Paisley Jr to promote ‘harm’ in society…

DESPITE believing that gay people harm society, Junior Minister Paisley Junior’s department is still giving the gay community £180,000. No doubt Rev Ivan Foster – who appears to have removed his article calling on another DUP minister to resign if he intends “using public funds to promote and celebrate that which he has opposed in the past and which is an abomination before God” – and the Free Ps will be more than a little perplexed that instead of saving Ulster from Sodomy, those ‘repulsed’ by it are obliged to strengthen the gay community.Meanwhile, Paisley gave the News Letter an exclusive interview (sadly not online), in which he defended himself by saying that “the opinions were given in a personal capacity in an interview arranged before he took up his role as a junior minister in the Executive”.

Despite attempting to portray this as a debate on freedom of speech (which it isn’t), the interview did not address the ‘harm’ that homosexuality does to gay people and society.

In yesterday’s Irish News Fergal Hallahan pondered:

“Are Scissor Sisters harmful? Rufus Wainwright? American novelist Henry James? The brilliant Irish writer Colm Toibin? Is Joan Armatrading harmful?

To say that a person or group of people repulses you when they have done you no injury and when there is no evidence they have injured anyone else is particularly ugly. It says more about the insecurities of the person doing the judging than about those they judge.

But for a public figure – a government minister, no less – to publicly say such a thing, to announce that they are “pretty repulsed” by homosexuals, is beyond the bounds of acceptability.”

Perhaps elaborating on homophobic views is more difficult once the ministerial code comes into effect. But the Belfast Telegraph still wants to know the DUP’s position on gay rights:

“Mr Paisley is in a unique position, as assistant to his father in the Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The office has a responsibility for promoting and monitoring equality of opportunity, but how committed to defending homosexuals can he be, if he is repulsed by their lifestyle and thinks it is wrong?

As an influential junior minister, Mr Paisley has left himself open to doubt about his impartiality when dealing with issues of homophobia. Gays, like migrants, are frequently the target of physical and psychological attacks, which should be condemned by everyone, without exception.

The fact that the First Minister, Ian Paisley, led a campaign to “save Ulster from sodomy”, which failed to prevent British and European law on homosexuality being introduced, suggests that the DUP and its supporters may still be reluctant upholders of gay rights. The party and its leader have a duty, in 2007, to say where they stand now, or the views of Ian Paisley, jr, may be seen as representative.

It would be a great pity if the credibility of the devolved government were to suffer, in any way, from a split over attitudes to homosexuality. A debate on the issue could be healthy, if lessons were to be learned, but otherwise the voters simply want the executive members to get on with their real jobs, keeping their personal opinions to themselves.”

  • Dawkins

    Ah, Sam, good to have you back with us again, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed!

    “If you take a quick tour through Leviticus for instance, you’ll find all sorts of proscriptions for men—and none for women.”

    Could I just point out that I was referring to an OT book, supposedly containing proscriptions from Go.

    (A “proscription” is a prohibition, as in “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s ass.”)

    You’ve quoted the words of Paul in the NT, who seems to be recounting his own lurid fantasies. Not quite the same thing at all, I’d have thought.

    So does my theory stand up? Is Go female?

  • Dawkins

    Sam,

    “Jesus Christ is not quoted on everything in Scripture. He affirmed that all Scripture both old and new was inspired by God so anything written in there is from God.”

    Let me get my foolish head around this. You’re saying that all scripture is inspired by Go. And how do we know this? Because scripture says so.

    Didn’t Muhammed (piss be upon him) claim something similar:

    “Muhammed is my prophet.”
    “How do we know that, o Great One?”
    “Why, that’s obvious. It’s in the Koran [written by… er, Muhammed].”

    “Your argument is so puerile that no Bible scholar would take you seriously.”

    Quite.

  • Sam Hanna

    “Let me get my foolish head around this. You’re saying that all scripture is inspired by God. And how do we know this? Because scripture says so.”

    I am amazed you have a problem with this. If the Bible is the highest source of knowledge why would it not be its own interpreter. I cannot imagine God needing the Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Koran to help Him out here.

    Please go and read any standard Conservative books of Theology from the last 500 years and save us all the trouble of having to explain the basics of the Christian faith to you.

