Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Tagged under: , , ,

Charlie Hebdo

This is a very short piece. I am about to leave the house with my wife to travel to Dublin where a vigil is being held for murdered French journalists and police officers. They died in Paris today defending freedom of expression in the face of the most murderous censorship inflicted by theocratic fascism.


The journalists and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo and the police assigned to protect them lost their lives for living them as they had every right to live them: maintaining the oxygen that sustains porous intellectual life and protect vibrant democratic sentiment.

Those behind the attack must not be acquiesced in. There is no point in yielding to the demands of the religious fascists or trying to meet them halfway. Talk to them if need be but much more important is that we continue to talk about them. And talk about them the way Charlie Hebdo did, through the medium of satire, ridicule, mockery. Deny them what they want, our intellectual capitulation. The theology of domination must be denied the means to dominate. Speak, write, draw, sing, perform: anything but fall silent at the command of the nihilist Prophets of death.



Bring the noisy light of day. Do not go silent into the night, pretending that our fear of the theocrats is in some way a respect for their religious opinion. We are not fooling them, just deluding ourselves. 

God is not great, Charlie Hebdo is.



33 comments :

DaithiD said...

Deny them what they want, our intellectual capitulation.

What would intellectual capitulation look like?
When you see the peaceable (but effectively apostates) Muslims wheeled out onto current affairs or news programmes, to state this has nothing to do with Islamic scripture, to caution against any Islamophobic backlash, and it not be challenged at all by the presenter (or the audience privately)?

Sean Smith said...

Shocking attack on freedom of speech.The concept of free speech is to defend ones right to have a particular view even when you might not agree with it.Deepest sympathy to all the bereaved.

Henry JoY said...

Those that mercilessly gunned down journalists today in Paris (condolences and strength to all of us that grieve) are more likely to have characterised their victims as pieces of human garbage rather than as clowns or dick heads.

Where's the opportunity gone here on the Quill to criticise or poke fun at the words of our own self-appointed prophets (McGeough received less than 2% electoral support) or their (verbally at least) thuggish aficionados?

tiarna said...

Faut pas se moquer! (Must Not Mock!)

<
img src="http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/09/19/1226477/536311-hebdo.jpg">

Simon said...

I would have a different slant and one which is heartfelt and not intended to provoke. I know it goes against what Anthony believes.

The original cartoonists from my perspective only drew depictions of the Prophet Muhammad to provoke an angry response from people specifically of a Moslem background. Satire is meant to provoke but to contravene a tenet of a religion which for many people is a way of life, to purposefully annoy and cause hurt to an extent where a violent response was probable was unnecessary and in my view more than negligent it was a hate crime.

Why else draw such cartoons? Did they all accidentally draw the same provocative cartoons or did they set out to get a reaction? In my view to set out to annoy Moslems by drawing those cartoons is an act against Islam and therefore a hatecrime. It isn't a crime to draw cartoons but it is a crime to prompt religious conflict or to set out to insult many people who will only come from one religion.

I wouldn't equate this with Life of Brian as content, intent and method were different. I would say the cartoons were intentionally inciting hatred why else target one religion with such fervency? I would say irreverency was behind Life of Brian and on the other side malice behind those cartoons.

People from a Moslem background can speak for themselves and I know they all wouldn't think the way I do but that is the way I see it.

You cannot have a complete and overreaching freedom of speech. Libel, hate crime etc all need to be curtailed. I know the courts (in France I think) ruled it wasn't a hate crime but the courts in many countries make decisions I disagree with.

Saying that, the murders today are unacceptable and wrong.

To deliberately set out to hurt people from one religion is wrong. Killing people is also wrong. I wouldn't equate murder with hate but one led, quite predictably to the other.

Unfortunately the crimes today will be counterproductive in that there will be an anti-Islamic backlash and more hate will pour forth. The murderers would have known the cartoons would get more coverage after their killing and in that sense they are dishonest as well as cruel.

tiarna said...

