Stephen Green Can't Have His Own Way.

Bwaahhhhhaaaahhaahhhha!

Stephen Green is pissed off - as this release from a couple of days back demonstrates. More on this later, in the meantime here is the complete and unexpurgated release!

The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that the humanists behind the newly-launched bus advertisement which claims there is 'probably no God' can't substantiate their claims.

The ad, the brainchild of comedy writer Ariane Sherine, says: 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life'.

But Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, and 325 others, complained to the Advertising Standards Authority. Many complaints said the ads were offensive. Stephen Green and others said the advertisements broke the ASA's codes on substantiation and truthfulness.

The ASA website says: 'Advertisements are not allowed to mislead consumers. This means that advertisers must hold evidence to prove the claims they make about their products or services before an ad appears.'

But in a ruling today, the ASA says the claim that there is probably no God is 'not capable of objective substantiation'. It says further that the complaints were not 'serious' or 'widespread' enough.

Stephen Green said today:

'If the ASA had thought the humanists could provide evidence for their claim, they would have asked them for it. As they know there is no evidence for the proposition that 'there is probably no God', they have let their secularist friends off the hook. 'I debated this issue secularists five times in recent days, and despite repeated challenges, they could not once come up with anything to back up their claim that there is 'probably no God'.

'The ASA have finessed Code 7.1, which says a ad should not mislead or be likely to mislead, ruling it would not be likely to mislead, so avoiding the thornier question of whether it actually does mislead. Which it does.

'On 'taste and decency', the ASA have simply taken a subjective decision to dismiss the complaints of offensiveness. On planet ASA, complaints from people of faith are not given the same weight as those from secularists. But what do you expect when the ASA Council is appointed and run by a campaigning homosexual, Chris, Lord, Smith of Finsbury?'

Last year the ASA ruled against Sandown Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster when the church published an advertisement 'The Word of God against Sodomy' against Belfast Gay Pride. That ad, decided the ASA, breached its code on decency (offensiveness) after receiving just 4 complaints. But they allowed that the ad was a legitimate expression of opinion when dismissing another part of the complaint.

Last week, it ruled against an advertorial Christian Voice placed in the New Statesman, after just one solitary complaint that a prediction that every Government initiative on teenage sexuality would increase teenage infertility could not be substantiated.

Stephen Green commented: 'The ASA upholds or breaks its rules as it goes along. It all depends on who is being complained about. They get 326 complaints and decide the bus ads were not causing serious or widespread offence. They get a mere 4, and say Sandown's ad was. They allow Sandown to express an opinion, but not Christian Voice. They excuse the secularists from the need to provide evidence for a categorical statement, claiming it is impossible to do, but they say Christian Voice needs hard evidence for a future prediction, which really is impossible.

'We always knew the ASA was just another tool of the politically-correct secularist establishment, but here's the proof. Their ruling is a good example of how the deck is stacked against Christians today, and the Church needs to wake up to the anti-Christian agenda right now. The good news is we now know that when the secularists decided to say: "There is probably no God", they had no reason for making that absurd claim, and time has not helped them come up with one. The bad news is that if Christians don't start standing up for their Faith and their Saviour soon, we shall see religious liberties trampled on, and the secularists will take us further down the road to their hell on earth.'

NOTES for Editors:

The CAP Code, which the ASA administers, says:

'SUBSTANTIATION

'3.1 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.

'Relevant evidence should be sent without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP. The adequacy of evidence will be judged on whether it supports both the detailed claims and the overall impression created by the marketing communication.'

DECENCY

'5.1 Marketing communications should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. ...'

'TRUTHFULNESS

'7.1 No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.'

Welsh Kids Can Opt Out of Zombie Worship

Education Minister, Jane Hutt has decided that Welsh sixth-formers are to be given the right (like their English counterparts since 2007) to opt out of religious assembly.

Amazingly, this is due to the Education Act which dates back to 1944 which insists that children are exposed to a daily act of worship. The act says all schools:

"...must provide a daily act of collective worship which is broadly Christian."

