This is petty to the point of imbecility.

While I'm not quite in the "get out the piano wire" mode of Mr Worstall, this case (Telegraph, Mirror) makes me cringe through its abject stupidity.

Kim Walmsley, 49, said her 23-year marriage was declared illegal and she was forced to return from Australia after she could not renew her passport.

Her troubles began when the registrar wrongly recorded her as a male after she was born in February 1965.

Okay, so there are two totally separate issues here - the bureaucracy and the church. Now, nobody expects sense out of any bureaucracy and nobody expects sense from the Church of England on matters that could be considered, from even a hypothetically reductio ad absurdum conservative point of view, to have anything to do with sex.

But ...

As far as the bureaucracy is concerned, a transsexual would be entitled to a "certificate of gender recognition". Mrs Walmsley should be entitled to a "certificate of sex and gender recognition". Or just "sex recognition". So that's settled.

As far as the Church is concerned, their error is far more egregious. It should not be worried about matters of bureaucratic incompetence or, in fact, bureaucratic recognition. Given that the Church's current position is that marriage is between a man and a woman - Section B, Canon 30, paragraph 1:

The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord's teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

And Kim is clearly a woman (she's given birth to five children) and, Jack is a man, then the marriage is clearly canonical, regardless of the failings of the English Registry system.

Edited to add: reading elsewhere, Kim clearly has a case for an amendment to the register under s29(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953:

An error of fact or substance in any such register may be corrected by entry in the margin (without any alteration of the original entry) by the officer having the custody of the register, and upon production to him by that person of a statutory declaration setting forth the nature of the error and the true facts of the case made by two qualified informants of the birth or death with reference to which the error has been made, or in default of two qualified informants then either by two credible persons having knowledge of the truth of the case or, where it applies, in accordance with section 29A of this Act. 

Noting that s29A does not apply in this case (it is restricted to mis-identification of the father), then two qualified informants (in accordance with s1(2) of the same Act). Her parents would do, if they are still alive (and she's 49, so it wouldn't be abnormal) or two credible persons. I would suggest any of the obstetricians or midwives who oversaw any of her pregnancies or births or any gynecologist would do.

Now, this would not alter the initial in-correct registration but it would correct it and allow her issue of an accurate birth certificate and, providing the Church wasn't insanely stupid (I'm not offering odds here) belated re-recognition of the validity of her original marriage.

It really doesn't help ...

I honestly believe that the USA would be more likely to improve (or to improve faster) with Romney at the helm (despite his weird religion) than with Obama at the helm (despite his weird religion - although he has denounced that particular pastor.)

However, the Republican Party is quite clearly full of nutcases. And, in far too many cases, seems to want them to become elected.

Congressman Paul Broun - who can't be a complete idiot as he managed to acquire an MD before he became a professional parasite - doesn't believe in:

• Evolution
• Big Bang Theory
• Embryology (seriously? I hope none of his female patients every got pregnant.)

He, or his team, also don't understand "off the record". Seriously, can the Democrats not find anybody more electable than this?

Update: Chuckle-a-duck on the same subject.

I f**king hope not

Of all the drearily predicatable and unpleasant responses to the mindless rioting, this is the one I dread the most:

The rally was attended by Muslims from across Edinburgh who were demanding action to curb religious hatred. ... The SNP MSP Jim Eadie was among the speakers to address the group and pledged their concerns would be heard.

The SNP will currently do just about anything in order to win the referendum. Pandering to a bunch of 7th Century-revivalist misogynist religous fanatics probably seems, to them, just a bit of good sense.

I am a somewhat more than nominal, if unconventional, Christian. I am entirely happy that blasphemy laws are being gotten rid of. Many people in this country are non-religious or non-Christian. They do not believe that Christ is the Son of God. That's fine - and I'm happy for them to say so. I have some beliefs that many, even most, Christians would consider heretical. And I'm happy to talk about them and be challenged about them.

It would be a pity if the effect of the Scottish Independence Referendum would be the crushing of the post-Enlightenment civilisation in Scotland. Especially in the name of the religion of permanent offence. Pat Condell, who disrespects my beliefs nearly as much as he disrespects Islam, says it best.

We're sick and tired of the needless conflict and intimidation that comes from this religion at every turn.

Eck, don't do it. Don't stamp on free speech for a few votes. It is a betrayal of your heritage, the vast majority of the country and of basic human rights. But it wouldn't surprise me if you did. After all, you are a politician.