Simon

"You cannot have a complete and overreaching freedom of speech. Libel, hate crime etc all need to be curtailed."


" Killing people is also wrong. I wouldn't equate murder with hate but one led, quite predictably to the other."

So they had it coming to them! They got Curtailed!!

But what about Michel Renaud, Michel Renaud, Franck Brinsolaro, Frédéric Boisseau who never drew any cartoons?? Why did they get curtailed???


Of the cartoons I have seen none libeled anyone and they depicted all religions which whatever you say about that it is not hate crime.

It is really about they can depict any religion but not Islam? Or we know what to predict (you do not agree with killing) but if anyone gets killed --then they did need to be curtailed anyway!

I myself would not find most of the cartoons funny but do not think they needed curtailed in anyway no matter how lenient.

Muslims are complete Islamaphobics -anybody who talks or draws critically about it will get curtailed.

We better not mention FMG, homosexuality, or joke about the gay accountant who got kicked out of heaven --he was caught with his finger in the Profits!

You can PM Anthony to have me curtailed.





Niall said...

Not sure I’m in agreement with who you have directed your ire at over this attack AM.
I agree that the violent act itself is to be condemned for all that it tries to justify. On the surface and in its naked brutality, it is nothing less than an attack against freedom of speech. The hurt of the families of those killed and injured is indescribable. But there is a lot more to this attack than meets the eye. Those followers of ‘theocratic fascism’, ‘religious fascists’, and nihilist Prophets of death, although they deserve our condemnation, may not be responsible after all.
Are we seriously meant to believe that two alcohol and drug imbued brothers and an 18 year old mate from a block of flats 40 miles away are responsible? That they unwittingly left their social security card in their getaway vehicle?
The men who carried out this attack were highly trained using ‘Western’ developed military tactics. The military precision of this attack is clear from the recorded postings on social media networks. Either the Jihadists have rapidly developed new tactics and training of their personnel.....which is highly unlikely as the attack on the school in Pakistan is more to their type of operation or someone else under the guise of jihadism is responsible. And this in turn begs the questions – Who and why?
Was it not odd that the streets of Paris were relatively empty? And from the postings on social media the killers did not display any real concern to flee the scene...they seemed to be aware that they had a lot of time on their hands.
Those other genocidal maniacs from the Middle-East, equally followers of ‘theocratic fascism’, ‘religious fascists’, and nihilist Prophets of death, may have had a hand in this.
Irrespective of who is responsible, the staff of Charlie Hebdo are dead and their families mourn........pawns in an international game.

frankie said...

It is really about they can depict any religion but not Islam?

That's the bottom line... Everything is up for grabs except Islam... If this is wrong, then so is this and ..... just so our Jewish friends don't feel left out ....

I've mentioned once or three times on this site that I know several of the local branch of the Parisian Taliban and I've said they get stoned, then drunk and bang 20 euro hookers... In the Belfast Telegraph they've reported at least one of the shooters was doing exactly that.

The guys who lost their lives yesterday were poking fun at everything since before Charlie Hedbo started. The fore-runner of Charlie was a magazine called Anarchy and when DeGaulle died in some back water town in 1970 they ran a cartoon and headline that said "Another person dead in a brawl'...

What is Charlie Hebdo? A magazine banned and resurrected but always in the grand tradition of Gallic satire ....

Je suis Charlie aussi

Simon said...

Tiarna, you know rightly that isn't what I meant by the word "curtailed".

I suspect that you also know that libel was only mentioned as an example of a reason to restrict free speech and not specific to this case. Please restrain yourself from corrupting the meaning of my argument in so crass a fashion.

These cartoons from my perspective weren't meant to bring togetherness they were unnecessary and dangerous. They were so likely to bring a violent response from extremists that would in turn bring draconian measures by states on Moslems, for example stop and search powers or racial profiling that they were intentionally or negligently divisive.

I don't have any empathy with the murderers. I have every sympathy with the dead whether they were involved originally with the cartoons or not.

