SNP, LGBT YOUTH SCOTLAND, STONEWALL SCOTLAND, AND IGLA ARE NOT TRYING TO LOWER THE AGE OF CONSENT

There have been several questionable comments which have come from the recently-formed Alba Party concerning gender. However, few can be more contentious than claims around the Alba Women’s Conference on Saturday, 10 April 2021, which claimed that the SNP were planning to reduce the age of consent in Scotland to 10 years old, and that this was at the behest of LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland.

Denise Findlay, an Alba candidate, posted on Twitter, “Margaret Lynch on queer theory – the next move is to reduce the age of consent to 10 years of age. LGBT youth and Stonewall Scotland have signed up to this and have received over 1 million pounds of Scottish Government funding.”

Margaret Lynch, who apparently originated this comment is another Alba candidate, and one who in the blog Wings Over Scotland on 31 March referred to transgender women as, quote, “crossdressers – but not real women”. Denise Findlay later deleted her Tweet, but not before she had managed to set the heather on fire among the transphobic Twitterati.

What Lynch and Findlay are alluding to is a declaration read out in the United Nations on 9 March 2020 by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), which adopted the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, 25 years after their declaration, commonly known as “the Beijing Declaration”. The declaration, which it’s critics have been very careful to omit it’s origins lie with the UN, has some paragraphs which have been carefully cherry-picked, and taken completely out of context, to claim that the IGLA are promoting paedophilia.

When one looks at these paragraphs, and takes them in context, we can see that far from harming children and adolescents they in fact aim to protect them and to further their individual rights. The passages come from clause 14 in the declaration, with the critics very carefully picking out 14a and 14g, as follows:

14. Respect the rights of all individuals to exercise autonomy over their lives, including their sexualities, identities and bodies, desires and pleasures free from all types of discrimination, coercion and violence, and fully realize sexual and reproductive rights, and ensure bodily autonomy, integrity and sovereignty, by taking the following actions:

a. Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;

g. End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms;

Now, let’s go through this carefully.

“Respect the rights of all individuals to exercise autonomy over their lives, including their sexualities, identities and bodies, desires and pleasures free from all types of discrimination, coercion and violence”

That statement right there speaks of the right to bodily autonomy, and that everybody should be free of, quote, “coercion and violence”. That right away tells us that nobody has the right to coerce or force anyone else against their will, and that includes over their sexualities, identities (which can include gender), and their bodies (which of course can include gender corrective surgery). The declaration goes on to state that it is their aim to “fully realize sexual and reproductive rights, and ensure bodily autonomy, integrity and sovereignty” This again is about autonomy over ones life and body; with the goal being that everyone has the sexual and reproductive rights, which no other person has any right to dictate.

So we come to the part the transphobes are pouncing upon;

“Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use”

Those who are trying to play “GOTCHA!” with the SNP are concentrating upon that line, “including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex” to try to make out that this means a lowering of the age of consent – when it does no such thing.

Their argument is that the United Nations defines adolescence being from between 10 to 19 years of age, and there is where the “reduce the age of consent to 10 years of age” claim comes from. In fact, under the UN definition, one may already be classed as an adolescent, but still be beyond the age of consent in many countries, including Scotland, where the age of consent is 16. Can we assume then that if Margaret Lynch and Denise Findlay do not want ‘adolescents’ being able to consent to sex, that while falsely claiming that LGBT Youth, Stonewall Scotland, and the SNP seek to lower the age of consent to 10, they would in fact like it raised to 20 years old? Or would it be farcical of me to make any such claim? As farcical as them attempting to smear two vital LGBT charities and the democratically-elected Scottish Government? Indeed, could it be I’m taking them out of context? Hey, I’m merely playing their game, and they can hardly blame me for jumping the shark and making false accusations in exactly the same way they are.

So we come to paragraph g.

“End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms”

Again, here the transphobes are concentrating upon “End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality” and are trying to claim that this means removing the protection in law for children, when again, it is saying no such thing. In fact, all this paragraph does is recognise that adolescents do indeed have attractions and sexual longings. Yes, that’s right, Missus, they do – as most parents of teenagers, particularly teenage boys, will tell you. Trust me, that funk you smell in the bedroom of any teenage boy is not just from dirty socks. I sincerely doubt that I was alone when I was a teenager of turning my bedroom into some sort of ‘masturbation furnace’.

You’ll notice that the transphobes are very careful to ignore the rest of paragraph g; the part that averts their rights to make “informed and independent decisions on matters concerning bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms”. I hate to inform the doubters, but your teenage daughters and sons do indeed have sexual longings and fantasies, and they do indeed, gasp, masturbate. Quick! Someone pass Margaret and Denise the smelling salts. They and others can live in ignorance in Gumdrop Castle in Lala Land, and do a Helen Lovejoy by throwing up their hands in horror and shouting “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children?” all they want, but that does not and never will alter the fact that each and every one of us is a sexual being from puberty onwards – get used to it. Of course, it may be that Margaret Lynch and Denise Findlay never had sexual longings as teenage girls, and never masturbated. To use a well-known Scots phrase, “Aye! Right” (actually, if they didn’t that may explain a lot).

As every adolescent is indeed a sexual being, as you and I are, and were from puberty (deny it all you want – you know I’m telling the truth), they should not be at all stigmatised for that, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, and they should be accorded the freedoms to explore those aspects of their personalities, free of interference, free of shame, and free of governmental legislation preventing them doing so. This is all the declaration is saying, nothing more.

It most certainly not the “paedophiles charter” some are making it out to be. And actually, by levelling claims of paedophilia, the panic merchants are wrong again. Paedophilia refers only to the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The term for sexual attraction to underage pubescent adolescents is hebephilia.

The Beijing Declaration absolutely does not propose lowering the age of consent, and it does not remove the protections in law for children, whether adolescent or prepubescent. In fact, in averring the rights of bodily autonomy, it underlines the right of children to protection from those who would form them. Consider that the overwhelming majority of children who are victims of sexual abuse have no bodily autonomy; they are almost always coerced or forced into sexual activities. In law, those under the age of consent are deemed incapable of consenting to sexual activities, so the onus is always upon the adult concerned, and that is why child sexual abuse is always deemed to be statutory rape.

