Replacing Trident: Pro-nuclear answers questioned

I write this on 18 July 2016, when the UK parliament is discussing and is about to vote upon whether to replace our Trident nuclear deterrent. I am not at all interested in waiting for the result, which is a forgone conclusion that Parliament will vote in favour of renewal. I am fully aware that the government has called this vote today to embarrass Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is against renewal, whilst the majority of his MPs are in favour of renewal. I have no doubt that it is also intended to attempt to humiliate the 56 SNP MPs, who will all vote against renewal. It of course will not humiliate the SNP; as Trident is based in Scottish waters, vastly against the wishes of the majority of Scots, it will only bolster calls for independence.

Rather this article seeks to look at some of the main arguments for retaining nuclear weapons, and showing just how facile they are.

~

The balance of terror maintains peace through the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). As long as both parties have nuclear weapons, the threat of annihilation outweighs any advantage of attack.

No, it never has and never will. The 'cold war' started when the USSR gained nuclear capability in 1951, and since then the two superpowers, Russia and the USA, have developed and built up massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, as have China and the UK. These nations have been almost constantly involved in armed conflict somewhere in the world ever since. Often these conflicts have been against allies of one country opposed to the other. Nuclear weapons did not stop the Korean War, Suez, the Vietnam War, the Falklands War, the US invasion of the UK dependency of Grenada, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the first and second Iraq Wars, the Russian invasion of Crimea. Neither have they stopped US and Russian adventurism and flexing their muscles in theatres of opposing powers.

Besides which, the counterbalance argument is self-defeating, for if it can be argued that nuclear weapons ensure peace, then it could equally be strongly argued that every country in the world should have them.

Nuclear weapons protect us from emergent threats of other countries gaining nuclear weapons.

Whenever this line is played out, the nations mentioned tend to be Iran and North Korea. In fact, Iran continually told the west that their nuclear programme was purely civil, with no military capability. US intelligence, Israeli intelligence, the International Atomic Energy Authority, and the EU all came to the same conclusions; Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, is not developing nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence to suggest they may develop nuclear weapons in the first place.

As to North Korea, they are the masters of kidology, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they have ever test fired one nuclear device; the readings on seismographs worldwide have never shown a nuclear “signature” from their alleged test fires.

But even if these nations did develop nuclear weapons, that would only be part of them becoming a threat to the UK. They would then have to develop means of delivery, which would mean building intercontinental ballistic missile technology. Not only do neither Iran nor North Korea possess such technology, but North Korea's missile technology is desirable. They have had so many misfires that North Korea purposely test-fires missiles by the coast, so that if they do go wrong, they will safely fall into the sea. And even if North Korea could develop decent missiles, they would still be out of range of the UK, and most of the USA for that matter.

The west, particularly the USA and the UK, are more than happy to play the game of kidology with Iran and North Korea, to justify them keeping their own nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons protect us from terrorist attack.

This is just a downright and utter lie.

On 9 September 2001 the most devastating terrorist attack in history took place against the USA, when four airliners were hijacked by terrorists carrying bolt cutters. It was an extremely low-tech attack, which cost 2996 lives, against the one nation with the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Since then there have been international terrorist attacks in the UK and in France, both of whom have nuclear weapons. In all three countries weapons of mass destruction were useless, for there was simply no legitimate attack to reply to.

Even if internationalist terrorists developed and exploded a nuclear weapon in a country with nuclear capability, who could they respond to? If the terrorists were allied to ISIL, would the response then be to launch a nuclear strike upon Iraq and / or Syria, killing millions of innocents and despite the official governments of those countries not actually having any part in the terrorist attack? And if so, then nuclear weapons fail to be a deterrent and would become an offensive attack weapon.

Nuclear weapons cannot deter terrorist attack for the simple fact there is no legitimate target to respond to. They have not deterred terrorist attacks, they are not doing so, and if it has happened once, it can happen again.

We can only disarm when other countries disarm.

This is the argument of the arms race. And the trouble is that under arms races countries tend not to disarm. Quite the opposite, they tend to increase their firepower, then give the excuse they had to because their 'enemy' is increasing theirs (often a lie). And so it continues in an ever-increasing spiral, with both sides bristling at each other, until that escalates into all-out war. The balance of terror is the only arms race in history which has not ended in war – yet.

And this argument of course completely destroys the arguments against needing nuclear weapons against emergent threats and terrorists, for they have little or nothing to disarm, yet we already have a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons to counter them with. Who then is being the aggressor?

On the international stage, if we are to rely upon a multilateral approach to disarmament, then someone has to take the first step; that is how detente works. It has in fact already worked. With the fall of Communism in the USSR, Russian SS20 missiles were withdrawn from eastern Europe, and US-controlled ground-launched Cruise missiles were withdrawn from western Europe in return. But it is wholly reliant upon one side taking the first step. So long as the UK digs her heels in and remains wholly recalcitrant about even reducing our nuclear capability, we merely make the world a much more dangerous place.

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with one single step.” (Lao Tzu)

Nuclear weapons protect our way of life.

What way of life? People queueing at foodbanks, millions – including children – living below the poverty line, thousands homeless, people on benefits dying and committing suicide when those benefits are cut, 20% of school leavers illiterate and / or without basic number skills. Oh, but others say, think of our freedoms. What freedoms? We are gradually eroding our freedoms in the name of defence. The UK has the highest incidence of CCTV cameras in public places in the world, and pretty soon everything you browse and everything you post online shall be subject to government scrutiny.

Democratic government, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are likewise not reliant upon nuclear weapons. The vast majority of countries which enjoy these freedoms do not have nuclear weapons. I don't see Japan, Australia and New Zealand, potentially targets of a Chinese attack, being in any hurry to adopt nuclear weapons, yet all have democracy and among the best human rights records and standards of living in the world.

We need nuclear weapons to be a member of NATO.

No, we seriously do not. There are 28 member states of NATO. Of those only three, the USA, the UK, and France, possess nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons guarantee the UK a place on the UN Security Council.

The UK is in the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the other four being the USA, the Russian Federation, China, and France. There are however another ten non-permanent members of the Council. There is no reason why the UK could not join the non-permanent members, and due to UK prestige in the world, we would permanently be there. Besides, having nuclear weapons are not the sole criteria for being a permanent member and UK prestige could very well keep us there.

There are thousands of defence jobs reliant upon our nuclear deterrent.

Actually, a freedom of information request by Scottish CND in 2014 proved that a mere 528 jobs were reliant upon the Trident base at Faslane. But even if one takes into consideration those indirectly affected, consider that there are thousands of more jobs in the UK which are reliant upon the work of the National Health Service. Therefore those using the jobs argument could just as easily say that those health jobs, and those indirectly affected, are reliant upon heart disease, cancer, AIDS, etc. Would they then try to argue that we need to retain these killers to retain jobs?