This has less to do with the broadly secular UK and more to do with the stranglehold Churches had and still have on our nation's schools and, of course, the patently ridiculous notion that Bishops have the right to shit on, sorry sit in our upper house. This was gleefully seized on by Sir Peter Vardy's band of snake-oil salesmen who force children into what they call "tutor prayers" with the government's blessing.

1944 was an odd time for blighty. The 2nd World War was still raging, DNA had not been discovered and even television was in its infancy: yet it's not even a lifetime ago. It's not surprising that such an invidious piece of legislation should have slipped onto the statute books but it surprising that it's still there: but for the Bishops in the Upper House it most probably wouldn't be.

64 (!) years on and we've travelled to the moon, have hundreds of TV channels in glorious colour and high-definition, the Internet, personal computers, unlocked the mystery of DNA. The bishops are still in the House of Lords and (some) politicians don't think that young adults can think for themselves.

This is the problem: some of the Zombie Worshippers want to force their outmoded belief systems down children's throats even though it doesn't serve any useful purpose.

Ignoring the ubiquitous Rent-a-Quote, Stephen Green, the BBC quotes the Union of Welsh Independent Chapels, which said the assembly was,

"throwing away 1,500 years of Welsh Christianity to the wind - at the very time when young people need a sound moral and spiritual dimension in their lives more than ever."

This sort of comment really, really gets on my man-boobs. Who gives them the right to suggest that secular education does not or cannot give people a moral foundation? As for spiritual - that's a faith thing and it's for individuals to decide IF and WHAT they believe.

The UWIC is frightened that if this sort of outmoded practice is removed (and it will eventually be dropped from other schools too) then children won't follow their idiotic notions and may actually have to think for themselves.

Dr. Geraint Tudur whined to the BBC,

"Over the centuries, Christianity has been the bedrock of Welsh identity and morality."

Oh do move on dude! Christianity may have been the foundation of morals but we've moved on from there. Society is evolving (has evolved) to a point where most people - children included don't see the need to look up to a God. And, should it exist, it certainly doesn't need protecting.

As I see it, they're more likely to be frightened for their "jobs" - welcome to the real world, fucker!

A catholic spokesman was more relevant Father John Owen, a chaplain of Cardiff University, told the BBC:

"I have always thought that any form of compulsory worship was counter productive.

"I think it's a personal decision and personally I have no problem with this."

Amen to that brother. Errr....

The ASA Might Draw Battle Lines!

Work commitments prohibit me from commenting any more than to promise I'll write more on this later with citations, but currently reports are suggesting that 100+ people have added their voice to that of Stephen Green complaining about the atheist bus advert.

This is likely to be the ASA's toughest ever challenge.

If it decides it has to rule (and it might even have that hand forced) it may effectively have to rule on the very existence of a god or gods.

If it were me, I would demand the complainants define what constitutes god (because you can't have something if you can't define what it is) AND which god they are alluding to. The nasty, jealous, antagonist, murderous fucker of the Old Testament or the slightly more charismatic and gentile figure portrayed in the New. Which is a dichotomy in itself!

Gavin Orland, who organised a campaign to email the BBC to protest about the corporation's Thought for the Day told the Telegraph:

"The fact that humanist, non-religious contributors are excluded from the slot gives the impression the BBC believes morality is the exclusive remit of religious people, which is offensive, unrepresentative and untrue.

"It's great that there will be a non-religious thought allowed on iPM: let it be an example to the Today programme."

This may indeed be a turning point for religion in the UK, which although ostensibly secular, still carries the weight of centuries of Christian heritage. At the simplest level, this manifests itself as people, almost instinctively, tick CofE [Church of England] on forms where religious affiliation is requested; right through to the startling control that religious influence still holds over schools. In England, religious schools are maintained by the state; yet are free to fill the minds of vulnerable children with sectarian bile.

The problem for tub-thumping "out" atheists is that ordinary English folk don't care either way.

It's part of being English. We drink milky tea, go out in the noonday sun and declare to be Anglicans (unless we're catholic) even when we're not. Even today, many official forms still contain options for religious affiliation (AS IF IT FUCKING MATTERED) and yet omit the option for: none.

Many regard Stephen Green and his ilk as a bit of a joke - but a harmless one - when in reality, it's only the efforts of a campaigning core of rational, free thinkers that keeps him tethered.