There are of course a tiny, tiny number of adolescents who do indeed initiate sexual congress, either with another underage person, or with an adult, and guess what? The adult is still to blame, and is still committing statutory rape. Why? Because the adult is supposed to be the responsible one, who should know better, and if they give into the demands of child, they are still the ones to blame. So another aspect of the declaration is that children who do initiate sexual contact should not be stigmatised or blamed for that, because guess what? Children often make mistakes, and get themselves into situations they think they can handle, but realise too late that they are in way over their heads. I like the way sexologist Roy Eskapa put this in his book, Bizarre Sex; that a child may think they can drive a car, but if you were to put a child behind the wheel of a car in traffic, they would be horrified (or at the least would very quickly discover they had got themselves into a situation they could not handle).

Child molesters, be they paedophiles or hebephiles, are among the most manipulative of people in the world. They tend to be inadequate adults who seek control over others. There is certainly a sexual aspect to their actions, but this is allied to a need to assert authority over those less able to defend themselves. In this aspect we can see that the child molester, like all abusers, is a bully, and in the nature of the bully, a coward at heart. Needless to say, vulnerable children, perhaps those who lack confidence, or who already suffering some other kind of abuse, are a magnet to such individuals. They will hone in on them, pretend to love them, and then make their move. The Beijing Declaration in fact seeks to protect adolescents and children from such perverts by asserting that they, and they alone, have autonomy over their own lives and their own bodies.

But hey, the Beijing Declaration, in asserting that bodily autonomy is also stating that no-one has any right to dictate the sexual or gender identities of adolescents and children; that no-one has the right to tell them, “You’re NOT trans” or “You’re NOT gay”, or to threaten or coerce them, or indeed subject them to violence. It seems to me that those against the Beijing Declaration have much more in common with child molesters than the very children they claim to be protecting. If they are denying the gender and sexual identities of young people, they are certainly abusing them.

And this is one aspect of this latest rhetoric which I do find disturbing. I have been saying since their formation that the Alba Party is full of transphobes. This I have come to expect. I never for one moment suspected them of also being homophobes, particularly as there are some lesbians in the party, but in attacking LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland in making false claims about IGLA, the attackers are partaking in one of the oldest homophobic tropes going. The argument is that because LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland signed up to IGLA, both of these charities must be in some great conspiracy to lower the age of consent, and make the molestation of children legal.

Should anyone doubt this, I would point them to the Wings Over Scotland blog of 10 April 2020, The Paedophile Charter. In this odious title (with an incorrect title – see point above about hebephilia), the originator of ‘Wings’, Rev Stuart Campbell, makes the point that both LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland are indeed signatories to the IGLA Charter. He then points to a Guardian story from 2009, telling how a then Chief Executive of LGBT Youth Scotland was one of a paedophile ring convicted of 50 charges of sexually abusing young boys. Campbell states, “LGBT Youth Scotland was at the centre of Scotland’s biggest ever paedophile scandal” Not so. The then Chief Executive was, but not the charity. This is putting two and two together to get five. If LGBT Youth Scotland had been at the centre of a paedophile ring, they would have been closed down long ago.

And in case you missed it, the conviction of the men concerned had absolutely nothing to do with gender identity. None of them identified as transgender. They did indeed molest little boys, and the inference here is that they did so because they are gay. Actually, as any sexual therapist who deals with paedophiles will tell you, even those men who prey upon little boys are almost always heterosexual, and many have expressed horror and even anger when a sexual encounter with another adult male has been suggested to them. Note the point again about paedophilia having a control / power dynamic.

But not happy with thus trying to smear two charities, Campbell jumps the shark even further, and makes the point that until 2017, one of LGBT Youth Scotland’s directors was openly gay SNP politician Alyn Smith, MP for Stirling. Campbell, in totally homophobic language even refers to him as ‘Alyn “Daddy Bear” Smith’. Alyn Smith had no part in the 2009 convictions, has never been involved in any criminal case involving children, but the inference here is that because he was a LGBT Youth director, he somehow must be involved.

How Campbell gets away with these vile accusations is beyond me, and it would give me the greatest of pleasure to see LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall Scotland, the SNP, and Alyn Smith sue the socks off him.

Margaret Lynch, Denise Findlay, Rev Stuart Campbell and others are trying to build a conspiracy out of nothing, in much the same way that there are people who try to claim that global finance is controlled by the Jews, or that Bill Gates is trying to depopulate the world. And we could just as easily laugh at them and the rest of the Alba Party, were they not so bloody dangerous. They already have followers believing them, and who are attacking LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland. This could do enormous damage to LGBT people – all LGBT people – in Scotland. I tried to warn people for years that the independence movement had a disturbing number of transphobes. Seems I should have been warning them about homophobia as well.

I’m not even convinced that those named above, and others making these false accusations do not know what they are doing, or the potential for damage it has, and in fact, I don’t think they even care. They claim to want to ‘help’ the SNP to get a supermajority, and to work with the SNP, but they seem intent on attacking the SNP at every turn, even if that means throwing Scotland’s LGBT people under the bus.

The twisting of the IGLA / Beijing Declaration seems to say that they want to deny adolescents their right to bodily autonomy, or that any mention of such should never be heard. It’s not unlike the hugely damaging law of Section 28, which outlawed the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality in schools, which made any mention of being gay illegal, and which led to gay / lesbian young people being stigmatised, bullied, made to feel ashamed and guilty for their sexuality, and did indeed destroy many lives. And if they are seeking to deny young people access to sexual / reproductive health and birth control, well we have already seen the effects of that in some ‘abstinence only’ states in the USA, and some other countries; they end up having the highest incidence of teenage pregnancies, and of teenagers contracting STDs.

All in all, it smacks a bit like some authoritarian, right-wing state, which seeks to enforce sexual and gender laws under some religious pretext, that they know what’s best for children and young people, and anything LGBT is ‘sinful’. Is there any proof for this? Well, we are talking about the Reverend Stuart Campbell – that is a ‘reverend’ of the Universal Life Church; an internet organisation with no legal recognition as an official church – so we may be seeing yet another religious bigot appointing himself moral guardian, and trying to enforce his beliefs upon all of us.

Stuart Campbell does not even live in Scotland, but rather Bath, England. It is true that as a supporter of Scottish independence, I do not want legislation in my country dictated from London – and I don’t want it from bloody Bath, or anywhere else outwith Scotland, either.

And if we ever get independence, but that independence ignores the rights of LGBT people, and castigates them, then I should want no part of that. Any independent Scotland must be just and equitable for all who live here. If we leave one person behind, then we fail as a movement, as a people, and as a nation, and that would be a free Scotland not worth having.