Add into this that over-reliance upon missile technology has for decades seen cuts in defence in other places, so nuclear weapons far from retaining and creating employment is actually costing defence jobs. The abandoned MoD bases across Scotland and elsewhere in the UK are testament to that fact. Ask the local in Edzell, Lossiemouth, Leuchars, Kirkliston, etc., how much they have benefited from reliance upon nuclear weapons. Or better still, go ask veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq who had to buy their own boots, because British Army boots were so shoddy that the soles were melting off them. Not only does nuclear over-reliance cost jobs, it indirectly has cost the lives of UK service personnel.

Nuclear weapons prevent proliferation.

Give me strength. This has got to be the daftest argument yet. The argument goes that if larger countries have nuclear weapons it will deter other countries from developing them, or if smaller countries are under the “nuclear umbrella” of NATO, the Russian Federation, or China, they will see no need to develop nuclear weapons.

Cough! Cough! Bullshit! Cough!

After the USA developed the atomic bomb, then thermonuclear weapons, the USSR were not far behind. Then the UK joined the nuclear club, then China, then France. In 1974 India test-fired it's first nuclear weapon, but the USSR stepped in and agreed to help India develop civil nuclear power in return for them not building nuclear weapons. In 1979 a US-Vela satellite picked up a double flash of a nuclear explosion in the South Atlantic Ocean – a joint South African / Israeli test fire. South Africa actually built six atomic bombs, which were dismantled after the fall of the Apartheid regime. Since then India and Pakistan have joined the official nuclear club, while Israel almost certainly has nuclear capability.

The countries involved have all been signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which dates back to Ike Eisenhower's “Atoms for Peace” movement of the 1950s. Under the NPT signatories get help developing civil nuclear power programmes in return for agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons. The NP T is a complete paper tiger, and it was only by being a signatory that India was able to get reactors capable of enriching uranium to fissile material for their 1974 test-fire, just as it helped South Africa develop the same capability.

I love the lies on the World Nuclear Association website, which states “The international safeguards system has since 1970 successfully prevented the diversion of fissile materials into weapons.” Were that in any way true, there simply would not be so many countries in the nuclear club today.

Bottom line; the “big five” having nuclear weapons does not prevent nuclear proliferation, history has proven that it makes it all the more likely.

~

So really why does the UK have nuclear weapons? Well, it's simply a matter of prestige, and as great as he was in other things, we have a Labour statesman to blame for that. Aneurin Bevan was the architect of the National Health Service. He was a diehard socialist who despised the extremes of capitalism and the ills it created. In 1957 he shocked the Labour Party Conference when he made a statement on unilateral nuclear disarmament; “ It is the most difficult of all problems facing mankind. But if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications — and do not run away from it — you will send a British Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber. ... And you call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm.”

I'm afraid if anyone was having an emotional spasm, it was Nye Bevan, for it was he looked to the diplomatic advantages of having nuclear weapons, without weighing up the disadvantages. And ever since then it has been the same old story. If anyone thinks that the Russian Federation, or anyone else is at all threatened by the UK's nuclear capability, which is absolutely puny compared to theirs, then they are kidding themselves. Having nuclear weapons does however bring world prestige. Look at how nobody paid India and Pakistan much attention nor treated them seriously until they developed nuclear weapons. Now the developed countries are falling over each other to be friends with them.

We have sold the family silver in the UK, thrown away education, thrown away childcare, thrown away healthcare, thrown away our rights, thrown away jobs, thrown away benefits, even thrown away the lives of people on benefits and armed forces personnel, all in order to join the other big boys behind the bike shed showing off that we've got a big willy as well.

And all for what? For a weapon without a target, a weapon which as it cannot differentiate between military and civilian targets is actually illegal under international law, and if it were ever used, could only ever be in an offensive attack, or in a petty act of retaliation, which would kill millions of innocents, purely because innocents had been killed here.

That's not deterrence, it is pure insanity.

Religion continues to prevent this Scots Nat from joining the SNP

In June 2016, the United Nations published a report upon Religious Observance (RO) within publicly funded Scottish Schools, calling for the Scottish Government to recognise the right of senior pupils to opt themselves out.  The Scottish Government have responded by completely disregarding the wishes of the body representing the global community.

RO is any ritual act of religious practice, whether that be group prayer, religious-based assemblies with pupils singing from the Church of Scotland Hymnary, enforced visits to the local church, visits from the local minister, or even saying grace before school dinners, all of which take place in some Scottish schools, with some of them being quite common. Parents do have the right to opt their children out of these practices, yet few are aware of that right, which usually appears in school handbooks, and is barely mentioned. Even when pupils are opted-out, they can tend to be treated like pariahs, and given practices to do which are more akin to punishments than any scholastic alternative. In one case I am aware of one opted-out pupil was forced to sharpen pencils while the rest of her class attended RO. It is also quite common for opted-out pupils to be told to stand in a corridor while RO takes place.

The Scottish Secular Society, of which I am a member, once petitioned the Scottish Government to change the opt out of RO to an “opt in”, where schools would have to contact parents and seek signed permission for their children to attend RO. The Scottish Government completely dismissed this very popular request.

In their report on RO, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child states “The Committee recommends that the State party repeal legal provisions for compulsory attendance at collective worship in publicly funded schools and ensure that children can independently exercise the right to withdraw from religious worship at school.” The Scottish Government have likewise dismissed this report, from no less an austere body than the UN, completely out of hand. In a letter to the Humanist Society of Scotland, the Scottish Government stated “There is no […] statutory right to withdraw afforded to children and young people.”

For a government which can be so progressive, and one of whose key policies is Getting It Right For Every Child, that sounds very much to me like “Ye'll dae as yir tellt.”

I admire the great many things the SNP administration in the Scottish Government have achieved and are achieving for all who live here in Scotland. I support most aims and goals of the SNP, I believe them to have policies based solidly within social conscience and responsibility, I have always found SNP representatives to listen to the Scottish people and act accordingly in their best interests. I consistently vote SNP. I have admired Nicola Sturgeon for a very long time (to the point she may be disturbed at the number of photos I have of her at public events), and in her I believe Scotland could not ask for a better First Minister. With her intelligence, experience, diplomacy, compassion, and toughness where required, I honestly think Nicola Sturgeon is the best First Minister Scotland has had since we achieved devolution in 1999.

However, for me there are some things which are a line in the sand. And where the SNP are concerned, it is this continual pandering to religion.