    No one is interested in your whacko conspiracy theories. You are simply rehashing the old arguments of Voltaire, Barth, Jenkins et al that have been destroyed and could be by any first year theology student.

    The fact that Mohammed claims the same only proves that Islam and Christianity so not believe in the same God. Test the Koran against the Bible if you are confused which one is real.

    Please don’t push the nonsense about Leviticus mentioning only men – any Hebrew and Bible scholar can tell you that the principle established for a man equally applies to womanhood as well.

  • Dawkins

    Sam Hanna,

    “I am amazed you have a problem with this. If the Bible is the highest source of knowledge why would it not be its own interpreter.”

    I’m not amazed, given your track record, that you don’t see the problem here. I believe it’s called circular reasoning. You’re saying:

    a. The Bible is the highest source of knowledge, therefore…
    b. The Bible is its own best interpreter, because…
    c. It’s the highest source of knowledge

    Who says that the Bible is true? Why, the Bible does. How do we know it’s true? Because it says so, stoopid.

    By this cockeyed reasoning, Muhammed and his followers are quite entitled to say the same about the Koran. I do so love theist logic.

    “Please don’t push the nonsense about Leviticus mentioning only men – any Hebrew and Bible scholar can tell you that the principle established for a man equally applies to womanhood as well.”

    And how, pray tell, do those scholars know the mind of God? How can they extrapolate? Could I not do the same for chimpanzees?

    God proscribes certain acts for women. Is it in the Bible? No. Then you’re making it up and it ain’t the word of God. Why? Because the Bible is the highest source of knowledge.

    What else have you made up today, Sam?

  • Puerile Cretin

    “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s ass.”

    Can I covet her boobs?

    😉

  • Colm

    Well one thing that can be said in Ian Paisley Jnr’s favour, he has been the catalyst for some of the best cracking threads Slugger has had recently.

  • Sam Hanna

    Actually, I have just watched a documentary about the man with the incredible brain. One very interesting fact is that it is proven on it that Japanese Children can be trained within 8 years to calculate faster than a calculator.

    Now, if the calculator is designed, what does that tell us about the brain,

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3372301236664593143&q=genre:documentary

    Watch, Dawkins and don’t repeat – oh, that is just circular reasoning. I have already accepted that I cannot prove Theism but it is the best explanation in town by a million miles

  • Stiofán de Buit

    Now, if the calculator is designed, what does that tell us about the brain,

    Absolutely nothing.

    BTW, I’m still interested in your flip-flopping light receptors theory. Any further comments on it?

  • Bill

    If the calculator were taught the same tricks as the children then it could be faster.

  • Pounder

    Circular logic there Sam, the Bible is right because the bible says it is.

    So since you admit to being a card carrying creationalist I have a question for you. Not a big question, just one word really. Dinosaurs?

  • The Third Policeman

    The torrential downpour on sunday created many a puddle at Casement park. Now as I stood for 4 feckin hours getting drenched waiting for a match that never happened I got to talking to the fella beside me. As often happens during hurling matches our thoughts turned to higher things. This man pointed to one of the puddles and said, “That puddle is exactly the right shape of the hole it occupies, therefore the hole was created specifically for that particular body of water. It is the perfect shape so that the water stays put and doesn’t peek over the edge. There is no extra space in the hole. Everything fits perfectly. A higher being has created that hole for that puddle and He did a wonderful job.”

    I disagreed, “The hole existed before the puddle and the puddle has grown in size to match the hole. It is the water that modifies in relation to the hole. Not the other way around. If the hole were deeper or longer the body of water would have adapted to this new hole.”

    At this point our talk moved to our true saviour, Paddy Bradley.

  • Sam Hanna

    “If the calculator were taught the same tricks as the children then it could be faster.”

    If you had to “teach” the calculator tricks then again you pre-suppose ID. If all of the evolutionsist here were right I just need to leave the calculator a billion years and it would evolve into a computer!

  • Sam Hanna

    “BTW, I’m still interested in your flip-flopping light receptors theory. Any further comments on it?”