Things that are currently pissing me off - 7

People who misuse "decimated". This report describes 6000 down to 8 as "decimated".

No, you fool. 6000 down to 5400 is decimated. 6000 down to 8 is "almost wiped out" or "only a handful remained".

The Gays are coming to eat your marriage!

For various reasons, I'm reading some of the CiFatuous responses to the Archbishop of York's interview (silly hat alert) and explanation on his views on gay marriage.

Personally, I don't agree with him. And submitted as much to the Alex Salmond Glorification Society's public consultation on the aforesaid. Even the church of which I am a semi-detached (theologically) member is pretty much in favour (both provincially and locally) of being allowed to marry gayers (and make them priests, bishops and even Child Protection Co-Ordinators!) And I'm entirely happy with all that.

But why do the "all Christians are bigots" bigots insist on quoting the Old Testament? The "Good News" - the new covenant in Christ? The difference between Christians and Jews? The reason I can eat langoustine or wear polycotton without feeling religously unclean?

Okay, if they quote St Paul, then they're on a less sticky wicket. But he had a downer on all sorts of people. And definitely wasn't the Son of God.

I really also can't get my head behind the "it will destroy heterosexual marriage" argument. I'm sorry, but I can't. I didn't marry Mrs S-E because I could but I really fancied the boy down the street. To be honest, we got married because, having lived together for a while, we thought it appropriate before we had kids. Our moral judgement - not precedent for you or anyone else. Two (or two million) gayers get married - it won't make any difference (good or bad) to how we feel about each other.

For an alternative view - well argued and relevant - see Peter Ould's blog.

Just as a note - my previous vicar was gay. I'm going to his wedding in a couple of weeks.

Me, you prat, I would

Proof that we are dumbing down to the USian level in our churnalism.

And I do appreciate that it is evidence that al-Beeb has the same sort of subbing issues as some of our more appalling daily rags:

The A word

Who would wear a hoodie with the slogan 'Asbo'?

Irony, dear Sir, irony. I met our new bishop on Sunday. I spent some time trying to consider how rude a sarcastic t-shirt I could get away with before Mrs S-E told me to stop being a pillock and put a smart shirt on. I obeyed. Rapidly. But hopefully not cringingly.

Et tu, Brute?

Speaking personally, Cardinal O'Brien, I consider that the Catholic church's positions on:

• contraception,
• AIDS,
• women priests,
• gay marriage,
• and, most of all, its complicity* in paedophile rape,

are utterly shameful and far, far worse** for the world than the entirely economically rational decision not to support an FTT. Hell, if you want to criticise the Cleggalition, there are plenty of wide open targets. Why pick the one thing they are clearly correct about?

* Not reporting, moving of paedophiles to other locations where they would still have ready access to victims, etc, etc.

** Okay, maybe not women priests. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with them (yes, they do tend to be a bunch of screaming mad harridans but that's no different from the blokes) but they've not yet made their mark on the world stage.

Morality versus Reality

There is an annoying tendency - amongst the left pretty much everywhere and amongst the right in the USA - to try to conflate their morality with some vision of reality. Morality is the way you thinks things should work, reality is the way they actually do.

So attempts to describe the way thinks do work - our vain attempts as humans to peer into the darkness of reality - are essentially amoral (whether they are correct or incorrect.) What's more, they say nothing about the moral views of the person concerned. As an engineer with an obscure speciality, often dealing with the law, and an amateur physicist and economic critic, I come across this confusion quite often.
If a client came to me and said that one of their staff had been arrested for the possession (on company equipment) of "extreme pornography" contrary to section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, it is bugger all use to the client me whittering on about this being an appallingly illiberal piece of legislation brought in by an authoritarian government driven, as ever, by their PR strategy, as a result of a single issue campaigner.

Instead, and obviously, I'd advise them to find a lawyer and point them both at the possession defences in ss 64, 65 & 66, and to the limitations of vicarious liability.

Currently, chez Timmy, there is much discussion about the Laffer curve. There is a rabid insistance from the left that there is no such thing as a maximimally raising tax level. Yet, mathematically, this is trite. If you raise no tax at 0% tax (anything time 0 is 0), governments raise tax (yup, yes, and I had a loud argument with HMRC's "helpline" auto-responder yesterday) and that if people were taxed at 100% they wouldn't bother earning (this is possibly the one area of doubt), then basic maths (and differential calculus - thanks to Dave Gillies) mean that there are one or more maxima. And, on or more of these will be an absolute maximum. That's reality, not morality.