For a political party, I have come to notice that the SNP appears to have a high number of practising Christians among their membership, from ordinary members, right up to Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSP). Although I am an atheist myself, I am the first to champion the right of all to freedom of religion, thought and conscience, a right which is enshrined by both the UN and the European Union. When political representatives have an abiding faith however, that can and does often throw up problems. Where they have to choose between those who elected them, their country, or their god, then there is always the danger that they will choose the latter. One need only look to the many religious zealots in public office in the USA to see the reality of that fact.

And you may think that cannot happen in Scotland. No? Think again. In 2013 a scandal broke at Kirtonholme Primary School in South Lanarkshire, when it was discovered that primary schoolchildren were being given creationist literature by a US-based evangelical Christian club. In the wake of this the Scottish Secular Society petitioned the Scottish Government to be given clear guidance on the teaching of Biblical creationism – the literal belief that the earth was created in six day, 6000 years ago – in publicly funded Scottish schools. While this petition was going through the Scottish Parliament, John Mason, SNP MSP for Glasgow Shettleston, lodged a motion that evolution cannot be “proved or disproved by science” and calling for children to be made aware of “differing belief systems”. Yes, you did read that right; John Mason did indeed call for science to 'disprove' – effectively prove a negative, which science does not do because it is an exercise in futility (disproving is not falsifying, which is a valid and solid part of the scientific method). In the event, John Mason's facile motion was thrown out, and the Scottish Secular Society petition was passed, effectively outlawing the teaching of creationism in Scottish schools.

But it need not be the political representatives of a party that can cause me to question them. It is disturbing in the extreme that the SNP continue to accept funding from Brian Souter, co-owner of the Stagecoach bus group. Brian Souter is deeply religious, and once headed up a campaign to retain some extremely homophobic legislation visited upon schools across the UK. Clause 28 (Section 2A in Scotland) was introduced by the Conservative government of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1988 and enforced that schools "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” Not only did this odious piece of legislation make it effectively illegal to even mention homosexuality in schools, it also prevented gay and lesbian pupils from coming out, and made pariahs out of those children and young people with same-sex parents. Tony Blair's Labour government sought to repeal Clause 28 / Section 2A in 1999, and the “Keep the Clause” campaign got going to try and fight this repeal.

Brian Souter supported a poll by Keep the Clause to the tune of £1 million, a postal ballot asking members of the public whether it should be repealed or retained. In the event, only 31.8% of valid votes were returned, with 86.8% showing in favour of retention, to 13.2% in favour of repeal. While Souter tried to claim victory however, a mere 31.8% of valid votes had been returned, the poll was a private affair (the Electoral Reform Society refused to touch it), and much of the information given was out of date.

More disturbing is the way that the Keep the Clause campaign influenced the Ayr by-election of 2000. In the first Scottish Parliamentary Election in 1999, the Ayr seat had been won by Labour by a mere 25 votes above the Conservative opponent. The following year sitting MSP Ian Welsh resigned to spend more time with his family, triggering the first Scottish Parliamentary by-election. In the run-up to the by-election, Keep the Clause campaigned heavily in the area, and bought up billboard space. In the event the Ayr seat fell to the pro-clause Conservative candidate John Scott by a landslide, with the SNP in second place, and Labour beaten into third place. Brian Souter, again much of the bankrolling of this, later boasted that he had influenced the by-election. Some SNP / independence that; crowing that he had helped get a Tory into power. But then, that's what happens when the religious seek to influence politics; they don't care of the other politics of whoever supports their bigotry, so long as someone supports it.

However, for Brian Souter and his Keep the Clause cronies, it was a hollow victory. Section 2A was repealed by the Scottish Government in June 2000, and Westminster repealed Clause 28 in 2003.  Jack McConnell and Tony Blair did have some uses after all.

The issue of RO in Scottish schools and the SNP position upon it is not only a disgrace, it is a constitutional enigma, and one which could ultimately come back to smack the SNP firmly in the face. For a start, when we say RO, let's be clear here, we are speaking Christian worship, no other faith, for the simple fact that Christianity is the majority faith in Scotland. And even then, when I say Christian, I mean mostly Church of Scotland (with the Roman Catholic Church coming second in Scotland's publicly-funded RC schools). It just so happens however that the Church of Scotland was disestabalished in 1929, and as a result Scotland has no established state church. By comparison, the Church of England is the established state church of England, and yet senior pupils in publicly-funded English schools have been able to opt themselves out of RO since 2006.

There is of course no written constitution in the UK, but what the future holds could very well change matters in Scotland. The very raison detre of the SNP is of course independence for Scotland. Within that goal, the SNP have stated their vision of an independent Scotland which is a member of the European Union (and the people of Scotland have strongly stated their wish to stay within the EU, which the First Minister is negotiating at time of writing), and with a written constitution, based upon the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Interestingly enough, as I previously said, the ECHR enshrines the human right to freedom of thought, religion, and conscience. Therefore, if the end goal is as the SNP state, then enforced RO in Scottish Schools would contravene the ECHR, and presumably the secular constitution of an independent Scotland, thereby making it illegal to enforce RO upon children against their wishes.

Religion is a very contentious issue in Scotland, and has been for over a thousand years. This is the country which Saint Margaret shook up from being “loose Christians” to strictly adherent to Rome for 500 years, to the point that Scotland was known as “The Pope's special daughter”. Then in a short space of time the Reformation made this the most Presbyterian country in the world (as our brand of Protestantism remains the most fierce in the world), which became the government for the next 300 years. However, the last vestiges of Scotland's theocratic past are passing away with time. We are now a multicultural country, which means we are also very much a multi-faith country, while the 2011 census showed that 37% of Scots now consider themselves to be of “No Religion”; an increase of nine percent upon the 2001 census, second only to Christianity, and showing that atheism is firmly upon the increase in Scotland.

Yet this is not just an atheist issue. As Scotland is a multi-faith country, this can only mean that there are children of other faiths being forced into Christian RO. Now, some may not have a problem with that, but as I said before, just how many of the parents are aware of their children having RO forced upon them? How many of them are aware that it is heavily Christian-based? I've no doubt many Christian parents may dismiss this. Okay, then would they be happy were their children forced to worship under another faith? Bloody right they would not be. Only a couple of years back many parents in Dalkeith, Midlothian, withdrew their children from a school visit to Edinburgh Central Mosque (this visit was purely educational to learn what Islam teaches – not enforcing it). Why then should they expect any different for children of other faiths, and no faiths?  This is one place where the SNP administration in Holyrood is most certainly not "Getting It Right For Every Child".

