Comments by Rachel Holmes

Comment #146767 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 11:39 am

Ygern,

I'm in England and not only is this legal, the True Freedom Trust (sic) (which tries to turn people straight) is actually a registered charity.

It is interesting, in terms of timing, that this story has turned up now. English charities are required, by law, to provide public benefit. In assessing public benefit, the Charity Commission must take account of any harm an organisation does. The Commission is currently running a consultation on the advancement of religion (as a charitable purpose) and public benefit.

I am a charity law specialist and gay woman who had the joy of being brought up in an evangelical Christian home. (Yes, it was a major headfuck.) I am putting together a personal response to the consultation, showing how conservative religious teachings on homosexuality are harmful.

Research on so-called "reparative", or "conversion" therapy shows that the best that can be said of it is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is ineffective. At worst, it promotes self-loathing in those who fail to get "cured".

Incidentally, the "hate the sin, love the sinner" schtick is crap. For a start, homosexuality isn't about what you do, it's about who you are. Moreover, it goes to a pretty central part of being human - the desire to love and be loved, and to experience intimacy with another human being.

In that context, trying to separate identity from deeds is daft. If you tell a young gay person that something as core as their love is perverted and corrupt, how is that young person supposed to infer anything than other that *they* are perverted and corrupt? As a beardy man once said: bad fruit, bad tree.

Research has also shown conservative religious views to be a significant factor in gay teen depression and suicide.

202. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74252 by Rachel Holmes on September 28, 2007 at 1:30 am

Of course no-one aked him what the movie was about. "Rampart" had already lied to the interviewees by telling them it was about the intersection between science and religion. The article tells us that this is what Rampart's website said.

Is there no depth to which these creeps won't stoop?

And has it never crossed their minds that an argument that can't be made without resorting to deception probably is't a very good argument?

203. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72102 by Rachel Holmes on September 20, 2007 at 10:33 am

revcort,

regarding homosexuality... what you have proven to me is that there are homosexual tendencies that exist in some animals on some occasions. I admit I was ignorant of this. However, here is the true question of nature in my estimation- will a homosexual union ever produce an offspring? The answer is no. Therefore, it is not the "preferred" sexual orientation of nature. It has always been male and female from the beginning.

The part I highlighted is not an argument against homosexuality, it is an argument against fruitless unions. As such, it condemns childless couples, celibates and contraceptive users as much as it does homosexual couples (of whom I know several that have given loving homes to the unwanted or abused offspring of heterosexuals).

Personally, I find it hard to see how failure to reproduce is a moral issue.

I must say, however, I commend you on keeping such good humour in the face of so much opposition. :-)

204. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71304 by Rachel Holmes on September 18, 2007 at 10:40 am

Thank you, Richard. Feel free to use it. If it is income-producing, I shall of course demand royalties. :-)

Eh? Reading that as 'The last thing I want, when I'm dead is...' Unless you believe in a life after death (lol), what business is it of yours what your mourners do?

Ah, Flagellant, but if I'd been talking about my post-mortem wishes, I'd have used the future tense, not the present!

In my post, I was trying to express that my concerns were based on how my friends and family might feel. Obviously, by the time of my funeral I won't care very much about anything at all (unless the Christians are right, in which case I'll be too busy getting backshafted with a pitchfork to worry about what kind of send-off I'm getting).

Apparently, I didn't put that across very well.

I've sat through religious funerals of non-religious friends. For me, the disconnect between the personality and beliefs of the friend and the religious words being spoken about them made the service feel as though it was nothing to do with the person being grieved.

My parents are committed Christians. If I am responsible for organising their funerals, they will be Christian funerals. I may think Christianity is a load of bunkum but it is central to their lives. To me, it would feel not only inaproppriate but dishonoring to their memory to give them anything other than a Christian burial.

