

In response, Anglican Mainstream and the Core Issues Trust issued a statement warning that the liberal clergy were trying to “unacceptably redefine Judeo-Christian belief”.

“They do not have the standing either to rewrite or reinterpret the clear teaching of the Bible, which the Church has always understood to prohibit any and all sexual relations outside the union for life of one man and one woman,” said Canon Dr Chris Sugden, executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream.

All sorts of (ridiculous) questions arise: how are their ‘human rights’ being violated? Freedom of speech? Seriously? Homophobia isn’t a right, anymore than bragging about it is. Claiming that there’s another side to the argument in the 21st century is just pig-headed stupidity.

Good on Boris Johnson for handing these ass clowns their walking papers. Of course the idiots in question are carrying on – it’s that frakkin’ martyr complex again, the one that seems to get embedded in their brainaries when they start doing the epileptic Watusi upon embracing the ‘unconditional love’ of their imaginary pal jebus. 

Really, all religion is, is raging narcissism coupled with bad self-esteem.

Till the next post then.

This entry was posted in Absurdity, Catholic church, Crazy fundies, Delusion, for fuck's sake!, Gay Marriage, Mythology, Religion, Sexuality, Stupidity, Superstition. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to London Bridge Has Squalling Clowns: The Catholic Church Anti-Gay Squad Gets Slapped Down

  1. Pingback: “The Wheels on the Bus Go…..Straight?” | DaveD's Blog

  2. Sally says:

    An oldie but a goodie!

    Dear Sir
    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. For example, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be AN ABOMINATION. End of debate.
    However, I do need some advice from you regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
    1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Leviticus1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus15:19-24). The problem is — how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
    4. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to New Guineans, but not New Zealanders. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Kiwis?
    5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
    7. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus19:27. How should they die?
    9. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field — as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Leviticus 24:10-16)? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20:14)
    I know that you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
    Your Friend

  3. ChuckA says:

    Sorry (NOT!), but I’d be suggesting bus ads like:
    “Existence ITSELF, is offensive; get over it!”
    [Yeah…I know…I’m ‘channeling’ Nietzsche?]
    Or…(WAY too long, of course):
    “Your non-existent, imaginary god is the undisputed asshole champ; and YOU, believing assholes, simply CAN’T get over it!”
    “At this very moment, Satan is fucking Jeebus in the ass; & guess who’s smiling!”
    Or…(One, of MANY, variations):
    “At this very moment, Jeebus is fucking Leviticus in the ass; & guess who’s eating shrimp!”
    OK, OK…
    but…I was just getting started…dammit!
    [I can only imagine the similar things YOU guys are now (hopelessly/helplessly?) churning up…
    What!…the power of positive (& extremely warped) thinking?]🙄

  4. jimmer54 says:

    I couldnj’t agree with you more KA. Every once in awhile we see results and progress from taking a stand. Mostly against unreason. But also for real rights for all.

    Sally. That is a keeper. Quite good.

  5. Sue Blue says:

    Using the “free speech” card to cover all sorts of assholery, whether merely shady or blatantly illegal, is the fundies’ latest trick here in the US. They’re using it to breach the separation of church and state in schools, get their grubby paws on taxpayer money, and promote hate and bigotry everywhere. Last I checked, homophobia is not protected free speech – it’s bigotry. The difference I see between secular, gay-friendly bus ads and christian, anti-gay bus ads is that the former are promoting equality for all people, while the latter are claiming special status based on a fictional book – the right to hate and discriminate against certain people or groups and maintain their own privileged status. “Free speech” should not be twisted and stretched to cover clearly discriminatory and bigoted proclamations. Even though this is taking place in the UK and I don’t know what kind of free speech or other laws they have against bigotry, I think it is doubtful the christians can claim their ads are just a harmless “alternative viewpoint” that they have the right to express publicly. Good for Boris Johnson, and I hope he is successful!

    Oh, and I love your post, Sally! Great points!

  6. keddaw says:

    “Homophobia isn’t a right”

    Yes it is. Freedom of conscience I believe.

    The fact that what they’re advertising doesn’t work and is possibly harmful should get the ads banned, not the fact we don’t like what they’re saying.

  7. Sue Blue says:

    They’re wanting to put up psychologically damaging, misleading information – and it’s just hatred and bigotry disguised as smarmy “let us help you, sinner” bullshit. Christians et al can believe whatever they want and be as homophobic as they want – as long as they don’t harm others by acting on it. Putting up advertisements that claim that one’s innate sexual orientation is inherently sinful and should be “overcome” is acting on those beliefs – and that’s where it’s the equivalent of shouting “fire” in the theater. It’s not just offensive, it’s actively harmful. If a religious group were to try to put up an ad promoting genital mutilation as a way to curb sinful sexual desires, we wouldn’t even question whether or not it was just some harmless opinion or alternative viewpoint.

Comments are closed.