This may be old news, but it's the first time I've read about it so here's a story about the 2012 Olympics, to be held in London:

Muslims' anger as London Olympics clash with Ramadan

Unlike Christmas, Ramadan moves around, and apparently in 2012 it is scheduled for the end of July and most of August. In the UK, that's also around the time the schools are closed for 6 weeks in the summer, and when everyone in the world wants to go on holiday. And in our rainy climate it's probably the best best for at least some sunshine. Hence, it's a great time to be hosting the summer Olympics.

Not good enough for Muslims. It's also Ramadan, and Muslims can't eat from sunrise to sunset during Ramadan. So they will be disadvantaged, according to the report. And why exactly is this the problem of the London Olympics?

The Olympics only come around every four years. Ramadan is an annual thing. Here's the perfect solution: move Ramadan. Just this once. It's still 5 years away, after all. With a bit of rescheduling it should be fairly straightforward shouldn't it?

Alternatively if Muslims want to take part in an international sporting event which has no connection or association with religion whatsoever, remind them that they have to take part when and where the event is actually being held. They can't ask it to be moved because it's a bad time for them. Nobody is forcing them to fast during the day - not even Islam. The Turkish Olympic president says as much: "They don't have to observe Ramadan if they are doing sport and travelling but they will have to decide whether it is important to them."

Exactly. They don't have to observe Ramadan. So their religion is even telling them it's okay. What exactly is the problem here?

Perhaps the most ridiculous comment of all is this one:

They would not have organised this at Christmas. It is equally stupid to organise it at Ramadan.

Know why they wouldn't organise it at Christmas? Because in the UK that's in the middle of fucking winter and these are the summer Olympics, stupid. And, of course, Christmas doesn't move around the calendar every year like a lost dog.

There are three options here:

• Knowing they will be fasting, adapt the athletes' training regime accordingly. When the Olympics were held at altitude, in Mexico City, athletes worked around it. They didn't complain that the city was too high up for them. They dealt with it. And the Jamaican bobsleigh team (winter Olympics, obviously) don't even have any snow in Jamaica, but they get off their arses and have a go anyway.

• Break the fast around the time of their events, which their religion allows them to do.

• Stay at home, sulk, and blame the 2012 Olmpics committee for staging the Games on the most advantageous dates for the remainder of the world.

Besides, half the Muslim countries don't allow their women to take part at all, so how fair is that? When they start giving equal opportunities to women, maybe they might have a case. Until then, don't come complaining about what your religion forces you to do.

Either way, don't bother us about the date of the 2012 Olympics again. We've got enough to worry about with the crappy pink logo they designed for it:

The Catholics may think they're clever when they invent sneaky rules to allow their flock to get a divorce, while disguising it as something else (see the previous post), but for in-depth, comprehensive religious laws, Islam leaves those pope kissers eating their holy dust.

Islam takes the concept of rule-making and fine print to a whole new, and insanely detailed, level althogether. Muslims have rules for everything, and I mean everything, so many in fact that the ordinary Muslim could not possibly remember what is haraam (forbidden by Allah) or halal (okay with him) in every single circumstance. This leads to much confusion and guilt, and to the asking of really important questions like...

Is it forbidden to shit towards Mecca?

It comes as no surprise that many great scholars of Islam have looked deep into this dark and murky subject, poked it with the stick of truth, and trod on it with the sandle of enlightenment. But mostly they seem to have looked in the hadith and read about Mohammed's numerous trips to the toilet, before coming up with some varied, often conflicting, opinions.

On the one hand, if there's a wall between you and the holiest place in Islam, some say it's okay to squeeze one out. But if you're in a field, with Allah's cool breeze caressing your straining cheek muscles, it's best to point your fudge tunnel at a tangent to the Kaaba (the black, cube-like building in Mecca). To be safe, the general opinion seems to be that, wherever you are, you should never syphon the python either facing directly towards Mecca, or indeed facing away. Identical rules apply for 'number twos', or 'taking the kids to the pool' as we call it in these parts.

So it seems that you must be squatting at a jaunty angle with respect to the Kaaba at all times. I did try to find out if it's okay to give a cheeky wink towards Islam's holiest place once the last piece has plopped out, but was unable to find any solid rules, or even slightly runny ones. You probably shouldn't try it, just in case. Allah may be a stickler for personal hygiene, but he isn't known for his sense of humour.