I freely admit that not everyone may feel this way and that it is quite possible that, when my time comes, the folk responsible for arranging my funeral will find a religious service most comforting. Presumably the minister won't bang on about how I'm rotting in hell because I was an evil atheist. I'm fairly certain he won't be taking about demonic backshafting, at any rate...

205. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71153 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2007 at 11:31 pm

First, I welcome the alternative of humanist funerals. The last thing I want, when I die, is for my family and friends to have to sit though a religious service, knowing full well that what the guy in the dress is saying is totally at odds with the ethos of the person they're remembering.

I also see nothing wrong with fostering a sense of community. Humanism is not synonymous with atheism, but I bet there'd be a big overlap if you drew a Venn diagram of the two groups. There are plenty of humanist organisations out there providing a forum for people to socialise with like-minded people. What's so sinister about that?

What I do find odd is the idea of creating an atheist community whose structure/meetings resemble those of religious bodies, with a professional "pastor" etc. Nevertheless, to dismiss it out of hand simply because it resembles a religious set-up seems nothing more than an emotional knee-jerk to me.

206. Messiah

Comment #52847 by Rachel Holmes on June 28, 2007 at 8:05 am

Interesting post, Hal9000. Still not in a hurry to try the glass-walking thing, though...

207. Messiah

Comment #52485 by Rachel Holmes on June 27, 2007 at 5:47 am

Hi Adrian,

This was no cheap Anthony Robbins "firewalk with me" trick and I watched him pull out the shard. It was pretty deep in his foot. Please don't make me talk about ths any more - my stomach is faily weak and I've only just eaten!

I'm a skydiver but there are some things I'm not willing to try! Do report back if you give it a go yourself, though :-P

208. Messiah

Comment #52471 by Rachel Holmes on June 27, 2007 at 4:56 am

I couldn't bring myself to watch him walking on glass. Not after he extracted a great long shard from his heel after the first trek through.

*shudders*

209. Messiah

Comment #52467 by Rachel Holmes on June 27, 2007 at 4:44 am

I've seen Derren Brown live. He picked participants by lobbing a teddy bear into the audience. The person who caught it would then throw it again, and the person who caught it would throw it to a third person. The third person would then come up to the stage.

I very much doubt that there are enough skilled teddy-bear-throwers in the world for Derren to ensure he got a stooge to come up each time. :-)

Incidentally, in one trick he used the classic psychic test cards (featuring stars, wavy lines etc). He asked the audience member to guess what card he was holding. (All this was filmed close up and projected onto a screen visible to the whole audience.) The audience member correctly guessed 5/5 times. DB went out of his way to point out that 'real' psychics do no better than chance would dictate, and that their success was to do with subtle communication, not psychic powers.

He does like to debunk woo-woo.

God knows how he does these things though.

210. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51559 by Rachel Holmes on June 23, 2007 at 11:51 am

Yes, it is just a ring. Exactly. Which, if the policy that applied in Monk San's time is still in force, means that it'll get confiscated along with every other ring worn on school grounds.

No discrimination. No need for her and her parents to whine about persecution.

211. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51535 by Rachel Holmes on June 23, 2007 at 9:53 am

This case is very similar to the Bayoumi case. There, a Muslim girl took her school to court for not allowing her to wear the jilbab (a long dress that covers everything and is very loose-fitting). She took the same stance as the girl in this case: that it was a expression of her religion and that, by not allowing her to wear it, the school was interfering with her freedom of religion.

In that case, the House of Lords (the highest court you can get to before you bugger off to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg) found that the school had not infringed her freedom of expression. The essential questions were:

A - Is the girl's freedom to express her religion being interfered with?

B - If so, is that interference justified? (This is determined by factors suh as proportionality.)

Some judges found that the girl's freedom was not being interfered with, so the argument ended there. Those that found there was an interference nevertheless found that it was justified.

The points this turned on were:

1. The school allowed muslim girls to wear the shalwar kameez, a modest but less, um, encasing garment. It had consulted with local muslim leaders to ensure that its uniform policy was consistent with islamic requirements for post-pubertal girls.