As the song goes, “One of us are chained? None of us are free.”

By the way, when asked why she removed the Tweet, Denise Findlay claimed she was the one being bullied.  You couldn't make this shit up.

Where Is The Love?

Not at all homophobic you understand?

Anderton Park Primary School, LGBTI-inclusive education, and Eshter McVey

Amidst ongoing protests at Anderton Park Primary School in Birmingham, England, former cabinet minister and current contender for the leadership of the Conservative Party, and thereby future Prime Minister, Esther McVey, has thrown her support behind those protesting against LGBTI-inclusive education at the school.

“I believe parents know best for their children and whilst they are still children then really parents need to have the final say in what they want their children to know,” says McVey,  “People shouldn't be protesting outside of primary schools. That's young children going into school there. Everyone has to be a bit more adult, a little bit more grown up in what they do outside a primary school.  I'm being very clear. The final say is with the parents and if parents want to take their young children out of primary school, out of certain forms or sex education, relationship education that is down to them.”

Despite her fine words that people should not be protesting outside schools, Esther McVey could not be more wrong, and has effectively thrown the head teacher and staff at the school, as well as parents with no problem with the lessons, under a bus.

First the background.  Anderton Park School is a primary school in Birmingham, England, which has introduced LGBTI-inclusive education into their curriculum, as has been sanctioned by the UK government.  The form it took was an award-winning programme called No Outsiders, formed by local teacher Andrew Moffat.    The No Outsiders programme teaches the realities of LGBTI+ people at age-appropriate level, without any mention of sexual activities.  It merely teaches that LGBT+ people exist, that some children have two fathers or two mothers, that some men like men, some women like women, and that some people identify with a gender which differs from their biological sex.  The aim of No Outsiders, like all LGBTI-inclusive education, is to teach respect and acceptance of others, and thereby reduce the incidence of homophobic and transphobic discrimination, harassment, and bullying.  This is particularly important to children who may identify as LGBTI, in that it aims to foster acceptance from their peers, reduce prejudice and bullying, and teach those children that it is perfectly normal and natural to be who they are, and to own their identity with pride.

Sounds great, doesn’t it?  And great it would be, were it not for homophobia, transphobia, disinformation, and propaganda to raise their ugly heads.  The school happens to be in a largely Muslim community, and many children attending the school come from Muslim families.  No sooner had the No Outsiders programme started than there were a small group of Muslims objecting to it.  This formed a protest outside the school gates, which has since snowballed.  The protestors are objecting to children being taught about same-sex relationships, transgender people, and “gay sex”.  The protests started with a small group of parents, but since then others have become involved.  The self-appointed leader of the protests, Shakeel Asfar, does not even have children at the school, but is an uncle to two children attending.  The increasing protest has started to involve others who do not have children at the school, and even those who are not parents at all.  Numbers have increased as other anti-LGBT Muslims, Christians, and even extreme right-wingers – who otherwise are prejudiced towards Asians and Muslims – have joined in.  There are also now signs of the protest spreading to other schools in England.

Were their objections to harmless LGBTI-inclusive education not enough, some of these protestors have started spreading lies and propaganda about the No Outsiders programme.  Protestors are claiming that the programme teaches about gay sex, it does not, that is sexualises children, and worst of all that it is teaching paedophilia.  Abdullah Bahm, an Islamic preacher from Batley, Yorkshire – not even with no relationship to the school, but from a completely different county in England – shouting through a PA system at the protest, held up images including a near-naked couple, which he falsely claimed came from No Outsiders literature, and proclaimed “There are paedophiles in there. There are paedophiles in there.” and claimed that to teach equality is to teach a “paedophile agenda”.

A Christian preacher from Bournemouth – hundreds of miles from Birmingham, again, in another county -  following Mr Bahm, then took the microphone, insisted that teaching about “gay equality” was confusing children, and related an anecdote (which almost certainly never happened) of a little girl being afraid to pick up a friend who had fallen, “in case she was called a lesbian”.  He then went on to rattle off a number of alleged statistics about gay relationships and sexually transmitted diseases – which of course are completely irrelevant to LGBTI-inclusive education.

There are parents who have no problem with their children being taught about equality, and some who have bravely spoken out about it.  However, when these said parents attempt to take their children to school, they are being confronted by protestors, usually outside the school but some have reported being accosted streets away, and being told “If you send your children to that school, you are not a Muslim, and you will burn in Hell.”  Parents, with little children, are constantly jeered as they go into the school.  Teachers at the school, including the head teacher, have been verbally abused, jostled, threatened, and have even received death threats.  The head teacher, Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson, described in an interview on LBC Radio, how even in what are supposed to be discussions with the protestors, hardliners have shut down debate by shouting over her and other staff any time they attempted to talk.  There is one reported instance of one man slamming his fist down on a desk and declaring that he was a general in the Kashmiri Liberation Army.  The aforementioned Mr Asfar has no intention of speaking civilly with Ms Hewit-Clarkson, whom he wants to resign, but instead in a speech denouncing her, and in which he threw in completely off-topic various ‘atrocities’ committed upon Muslims around the world, insinuated that she was probably having a sexual relationship with a “biased” female journalist.  Not that it should matter, but the sexuality of Ms Hewit-Clarkson is not known.

Worse still was to come.  A counter-protest of pro-LGBT people, who had gained permission from the school, arrived on the evening of 19 May, and started hanging rainbow flags, pom-poms, and messages of pro-LGBT support on the school railings.  The counter protest had non-violent intentions, and even arrived with cupcakes to hand out and share with the protestors, whom they hoped to have a reasoned discourse with.  Instead, as they were hanging their messages, they were pelted with eggs, shouted and screamed at, cars full of men turned up and told them to “get out of our community”.   But even when they did try to leave, some of the protestors, all women, found their way blocked by a large group of men.  Due to a distraction, they managed to escape.  By the morning, nearly all of the messages had been torn down.

Shakeel Asfar blamed the counter-protestors for the confrontation.  He claimed that the flags and messages were “inflammatory”, and accused the group of provoking residents were about to mark Ikfar, the breaking of the Ramadan fast.   It is not at all lost on me that Mr Asfar is attempting to turn this issue into a wider “Islamophobia” one, when that is patently not the case.