Simon said...

Frankie, I read that the London bombers visited strip clubs and drank alcohol to throw the authorities off the scent, so that they didn't think they were violent fundamentalists. Now it is such an obvious ruse that the authorities wouldn't be fooled.

Peter said...

Simon
Free speech is a fundemental tenet of western culture. All religions have the right to worship here, in return we are free to criticise their religion. So you think that we shouldn't poke fun at a religion in case people get angry? What nonsense. These cartoonists poked fun at all religions and rightly so. No-one with power must be free from criticism.
I recommend you read Ayan Hirsi Ali (or watch her on Youtube), a Somalian woman who endured FGM and a forced marriage but escaped and claimed assylum in Holland. She was astonished that in western culture anyone, man or woman, is free to criticise the pope, the Queen or the President of the USA. In much of Africa, Arabia and Asia you can't even criticise your Dad. If we stop criticising Islam then who else will become free from criticism? Free speech is absolutely key to our human rights.

frankie said...

Simon,

They (7/7 bombers) that was a black flag op btw... went to strip clubs to get their rocks off. They got drunk to get pissed. I know too many god fearing taliban to buy into the crap... They are as corrupt as god fearing christians.

If you or anyone else wants to buy into the line that the local taliban don't use 20 euro hookers, get stoned etc... go a head and believe it. I don't.

I'm not knocking them for it.. In the leafy suburbs if I want a lump of hash.. I'll go the local taliban. I've seen them hiding their wine and whiskey... Seen 20 euro hookers coming of their rooms when I lived in the Twilight Zone (the Mosque was in the same building)... Go figure yourself.

Simon said...

Peter, "So you think that we shouldn't poke fun at a religion in case people get angry? What nonsense." I didn't say that as you are right it would be nonsense. I believe if you are malicious in your intent by understanding there is a great likelihood of violence leading to a greater likelihood of a backlash focusing on a religious people through a draconian backlash against such violence you shouldn't publish. If people are likely to suffer violence or if other people's rights are to be abused through stop and search or racial profiling we should think before we publish anything devisive.

The chance of violence was too great and predictable that they should have rethought their position. Why else publish something in an organised way if it wasn't to provoke?

There isn't a country in the world where freedom of speech is absolute. That is why it shouldn't be abused and should be cherished.

I don't know if incitement of hatred laws or those designed to prevent violence cover purely those people who support your position or includes others who would be against your position but I don't see why not. It isn't as if you can control either.

Simon said...

Frankie, I don't know if it is true. I read it in Robert Fisk's "Age of the Warrior" if my memory serves me correctly. A source I would rely on at any rate.

I personally wouldn't fund taliban members no matter where the money went, hookers or violence.

frankie said...

As a side line due to yesterdays events in Paris (and the Ched Evans affair in Britian)... It's a good time for the 'powers that be' to bury bad news...

David Higgins said...

Simon,
Its either free speech or cenorship that's the only two choices when you get right down to it. Every publication, main stream or alternative should show the cartoon of mohammed.This would aleviate the pressure on certain journalists. They are advocators of free speech or they aren't.

frankie said...

Simon,

France fund the local taliban... There is a huge social security fraud scam going on. Basically in France you sign on 'online' once every three months and your money is in your bank account on the 5th of every month (6th if you've a post office bank account)...<---thats for the equivilent of JSA.. For 'normal' unemployment benefits you sign on 'online' once a month..(basically 70/80% of your last wage).. And every few months the show their faces to keep things ticking over..

What the taliban do is (a lot of them) is go back home to north Africa and leave their ID's,social security etc to an Algerian who has no rights, (illegal immigrant).. and if a letter comes that needs urgent attention then the person holding the fort takes care of buisness (the heads from Mali, Senegal etc work the same scam)...

If the police arrest them (illegal immigrants) they say they are from some other country and casue they have ' no papers'.. they( the police) can't do much and release them after a few days..