2. The fact that there were other schools in the area where she would have been allowed to wear the jilbab. (Incidentally, not all the judges were persuaded by this line.)

3. The fact that other muslim girls were against the school allowing pupils to wear the jilbab, on the grounds that, if it did, their families would probably pressurise them into wearing it.

Personally, I think schools should be allowed to set uniform/jewellery policies and I, too, think it is ludicrous that religions are given a free pass. Be that as it may, my feeling is that the school would win this case if it ever came to court, even if the court found that there was an interference with the girl's rights.

1 and 2 probably work in the school's favour here. In the case of 1, the school is unlikely to have consulted local Christian leaders, given that Christian dress requirements for women are non-existent (or at least, the more bizarre prescriptions of "St Paul" on that matter are generally seen as historical). Still, banning the rings does not prevent a Christian girl from conforming to the essentials of her faith. So she is not being prevented from expressing her religion. Moreover, assuming that all rings are a no-no on school grounds, there will be no question of discrimination.

As for 2, this may be applicable.

I doubt that the school would be able to pull 3, unles it could find other Christian girls who think they would be pressurised into wearing the rings if the school allowed them to be worn. (Perhaps friends and family would consider them to be sluts, if they didn't wear them? Who knows?)

Just the thoughts of a bored lawyer with flu who can't cope with any more daytime TV.

212. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42287 by Rachel Holmes on May 18, 2007 at 3:05 am

Jerry may have condemned adultery as well as homosexuality, but I've not read any quotes of him damning adulterers, blaming them for social ills or saying that society should be punished for tolerating them. He didn't seem keen to incite peple into rage against adulterers at all.

Which is odd, as I'd venture to guess that adultery is destroying more families than gay couples are.

Anyway, he's gone now and besides, I already had my rant on another thread.

213. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42282 by Rachel Holmes on May 18, 2007 at 2:52 am

I stil don't see why the two suggestions I put forward are considered to be less reasonable than Bizarro's belief in God. I'm not going to get into matter popping in and out of existence on the quantum level because, frankly, I don't know enough physics to go there.

Still...

The notion that matter has always existed is consistent with the first law, so it is conceivable from that point of view. The idea of eternal existence is mind-boggling, but the idea of *anything* having always existed is mind-boggling, so if that counts as a strike against the credibility of this proposition, it's a strike against the God hypothesis too.

With matter, we do at least have some idea what we're talking about. God we have no idea about.

The notion that physical laws outside the universe allow matter to come into existence is, to my mind, no less fanciful than the notion of a supernatural, eternally existing creator. If quantum phsyics allows matter to come into existence in this universe, is it a huge stretch to suppose that it is possible for it to come into existence outside the universe, only in a way that is more amenable to its continued existence?

The God hypothesis requires us to posit the existence of a supernatural realm for which there is no hard evidence, that behaves according to laws for which there is no example in this universe. (Or maybe it has no laws.) If you then add the attributes of the Christian God to this creator, you've got a whole heap of other questions to answer.

If the God hypothesis seems more compelling to some, is it not possible that this is simply because it is more familiar?

214. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42230 by Rachel Holmes on May 18, 2007 at 12:39 am

Why are (a) and (b) not viable? Been back 25 squillion years or outide the universe lately? ;-)

(By the way, isn't it some unspeakable hour where you are? I'm in London and it's morning.)

215. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42225 by Rachel Holmes on May 18, 2007 at 12:26 am

An uncreated Creator explains nothing.

First of all, as others have said, you're left having to explain him. Saying, by fiat, that he can be e complex being who has always existed and who can create out of nothing because "the laws of nature don't apply to him" is unconvincing. I mean, you have to say that, don't you? Your argument fails otherwise. However, you've got no evidence for your position.