Likewise, I am not asking for, nor ever would ask for, RO to be removed from schools against the wishes of parents who wish it for their children, or for that matter school pupils who wish it for themselves.  Enforced secularism is every bit as unjust and odious as enforced RO.  France, which is taking too heavy a line upon secularism within schools, in places banning anything which could be construed as religious, is the proof of this.  But enforcing one religion upon all against their wishes, and effectively punishing those who are opted out, is an outdated remnant of the days of Presbyterian theocracy, which should have no place in our multi-faith and increasingly atheist and secularist modern Scotland, which has no established kirk.

I will continue to vote SNP, I will continue to support them, and our wonderful First Minister, for I believe that they and they alone are the only party which truly represents Scotland and has the interests of all her peoples at heart. Likewise, with the prospects of a second independence referendum now very firmly on the cards, I shall campaign for Yes Scotland, just as I did before the 2014 referendum. But as long as the SNP continue to cow-tow to the Kirk, to accept money from a homophobe, to ignore the guidance of no less than the United Nations, and their Holy Wullie MSPs put their faith before their constituents and their country, they shall never have me as a member.

Nicola Sturgeon may wish to take note that I am not the only pro-independence atheist and secularist who feels that strongly on this issue, and the SNP are doing themselves no favours by refusing to take a more secular stance.

Some rights DO require greater emphasis - get over it

She could be.  Could you?

Check your privilege before claiming equality.
 

In the wake of heightened racial tensions in the USA, there have been demonstrations both there and in the UK under the banner of “Black Lives Matter”. As ever when that phrase comes up, it has been met with someone stating “All Lives Matter”, and even accusing those protesting of racism.

All lives do indeed matter, but Black Lives Matter throws into sharp relief where even a society which claims to be equal in reality affords privilege to some, and denies those same privileges to others, for which the establishment, the police, and the general public are responsible for.

I am a 'white' person (hate the term – my skin's not white; “Peach Flake” is nearer the mark) myself and I would ask other white people to ask themselves the following;

• How often have you been stopped under suspicion by the police, and subjected to a search?
• How often have you been pulled over by the police for driving a flashy car (or even a crap one) because you “fit the description” of some alleged crime?
• If you are reading this in a country with armed police, how often has an officer stopped you and drawn their gun on you?
• How many of your friends, family, and local community have been deliberately targeted, and in some places shot at and killed, purely because of their ethnicity?
• How many times have you been refused a job or other opportunity because of your ethnicity?
• Were you ever asked or expected to aim lower in the employment market because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever had your car or other property vandalised by people who think that because of your ethnicity you should not have it?
• Have you ever been told to “go home” or “get back to your own country” by someone of another ethnicity to you?
• Have you ever been threatened, spat at, or physically attacked because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever received abusive and/or threatening letters because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever had excrement pushed through your letterbox?
• If you are a business owner, have you ever had your business smashed up, or the windows smashed, because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever had your house or business set on fire, or such an attempt made, because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever attended the funeral of someone who was killed purely due to their ethnicity?

I am guessing that most if not all white people reading the above will have answered in the negative to all of these. Yet these are things which people of colour (another term I dislike, but it is useful for this article) face or have faced on a daily basis, in the USA, the UK, and many other white-dominated countries. I frankly take my hat off to people of colour, as if it were me, I'd be a nervous wreck, wondering what's coming next.

And of course, these things do not only pertain to people of colour, but to other people within our society, who are targeted by bigots purely because they differ from the “accepted norm”. Following the EU Referendum in the UK returned a vote in favour of leaving, Polish and other eastern European people have faced an upsurge in anti-European, xenophobic verbal and even physical attacks. Indeed, while not all Leave voters were xenophobic or racist, every such bigot probably voted Leave. Now some of these bigots, fuelled with bravado with the vote, seem to think that gives them the right to verbally or even physically abuse eastern Europeans – and people of colour. And the sad fact is that the majority of the British public look the other way, because a, it's not affecting them personally, and/or b, they more than likely share the views of the bigots.

And there are even white people, native to their country, who are still targeted because of other “differences”. Not least among these are the LGBT+. A bunch of racist thugs in London within days of the EU leave vote were heard chanting “First the immigrants, next the queers.”, and there are now some anti-LGBT+ groups, such as Christian Concern, who are calling for equal marriage legislation to be reversed. Meanwhile, as I write this the UK is facing having a new Prime Minister, the choice being between Home Secretary Theresa May, or Energy Secretary Andrea Leasom; both of whom claim to be deeply devout Christians, and both of whom have a track record of opposing pro-LGBT+ measures.

Not that it needed an EU Referendum to spark any anti-LGBT+ feeling; it has always been there, in the UK, in the USA, and in a great many other countries in the world. Cisgender and heterosexual people reading the above add the following questions;

• Have you ever been afraid to kiss, embrace, or hold hands with your partner?
• Have you ever been arrested for doing so?
• Have you ever been stopped by the police and / or arrested for the clothes you are wearing?
• Have you ever been verbally abused, threatened, or physically attacked for your sexuality or gender?
• Have you ever been convicted of a crime and put in a prison full of those opposite to the gender you identify with?
• Have you ever attended the funeral of someone who has been killed, or has committed suicide, due to their sexuality or gender?

Again, the overwhelming majority of cishet people will answer no to most if not all of the above. Yet many, if not all, are the harsh reality for many LGBT+ people.

As I made mention of before, the problem lies with privilege. As a white cishet male UK national from a culturally Christian background, my life is full of privilege – and I am painfully aware of that. The only prejudice I face are a, for being a short man, and b, for being a Scot. But even then, I can't say either have ever been a real problem, and neither have denied me of many opportunities, or seen me fearing for my safety (apart from the very occasional 'big man' who thought he could bully me) or my life itself.

But those who upon hearing “Black lives matter” immediately reply “All lives matter” are ignoring their own privilege. For it is generally those who have not lived the experience of those affected, who have not been denied privilege who shout that the loudest.

A few years ago, my partner was on an online forum speaking about the importance of feminism. She came under attack from a 'man' (well, a silly wee laddie, really) who described himself as a “Humanist” and tried to argue that we should not fight for women's rights, but for the human rights of all human beings. My partner, myself, and a few others tried to reason with him, that yes human rights are an issue for us all, which all should be involved in, but within human rights – and within humanism – there are certain people who are denied so much privilege that greater emphasis must be placed upon them.

I made the point to the said fool, imagine what would have happened in the 1950s and 1960s, had white people in the USA not joined in with and lent their weight to the Civil Rights movement on the grounds of “I'm not going to fight for black rights, I'm a Humanist, so I will only fight for equality for all.” We don't have to imagine as the facts are staring us in the face; the USA would still be segregated, and there sure as hell would be no African American President.