Then the 'sans papiers' who actually work, work for a lot less than the minimum wage generally get exploited by the fellow country men....(kinda like Brendan Hughes said about the pea nuts paid on building sites)....

The only thing that has surprised me is the attack didn't happen sooner. And as for this out cry of French solidarity... That will ebb away quicker than the sprang up and lead to more hate & division between the local natives (the French) and the local taliban...

There will be people trying to dress it up in the press, social media etc... but La france is fcuked.

If Oscar WIlde, Joyce, Jim Morrison etc were alive today...They wouldn't go to Paris. Maybe the south of Spain with Piacasso...

Keep a close eye on Marine le Pen.. Sarko is a good outside bet to be re-elected. Frankie H, he's lost the plot.

DaithiD said...

Frankie, to bury bad news and ignore truths , Barack Obama said this is 2012 after the first cartoon ‘scandal’:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
Now he wants us to believe he is “Charlie” too :
…one thing that I'm very confident about is that the values that we share with the French people, a belief — a universal belief in the freedom of expression, is something that can't be silenced because of the senseless violence of the few.

If he is part of that tag, Ill start my own , maybe "I Love Charlie", and by God my words will be met with actions! *sniffs*

larry hughes said...

Destruction of countries for no god reason is the wests MO. Business as usual, The awful murders by intolerant nutters is a wee taster up close of what our own governments have been exporting. Ireland and Shannon airport is not innocent in all of that.

Feel really awdul for the victims in this. I actually hope those who did it get the same in the coming hours. But I do feel this is something that we have manufactured our selves.

Wolfsbane said...

I fully agree with free speech and press freedom. And blasphemy laws are just silly.

But remember that 'fascism' is not limited to imperial religions. The secular humanism of today often persecutes all who will not accept its beliefs - for example, that homosexuality is not immoral. It seems that Christians like me who hold that it is immoral are guilty of hate speech and so must be gagged or worse.

Those of you who truly love freedom, please make sure that is accorded to all world-views.

frankie said...

maybe "I Love Charlie", and by God my words will be met with actions! *sniffs*

DaithiD,

I hope you don't mean when you say "I love charlie, sniffs"... anything un-to ward like this or this and for all you rock/blues fans like this

Peter said...

Wolfsbane
How can homosexuality be immoral if you are born that way? Why does your god make so many gays if it is immoral? There is evidence of homosexuality in humans dating back millennia, it isn't a lifestyle choice. Telling gay people that they must lead celibate and lonely lives because some imaginary sky god thinks they are deviant, now that's immoral. Telling young fragile people that they are deviant, now that's plain evil. The sooner strong hate laws are brought in the sooner we will see the suicide and self-harming rate among our young people fall. Get that big eared twat Poots in the dock first.

frankie said...

wolfsbane,

Can't buy into that school of thought. If two consenting male adults want to be each others bum bandit and no one gets hurt in the process then what harm is there? Same as if two consenting adult ladies decided to play girly lesbi friends.... all's fair in love in and war..

Religion simply blinkers people... Free yourself Wolf, pull up a chair and come over to the darkside and liberate your soul..

tiarna said...

Simon

When I quoted your words "Killing people is also wrong" means I was distinguishing that your use of "curtailed" meant something else.

When you related the words Libel and hate crime as a means of describing Charlie Hebdo's work for which they were murdered you were depicting the victims as in someway bad people --they weren't but you were explicit that they were committing hate-crimes: "therefore a hatecrime" and " it was a hate crime".

Islam you say is "a religion which for many people is a way of life" A significant part of the population in France has no religion at all which is by far more popular there than being Muslim is?

Why is being anti-religious and being critical of religion a hate crime? -they are free to express that.

Paris is known for generations as the home of artists, philosophers and Bohemians who have shocked, appalled and broken taboos, so much so that the world is a better place for their efforts.