Chief god-botherer , Tony Blair was quite happy to allow Peter Vardy's Doberman, Nigel McQuoid to teach Creationism in his academies until a bunch of academics and ordinary folk came out and took a stand until the government was forced to legislate against the slow march of stupidity.

I was one of them and I'm proud of our collective achievement.

But this is far from over - this country - indeed the West as a whole needs to a have an open and honest debate on these matters.

Stephen Green Is (Probably) Dumb

Predictably, Stephen 'Bird Shit' Green has come out in all of a fluster after comedienne Ariane Sherine helped launch the "There's Probably No God" campaign, yesterday.

Unsurprisingly, Green wasn't in evidence when the Christian adverts appeared last year warning that people who rejected God were going to spend eternity in hell.

Oooo oooo, Steve. I'm trembling in me boots at the very thought.

In a statement to AFP, Green whined:

"It is given as a statement of fact and that means it must be capable of substantiation if it is not to break the rules," he said. "There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"I believe the ad breaks the Advertising Code anyway, unless the advertisers hold evidence that God probably does not exist."

Which is where he starts to go wrong. Green's press release lectures editors on the ASA code as follows:

SUBSTANTIATION
'3.1 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.

'Relevant evidence should be sent without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP. The adequacy of evidence will be judged on whether it supports both the detailed claims and the overall impression created by the marketing communication.'

'TRUTHFULNESS
'7.1 No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.'

Green obviously missed the word probably.

Carlsberg's marketing has said for years that its is probably the best lager in the world. In fact, it probably isn't, but probably is like that, it's not a statement of fact, just an idea. Green is confusing probably with definitely.

Curiously, when this was first mooted, I hear that the message did not include "probably" at all and the word was only inserted at the behest of London Transport.

No one can say for sure that there is no god (or gods come to that); but by the same token, no on can say for definite that supernatural forces exist. Fact is, you and I might be just brains in a jar: it's an age-old problem for philosophers and goldfish everywhere.

What Green see as evidence for God I see as nature in all her magnificence. Poor old Green can't cope with this - because that destroys everything he understands. Every bit of evidence we have (that's proper evidence, not some story from a dusty old story book) says that life on Earth evolved from little more than simple strands of DNA.

Scientists think that the entire universe was created in an instant from a tiny mass of matter which exploded about 13.5 billion years ago: the Big Bang. Others don't agree, they think that the event was triggered when a couple of "branes" (sheets or membranes of alternate space-time) collided; but this is the realm of string theory and those guys can't agree on much.

Anyway, Green smugly announces that the bible is immutable and can be quoted without problem.

The Christian evangelist is not concerned by fears that his complaint will lead to atheists complaining about Christian adverts. 'I am sure many of them have complained about Christian advertising already,' he said, 'but a statement such as "The Bible says 'the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord'" is entirely factual. The Bible does say that. The statement "Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life - no-one comes to the Father but by me,'" to take another example, is a Biblical quote, from the same Bible which is part of our Christian Constitution and upon which witnesses promise to tell the truth in Court. The Bible is, to coin a phrase, our Bible.'

He's missed the important point that although you can quote parts of the bible, you can't automatically use those quotes to cause offence to certain groups of people without falling foul of precisely the same guidelines.

He also incorrectly suggests the UK has a Christian constitution - it doesn't. The UK has a Christian heritage, but that's entirely different - the place is about as secular as they come.

Course, Green never let facts get in the way of a good story, running an advertorial in New Statesman suggesting that the HPV vaccine was going to turn our daughters into harlots, which opened (according to its own release) with the words:

'VIOLENT CRIME - SOWING AND REAPING'

Delightful.

It went on to opine:

'There is a Biblical principle that we reap what we sow. It applies to nations as well as to individuals. What politicians sow, the people reap. When politicians sow evil, the people reap misery, and the poorest reap it the worst.

"Now we have the disaster of teenage infertility. Every government initiative, including the HPV vaccine, will increase it, but as all the targets revolve around pregnancy, no-one in power knows how many young people they are making sterile and nobody cares."