Even at the lower end, there are protestors objecting to what is being taught, chanting “Our children, our choice”, and maintaining it is ‘their’ school.  Yes, it is, but only up to a point.  And this is where Esther McVey is wrong to support them.

Yes, it is their school; every school is part of the community it serves, and parents should indeed be able and even be encouraged to interact with the school, for the benefits of their children.  However, it is not their curriculum and when a curriculum, or part thereof, is accepted by that school, by the local authority, and by central government, that is where the individual input of parents has to end, for the greater interests of all children at that school.  If that were not the case, then every school would have their hands tied, and not be able to teach anything, because of objections from individual parents.  Besides which, there are now a number taking part in this protests who do not have children at that school, some who have come hundreds of miles to protest a school they probably never heard of until this year, and some of whom do not even have children at all.  It is not Shakeel’s Asfar School, far less some Islamic preacher from Bradford, or a Christian preacher from Bournemouth.

If some parents are unhappy with the No Outsiders programme, then they have the freedom to remove their children from the school, which sadly, some have done.  However, when they attempt to prevent the teaching of the programme altogether, spreading lies, disinformation and propaganda, are trying to enforce the resignation of the head teacher, are harassing, bullying, jostling, and threatening staff and other parents, scaring their children while doing so, when they send death threats to staff, when a non-violent group of women with the best intentions are intimidated and threatened by a gang of men, and when they are pelted with eggs, it becomes a different matter.  

This again is where Esther McVey is wrong.  Do parents really know what is best for their children, in every case?  I sincerely doubt it.  To quote an auld Scots saying, “Bairns and fuils speak at the cross whit they hear at the ingleside.”  In other words, bigotry is never learned, but begins in the home.  Even to this day there are few parents who teach their children tolerance of all, but most will still instil, either deliberately or inadvertently, their own prejudices into their children.  Likewise, very few parents are education professionals.  They have never gone to university to learn to be teachers, and they have never had experience of dealing with classes full of children, or all the work which being a teacher entails.  The simple fact is that if parents knew what was best for their children, there would be no schools, because there would be no need for them.  The overwhelming majority of people send their children to school because they know what is best for their children is to learn from teachers whom they know have a far better education than they shall ever have.

What McVey is saying is downright dangerous, and we need not look far to see the results of her thinking.  Indeed, we need only look across the North Atlantic to the USA, where religious maniacs who do not want their children taught in “Godless” schools home teach their children.  And the result is another generation of cretins coming up who are going to be laughed at throughout their lives for believing that the Earth was created by their god in six days, 6000 years ago, and who are going to have poor future employment prospects as a result.  Until they in turn in their dead-end jobs, bring up the next generation who are brainwashed believing that every word in the Bible is the unerring and factual word of their god.

Indeed, we see exactly the same thing in Muslim majority countries, and that includes the few countries where they are even allowed to attend school, girls are enforced to cover up completely, and that the best they can hope for is to have a good husband chosen for them, to whom they must be good and loyal wives.  And quite scarily, teaching like such has been exposed in some Islamic schools in the UK.

Amidst all this, we have the teaching in these religious communities that anything which detracts in the slightest from the cisgender heteronormative is an “abomination” to their god, from whence the protest at Anderton Park School has sprung.  In some interpretations of both Christianity and Islam, followers are taught that LGBTI+ people are at best to be shunned, at worst to be chased down and killed.  A 2016 ICM poll found that 52% of British Muslims polled believed that homosexuality should be illegal, and 47% said that that gay people should not be allowed to become teachers.  And of course, among this, as we have seen, some castigate all LGBT+ people are paedophiles, when in fact the LGBT+ demographic have the lowest incidence of paedophilia in society.  This smear is common to both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists.

As long as parents are filling the minds of their children with this bigoted filth, does Esther McVey still want to claim they know what is best for them?

But then, Ms McVey is equally wrong when she states “if parents want to take their young children out of primary school, out of certain forms or sex education, relationship education that is down to them”, for no part of LGBTI-inclusive education includes sex education.  Some of the protestors have jumped on the sex education bandwagon, claiming that the school is “sexualising” their children, when they are doing no such thing.  In fact, if there were any school teaching children as young as 5 any type of sex education, be it straight or gay, I too would object to that.  But the simple fact is that is not happening, it actually cannot happen under the law (either in England or Scotland), and anyone who claims that is what LGBTI-inclusive education is doing is either misinformed, or an out-and-out liar.  As far as those leading the Anderton Park protest are concerned, I know which of the two I am more likely to believe.

Certainly, there is mention of relationships in LGBTI-inclusive education, but that is only to explain same-sex relationships, which are simply a fact.  One mother at Anderton Park asked a reporter if they knew how difficult it was to explain to her little one “why some children have two mummies”.  What is she going to do?  Ignore it and hope that it will go away?  So when her child does actually encounter a child with same-sex parents, or sees a gay couple with a child, and asks questions, what is she going to say then?  Pretend they don’t exist and they never saw them?  What indeed is she going to say if her daughter turns out to be gay?  How about letting professionals in the field of education instead quietly explaining that love is love, and some people are attracted to the same gender?

Likewise, a Christian father recently phoned LBC Radio claiming that little children are too young to learn about any relationships.  Are they really?  So, Dad, I take it you’ve never told your kids fairy stories about women being swept off their feet by dashing, handsome princes?  Of kids being cruelly treated by their wicked stepmothers, or being rescued by beautiful princesses?  Of course you have.  Every parent has.  And in fact, I’d be more worried about instilling young minds with stereotyped perceptions of what is and what is not ‘beautiful’ – and the perceived roles of women – than the relationships within those stories.  But then, one wonders if the said father has any qualms about teaching his children about Adam and Eve, or even the relationship of Mary carrying the child of God for that matter?

Joking apart, there is an important point here; children are actually much more switched on and accepting of the lives of others than many adults give credence to.  And when they do see or hear of a child with same-sex adults, or hear of or encounter someone who comes out as gay, transgender, or any other aspect of the LGBTI+ spectrum, and ask questions, they deserve honest answers, and will more than likely be very accepting of that.  Likewise, as far as gender goes, science has proven that children as young as 3 are capable of expressing their gender; and that goes for all genders, including cisgender.  

It is not the children who are hating others at Anderton Park, or anywhere else.  It is the adults doing that, and brainwashing the children with their hate.