Now, I do not wish for one moment to attempt to take anything away from African Americans and the victory they won so hard in the Civil Rights movement. For it was their struggle, it was their victory, and it was many of them who paid with their lives for that victory. The fact remains however that in 50s-60s USA it was the whites who held the power, who dominated over politics, public services, and companies. Without some of those whites speaking out and taking action, the politicians would never have taken any notice. As much as I admire the late, great John F Kennedy – and trust me, I do – he once advised that the Civil Rights movement needed to “slow down” a bit. It was another man I admire greatly, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, who made it clear; “Slow downism leads to stand stillism, and stand stillism leads to do nothingism.” It was very easy for Jack Kennedy to ask the Civil Rights movement to “slow down”; as an affluent, powerful, white male, he enjoyed a great many privileges which the majority of African Americans were denied. The fact is that African Americans could not afford to slow down, and Dr King made that perfectly aware to President Kennedy, and thereby forced his hand to take action.

Back to the said guy who claimed to be a Humanist, he was having none of it, and despite her blocking him, he thence commenced on a hate campaign against my partner, trolling groups she belonged to and slandering her at every given turn. Some Humanist. Some 'champion' of human rights.

I can already hear those who are fond of saying “All lives matter” sneering “All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.” I would point out to them that the second line of that particular quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm was in fact added by the pigs, who were the ones who were enjoying all the privileges. And that is what it comes down to; if you enjoy any degree of privilege which others are denied, then you cannot say that your life has equal value to theirs, or your struggle and their struggle are the same, because they simply are not. Nobody goes into an oncology ward and moans about their ingrown toenail.

Whether the “All lives matter” brigade like it or not, there are different degrees of privilege within society, and as long as that remains a fact, then we shall never have a truly equal or cohesive, united society. We see this already by even those who claim to stand up for the struggles of others making statements about “the black community”, “the Asian community”, “the immigrant community”, “the LGBT community”, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Yet you never hear anyone speaking of 'communities' by labelling them “white”, “European”, “cisgender”, “native”, “heterosexual”, etc. Why not? Because the latter all enjoy privileges which the former are denied.

Surely 'society' is made up of ALL people, with many differences? And trust me, each and every one of us is different from others. So when we start pigeonholing people into different communities, we immediately set them apart from 'society'.

And anyone who does that has just negated any right they have to whine “All lives matter”.

Ark Encounters of the Absurd Kind

With the opening of Ark Encounter, the so-called life-sized replica of Noah's Ark, opening in Williamston, Kentucky, USA, I have been made privy to a few photographs from an unnamed source, which I have the pleasure in sharing with you here.

Right off, let me begin by saying that Ark Encounter is not a replica of Noah's Ark. It is in fact a building mocked-up to look like a boat on one side. Ark Encounter are very fond to show off the side which looks like a boat in their publicity shots. They are more than just a wee bit shy of showing the other side, which is a prefabricated concrete building, consisting of three towers, which the attraction is 'leaning' against and which houses all the facilities (restrooms, elevators, air conditioning, ventilation ducts, emergency exits, etc) for the 'Ark'. They are not too fond either of stating that the entire thing is embedded in solid concrete to keep it upright. Oh, or that there are no actual live animals in the Ark, as animal welfare legislation forbade it. The only live animals are in fact in a petting zoo, on the other side of a hill from the Ark.

Ark Encounter is headed up by Ken Ham, founder of the Creationist Museum and Answers in Genesis (AiG), who are behind the tourist attraction. Ham, an Australian immigrant to the USA, is a Biblical literalist and Young Earth Creationist (YEC) who honestly believes that the account of the creation of the Earth as laid down in the Bible is literally true, and holds by Archbishop Ussher's calculations, that the Earth was created in six days, approximately 6000 years ago. As such, I expected the worst from Ark Encounter, and I am only too sad to say I have not been disappointed. The attraction defies most if not all of peer-reviewed accepted science, as well as history, without a shred of solid evidence to back up it's claims.

The first photograph shows the Earth as imagined before the flood, with what I presume are supposed to be Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden – looking over towards very poor representations of apatosaurs and what I take to be pteradons. Pteradons were of course carnivorous, but notice that Ark Encounter have chosen herbivore land-based dinosaurs in this illustration. Perhaps the presence of carnivorous dinosaurs such as tyrannosaurus rex would raise too many questions from visitors. Whatever, unfortunately for Ham et al, not only did both species die out millennia before the rise of mankind, they did not even live together; the apatosaurs lived 152-151 million years ago, while pteradons lived 86-80 million years ago.

Bringing in the “wickedness” of mankind, there is mention of the Tower of Babel, which the Bible has rising “to Heaven”, and the next photograph shows “Towers from around the world”, asking if various ancient structures from around the world give a clue to what the Tower of Babel may have looked like. The Tower of Babel myth in fact completely throws creationists timescales, as well as their exaggerations about it reaching heaven. Scholars have identified it with the Great Ziggurat of Babylon or “Etemenanki”, a tower dedicated to the Mesopotamian god Marduk by Nabopolassar, king of Babylonia. The Etemenanki was 300 feet (91 metres) high, and rather embarrassingly for Ark Encounter, was built c.610 BCE. So, not only not old enough, but not nearly high enough, and much shorter than many older structures; notably the Great Pyramid of Giza, which was completed 2580 BCE, originally stood 481 feet (146.5 metres) high, and which the Bible makes absolutely no mention of.

I also don't think the Irish are going to be too happy about an illustration of the Newgrange pyramid being pointed to the south-west of England.

The next photograph is of a panel arguing that mankind had the technology to work wood, stone and metal at the alleged time of Noah, approximately 4400 years ago. “Many people believe that ancient man was not intelligent enough to design and build something as large and complex as the ark”, states the panel. Nope. Never once claimed that. In fact, our ancestors, having the same brain capacity as we have, had the potential to design and build fantastic structures, as ancient wonders such as the pyramids at Giza are monument to. They merely lacked knowledge, and of course the sharing of knowledge made our species more intelligent.