The people at Charlie Hebdo knew the dangers but they would not be cowed or intimidated. Instead of commending them for their courage and convictions you think they should have been 'curtailed' before now. The fuckers who murdered them need to be curtailed and I don't care if it turns out that they end up getting killed.

Islam's islamaphobics cannot stand being confronted with the realities of their religion and so they act out in ways that they say their religion allows; by beheading or killing people in other brutal ways.

I disagree with you very strongly on that.

David Higgins said...

Peter,
While i agree with your analysis of wolfesbane's comments, i disagree with your solution. Hate laws will be used to silence dissenters. Hate laws are facism by the back door. Each individiual who commits suicide, trgic as it always is, has their own reasons for doing so. The only people who can help them are their support structure, families and friends, if they have them, support centres if they do not. Government interference has always been a disaster as there are always ulterior motives. Suicide is a condition of the human pysche, i don't see how we can ever eradicate it, although we certainly should be more compassionate to those in need. A restriction on peoples opinions will create nothing dut a solidification of those beliefs.

Wolfsbane said...

Peter said:

'How can homosexuality be immoral if you are born that way?'

It has still to be proven that one is born gay.

But let's accept it for argument's sake. How about being born paedosexual? Would that make it right? Or born psychopathic - would that make one's actions right?

No - if one is born with immoral tendencies, that still does not make practising those tendencies right.

'Why does your god make so many gays if it is immoral?'

As above, it is not established one is born gay. Nurture rather than nature may well be the real cause.

But in any event, we are all born sinful in nature. Just how that sin manifests differs in each individual. Nurture plays the key role in choices we make, and any natural dispositions - short temper, selfishness, sexual drives, etc., are played out in our response to our circumstances.

So your question really is, Why does God create sinners? The answer is that He created our first ancestors perfectly moral, but they sinned and we have inherited their sinful nature.

'There is evidence of homosexuality in humans dating back millennia, it isn't a lifestyle choice.'

Why do you think ancient practice was not a lifestyle choice?

'Telling gay people that they must lead celibate and lonely lives because some imaginary sky god thinks they are deviant, now that's immoral.'

They have the liberty to think and say that my view is nonsense, so why is it immoral? I'm not imposing my view on them. Are you saying it is immoral for anyone to criticise other's behaviour? Is it immoral of you to criticise my criticism of their behaviour?

'Telling young fragile people that they are deviant, now that's plain evil.'

Would you tell a young fragile person that sexual involvement with their father/mother/sister/brother was deviant? Or would you be silent in case you hurt their feelings and made them feel guilty?

'The sooner strong hate laws are brought in the sooner we will see the suicide and self-harming rate among our young people fall. Get that big eared twat Poots in the dock first.'

How come it not hate speech for you to ridicule the deeply held beliefs of Christians and others who hold that all forms of sexual conduct outside of heterosexual marriage are deviant?

No - neither you or I are guilty of hate speech just because we criticise or even ridicule the beliefs and practices of others. We only become guilty when we urge people to persecute those we hold to be deviant.



Wolfsbane said...

frankie said:

'Can't buy into that school of thought. If two consenting male adults want to be each others bum bandit and no one gets hurt in the process then what harm is there?'

Harm to fellow-man is not synonymous with immorality. The Christian view of morality is determined by God's commands. God is the one being harmed - insulted by behaviour contrary to His will.

'Same as if two consenting adult ladies decided to play girly lesbi friends.... all's fair in love in and war..'

As above.

'Religion simply blinkers people...'

All false religion certainly does. Indeed, all false ideology too.

'Free yourself Wolf, pull up a chair and come over to the darkside and liberate your soul..'

Thanks for the offer, frankie - but God freed me from the darkside many years ago. I remember too well the degradation involved in being free from His laws.

But I'm with you on this: homosexual men and women must be free to make their own sexual choices. We are not called to enforce morality where consenting adults are involved.

I only ask to be free to dissent from their view, not be forced to endorse it or keep silent on the matter.

frankie said...