You don't need to take my word for it. Many different rules and opinions have been given by worthy scholars, who probably always leave the seat up. Here's an example:

And it was narrated that Ibn 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: One day I climbed up on the roof of the house of Hafsah and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was relieving himself, facing towards Syria, with his back towards the Ka'bah. Narrated by al-Bukhaari, Muslim and the authors of al-Sunan.

So that settles it - don't point it towards Mecca, but if you know where Syria is, piss in that direction instead. The only question remaining is: why was Mohammed taking a whizz on the roof of a house?

If you think I'm making it up, here's a link. - these are genuine Islamic teachings. Silly religion, silly rules. The fact that someone has to think carefully about offending God even before they have a dump speaks volumes. And don't forget, Allah says that Muslims can only wipe with their left hand. If you're right handed, try that yourself next time you're in the smallest room (if you have long fingernails, don't even go there).

See more Muslim toilet rules here, and notice this fine reason for recommending Islam as the one true religion:

Do you know of any other religion or system in the world that has brought laws like this? This is enough, by Allaah, to prove its perfection and beauty, and the necessity of following it.

In other words, Islam is perfect and beautiful because it teaches you the right way to shit.

Watch out for future articles in this series, where I shall be discussing the correct protocol for farting in someone's face while praying at the mosque. This has been a production of 'Green Eggs and Haraam, Inc'.

When is a marriage not a marriage? When it's a Catholic annulment of course. Catholics don't do divorce. Catholics can't do divorce. Marriage in a Catholic church is a one-time-only deal - once you're married in the sight of God, it's permanent, until death (and not divorce) do you part.

Yes, you can legally divorce in the civil court, but for Catholics that's not the same, because of course there's a 'higher law', invented by the beardy man upstairs. So even when you get your divorce papers through, sell the house, arrange a settlement, sort out who the kids are going to live with, chop the dog in half... all the stuff you have to go through to get yourself as far away from your ex-spouse as you can... you are, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, still married.

Damn.

That's a bit of a problem really isn't it? Because if you want to get married again, and people do, but you're a Catholic, you can't. Ever. At least, not in a Catholic church ceremony.

Hmmm, what to do? If only there was some loophole in God's Holy Law that Catholics could use to wriggle out of this awkward situation. Come on, Herr Pope, think hard. You have thousands of people wanting to get re-married and you must be able to think of something. After all, didn't you just tell people that limbo no longer exists? If you can wipe out centuries of unquestioning belief in a special place for the souls of dead babies, surely divorce is going to be a doddle - for one thing, all parties are still alive and obviously willing and able to side-step the divorce rules if it means getting another white wedding out of it. I mean, just think of all that extra champagne and cake on offer.

So the pope (not this one, one of the dead ones), thought for a while. And lo, there was a loophole, and the loophole was called a 'Declaration of Nullity', and it was good. For yea, although it was a bit of a cheat, at least it got lots of people out of a tricky situation, which is what mattered. And the people gave thanks, and formed an orderly queue. A long, hypocritical, snake-like queue, because what they were signing up for was a way of saying that their marriage wasn't real, when they knew all the time that it was, and just wanted a divorce by the back door.

In a Declaration of Nullity, or annulment, the Roman Catholic Church can look at a marriage, examine the cirumstances under which it happened, and then declare that the marriage wasn't valid at all. And if it wasn't a real marriage, you don't need a real divorce. In other words, you're free of that bothersome 'no divorce rule' on a technicality. How incredibly convenient!

But wait, if the marriage wasn't valid, surely the children are illegitimate? Nope, they've thought of that one too. There's a rule which says it's okay, so hey, who are the parents to argue? They've got their divor... er, annulment, and they're free to marry again, er, for the first time.

The Catholic annulment rules are more evidence that religion isn't the rigid, unbending word of God after all. It's a set of ideas designed by men (and it's invariably men) to (a) keep the faithful obedient and coming back to church with their donations and (b) manoeuvre out of difficult places where the rules are likely to upset the very people they were designed to keep on their knees. If you don't like the old rules, just make new ones!

In other words, even if 'God said so', and even when it's in the Bible, the people running the God business in the real world are the ones who make the rules. And if they can make the rules, why are they even bothering with the Bible in the first place?

Organised religion is a set of rules by which people lead their lives... until such time as they wish to selectively abandon any or all of them and do what they damn well please. While still claiming to be more righteous than the rest of us, of course.