The Ark however is no Egyptian pyramid, and given the description in the Bible, it is actually not a very good design. For a start, a wooden vessel of that size, despite the claims of Ken Ham, would not float for any length of time before either turning turtle, breaking her back, or both. The longest wooden ship ever built was the Wyoming, a six-masted schooner which measured 450 feet (140 metres) and which was launched in 1909. Due to her length she buckled and timbers warped at sea, and had to have pumps working constantly to keep her hold relatively free of water. She foundered in heavy seas in 1924 with the loss of all hands. Compare the Wyoming to the supposed length of the Ark; 520 feet 8 inches, and you soon see that there is no way she could be seaworthy. Some will argue that with plenty of cross-bracing, it may be possible. I would immediately counter yes, but if you add cross-bracing, you are going to lose room for storage, and add to the overall weight of the vessel. So, less room for animals and their feed, and more weight before you even bring elephants, mastodons, larger dinosaurs, etc, aboard. If it ever existed, then no wonder nobody else got on the Ark apart from Noah's family; nobody else would be insane enough to set foot on that ruddy death trap.

But even assuming it could float, there is the time it would take to build the Ark. Answers in Genesis gives an estimate of 20 years, and goes on to say that this is a “tentative” figure. Fair enough, but that would have Noah, already an old man, and his three sons working on it alone (in Jewish patriarchal society, the wives of Noah and his son would not work upon it), with no prior experience, with primitive tools, materials, and building methods. It has taken Ark Encounter over 5½ years, with highly-trained and experienced construction teams (exact number employed unknown – can anyone help?), using modern building techniques and machinery, as well as modern materials, to build half a replica Ark. If construction experts could not build a whole one with modern means in one quarter of the time AiG claims, then what are the chances of four novices, one of whom was an old man, building the original in the 20 years allotted, using primitive tools, techniques and materials?

Another amusing claim of this is the metal-working which the panel mentions. Only one problem with that; the Bible makes absolutely no mention of the use of metals upon the Ark. More of which later.

Probably the most contentious of all the photographs is the one on race difference. In the panel photographed, Ark Encounter claim that all mankind are descended from the three sons of Noah; Shem, Japeth and Ham, and furthermore goes on to claim that if Noah and his wife were dark-skinned, then all skin colours, and races of Homo Sapiens, could be descended from them. Oh, and based upon only two genes.

Utter bunkum and unscientific, unintelligent gobbledegook. Skin colour is determined by “polygenic” traits, meaning that multiple genetic loci are involved in it's development. “At last count is has been determined that there are a total of 378 genetic loci involved in determining skin colour in human and mice. Among them, only 171 have been cloned and though the other 207 loci have been mapped out, the true gene identities have yet to be determined.” (International Federation of Pigment Cell Society). Slightly more than the two Ark Encounter are claiming, methinks.

In the simplest of terms, the driver of skin colour is of course melanin, which is much more prominent in dark-skinned people than in those of lighter skin. As our ancient ancestors moved out of Africa, relocating in areas with less sunlight, over time – like millennia – people in these areas required less and less melanin, and thus became lighter skinned (and giving caucasians a Vitamin D deficiency), and of those who settled in Australasia, exposed to much greater amounts of sunlight, their skin became much darker. As an Australian, one would have thought Ken Ham realised this. It is certainly possible for a black child to be born to a white couple, or vice versa, and there are recorded incidents of this happening, where there has historically been breeding between ethnic races. What cannot happen is the line of one ethnic race suddenly spawning another ethnic race, no matter what Ark Encounter's frankly racist “colour card” explanation claims.

So, we have a pic of what appears to be two velociraptors in a cage. And I have to congratulate Ark Encounter on getting this one right. Far from the fantasy of Jurassic Park, velociraptors were in fact small creatures. Their small size was in fact one of the factors which made them swift-moving hunters, hence the name they were dubbed with. I have no doubt that Ark Encounter are doing this to demonstrate that many dinosaurs, far from the huge monster lizards we imagine, were in fact pretty small, and they would be correct in this. However, I'd love to see the cages for even two young T-Rex, Apatosaurus, or the largest dinosaur of them all, Argentinosaurus, which grew up to 115 feet long, and weighed approximately 110 tons. Oh, don't tell me - Noah took eggs.  Yeah, and kept them on the Ark for a year, when they would be bound to hatch, and while they were indeed small when hatched, Argentionosuars apparently grew very rapidly.

Moreover, here we have an example of the metal-working which was mentioned earlier. That's quite a nice piece of metalwork actually, and if it were in any way representative of reality, it would mean that Noah or one of his sons was so adept in working metal that he had developed making wire. No easy trick when you're stuck in the middle of the desert. Of all the materials mentioned in the Bible which Noah was told to make the Ark with, there is absolutely no mention of metal; “Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.” (Genesis 6:14, KJV). To have us believe that Noah and his sons worked metal so skilfully, we would have to accept that first they managed to locate iron ore, mine it, smelt it, and work it into wire, when all the time they should have been busy building the ark. Even if we accept that one of them did all that, that reduces those actually shipbuilding to three, which of course can only increase the time dedicated to building the Ark.

But this wirework is the least of the contradictions, for the superstructure of Ken's Ark has in fact been given metal strengthening beams in places. And given there is no mention of metal in the Biblical account, Ark Encounter are not only misleading the public, they are in fact going against the very scriptures which they hold to be the inerrant word of God. What are the two words for that again? Oh yes, that's them; blasphemy and hypocrisy.

The next picture appears to be a food store, and plants growing (AiG maintain that all creatures were herbivores before the flood), one would imagine by some form of hydroponics. Well, a food store would have to take up a vast area of the Ark, much larger than that. And I'm afraid for Noah and his family, and all the creatures on the Ark, what we see in this photograph would not feed them for a day. Thereby there would not be sufficient time for more plants to grow. Not that they could grow anyway. It's very convenient for Ark Encounter to have all that modern electric lighting, but let us not forget that according to the Bible, the Ark was built with only one small window. Therefore, lit only by oil lamps and / or candles, the Ark would have been an extremely dark place, and it may have escaped Ken Ham's notice, but plants need sunlight to thrive. But even if there had been more windows, given that the Bible says it rained for forty days and forty nights, the plants would still get no sunlight, and a “nuclear winter” scenario would have ensued, killing the plants through lack of warmth and light.

And so onto the last photograph, and the alleged aftermath of the flood, which Ark Encounter claim laid down the sedimentary layers, creating fossils, and that it plunged Earth into “the ice age”, and they claim these changes lasted “decades”. Strangely enough, and somewhat inconvenient for Ark Encounter and other creationists, palaeontology has never, not once, ever, found the fossils or remains of ancient creatures alongside those of ancient creatures. There have certainly never been any human fossils found alongside dinosaurs. Sorry (not sorry) to disappoint Ark Encounter and Ken Ham, but The Flintstones is not a documentary. What palaeontology has found are transitional fossils of creatures through the sedimentary layers, which clearly illustrate evolution to be a clear fact. Oh but I forgot, creationists claim there are no transitional fossils. Well not unless you count the thousands upon thousands already discovered, and those which are continuing to be found on an almost daily basis.