Going by good old Occam's razor (not multiplying entities unnecessarily), you're compelled to prefer one of the equally unprovable hypotheses that (a) matter has always existed, or (b)the laws of 'nature' outside this universe are such that matter can come into existence on its own.

Moreover, since no-one knows exactly who / what this Creator is, or understands the mechanism by which he interacts with the physical realm, saying "God did it" is effectively saying "It was done by some mysterious agent that we don't understand in some mysterious way that we don't understand". Take away the reference to an agent, and you're more or less saying what science says in the face of the unknown.

In other words, "God did it" = "I don't know how it happened", but in pious terminology.

216. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41529 by Rachel Holmes on May 16, 2007 at 8:38 am

Using the same methods as Falwell would mean say, blaming all Christians for 7/7. No-one is doing anything like that on this thread, as far as I can see.

217. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41526 by Rachel Holmes on May 16, 2007 at 8:32 am

Thanks Philip1978. As a gay atheist, I'm not going to deny that I feel angry about the crap perpetuated by people like Falwell!

218. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41514 by Rachel Holmes on May 16, 2007 at 8:16 am

Dower, I've already told you that I am writing not in hatred, but in anger about the effects of Falwell's preaching and relief that he's no longer there to produce those effects. There is a difference.

As for evidence, do you really think there is no connection between the preaching of Falwell and his ilk and the attitudes of many in the States towards, say, atheists and gays?

And no, on its own, opposing irrationality etc isnot per se self-righteous. But coupled with an "I'm better than you" attitude, it is. Now maybe I'm misreading you as much as you seem to be misreading me, but that's certainly what's coming over this way.

219. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41509 by Rachel Holmes on May 16, 2007 at 8:02 am

Oh yeah, and I'm not planning on going out preaching that Christians should be denied civil rights.

But other than that and the fact that I'm a size 8, Jerry and I are just the same.

But don't let me stop you enjoying your self-righteousness, Dower. You clearly love it. :-)

220. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41508 by Rachel Holmes on May 16, 2007 at 8:00 am

I'm expressing relief, not hatred, Dower (and anger about the harm he has caused).

If you read hatred in what I'm saying, you're misreading.

221. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41505 by Rachel Holmes on May 16, 2007 at 7:54 am

What is so honourable about being tolerant towards bigots?

Why is it wrong to be glad at the death of someone who has caused misery and promoted oppression? I am glad of Falwell's demise, not because I wanted the man dead, but because I detest the effects that his preaching has had on real people. Now his preaching is over and maybe, just maybe, some of the suffering will stop.

You know what? I'd have been even happier if he'd changed his ways and started preaching a different message. But that didn't happen.

If anyone in the UK starts making the ugly noises that Falwell made in the US, I hope I have the backbone to stand up to him, not display 'open-mindedness' and 'tolerance'. And yes, I'll be glad when such a voice of hatred, unrason and divisiveness is silenced. The difference is: I will not call for him to be denied rights; I will not irrationally blame him for national disasters; nor will I seek to demonise and suppress all Christians because of his words.

And that, whether you see it or not, marks a big difference between my attitude (and that of others who are happy to see the back of Falwell) and Falwell's.

I agree with smithnya that it is Falwells' ideas that we must combat, but for now, let's be glad that one particularly loud and influential voice has gone, no longer able to stir up hatred.

222. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41453 by Rachel Holmes on May 16, 2007 at 6:18 am

konquererz,

Exactly. Those who say we should not delight in his death seem to be under the illusion that being glad at the death of someone who spread hatred (quite possibly contributing to violence against members of the groups he vilified and almost certainly contributing to their continued marginalisation in society) is morally equivalent to the glee Rev Falwell himself expressed at the prospect of homosexuals being wiped out en masse.

It is not. Despising someone for what he, personally, has shown himself to be, is a long way from despising entire groups of people, based on irrational fears and grotesque stereotypes, and treating those people as second class citizens.

I am glad that he is no longer around to spread his disgusting message. Unfortunately, I very much doubt that his message will die with him.