Now, the maths doesn't tell you much. It doesn't tell you where the maxima may be found or the shape of the curve. Nor does it enter in to political discussions about whether we should indeed be trying to raise as much tax as possible or just enough to pay for government. Or how much government that should be. Or the relative efficiencies and consequences of different tax types - production, consumption, income, flat or progressive. Just that if you keep raising any tax (or the overall tax burden) eventually you will get to a point where your revenue declines.

Moralities differ - and that difference should be permitted in a liberal society. I like a drink, Muslims believe alcohol to be haram. No problem - I'm not going to force them to have a drink and, provided all I get is a disapproving glance and am banned from drinking when I enter (the profoundly illiberal) Saudi, its something that I can live with. Ditto pork, homosexuality, drugs, the poor - we all have different opinions on what the correct moral actions should be. However, none of that valuable difference entitles us to different realities.

BBC questions to which we know the answer.

Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?

Quite simple really. No.

That's it.

Religious teachings, not that I think that "Journal of Creation" or "Creation Research Society Quarterly" count as either, cannot "prove" or "disprove" anything.

Some of the methods used by idiots to produce their verbiage can be used, if the method itself is falsifiable, to show (even to prove) that the verbiage is inconsistent. But that one explanation is wrong doesn't mean that a contradictory explanation is correct. Lamarck might have been right - neither an evolutionary nor a creationist explanation. He wasn't, of course but that doesn't change to point of scientific principle.

Utterly Magnificent Nonsense

Here. A sample:

Starlight from the most distant galaxy can reach earth on the fourth day of the Creation Week when the correct relativistic synchrony convention is employed.

Will fisk later.

Oh. Dear. God.

The Huffington Post interviews Fred Phelps. Some extracts ...

Look at the world of Noah. In his day there were 12 to 16 billion people on Earth, and only eight got out of that flood alive. The world is going to be devoured by fire.

12 billion people on Earth in, what would it have been, around 2300BC (according to some creationist timelines)? That's how Noah could get all of the animals in to one boat. All the rest had been eaten.

Is there anything you want to say to her?

No. Except that she should repent.

But her husband wasn't a homosexual.

So then why are they upset? If he wasn't a sinner, he doesn't need to worry. If he was, then it's too late for him. There's time for her though.

Seriously? The idiot doesn't understand why his picketing a funeral causes upset? And the dead soldier wasn't anything to do with the cause (homophobia) he is supporting? It would be like turning up to a church open day and protesting about RBS funding "Big Oil". Right or wrong? Doesn't matter - completely irrelevant.

The behaviour of these fools is enough to make me wish I was an atheist.

Okay: So who's fault is the volcano?

My mind is utterly boggled.

Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi told worshippers in Tehran last Friday :

"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes."

And the idiot is joined by some politician:

Minister of Welfare and Social Security Sadeq Mahsooli said prayers and pleas for forgiveness were the best "formulas to repel earthquakes."

It's nearly (actually, no, it's nowhere near) enough to make me want to join the militant atheist loons.

But let's remember, amongst the light hearted stuff that, while earthquakes aren't caused by failures in dress sense, stoning to death can be trivially caused by such heinous crimes against God (or those who claim to be his earthly representatives) as being gang-raped or refusing to marry your uncle.

And In Shock News, Today

Pope Benedict has acted as if he were a traditionalist Catholic. The National Secular Society object (but are probably too nice a bunch of people to shit in the woods.)

Richard Dawkins doesn't like Christians. The National Secular Society, unsurprisingly, say nothing.

And a very nice satire here.

Another day in the jungle.

Colonies at Words

I notice that the Most Reverend Katherine Schori, Presiding Bishop of the (real) Episcopal Church in the general vicinity of Yankdom, has said something very important about the Ugandan "Bahati" bill (the obnoxious one about informing on then executing queer people - although I may have something to say about Amnesty's mouth-fart tomorrow.)

The Episcopal Church represents multiple and varied cultural contexts (the United States and 15 other nations), and as a Church we affirm that the public scapegoating of any category of persons, in any context, is anathema.

Now that, 'anathema' is a very good word. Consult your favourite dictionary for the modern usage but it fits the original meaning very well too - something being offered up to the Old Testament God of Ugandan 'Christians' and Muslims (whether we like it or not, the Muslims are actually following the dictats of their faith.)

Rt Rev Venner - Right or Wrong?

The Right Reverend Stephen Venner, Bishop to the Armed Forces (and apparently also Bishop of for the Falkland Islands), has been widely condemned for apparently stating, amongst other things:

The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.

