The Reverend Peter Mullen, a minor member of the English clergy has been caught writing anti-gay hate speech. In a blog. On the Internet. Pete... mate... did you think nobody would find it? First, links to reports of the story itself:

The Guardian - Vicar could be disciplined for blog slurs against gays and Muslims

The Telegraph - Homosexuals should carry warning tattoos, says chaplain

BBC News Channel - Tattoo gay people, priest writes

---

Although the vicar's blog has been removed, some quick detective work revealed his original post, courtesy of Google cache:

Matthew Parris is wilfully refusing to give his readers his opinion about the recent "gay wedding" and about relationships between the church and homosexuals generally. He says, "When it comes to the church, synagogue or mosque, if you think the whole thing ridiculous, its hard to get excited about the ridiculousness of a subset of it. I should feel the same if morris dancers or the British Astrological Society tried to exclude gays."

So, for Parris, the views of billions of Christians, Jews and Muslims worldwide are of no more consequence than a couple of obscure sectional interests. From what point of privileged judgement does he thus discount 4000 years of civilisation? The great world religions have survived the criticisms of far more intelligent and better informed opponents than the ignorant upstart Parris. There is a whole history and literature of distinguished apologetics for religious belief, but Parris will attend to none of it - sufficient only to attract his disdain is mainstream religion's disapproval of homosexual acts.

Since Parris will not dirty his hands by entering theological discussions with his readers, perhaps I might answer for religious believers in the purely utilitarian terms which even the lofty Parris is bound to engage with. We disapprove of homosexuality because it is clearly unnatural, a perversion and corruption of natural instincts and affections, and because it is a cause of fatal disease. The AIDS pandemic was originally caused by promiscuous homosexual behaviour. Such promiscuity is itself an evil because its perpetrators merely use others indiscriminately for their own gratification, treating their fellows as sex objects and as means to an end rather than as ends in themselves. I should have thought that Parris, having rejected religious belief, might want to construct his moral beliefs on this Kantian humanistic imperative. But I suspect he is not really interested in morality of any kind - except as a special plea to excuse his lust for gratification at whatever cost to human dignity and the sanctity of human life.

It is time that religious believers began to recommend specific utilitarian discouragements of homosexual practices after the style of warnings on cigarette packets: Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS. In addition the obscene "gay pride" parades and carnivals should be banned for they give rise to passive corruption, comparable to passive smoking. Young people forced to witness these excrescences are corrupted by them.

Let me continue the comparison with smoking which is banned in most public places. Those committing homosexual acts in public places - such behaviour being a crime in any case under the Homosexual Reform Act of 1967 - should be arrested, tried and punished. Parks, open spaces and public lavatories would at once become more wholesome places. There ought to be teaching films shown in sex education classes in all our schools. These would portray acts of sodomy and the soundtrack would reinforce the message that it is a filthy practice ending with the admonition: "We do, after all, know the importance of washing our hands after going to the lavatory."

But I should like to turn Parris' disdain for religion back on to him. If I consider that homosexual practices are vile, why should I concern myself with subsets of their aspects? I might as well concern myself with other minor irrelevancies such as the Doris Day fanclub and polo-neck sweaters

There was also an earlier blog which is equally anti-gay:

Gay wedding at St Bartholomew's EC1
The Bishop of London is in a high huff
Because Dr Dudley has married a puff;
And not just one puff - he's married another:
Two priests, two puffs and either to other.
"It isn't a wedding, for that's not allowed;
They've just come together and promised and vowed
To shack up and snug up, to have and to hold:
Ooh aren't we radical! Ooh aren't we bold!"
Now here's a most queer and most wonderful thing:
He's given his hand, he's offered his ring;
And each to the other forever will bend,
After their troll in the coach up West End.
Not a flash wedding, no pics in Hello!
Just a honeymoon cottage, convenient so.
Of such Dr Dudley a goldmine has found,
From shaven-head puftas the nuptial pink pound.
The new Church of England embraces diversity,
A fresh modulation on ancient perversity:
"I'm C of E and PC so don't think it odd of me
To offer a licence and blessing for sodomy."

And remember that the man who wrote this says, 'I wrote some satirical things on my blog and anybody with an ounce of sense of humour or any understanding of the tradition of English satire would immediately assume that they're light-hearted jokes.' Read the whole thing. Does it sound like a joke to you? No, I thought not.

Hypocrisy?
However despicable you may think this man is, it's important to point out that his comments about Muslims (read the Guardian story, above) are justified:

Mullen criticised the lack of jokes about Islam in the media, remarking that adherents "certainly lend themselves to ridicule: sticking their arses in the air five times a day. How about a few little choruses, 'Randy Muslims when they die/Find 70 virgins in the sky'?"

Does that show hypocrisy on my part? No. here's why his anti-gay comments are not okay, but his anti-Muslim ones are:

• His anti-gay sentiments reflect an antipathy to a lifestyle which harms nobody. Gay people have gay sex and live their lives entirely consensually. They do not coerce anyone to be as they are, to do what they do. Homosexuality is not about changing you or I, it's not about forcing us to be gay. Being anti-gay means being against something for no other reason than 'you don't like it'. Or of course 'because God says so'.

• Anti-Muslim sentiments are different. Islam most certainly is something which wants to change you and I. If you tell a joke about Islam on TV, expect hordes of angry, and sometimes downright dangerous, Muslims to beat down the door of the TV station. Islam allows no criticism without the risk of severe, violent consequences. Islam wants me to go along with its rules. It does not want Muslims to 'do their thing' in privacy, but instead seeks to impose its rules on everyone else. Being anti-Muslim is being anti-oppression.

Criticism of gays is an attempt to stop gay people doing something they enjoy (being gay). That is wrong.

Islam already tries to stop people, including non-Muslims, doing certain things and enjoying certain freedoms. Speaking against Islam is therefore exactly the same as speaking against homophobia. Islam is in effect 'anti-everyone-else' (call it kafirophobia is you will - kafir is derogatory term for a non-Muslim). If it were not, I would not oppose its teachings and customs. Since it is, I do, and similarly oppose anti-gay sentiments such as thouse espoused by Rev Peter Mullen.

If gay people insisted that I be gay, told me that my hetero ways were abhorrent, and threw bricks at my house if I made jokes about them, I would oppose them. I would still defend their right to be gay, but would be against any behavious affecting my life. Similarly, I oppose all aspects of Islam which negatively affect my life, or the lives of others, but I support their right to follow their own religion until it crosses that line.

Hopefully that makes my position clear. Basically I just wanna tell jokes about Muhammad without fear of death or serious injury! Parody is not hate speech. Rev Mullen anti-gay comments are.

---

Footnote:
Here's how homophobia hurts people:

The ever-changing Bible? How dare you? The word of God is inerrant and unchanging and... no, stop it, evangelists, and open your eyes, via this link to a story from the BBC:

The rival to the Bible
What is probably the oldest known bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent.

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's Bible.

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God.

Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection.

...missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

That last sentence really says it all perfectly, don't you think?