As to “the ice age”, I take it that Ark Encounter are referring to the last glacial maximum. The fact is that Earth is still in the last 'ice age'; that's why the planet has polar ice caps. There have in fact been many glacial maximums in the history of the Earth, but I assume that Ark Encounter are referring to the last one, when ice sheets covered much of North America, Asia and Europe (Finchley Underground Station, London, in the UK – I kid you not; solid rock one side, clay the other, indicating the limit of the glacial maximum). And I suppose it did last for “decades”; if that is the way one wishes to divide up the vast millennia involved in it's formation, reaching the maximum, then deglaciation, which of course happened long before the 6000 years creationists claim the Earth has been around for. The last glacial period began some 110,000 years ago, the permafrost of the ice caps slowly increased for millennia, reaching the glacial maximum some 24, 500 years ago, before beginning to retreat 22,000 years ago to around 12,000 years ago. It was this encroaching and retreating ice which caused many changes to our ever-changing Earth. Rocks were polished, huge rocks carried from one place to another, and entire valleys were carved. Even in the southern hemisphere, where the ice never retreated onto the land, the climate change was severe enough to cause deseritification and drought. As the ice retreated, the sea levels rose quite substantially, and in many places land previously above sea level was submerged; the British Isles were cut off from the European continent, and the land bridge which previously connected Siberia to Alaska became what we today know as the Beiring Strait.

So, apart from changing the topography of a great deal of the Earth, what did the end of the last glacial maximum cause? Widespread and massive flooding, that's what. And here we may have the root of the flood myths.

The Biblical account of the Noahchian Flood almost certainly comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient epic Mesopotamian poem, written in the Ur Dynasty, c.2100 BCE. Denying this, creationists are quick to point out that many ancient cultures have flood myths, which they claim backs up the Biblical account of a global flood. They'll probably be cock-a-hoop when I wholeheartedly agree with them. Stand by for their sad little bubble to be burst.

I am fascinated by folklore and in researching it, I have found that many myths have a basis in fact, which have been convoluted over time. And the older these myths, the greater the chance they were handed down from generation to generation in oral tradition, long before anyone started writing them down. So here's my hypothesis. Our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, has been on this planet for 200,000 years, and during that time we have had the ability to communicate. Our early ancestors were certainly around during, survived, and witnessed last glacial the encroaching ice leading to the last glacial maximum, and the deglaciation and flooding left in it's aftermath. The widespread flooding which the melting ice and rising seas created must have been devastating to these early inhabitants of the Earth, and as creatures and crops they relied upon for food were destroyed, along with the extreme cold, leading to a great many deaths, it must have appeared to them that “the Gods were angry” and the Earth was indeed coming to an end. Therefore, it is not outwith the bounds of possibility that those who witnessed these events handed down stories of them to younger generations, who in turn passed them onto the next generation, and so on, and so on. Like 'Chinese Whispers', with every one of these oral retellings, the stories became much and much more elaborated, until gods were worked into the picture, destroying mankind for their wickedness, until by the time it became a written account, that was the standard version.

Of course, I have absolutely no proof for that and I merely put it forward as one possible explanation for almost every ancient culture having flood myths. I would argue however, given what we know of palaeontology, geology, history - and shipbuilding, it is far, far more likely an explanation than a 6000 year old Earth being created in six days, which was formed as it is 4400 years ago.

Ark Encounter is a $73 million lie, full of laughable downright impossibilities. If I lived in the area, I would certainly visit it, for exactly the same reason I would visit Ken Ham's Creation Museum; for a bloody good laugh, because that it is all it is fit for. That should not detract one iota however from the fact that this 'attraction' is downright dangerous. Just like the Creation Museum, just like Answers in Genesis, Ark Encounter throws out all the peer-reviewed, accepted, and in the vast majority of cases, proven science of the origins of the Earth and all species upon it, and instead seeks to indoctrinate minds, particularly those of children, with a load of disproven, complete absurdities, and in places outright lies (amazing how many Christians think they can break the Ninth Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” if they think the end justifies the means). And they do all this with not the tiniest shred of empirical evidence, but instead base their entire claim upon a bronze age book of goat herder's campfire tales, which they claim to be the inerrant word of their god, and which has long since been proven to be incorrect in a great many places.

I am willing to give Ark Encounter their due, that contrary to some claims the tax incentive they have been granted will not take taxpayers money away from other things. In fact, the incentive is a 25% reduction on sales tax from tickets and merchandise. So, if the funds aren't coming in, the less of a tax incentive they receive. How they came about this tax break however is indeed odious. Having been passed in 2009, it was subsequently removed when it was discovered that Ark Encounter will only employ Christians, and one would imagine Christians who share their YEC fantasies. AiG took the matter to court, and actually won, so the tax incentive was reapplied. Remember people that this is not a church, it is a tourist attraction, and yet Ark Encounter are being allowed to openly discriminate against people of other faiths and none in their employment policy. And that should make every Kentuckian, every US citizen, who believes in equality for all and the wall very, very angry.

But has Ark Encounter benefited from taxpayers money in any way, shape, or form? Yes, they have, and AiG are being very circumspect about this. A brand new intersection was opened off US Interstate 75 to facilitate access to the tourist attraction, at the cost to the taxpayer of a cool $11 million. Given that there is very little else on that turnoff in the back of beyond, had Ark Encounter never been built in Williamston, I am sure there are a great deal of better things Kentucky could have spent that money on.  And that should make Kentuckians and other US citizens who hold by the wall between church and state bloody livid.

Apparently the visitor numbers upon opening have been somewhat disappointing for Ark Encounter, and the “millions” of visitors they predicted in January have so far failed to appear. Part of me says bloody good job too. I would more than happily watch Ark Encounter, Answers in Genesis, and Ken Ham go bankrupt. They are doing untold harm to gullible, impressionable minds, and never more so when it is children being indoctrinated with their lies. I make no bones about this; feeding children the lies of creationist propaganda can only lead to them being ridiculed, it certainly harms their intellectual development, and it has the potential to harm future employment prospects, and that is nothing short of child abuse. As to adults who believe this guff, part of me feels downright sorry for anyone who could be that gullible, and the other part wants to slap the stupid out of them, preferably with a fossil.

But even if Ark Encounter, AiG and Ken Ham do start facing financial troubles, they need only go begging, as they have in the past, and sadly there are those who are so blinded by the poisonous filth which is creationism that they will happily donate to save Ken Ham's worthless hide. And that perhaps is the saddest fact of all.