Someone was pissed and called the ASA who insisted that, CV provided 'robust, scientific evidence that the HPV vaccine caused infertility in teenagers'

I don't blame them and where I live we have a disaster of teenage pregnancy not infertility. Green is obviously confusing the HPV vaccine with the bacterial infection, Chlamydia trachomatis. But hey, he's a Christian (direct line to God) so he knows more than the medics and people who bother to research what they write.

HPV - the virus that causes genital warts - is carried by men and is thought to be a major cause in certain types of cervical cancer. Virgins don't suffer with it. Immunising against HPV is a sure way to prevent HPV and reduce a common and dangerous cancer that claims the lives of many each year - even, dare I suggest, Jade Goody may not have been so ill had HPV vaccination been available.

Chlamydia is a different kettle of fish - it's bacterial, not viral for starters - but like HPV, condoms provide an excellent level of protection and it can be cleared by a simple, short course of antibiotics. The problem is that most people (50% men and 75% of women) can remain asymptomatic for some time, even when the damage has been done.

About 40% of women with Chlamydia will go on to develop pelvic inflammatory disease which may lead to damage to the fallopian tubes, uterus and surround tissue; resulting in sterility. It can also lead to, potentially life-threatening ectopic pregnancy (where the foetus implants outside the uterus) and chronic pelvic pain and even arthritis. [Figures from the CDC].

Where Green may have become confused is by the less-known reference that Chlamydia is more common among young people, particularly women because the bacteria can more easily take hold in the less mature sexual organs. It is also passed readily between gay men and through oral and anal sex. The CDC recommends that all sexually active women under 25 are screened annually although so far as I am aware, this is not routine in the UK.

Green's (probably) pissed off because, as Douglas Adams wrote, "he doesn't get invited to those sorts of parties."

American Conservatives (Still) Don't Get It

I love Dakota Voice. Rather like Christian Voice, it claims to represent family values and so on but when it comes to the crunch it's a small band of ultra-conservative buffoons led by a bloke with far too much time on his hands.

Leading from a story in the Telegraph, and letting a few facts slip by, DV's Bob Ellis almost recites scripture in gleefully informing us of how us pro-choicers are wrong to give women the chance to decide what happens to their unborn children. Of course, he doesn't say that in so many words, what he says is this:

"Better to leave life and death up to the Author of Life, and not take death into our own hands by killing innocent children.

Which is clichéd and highly emotive rhetoric: and he knows it.

The problem with Bob is he just won't accept the simple fact that there probably is no god. Even an idiot should be able to see that nature is the author of life. Pro-choicers would no more go around "killing innocent children" than he would. If you believe in a god, you might accept that a superior being kicked life off, but there's no evidence at all - none - that we're controlled on a daily basis.

Bob and his followers (and there are many like him, mostly descended from Catholic tradition) believe that life begins at conception. Technically it does but that life does not become remotely sentient until many weeks and probably months later; moreover, that life is not capable of sustaining itself even aided current medicine comparatively late in the pregnancy. Even after birth, this child has to be provided for every hour of the day. It relies on its mother for everything: from heat and shelter to food and emotional warmth.

The Bob variety of pro-lifers are a pretty trenchant lot. Abortion is never an option. Not if the mother was a child who had been raped; or if the foetus was horribly deformed and already in great suffering; not even if the mother's life was at risk. We get the same line in entrenched bullshit from Alaska Governor, Palin - which is why she was so popular with right-wing America in the 2008 election - despite being a complete ignoramus who abused her power. The more informed, pro-choice America breathed a heavy sigh of relief when Obama defeated this creationist freak show, but the war isn't over yet.

The Telegraph article Bob alludes to goes into rather more detail that the Conservatives at DV would like, so I'll summarise some of it here.

First of the headlines:

Telegraph: "Mother has healthy baby boy despite abortion warning by doctor"

Dakota Voice: "Healthy Son Despite Doctors Advice to Abort"

Wait did I miss something here? From the headlines, things look pretty clear cut - they aren't.

The Telegraph doesn't have an axe to grind like DV, and continuess with the hint all is now what it ought to be:

"A mother who was twice advised to have an abortion by doctors has gone on to have a 'perfectly' healthy son."