Clearly, in the storm of protest (including from an MP from the anti-war, anti-army, anti-pretty much everything ilLib Dims accusing him of "giving comfort and succour to the enemy") it was an impolitic thing to do - and, despite his apology (which has itself been attacked), he is going to be pretty much on the defensive for some time and has probably done his reputation permanent (hopefully not terminal) harm.

But was what he said wrong? I don't think that it is clear cut. Yes, some of the Taliban are fighting for money, some are fighting to keep evil crusaders out of the Dar-al-Islam, some just are fighting to keep outsiders^* away from their mountain / village / compound / poppy field, etc. However, regardless of the motivation, it is axiomatic that you should not underestimate your enemy and, since before the "Art of War" went beta, that a good commander will try to understand the enemy - capabilities and motivations, strengths and weaknesses. The religious faith or even fervour of the Taliban is an important consideration in understanding them.

And, as I was composing this, Bruce Schneier's monthly Cryptogram brought my attention to this article. It is also axiomatic, particularly amongst retired sergeants, that sergeants run the army. I would disagree slightly - it is the core component of experienced soldiers, many of whom are, indeed, sergeants but some will also be your experienced captains and majors - anyway, different discussion. One of the implications of the report is that the equivalent of the sergeants within the terrorist cells are chosen by the old Soviet system (selected on joining for some combination of brains, political or religious orthodoxy, hereditary or simple nepotism etc) rather than the Western (since the time of the Roman legions) version stressing actual (combat or otherwise) experience. Bodes ill for your ability to learn from your mistakes (even if your successes don't blow you up!)

* Not just Brits, Yanks or even Russians but also those Kabul townies who've never chased a goat around a mountain.

Transexual Jesus

From my not-particularly-lofty height?

If this helps one LGBTGB-whatever person with their religious turmoil, then great. I mean, we habitually present Jesus as being white ...

Jesus drank water from the Samaritan woman at the well, ate with tax-collectors, was associated (if not actually married) to a known prostitute. Ritual impurity to the Jews - just as much as eating prawn cocktail. Cast the first stone, as he may well have said himself.

I would remind people that the Zion Baptist Church are, at least, consistent in their bigotry. If not particularly Christian.

Edited to add - Jesus was an outcast. Despised, tormented and eventually martyred. Who would he be likely to side with? The comfortable in their ignorance, the modern Pharisees, even, or the marginalised and oppressed. I still wouldn't want to go and see the play. Nothing to do with the subject matter but "written and performed by (the) playwright" is rarely an attraction.

A Dubious Link

A correspondent posted about the Ugandan "Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009" (text is not currently available at the official site) and I think, initial revulsion aside, it is worth having a look at, if only to convince ourselves that government by Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson and Lord Mandelson is not the worst of all possible worlds.

Now, after we've all (the libertarians at least, and, of any other readers, those with a world view in the latter half of the 20th Century even if still a bit progress-disadvantaged) gone "ugh", let's consider that homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda (s145 of their Penal Code Act) and work on from that point.

Without yet expressing views on the wrongness or utter wrongness of state interference in the private lives of consenting adults, let's be snarky first.

• Despite the heavy religious sponsorship, this is a clergy-unfriendly bill. Not only is the friendly man or woman in the dog collar considered to be of sufficient power over you for them to fall in to s3(1)(d) "Aggravated Homosexuality" - and therefore going to get offed rather than mere rotting in prison for the rest of their days but under s14, they can get 3 years banged up for not snitching on you to the Poof-Finder General. Sacrament of Confession, anybody?
• This is not a well written bill - consider the text of s9 - there seems to be missing a (c), as well as the punishment schedule.
• I like s13(1)(b): "funds or sponsors homosexuality or other related activities" - like interior decoration or fashion design?
• s13(2) shows that Ugandan politicians are just as bad as British ones for "little people's law"!
• s15 really worries me - the only offence here that is reserved for the High Court is one with the mandatory death penalty - even life imprisonment can be tried by Magistrates? Yuck.
• Any government requiring a "Minister of Ethics and Integrity" is clearly headed down the (Nothing to do with the)People's (Un)Democratic etc, etc

Okay, so that's the pedantry out of the way. What about the basic points?