But if the protestors at Anderton Park Primary School are in the wrong, if Esther McVey is in the wrong, then they are nowhere near as in the wrong as the Westminster Government, who have been constantly asked by Sarah Hewit-Clarkson, and other head teachers across England to give clear guidance on LGBTI-inclusive education, and have remained steadfastly silent upon the matter.

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”.

Preachers in glass houses should not throw stones

Posted by a man who accuses atheists of bigotry

In an article in Christian Today, the Reverend David A Robertson, Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland (aka the “Free Kirk” or “Wee Frees”), ostensibly asks “Is Christianity Regressive?”, which purports to be an examination of Christianity, but in reality turns into a tirade against atheists, whom he infers are bigoted and even racist.

I have crossed swords with Rev Robertson many times before; I have tried to reason with him, I have even tried to be friendly towards him. In the end there is no reasoning with this man, due to his own arrogance, his own bigotry, but most of all, the way he attempts to twist and misrepresent the words of others. With quote-mining, statements and data taken completely out of context aplenty, his article in CT is a prime example of this.

Almost from the go, Rev Robertson's attack upon atheists – along with misrepresentation – starts in the second paragraph, when he states that philosopher John Grey was mocking his fellow atheists when he said “the grand march of secular reason would continue, with more and more societies joining the modern west in marginalising religion. Someday, religious belief would be no more important than personal hobbies or ethnic cuisines.” David does not give a source for that quote – another favourite ploy of the quote miner – but no matter, for I have found it, and shall link it below. The statement comes from an article in The Guardian, dated 3 March 2015, titled “What scares the new atheists” and the statement which David quoted was not mocking atheists but actually was speaking of the reaction of many to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So right away, we see that Rev Robertson has quote-mined a statement and twisted it for his own ends. There's plenty more to come.

Why Rev Robertson should quote John Grey is pretty obvious. Grey does indeed describe himself as an atheist, but he is well-known for attacking other atheists and for a dislike of organised atheism, which he sees every bit as odious and dangerous as organised religion. Whilst I don't agree with much of what John Grey says, on that matter I not only wholly agree with him, I would suggest that there is no 'atheist movement', for the simple fact that because every atheist is a free-thinker who came to the conclusion there is no evidence for the existence of god(s) through their own experience and observations, it never can be a concerted movement. A few years ago there was the advent of 'atheist churches', which I said was a silly idea at the time for the above reasons, and sure enough there has been extremely poor take-up of the concept. Atheism is not and cannot ever be an organised movement because while many atheists may agree on many things, there's always going to be sticking points where we differ. Ironically, John Grey's very antipathy towards his fellow atheists is actually a prime example of this.

But of course, quoting John Grey's words suits Rev Robertson's agenda of asserting that atheism is a religion, faith, or creed, which he repeats in the CT article, in which he calls atheism an “unrealistic faith”. Religions, religious faiths, and religious creeds have deities they worship and clergy they look up to for guidance. Entering a religion needs some rite, whether that be through prayer, baptism, circumcision, or other ceremony. Within religions there are rules and codes of conduct expected of the faithful, and if they contravene these, then individuals can be cast out and cut off from their religious community. Atheism has no deities to worship, no clergy to give guidance, there are no rites or ceremonies to become an atheist, there are no rules or codes of conduct to atheism and all atheist opinions are valid on their own merits, and because every atheist is a free-thinker, there will inevitably be disagreements, falling-outs even, but as there is no official atheist community, no-one can be cast out and cut off.

I need not ask David if atheism is a religion, just who is our god, and who are our clergy, because I asked him that once before – and I still await an answer.

Hoping he's scored a point, in the CT article David quotes a Pew Research poll, stating “A Pew research study shows that by 2050 it is expected that only 13 per cent of the world's population will not be religious, compared to 16 per cent today. Although the growth of the non-religious is expected to continue in the West.” Again, no citation for this little gem, again, I found it myself, and in what is supposed to be an article about Christianity, what Rev Robertson fails to mention is that Christianity is indeed on the decline (a 2013 poll in Scotland showed that 39% count themselves as "No Religion" - a rise of 10% in the past decade), while it is Islam which is the fastest growing religion worldwide. Even then, given the brutality of some Islamic regimes, one has to ask how many have converted to Islam through free choice, how many have converted because it was demanded of them under threat of violence, and how many Islamic countries are massaging the figures to make it appear that more or all of their citizens are Muslim. So if David wants to gloat over the Pew Research poll, I'm afraid it is a Pyrrhic victory, as his own faith is most certainly on the decline. Meanwhile, even a cursory look around the internet throws up an increasing number of very brave atheist commentators and bloggers in oppressive religious regimes who are demanding to be heard.

But maybe Rev Robertson has picked up on the fact that Christianity is on the decline, for it is western society which he blames for this decline, and it is in that attack that he alludes to atheism and atheists being racist. Without a citation again, David quotes Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin's Bulldog” (not “Bull” as David mistakenly states) once saying “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior of, of the white man.” Again there is no citation when he quotes the claim oft voiced by theists that H.G. Wells, discussing how 'inferior' races would be treated in New Republic replied “Well, the world is a world, and not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go. Yes, Huxley and Wells may well have said these things. In their time one would have been hard-pushed to find a white person who did not consider non-whites to be inferior. And meanwhile, Karl Marx kept a slave girl, whom Engels referred to by the N word, and George Bernard Shaw and Marie Stopes, among others intellectuals, were firm advocates of the twisted psuedoscience of Eugenics. And all of the above people have three things in common; a, they were all wrong, b, they were all speaking and writing in the late 19^th – early 20^th century, and c, they're all long bloody dead. I completely fail to see how the writings and comments of people from 100 to 150 years ago is in any way responsible for the rise in atheism and the subsequent fall in Christianity in modern-day western society.

It may hearten David a little however to find that not all intellectuals of the Victorian era had such twisted views. There was one very learned naturalist, who was a member of the Methodist Church, who was a firm advocate and campaigner for the abolition of slavery. When this young man went to study at the University of Edinburgh, he befriended the university's taxidermist, a freed slave named John Edmonstone, with whom he would talk at length about animals, and from whom he learned his own not-inconsiderable taxidermy skills. So who was this fine young Victorian gentleman who treated all races as equal and befriended a freed slave? Charles Darwin, that's who.