Christian Apologist attempts to teach Granny to Suck Eggs

So, as I suspected would happen, following a letter I wrote to the Herald, refuting Rev Bill Wallace's objections to Same-Sex Marriage, I have received a letter, complete with religious tract, from a God-botherer. No address, but does anyone know of a “R Gordon”? Glasgow postmark on the envelope.

Okay, let the dog see the rabbit. Somebody's about to get schooled...

“Your letter in the Herald (2.6.2016) caused me concern that a person could be so ignorant of the Bible and God's Word to mankind.”

It concerns me too, pal, and I suggest you go actually study the Bible before you attempt to educate me upon it.

“God presents His standard in the Bible which does not and cannot change because He is the same yesterday, today and for ever.”

WRONG. In Exodus 21:24, God's commandment is “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”, yet in the Beatitudes, Jesus taught the multitude, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38). Therefore, if we were to accept that Jesus were God incarnate, as the tract accompanying R Gordon's letter firmly states, then that is but one instance where God did indeed change his standards. I could also point out that Adam and Eve were allegedly vegan, but after the flood mankind was allowed to eat meat, and many other instances in the Bible where God's “standards” changed arbitrarily, according to whatever mood he happened to be in.

“And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

This from people who call same-sex marriage and polygamy “unnatural”; a woman coming from a man's rib. The patriarchal nature of a woman springing from a man is not lost on me either.

“You will observe that it was one woman, God could have given Adam many women but that was not His plan and never has been.”

Really? Then let us consider the story of Lilith, found in the Babylonian Talmud, but written out of the Bible, because if there's one thing the church can't stand, it's a single-minded, independent woman. Lilith was Adam's first wife, created at the same time as him. However, she was wilful and 'would not lie under him'. She then fled Adam and Eden, and slept with the fallen angel Samael, giving birth to the demons known as the Nephilim. Of course, this is all nonsense according to Christians; mere mythology (because the rib woman and the talking snake are absolute proof and perfectly logical of course), and no mention of Lilith in the Bible. Whoops! There she is, right there in one reference the early church failed to erase; “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27).

There is of course no mention of any marriage of Adam and Eve (or Adam and Lilith) in the Bible, but if we accept that they were indeed married, then that means that Adam did indeed have two wives.

“Abraham had one wife Sarah but hey were not prepared to wait on God's plan and decided on a plan of their own at Sarah's instigation, Genesis 16:2. As a consequence they sinned and the Bible informs us that everyone of us sins.”

Amazing what you can present by quote-mining the Bible – except when the person you are quote-mining to happens to know the Bible very well. Genesis 16:2 states, “And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.” And the very next verse, Genesis 16:3, clearly states “And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” TO BE HIS WIFE. Abraham had TWO wives (and after Sarah's death married another, while Hagar was still alive), thereby making him a bigamist.

Oh, but according to R Gordon, this was sinful, and made God angry. Strangely enough, that doesn't appear to have been the view of the Big Man, when he later addresses Hagar in the same chapter; “And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.” (Genesis 16:7-10). If what Hagar, Abraham and Sarah were doing was so very sinful, why should God's “will” be to “multiply” her seed “exceedingly”?

On Solomon's seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, R Gordon writes, “Just because the Bible records this doesn't mean that God approves of Solomon's action, a few verses later And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel.”

True, it does not say that God approves of Solomon's actions, and neither does it say God disapproved of them. That's kinda strange for a God whose disapproval of certain actions is very well stated in the Bible. After all, this is the same petty-minded psychopath who allegedly destroyed all life, save for a boatload of people and animals, because of the wickedness he had created in the first place.

In fact, there were three reasons why God was angry with Solomon. The first was not over the number of wives, but in what is a downright bigoted verse, the cultural and racial background of these women; “But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.” (1 Kings, 11:1-3). Secondly, it was Solomon who angered God by turning from him, and thirdly, by worshipping other gods, in direct contravention of the First Commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me); “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” (1 Kings, 11:4).

At no place in 1 Kings 11, nor anywhere else in the Bible, Old or New Testament, is the number of Solomon's wives and concubines given as the reason why God was angry with him. If polygamy were the case for God's anger, then he had plenty others to be angry with, including his favourite, Abraham, and Moses, who wrote down the laws.

“In relation to Matthew 19:5, as God the Son He restated the principle of a man and woman being united in marriage in a special relationship and they twain shall be one flesh. Multiple wives can in no stretch of the imagination be described as that.”

Granted – in that context. And as I pointed out in my original letter, the context of this verse was Jesus replying a question which was given in the singular, and as one does, was replying in the singular. The Pharisees were in fact trying to trip Jesus up on his scripture; “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matthew 19:3). Notice that the Pharisees stated “wife”, singular, not “wives”, plural. Therefore, whilst they were referring to just one wife, at no time even suggests the methaphorical man in question need have only one wife. And of course, Jesus accordingly replies in the singular. Now, from R Gordon's letter, I realise that he, like so many other Christians, has an extremely poor grasp of grammar, but to me that is as plain as the nose on your face.

And at no time in his letter does R Gordon mention the Parable of the Ten Virgins, “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.” (Matthew 25:1). In the whole of that parable, Matthew 25:1-12, there is the reference to five wise virgins readying themselves for the bridegroom, and the five unwise virgins who were not ready. A metaphor it may well be, but if the Bible were to be believed, then that was Jesus referring to a polygamous marriage. And no, they were not bridesmaids. Even today the idea of bridesmaids presenting themselves to the bridegroom is absurd, and in Biblical Judea, where it was the mother of the bride who chose the bridesmaids, it would have been not only be completely unheard of, but indeed scandalous. The Bible clearly states “ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom” - polygamous marriage, allegedly right from the lips of “God incarnate”.

Bottom line: at no point, anywhere, Old Testament or New Testament, does the Bible ever define marriage as one man, one woman.  Polygamous marriage is the norm in the Bible, with monogamous marriage being the exception, rather than the rule.  But then, contrary to what the Christian churches claim, nowhere does the Bible ever claim that marriage was created by the Judeo-Christian god.  Another myth the churches have tried to perpetuate for over 2000 years.

Instead R Gordon finishes their letter with the usual platitudinous guff of offering me a Biblical verse, which is completely off-topic, trying to get me to become a Christian, and which bears no relevance to my original letter, and states “So the majority is not right, humankind is called to accept Jesus as Saviour and Lord.”

Except of course, at no point in my letter did I ever saw the majority were right. I seldom think the majority are right, and I tend to leave ad populum arguments to the religious who, having so few things to fall back upon, are much more wont to use them than I ever would be.


My letter to The Herald, 2 June 2016:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/letters/14530616.Attitude_of_confrontation_before_forgiveness_is_turning_people_away_from_church/