    As you want a technical answer, perhaps this will help,

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/eye.asp

  • gg

    Sam Hanna

    Not being an act I’ve ever had done to me I cannot say for certain, but I’m lead to believe by others that anal penetration is of a pleasurable nature due to whatever glands are ‘in yonder’. If it was a wicked thing to do, wouldn’t intelligent design mean that it was a horribly painful and unpleasant act, in terms of maintaining consistency?

  • Sam Hanna

    “So since you admit to being a card carrying creationalist I have a question for you. Not a big question, just one word really. Dinosaurs?”

    What is your problem?

  • Sam Hanna

    gg – just because people can engage in bestiality, paedophilia, murder, sodomy and derive pleasure does not make it the primary uses of what the body was designed to do.

    No, go back to bed and think again with some reasoned arguments.

  • marty (not ingram)

    Note to all sensible people – best not to continue with these ID / Evolution threads.

  • gg

    I think, marty, you may be right. Having been up up for a long time – in Northern Ireland where the sun rose a long time ago – I see that there is no point arguing with fundamentalists. Although I take cheer in arousing one to anger, if thankfully not in another way!

  • Stiofán de Buit

    Sam

    Both those articles are (rather futile, IMO) attempts to show that the mammalian eye, with is backwards light receptors and consequent blind spot, is actually a better design than having an eye which has the light receptors the right way round.

    A while back you mentioned your theory that our light receptors actually switched, and our formerly perfect eye became imperfect after the Fall. Have you changed your mind? It seems strange that you would link to articles which actually argue against your previously stated position.

  • Dawkins

    Marty,

    “Note to all sensible people – best not to continue with these ID / Evolution threads.”

    It was fun while it lasted. And I have to say I learnt quite a bit along the way. As the atheist son of atheistic parents I never stop being amazed by the convolutions of theism. Sam is not alone, bless him.

    I’m not really against religion. It has its value. For instance as a succour to believers who find themselves on the point of death, or the recently bereaved.

    It’s useful too in the matter of morals. There are so many peeps who need moral guidelines laid down by another, in much the same way many motorists need traffic lights in the absense of common sense (there’s a small city in Mexico that’s learnt to do without them). Religion does a reasonable job in supplying this moral compass.

  • Sam Hanna

    “A while back you mentioned your theory that our light receptors actually switched, and our formerly perfect eye became imperfect after the Fall. Have you changed your mind? It seems strange that you would link to articles which actually argue against your previously stated position.”

    I have never argues that the eye was imperfectly designed just that it delineates evidence of having a designer. Even if I was to accept that your argument that it could be improved upon (and that is a big “if” as science is constantly readapting our theories as to the optimality of human design – hence the arguments in the two articles), the deterioration of mankind and nature since the Fall could also be an explanation.

    You need to think for yourself before taking the absurd views of Dawkins who is gentetics lecturer and “science fiction” writer as some kind of expert infallible opinion. Just reading his book on Theism demonstrates how poor a scholar he is outside of his own very limited field.

  • Stiofán de Buit

    Sam

    You’re either misunderstanding me or being deliberately evasive.

    You quite clearly said several posts ago that the eye’s current imperfect state was due to corruption that occurred after the Fall.

    Here is your precise quote:

    The Bible explains that man was created perfectly but the effects of sin have degraded the optimality of design in each succeeding generation.

    Have you changed your mind?

  • Belfast Gonzo

    This is all a bit off-topic. Can we get back into brown eyes please?

  • Stiofán de Buit

    This is all a bit off-topic. Can we get back into brown eyes please?

    Only if they’re big…with reversed light receptors.

  • curious

    Paisley for St Patrick’s parade?
    Belfast Telegraph (letters)
    Thursday, June 07, 2007

    I agree with Ian Paisley Jnr when he states that homosexual behaviour is repulsive. Such behaviour is strictly prohibited by the Holy Bible.

    Mr Paisley merits the praise and support of all true Christians for his outspoken opposition to such perverted activity.

    This DUP member deserves a place of honour in the next St Patrick’s Day parade in New York. This event still forbids homosexuals from marching under their own banner and using the parade as a platform to glorify all types of homosexual activity. God bless Ian Paisley Jnr.

    Seán MacCurtáin Franklin, New York
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/letters/article2623646.ece