Why should Rev Robertson bother about that? Well in his CT article, while attacking western society, he also spits his vitriol at the Theory of Evolution, and makes a complete ass of himself in doing so; “My main problem with this Western narrative is that it is so inherently smug, superior, self-destructive and indeed racist. It presupposes that Western Liberal values are at the top of the evolutionary tree.” Anyone who has studied Darwin's model of the Theory of Evolution, which is the standard model (because it works, and has been proven without doubt) knows that evolution is not an upward spiral, and there is no “top of the evolutionary tree”. I suspect that David is attempting to claim that evolution is based upon “survival of the fittest”, which he is taking out of context to mean that only the strongest survive – I've seen him do just that in public forums. In fact, the Theory of Evolution says no such thing, and the phrase “Survival of the fittest” was not even coined by Charles Darwin (or even Patrick Matthew of Gowrie, who beat him to defining natural selection by over 30 years), but rather by biologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer, who was an exponent of Lamarckism, which mistakenly does see evolution as an upward spiral.  Also, when Spencer came out with the phrase, he was adapting his mistaken ideas about evolution to the dog-eat-dog world of economics and suggesting a 'weakest to the wall' philosophy.

Should Rev Robertson be in any doubt about evolution being about how certain organisms are best suited to their own particular environment, whereas they would perish in others, he's more than welcome to jump from one of the Tay Bridges, see how he does flying on the way down, and then how well he can breathe at the bottom of the River Tay.  On a side note, whilst he has never openly admitted it, if Rev Robertson doubts evolution, then it seems he has just outed himself as a young earth creationist, who believes the Bible account of creation, that the universe, the earth, and all living things were created in six days, 6000 years ago. Ohhh, that's gonna burn David.

Not sounding in any way “smug” or “superior” (Heaven forfend), Rev Robertson makes an apparent concession to 'western society', “Of course every good Western liberal now deplores racism based on biology, (it's good that they have finally caught up with the Christian teaching that all human beings are created equal!), but there is a cultural type of racism which is still seen in this kind of superior attitude.” I think that he'll find however, that most of us terrible western 'liberals' do not treat other races as equal 'based on biology', but rather simply because they are equal. And interestingly enough, this particular 'liberal' (diehard socialist actually, slightly to the left of Leon Trotsky) was reading an intriguing article recently which suggests that the 'out of Africa' hypothesis may be wrong, that mankind may have come Asia, or that there may have been two rises of Hominids in the two continents. While I don't accept that, as it's not yet proven, it does not denigrate Africans (or Asians) one iota, and I look forward to reading further findings. So much for the biology argument.

As for Christianity treating all as equal, that is highly questionable. I am willing to concede that the Bible in fact makes absolutely no mention of race, or denigrates any race (unless you count Canaanites as a race, whom the Old Testament actually calls for the destruction of, and even Jesus would only help the Canaanite woman after she shamed him into doing so), the treatment of others by the Christian churches has a long history of bigotry. Crusaders going to the Holy Land were told that Mohammedans were devils, not human, and killing them was the road to Heaven. White Europeans went all around the globe, Bible in one hand, sword or gun in the other, slaughtering millions of natives, whom they saw as subhuman, apostate and heathen. Some Christians boast of the fact they were instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the UK. So they bloody well should have been, considering that it was Christians who introduced it in the first place, and often used the Bible to back up slave ownership. Most slave owners were 'good Christians' who honestly believed they were doing Africans a good turn, by giving them jobs to do, a roof over their heads, and food to eat. But were those same slaves allowed to attend the same churches as their white masters? With some notable exceptions, such as the Methodist Church, like hell they were. Well into the late 20^th century, Black Africans under the apartheid regime in South Africa were forbade from entering the state churches and had their own churches they had to attend. In the USA and even in England (particularly in London) even today, there are churches with predominantly black memberships, purely because they have been made to feel unwelcome in churches with predominantly white parishioners.

But according to Rev Robertson, it is we atheists whom he is alluding are the racists. Well, I don't take being miscalled lightly, and as David has chosen to take his gloves off, I see absolutely no reason to keep mine on, so let's just have a look at where he stands in the bigotry stakes.

Rev Robertson was – and remains – deeply opposed to the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scotland. Maintaining that marriage is a Christian institution, meant for procreation between one woman and one man, David stated “This is the position that Western Society has held and on which our culture has been based on for almost 2000 years. I object to being called homophobic just because I continue to hold to that view.” (Herald Scotland, 15 October 2014). Of course, marriage is not purely Christian, and if it were, then Rev Robertson would have to concede that not only atheists, but those of other faiths are not married. Furthermore, if it were only for procreation and bringing up children, then David must as a clergyman refuse to marry couples who are incapable of having children. Yet, I can go further. I have actually seen Rev Robertson in a Facebook forum claim that same-sex marriage would lead to, among other things, polygamy – which is of course the most common form of marriage found in the Bible.

LGBT+ campaigners Dan Littauer of Kaleidoscot, and Peter Tatchell have been among many voicing their concerns over Rev Robertson's views concerning LGBT+ people.

On 14 June 2015, in his podcast Quantum of Solas (No.32), Rev Robertson and another Wee Free preacher launched into a frankly shameful tirade against transgender people. Concentrating upon Caitlyn Jenner in a podcast from which I lifted the photo accompanying this article, they derided, insulted and belittled the transgender former Olympic athlete, referring to her by her 'deadname' “Bruce”, and male pronouns, calling her and other transgender people 'delusional', 'wrong-headed thinking', and 'disgusting'.

And if David has a problem with me copying his SOLAS photograph, perhaps he could inform me just how many musicians he approached and asked permission to play their music on his podcasts?

Writing for the SOLAS Centre for Public Christianity, Rev Robertson in a comment article in The Scotsman of 11 April 2016, wrote; “Apparently it has now become the accepted norm amongst our political elites that we get to choose our own gender, in the same way that we get to choose our name. We have one assigned to us at birth, and if we don’t like it later on we can just change it. All of sudden by government dictate humanity, made male and female in the image of God, has been shattered into a thousand different genders.”

Then there was the little incident of the Polish atheist woman who moved into the village of Rosemarkie, north-east Scotland. The said woman approached the Scottish Secular Society for help, writing on their Facebook group forum page, Secular Scotland, that her children attending a non-denominational state school had been forced to say prayers before school dinners, effectively saying grace, against her wishes. Rev Robertson, who was a regular contributor to the group at the time, immediately rounded upon her, calling her a “white settler” and ranting about “incomers” attempting to “impose their will” upon highland culture.