Harm to fellow-man is not synonymous with immorality. The Christian view of morality is determined by God's commands. God is the one being harmed - insulted by behaviour contrary to His will.

Wolf we've been down this road loads of times.. again the GODS made US in THEIR likeness.. (so it says in the first book of the bible)...

Now if the first book is correct then there has to GODESS's.. and maybe, more than likely a few GAY gods...

All false religion certainly does. Indeed, all false ideology too.

I'm talking all religion blinkering people.. not just the christian religion.

Thanks for the offer, frankie - but God freed me from the darkside many years ago. I remember too well the degradation involved in being free from His laws.

So you went to honky tonks and were a real wild rover when you were a pup... ? If so what happened to to you wolf.. Come back to the dark side..

Peter said...

Wolfsbane
"It has still to be proven that one is born gay".

You lost it right there. You cannot be serious! Gay as a lifestyle choice? Get real. My mate had a nervous breakdown at 21 because he didn't want to be gay, couldn't face being gay. Tell him it was his choice. And you lower yourself to comparing gayness with paedophilia. The difference is that gay people are with CONSENTING ADULTS. Adam and Eve's children were incestuous, so were Noah's, that seems to be acceptable for religious types! Churches instruct gay members to be celebate denying them the love and companionship that we all need. That and the casual homophobia from religious nutters causes depression in gay people and violence against them. What is wrong with what they do? Why should we care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms? Homophobia is a sickness perpetuated by iron age myths.

Wolfsbane said...

frankie said:

'the GODS made US in THEIR likeness.. (so it says in the first book of the bible)...'

Yes, the triune GOD made Adam & Eve in His image. Perfect - until they sinned. After that - what we see today. Sin of all types.

'Now if the first book is correct then there has to GODESS's.. and maybe, more than likely a few GAY gods...'

No - male & female were made in GOD'S image. It is a moral image, not a physical one.

'I'm talking all religion blinkering people.. not just the christian religion.'

I'm talking all religion, except the true one, blinkers people.

'So you went to honky tonks and were a real wild rover when you were a pup... ?'

Nothing extraordinary - but still sinful, degrading to the image of God.

'If so what happened to to you wolf..'

God sent the gospel to me, gave me understanding of it and touched my heart to accept it. I was born again by the Spirit of God and given a new nature.

'Come back to the dark side..'

The god of the dark side is evil, frankie. He has no good plans for any man. The true God invites you to leave your rebellion and promises a full and free pardon. No better news than that!

Wolfsbane said...

Peter said:

'[It has still to be proven that one is born gay].
You lost it right there. You cannot be serious! Gay as a lifestyle choice? Get real. My mate had a nervous breakdown at 21 because he didn't want to be gay, couldn't face being gay. Tell him it was his choice.'

I'm not talking about someone waking up one day and deciding to change his sexual preferences. I mean the choice we exercise when we choose to do something we know is wrong.

We want to do it; we know it's wrong. We then choose to embrace our feelings as valid and reject what conscience or society say; or we continue to hold it is wrong but choose to do it anyway; or we reject our feelings as actually wrong and seek to understand how we came to have such feelings. That is true for any immoral attraction we might have, not just homosexual feelings.

'And you lower yourself to comparing gayness with paedophilia. The difference is that gay people are with CONSENTING ADULTS.'

My only comparison was with the sexual desire. Homosexuality, heterosexual promiscuity, incest are all wrong, but none of anyone's business except those involved, whereas paedophilia involves those who need to be protected.

'Adam and Eve's children were incestuous, so were Noah's, that seems to be acceptable for religious types!'

Incest only became harmful as mankind degenerated from their original perfection. Genetic load made it dangerous for mankind to continue sibling marriages. That's the obvious reason God banned it in later times. BTW, Noah's children would have married their cousins, not their siblings.

'Churches instruct gay members to be celebate denying them the love and companionship that we all need.'

They can learn to get that love and companionship in heterosexual marriage. Many have.

'That and the casual homophobia from religious nutters causes depression in gay people and violence against them.'