• The hideous illiberality of condemning not just consensual sexual acts between adults but even the belief that such should not be illegal is mind-numbing. It reads like a nu-Labour Criminal Justice Bill.
• The fig leaf offered by the supporters that this bill is necessary to protect juvenile men from gay predators is just that. Implementing s3(1)(a) with an amendment to the law on rape to allow that crime to encompass acts on males, either legally incapable of consent or unconsenting, would be entirely reasonable (accepting that age of consent is, to a large extent, culturally bound and therefore the West needs to be careful demanding that our, piss-poor, example should be followed.)
• The Ugandan Constitution does have "objectives" covering human rights, and Article 21(2) would probably apply (is homosexuality a 'belief' - however the Bill also bans non-homosexuals from promoting homosexual rights which certainly is, hence the Bill is unconstitutional under Article 2(2).)
• I would just state my generic opposition to the death penalty (and judicial maiming etc), regardless of the offence, as I don't trust anybody's courts to get it right all of the time and even if you win your appeal, you don't have much come-back!

We do need to remember that the modern world isn't, really. That bigotry and its (probably illegal under this Bill) bed-fellow, religious fundamentalism - yes, with limited exceptions such as the death penalty, this Bill is supported by so-called Christians from the Church of Uganda (aka Anglican Communion), Orthodox, Pentecostal, & Seventh Day Adventist Churches, as well as the usual "why aren't we surprised" homophobic suspects from the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council - are endemic in large areas of the world.

Hannan actually called Obama a misogynist homophobe!

He did, look:

Like St Paul, he made a virtue of being all things to all men.

And, even being a Christian, I have to admit that St Paul is fairly well known, if not actually renowned, for having a downer on the fairer sex and a apocalyptic hatred of gayers. And Hannan clearly compares Obama to St Paul. Therefore, exercising my massive grasp of leftie logic, Hannan has accused Obama of all of Paul's flaws as well as the specific virtue he actually used. And then we have this nonsense from the media.

There have been enough comments from sensible people about the dog-whistle "you're a racist" tactics of the nu-Lab playground bullies so I point you the direction of Cranmer and go off on a rant instead.

God is Love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God

Okay, finding an appropriate quote for the title was hard work, but that is 1 John 4.16.

So, the Indian government has repealed the antique colonial law making male homosexual acts illegal. I am entirely happy about this - as a horrible right-wing reactionary (sorry, I meant libertarian but the new 'comment is free' translation module kicked in) the personal activities of consenting adults should not be a matter of the criminal law.

What I find luvverly is the contrasting reactions quoted of the Catholic and Muslim 'leaders':

"Our stand has always been very clear. The church has no serious objection to decriminalising homosexuality between consenting adults, the church has never considered homosexuals as criminals," said Father Emanuel.

"But the church does not approve of this behaviour. It doesn't consider it natural, ethical, or moral," he said.

Okay - I can live with that. The traditional interpretation of Christianity does not accept homosexuality but this appears to be a case of "love the sinner, hate the sin" - a perfectly rational position to take (even though I personally disagree with it - but then I am not a traditionalist Catholic, or any sort of Roman Catholic for that matter.) But here:

"This is absolutely wrong. We will not accept any such law," Ahmed Bukhari told the AFP news agency

What? They have repealed a previous law, not made mincing mandatory or arse-banditry compulsory. And anyway - fuck off you evil shit - you don't have the right to accept or reject laws, you pathetic 7th century bigot. Now, thank you, having got that off my chest, I can return to aimless web browsing.

Yes, it is! No, it's not!

Scientology? A cult? Hmm - but, despite the opinions of a couple of my betters, I really don't think so.

You see, the term 'religion' is not the only rational alternative to the term 'cult'. And Scientology certainly isn't a religion. It is a deeply unpleasant con-trick, which splits families apart,and was designed by a crappy writer in order to make money more easily than selling books. Which it does do - extremely well. And well enough to pay for lots of lawyers.

It isn't well written sci-fi, either (as you would entirely expect from Hubbard, whose ouvre, frankly, sucks. When you consider that some of the greats of the genre were writing around that time - Asimov, Clarke, Dick, Haldeman - apologies to the rest of the alphabet - or even entirely competent and readable journeymen such as Herbert, Heinlein or 'Doc' Smith - how did Hubbard ever get published?)

However, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the appellation, City of London Police are not doing the job they are expected to. Back to Peel's Principles, Mr Mayor?

Updated to add: The Germans, unusually, have entirely the right idea about how Cruise, his fellow inmates and their criminal warders should be dealt with.

Update 2: H/t to John B who pointed out that it is the Corporation of the City of London, hence the Lord Mayor rather than 'BoJo', who are nominally in charge of these jokers.