For those not in the know, “white settler” is an odious hate speech term used by a tiny minority of Scots bigots, opposed to anyone from outside their community, mainly English people, moving into their neighbourhood. It was commonly used in the late 1970s-early 1980s by an anti-English would-be paramilitary group, “Settler Watch”. When I pointed out to David that it was a hate speech term, for which the former Grampian Police had indeed investigated people, he not only refused to back down, whenever I mentioned it in the future, he steadfastly stood by his words, as he does to this day. And as long as he does, and refuses to apologise for them, I shall continue to bring this episode to the attention of the public.

Just three other points on Rev Robertson's tirade against this woman;

1: She was not attempting to impose her will upon anyone's culture. She merely did not want the culture of others enforced upon her children.

2: Rosemarkie is not even within the Highland Boundary, and it is a good distance from David's native home on the Wee Free dominated Isle of Lewis.

3: Rev Robertson, who has openly stated that he wants all Scottish schools under Christian control, wrote his tirade against this 'assault' on highland culture from his present home in Dundee, in the north-east of the Scottish Central Belt, well outwith the highlands, and almost the opposite side of the country from Wee Free dominance.

I therefore leave it to others to form their own opinions on Rev Robertson's stance on bigotry. But I for one will openly call him a homophobe, a transphobe, intolerant, and deeply parochial.

Trying to move the goalposts, Rev Robertson changes asking if Christianity is regressive, to western society, and states “But what if we are wrong? What if Western society is actually regressing? I heard Professor John Haldane of the University of St Andrew's give a brilliant lecture on this in which he argued that 'progression' has only happened in terms of science, but that it cannot be assumed in terms of morality, art, literature, philosophy, politics and many other spheres of human activity. Anyone with half a brain, a whole eye and a listening ear, watching today's British TV will soon suspect that perhaps music and morality have not progressed much in the past 50 years!”

Well, morality is of course a completely man-made concept, which changes with time and between different cultures. I am old enough to recall being given the tawse (a leather strap divided into two or three prongs) across my hands at school for wrongdoing. It was only as recently as 1976 that the courts deemed that it was possible for a husband to rape his wife, when previously he was merely taking his 'conjugal rights'. Less than 50 years ago, men could still be jailed purely for being gay or transgender. Less than 100 years ago, a man could still beat his wife with a rod “no broader than his thumb” (hence, 'rule of thumb'), and left-handed schoolchildren were still having their left arms tied behind their backs and forced to write with their right hands. We look back upon such things with abject horror and revulsion, and yet each and every one of the things I have mentioned above were all solidly based upon Biblical, Christian, teachings. Seems to me that morality has in fact moved on a great deal for the better, and without any need for god(s).

Art, literature, philosophy and politics do indeed change and move on as society changes and evolves. As to music, it too evolves. Pop rock bands like The Beatles gave way to the psychedelic hippy era, which in turn brought in both glam rock and heavy metal, which gave way to punk, which had a short life and was replaced by new wave and indie. But then, music is thing of very personal taste, and I take no lessons in what I want to listen to from any member of the dour Wee Free's, most of whom seem to think the epitome of music is singing the metrical psalms, without any musical accompaniment (because apparently instruments are the “tools of the devil” - seems some of them forget that the Biblical David was a harpist).

Returning to his assault upon atheists, Rev Robertson states; “But that doesn't stop our atheist friends who are very reluctant to let go of their faith, whatever the evidence, and so the rejoinder comes. "Isn't there an inevitable progression from polytheism to monotheism to atheism?”

“It is part of their creed and one of their stock-in-trade one-liners that 'Christians are atheists to all other gods except Jesus, atheists just go one god more'. The problem with this statement, is that it presupposes that Jesus is just one of the other man made gods. He is not man-made and therefore He cannot be man destroyed! However that does not stop people trying.”

“In the same line of argument is the schoolboy question, "Who made God then?"

Schoolboy arguments are they? Well, let's try this factual statement for size: “In pagan Rome, “atheist” (from the Greek atheos) meant anyone who refused to worship the established pantheon of deities. The term was applied to Christians, who not only refused to worship the gods of the pantheon but demanded exclusive worship of their own god.”

Should anyone be wondering where I got that from, it was stated by philosopher John Grey, in his article in The Guardian, What scares the new atheists; the selfsame article by the selfsame person which Rev Robertson was so eager to quote earlier. Just a word of advice about picking and choosing, David; when you quote-mine someone, you'd best make sure there's nothing in their article which may just come back to bite you firmly on the ass.

Rev Robertson then goes on a rant to try to deflect the question of who or what made God, by claiming that nobody made God as God is beyond space and time. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that for thousands of years the church taught that God was in the sky. But as the receding God continued to be elusive in the light of scientific research, suddenly they were “beyond space and time”. If that's the case, how come the church did not teach that for 2000 years, but only claimed it once science postulated there may be a 'beyond' space and time? And if you are going to argue the first mover, then “who made God?” is a perfectly valid question.

Rev Robertson also claims “God creates ex nihilo (out of nothing).”, and there is a supreme problem with this four-word claim; it assumes that nothing exists beyond the universe, when the fact is science simply does not know if that is the case. There may be another universe, where the laws which govern this universe may or may not pertain to that one. Yes, it may also be a deity, but that is an assumption based on faith, not proof. Sometimes “I don't know.” is not just the only answer one can give, it is the only honest, truthful, accurate and honourable answer. To make an assumption and claim that as fact is not honest or truthful, it cannot be proven to be accurate, and it dishonours not only the listener but also the one making the claim.

Yet Rev Robertson goes right down this very road, and in doing so, quotes William Lane Craig;

“The Kalam cosmological argument, popularised by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, puts it this way.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause,

The universe began to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause”

Well, we can't be for sure if he universe did have a start, or if it's always been there, and eternal. But going by the standard model of the Initial Singularity (commonly known as the Big Bang), then if it had a start, granted it had to have a cause. Where Rev Robertson and William Lane Craig make the huge mistake is by making the sudden jump in assuming that the cause behind the universe had to be their God, when that is simply not known.