I can't speak for nutters of any type - by definition they are perverse in their conclusions and practice. Nut-jobs like Fred Phelps are not Christian.

'What is wrong with what they do?'

It violates God's will for mankind - sex is for one man and one woman united in marriage.

'Why should we care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms?'

We should not persecute them for their behaviour, as it is up to consenting adults to decide how they live. Christians should CARE, however, if we love them as our fellow-men/women. We know their lifestyle is sinful and will bring them to God's eternal wrath. It will often bring them physical and mental problems in this life too.

'Homophobia is a sickness perpetuated by iron age myths.'

Depends what you mean by homophobia - if you mean hatred of gays, I would say it is a sinful self-righteousness sometimes associated with a distorted understanding of eternal truths.

If you mean abhorrence of homosexuality, I would say it is a healthy attitude usually flowing from both natural light and revealed truth.

grouch said...

their wud have been something in the gospel if jesus was down on gays. i feel sorry for gay people in ireland, especially the bullying we are so good at here. but im not down with gay marriage or adoption, which to some people makes me a homophobe. whatever. hello wolfesbane me aul segocia, long time no see, happy new year and all that, our lord said nothing about gays in the gospel but he did say anyone who scandalizes one of his children wud be better off thrown into the sea with a stone around his neck. what wud he make of the church wrecking peoples heads about being gay and then shuffling paedos from one disadvantaged area to another. the native indians had a more enlightened view of homosexuality. ps. i think the whole gay rights thing is heavily promoted by bigger forces who have a way more destructive agenda about the family and society than gays realise. the secret government have always promoted feminism, gay rights, tranny rights etc etc through their media for one reason only. and its nothing to do with anybodys rights.

Wolfsbane said...

grouch said:
'their wud have been something in the gospel if jesus was down on gays.'

There's specific condemnation of homosexuality in the letters of Christ's apostles - the men He sent to bring us all we need to know about godly living.

Why did He not specifically mention homosexual sin? The same reason He did not mention incest, beastiality, etc. All sexual perversion is covered in the ban on sex outside heterosexual marriage.

Adultery is married folk sexually sinning against their spouse, and 'fornication' can cover all other sexual sin - not just heterosexual sin.

But sometimes homosexual sin is separately indicated, for example:
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

'i feel sorry for gay people in ireland, especially the bullying we are so good at here.'

Yes, bullying anyone for any reason is deplorable. It's a pity the gay community does not remember that when they think about suing Christians for not publishing their material.

'but im not down with gay marriage or adoption, which to some people makes me a homophobe. whatever.'

Yes, that's what I mean about 'bullying' - how come your right to disagree with gays on that suddenly makes you a homophobe or bully? Our gay friends need to step back and distinguish between disagreement and persecution.

'hello wolfesbane me aul segocia, long time no see, happy new year and all that'

And a Very Happy New Year to you too, grouch!

'our lord said nothing about gays in the gospel but he did say anyone who scandalizes one of his children wud be better off thrown into the sea with a stone around his neck.'

As above, all sexual sin is covered in the ban on sex outside marriage.

'what wud he make of the church wrecking peoples heads about being gay and then shuffling paedos from one disadvantaged area to another.'

Indeed - hypocrisy is a worse sin than homosexuality. And the evil of oppressing the children in doing so - a very hot hell awaits!

'the native indians had a more enlightened view of homosexuality.'

The native indians were demon worshippers, so their views on homosexuality should not be relied on.

'ps. i think the whole gay rights thing is heavily promoted by bigger forces who have a way more destructive agenda about the family and society than gays realise. the secret government have always promoted feminism, gay rights, tranny rights etc etc through their media for one reason only. and its nothing to do with anybodys rights.'

Yes, I would not be surprised. Sometimes I think perversity in government is just them blowing with the voting wind - but often they are the ones doing the blowing. And as you say, it may be even more than them personally agreeing with these 'rights', it may be part of their strategic engineering project.