Note how they've cautiously placed perfectly into single quotes? Wonder why - and I wonder why Mssrs. Ellis and co. missed that? Might this have something to do with it? This from the Telegraph:

"Further tests conducted a few days later on New Year's Eve suggested the baby could also have Edwards Syndrome - the presence of an 18th chromosome - with a life expectancy of only up to four months if birth is survived."

Words like "could", "might" and "may" are the sort no prospective parent wants to hear. Rather like life, medicine isn't black and white (oh, if it only were). The worst was to come as the Telegraph reports, contradicting its own headline:

"Kai was born six weeks premature on March 5 at Scunthorpe General Hospital weighing just 2lb 6oz and immediately admitted to intensive care, but was discharged within six weeks.
One side of his heart was slightly bigger than the other which may need an operation to correct in the future, but regular tests have been showing the condition is constantly improving."

Kai Purdy pictured with his mother, Gaynor. Photo: ROSS PARRY AGENCY

So in truth, little Kai Purdy was anything but a normal healthy baby boy.

Dakota Voice effectively lied by omitting these facts and the Telegraph wasn't entirely honest either.

It appears that he does have Edwards Syndrome (aka Trisomy 18) and his heart was abnormal. The little fella is a fighter though and everyone at Abusing the News wishes him well. This is a great story of survival against the odds and one where the right choice was made.

However, consider this sobering evidence from Wikipedia (backed up from other sources):

"The survival rate of Edwards Syndrome is very low. About 95% die in utero. Of liveborn infants, only 50% live to 2 months, and only 5–10% will survive their first year of life. Major causes of death include apnea and heart abnormalities. It is impossible to predict the exact prognosis of an Edwards Syndrome child during pregnancy or the neonatal period. Because major medical interventions are routinely withheld from these children, it is difficult to determine what the survival rate or prognosis would be with aggressive medical treatment. The median life span is five to fifteen days. One percent of children born with this syndrome live to age ten, typically in cases of the less severe mosaic Edwards syndrome."

Of course, this won't rain on Pro-Life's parade. They'll just happy that Kai was born.

Had things been different, and the evidence is strongly in favour of that being the case, this child would have died before being born or very shortly afterwards.

The medical advice given to the Mr and Mrs Purdy was, statistically and rationally, entirely correct. Kai isn't a miracle (because that suggests supernatural intervention) he's just 1 in a 100. The other 99 children born with this condition will either be dead already or suffer agonising deaths during their very short lives.

They made an informed decision and it paid off.

This is the nature of choice that Conservative America, the Catholic church and all the pro-lifers around the world don't get.

Pro choice doesn't mean "abort every faulty foetus" it simply means give women the right to make a informed decision about what happens to their children. No one held a gun to Mrs Purdy's head, they just gave her the evidence and she made the decision. The right one.

Regarding the other 99 other times the Telegraph won't report will be a rather different story.

One day Stephen Green goes on holiday...

One day a Jew, a Hindu, and Stephen 'Bird Shit' Green all arrived at their hotel to find that there had been a mix-up with the bookings, and that there was only one room left for them to share.

The manager explained that this room only had two beds, but that there was a barn at a neighbouring farm which the farmer, an old friend of his, would let one of them sleep in free of charge. They complained a bit, but since there was nowhere else to go, the Jew graciously said he'd sleep in the barn.

The Hindu and Green were just settling down to sleep in their room, when there was a knock on the door. It was the Jew. 'I'm sorry,' he said, 'but there's a pig in that barn and because I'm Jewish I feel uncomfortable about sharing the barn with it.'

'No problem,' said the Hindu. 'I'll sleep out there instead.' So off he went to the barn, leaving Green and the Jew to share the room. They were just settling down to sleep, when there was a knock on the door. It was the Hindu. 'I'm sorry,' he said, 'but there's a cow in that barn and because I'm a Hindu I feel uncomfortable about sharing the barn with it.'

Green grudgingly agreed to give up his bed and stomped off to the barn leaving the Jew and the Hindu to share the room. The Jew and the Hindu were just settling down to sleep, when there was a knock on the door.

It was the cow and the pig.