---

Links:
The rules of annulment (Chicago Sun-Times article)
Annulment in the Catholic Church
Pauline privilege (more weasel words)
Petrine Privilege (ditto)
Limbo is no more

Of course this will never happen, but I have a challenge for all those creationists who want to see 'intelligent design' taught in schools. Proponents of this ridiculous pseudo-science (it's not even that) say that students must be given a balanced view, that all sides must be considered, that the 'evidence' for ID must be looked at and discussed fairly. Let the students decide.

Well okay, how about this: every week, at your local church, you should set aside 15 minutes of each hour-long service for the teaching of secular, atheist or scientific topics. There are plenty to choose from. The pastor could explain evolution and how it makes a nonsense of Biblical creation, or look into how radiometric dating proves beyond any doubt that the Earth is a million times older than young-earth creationists say it is.

This could be a regular thing. Weekend camps could be organised where children are taught to decide things for themselves, to question the Bible, just to see what it feels like, and to understand the difference between blind faith and free thinking.

Better yet, one Sunday in four could be a 'no Jesus day'. Forget about church and donate the weekly offering to a local charity which doesn't use the money to build more churches or maintain old ones. Use that hour to help out in the community in some way - actually doing something, rather than praying to God and waiting for it to happen.

Give out atheist badges to the congregation, bumper stickers with the Darwin fish or 'There is no God' on them, and display them with pride, giving equal space next to their Christian counterparts.

Wouldn't that be fair? Just to give a balanced view, with all sides of the argument considered, looking at evidence and discussing it openly and honestly? Of course it would. That's why it's never going to happen.

Of course, we could always adopt a far better, more reasonable approach: don't teach religion in science class and in return you won't have to mention anything awkward like 'science' or 'evidence' in your churches.

Article found via the News Feeds page:

Atheism is not about removing the right to religion

I picked out the following comment, attached to the article, which probably reflects the view of most atheists: pray all you like, just don't try and discriminate against those who do not share the same beliefs.

Lori Lipman Brown is the sole lobbyist to Congress for secular Americans in her work for the Secular Coalition for America, and the alliances she has forged are equally surprising and profound. She has worked together with many religious organizations to drive a separation of church and state. These religious organizations work with her in order to stave off any hint of a state religion (including fighting the falsehood that the United States was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles") in order to protect their own religious rights.

From "About the Secular Coalition for America":

"The Secular Coalition for America holds that freedom of conscience, including religious freedom, is a fundamental American value as evidenced by the fact that this is the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of conscience is best guaranteed by protecting and strengthening the secular character of our government. Religious tolerance, a necessary product of this freedom, must be extended to people of all religions and to those without religious beliefs."

There is no movement by mainstream secular organizations to suppress religious expression; some even believe that the pushback against religion has gone too far in making personal prayer taboo in some circumstances. Few atheists would be sorry to see a church demolished because nobody attends it anymore, but this is only because we generally feel there is a better use of time and resources than worship. But that's a personal opinion, and everybody sees groups of people doing something that they think is a waste of time and money, particularly where our government is concerned.

Atheists, secularists, humanists, naturalists, skeptics and all the other labels for those of us who are generally non-believers ARE angry, upset and frightened right now. The encroachment of religion upon our governments is something we are not going to tolerate, because it infringes our rights to NOT believe. That one must say, "So help me God," at the end of the oath to take to become a nationalized citizen of the United States is profoundly discriminatory and ignores that up to 63 million Americans are atheist or agnostic. Bush's endorsement of "faith-based initiatives" strikes us as a blatantly unconstitutional funding of religious groups by the government; Mr. Bailey made the reasoning behind this very clear.

I think that while atheists are becoming very vocal about the omnipresence of religion in our public systems, very few would ever deny the right of any person or group of people to worship whatever they wished, so long as that worship does not unduly infringe upon the rights of others. Generally, we have all been accused of thought crimes, being threatened with eternal damnation by someone; this leads many of us to the position that thought crimes are oxymorons. There can be no punishment, no penalty for thoughts or ideas that exist only in your head. It is only when these thoughts turn into actions that we feel society should step in; especially when part of our government attempts to lend support to these actions when the government must remain explicitly neutral.

Go ahead and pray. Believe. Build churches and go to them. I don't care, and I will argue for your right to do so. But when you attempt to force your beliefs and behaviors upon me through either laws or actions by our government, I will speak out. I, and other secular Americans will not allow our right to NOT believe to be infringed without a struggle.

I am not the author of any of the above, so it's a 'this message is approved by Nick Gisburne' type of thing!