I'm also somewhat surprised at Rev Robertson quoting a modern-day evangelist upon the First Cause argument, when it goes back much further and was most famously attributed to Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Five Proofs of God (which all made the same error of assuming that God had to be behind all things, without proof). But then, given that he is the Moderator of a church which steadfastly sticks to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which openly states that the Pope is the Antichrist, perhaps Rev Robertson felt a bit uneasy about quoting one of the poster boys of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I am not for one moment suggesting that David, who wrote warmly in welcome to Pope Benedict XVI visiting Scotland is in any way sectarian. A good proportion of Wee Frees are indeed sectarian, however, and in his one year tenure as Moderator, he has done nothing to change the Kirk's constitution and move it away from a deeply anti-Roman Catholic basis.

Instead, Rev Robertson chooses to quote William Lane Craig. This of course would be the same William Lane Craig whom, in answering why his god should order the slaughter of innocent Canaanite children replied “God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.” Yep, he really did try to make out that the slaughter of babies and little children was merciful. Not content with coming out with that glib, apologetic piece of crap, in December 2012, Craig went further and came out with a comment which must have appalled other Christians, even conservative ones like him. Speaking on the Sandy Hook school massacre, in which 20 children between 6-7 years old, and seven adult staff were shot dead by crazed gunman Adam Lanza, Craig spoke of it reminding him of the 'original' Christmas, when Herod ordered the killing of the male babies, and went on to say that Sandy Hook was “a reminder really of what Christmas is for, or what it's all about.” and then continued to claim that the massacre was a “message of hope”. Methinks you should choose your friends with a greater deal of care, David.

The next paragraph by Rev Robertson is laughable, in which he claims, “The trouble is that our atheist friends have really bought into an unproveable narrative which they hold on to with all the tenacity of the most frightened fundamentalist and with which they try to 'evangelise' all and sundry. And so the myths/doctrines of inevitable progression and human beings having evolved from polytheism into the light of atheism have become part of the cultural zeitgeist which most of us inhabit.”

Really? We atheists have an “unproveable narrative”, says the man who worships a being whose existence he and every other have the burden of proof for? And notice the language of comparing atheists to fundamentalists trying to 'evangelise' all. This is not surprising, as Rev Robertson has long ranted about “fundamentalist extremist atheists”. He has even attacked the Scottish Secular Society of being a 'fundamentalist', 'extremist', atheist and even anti-theist group, when he knows perfectly well that this is not the case. The Scottish Secular Society is open to all, and while most members are atheists, there are also theist members. As David is well aware of this fact, to then accuse the society of such is more than an out and out lie, it is bearing false witness.

As to human beings moving from polytheism to atheism, far from a myth, that is fact which is reflected in history. Not far from his Dundee home, I suggest Rev Robertson goes and has a look at the carved stones of the Picts, who worshipped many local gods, and then on the reverse of some, he will find beautiful, intricately-carved crosses, from the time when the one god came to chase out the many. But that was just one more aspect of the 'receding God', who was not found in nature, so he must have been in the sky or space, and when not found there, he must be 'beyond space and time'. That there is a rise in atheism is not part of a cultural zeitgeist, but merely because more and more people are becoming better educated, mostly by using the internet, that the likelihood of god(s) existing is very slim, that all the “holy” books are mostly inaccurate mythology, and that one day, soon, the receding God will have nowhere left to run to. And it is not we atheists who are to blame for that, but rather the theists who have singularly failed to put up convincing counter-arguments, but instead go on the attack of atheists, just as Rev Robertson has done in his CT article. It's called playing the man instead of the ball, David, and it neither fools nor impresses anyone.

In the penultimate paragraph Rev Robertson suggests further reading and tries to punt his own book Engaging with Atheists. I am sorely tempted to actually buy a copy and read it, because this is one atheist who knows that attempting to engage in a debate with David is an exercise in futility. I have proven above how he twists, misrepresents, miscalls, insults and denigrates anyone he claims to be debating. I have even seen his fellow theists refuse to debate him due to arrogance, his untruthfulness, and his insulting behaviour. From the examples and his own words I have outlaid above, is there any reader of this article, atheist or theist, who would wish to enter a debate with the Moderator? I sincerely doubt it.  In fact, I don't know how one would 'debate' with Rev Robertson.  Having twice been on the Secular Scotland forum, on both occasions he spat the dummy and stormed off, claiming "insulting behaviour", purely because people questioned him and pulled him up about his own conduct.  Just a tip, David, a debate is when both sides are heard, not just yours.

But then, from a long rant about what was supposed to be about Christianity being in regression, which descended into a hate-filled rant against atheists, we see that all Rev Robertson wishes to do is promote his own book, which if it is anything like his book, My Wonderful Obsession, then it will be of the same assumptions, insults, misconceptions, twisting of words, misrepresentation, and a bearing false witness which would have given Niccolo Machiavelli a run for his money, and which myself and many others who have come to expect from a man whom I have proven to be nothing more than a bigot, a liar, and a hypocrite.

Finally, I would just like to say to other Christians and other theists that this article is by no means any attempt to belittle your faith (although I have no doubt Rev Robertson will attempt to twist my words), which if you have one and are happy in that, I fully respect your right to do so, and would be first to defend.  Rather it is merely to expose one "Holy Wullie" whose tenet seems to be 'Don't do as I do, do as I say.' 

LINKS

Is Christianity Regressive?  David Robertson, Christan Today, 22 April 2016:
 

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.christianity.regressive/84478.htm 

 What scares the new atheists.  John Grey, The Guardian, 2 March 2015:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists

Pew Research Centre article on religious forecasts, 15 April 2015:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/15/europe-projected-to-retain-its-christian-majority-but-religious-minorities-will-grow/

Scots are abandoning their religion.  National Secular Society, 16 April 2013:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/04/scots-are-losing-their-religion

Free Kirk leader hits back at his critics in article for gay website:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13184673.Free_kirk_leader_hits_back_at_his_critics_in_article_for_gay_website/

Quantum of Solas No.32.  The discussion about Caitlyn Jenner starts at 5:35:

http://www.solas-cpc.org/wp/quantum-of-solas/quantum-of-solas-32/

Comment: LGBTI discussion more like a rally than a debate. David Robertson, Scotsman, 11 April 2016:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/comment-lgbti-discussion-more-like-a-rally-than-a-debate-1-4097243

William Lane Craig on the "infinite good" of the Biblical mass slaughter of children and his god's "morally suffcient reasons":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc

 William Lane Craig speaks on the Sandy Hook massascre and the "true meaning" of Christmas:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzg2u3_william-lane-craig-on-the-sandy-hook-massacre_news