Old-Testament Religious Lunatics Oppose Civil Partnership

The religious lunatic fringe in Ireland

The nutcases just won’t let it alone, will they?

The sex-obsessed Seán and Martina Burke, full-time protesters with no obvious alternative means of earning a living, drive their children from Castlebar two or three times a week to hold placards outside the Dáil.  The placards tend to be biblical, with quotations from Leviticus to support their view that homosexuals should not be allowed to enter into a legal arrangement with each other.

The family members happily repeat a selection of spin, propaganda, distortion and plain lies to anyone foolish enough to listen to them, which is hardly an ideal way to raise ten children.

The Burkes claim to be Christians but I don’t believe them. I felt particularly sorry for one of their young teenaged daughters, standing there with a placard that reads  Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination. Leviticus 18:22.

Oddly enough, the placard omits to mention the punishment for homosexuals prescribed in Leviticus:

they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Lev 20.13)

The poor little girl, at such an early age has already been embittered and twisted by these  hate-filled scriptural certainties, and will in time no doubt come to hate her parents  when, perhaps too late, she realises how much they have stunted her emotional development.

What a grounding for a young girl who should be free to grow and learn about life instead of obsessing about such a dark vision as Leviticus expresses. What a horrible destruction of innocence on the altar of grim orthodoxy. It seems Abraham wasn’t the only one willing to sacrifice his children.

As well as condemning homosexuals, Leviticus permits people to buy slaves and sell their own daughters.  It points out that anything and anyone touched by a woman during her period becomes unclean.  It requires that those working on the Sabbath should be put to death.  It states that shellfish are an abomination, but it doesn’t specify whether they’re a worse abomination than gays, which leaves the way open for a law banning winkles and mussels.  The God of Leviticus forbids hunchbacks, dwarfs, blind people and men with flat noses to approach his altar.  This rules out half the aged clergy of Ireland.  Likewise, Leviticus forbids us to use linen and wool in the same garment, and the intermingling of different cattle breeds, which is bad news for Teagasc and the Irish Farmers Association.    It goes a step further than our recent blasphemous libel law, condemning blasphemers to death by stoning, a duty I imagine Mr and Mrs Burke would carry out with relish. It likewise requires the death penalty for killing a man (though not a woman).  It forbids religious statues.

Oh, and black pudding is also against the law as well as all pig meat, so that’s the end of the traditional Irish breakfast.  I don’t think it says anything about toast, or tea or coffee, because the God who dictated it hadn’t heard of these things yet.

What a fine world Mr and Mrs Burke, and their demented offspring, have in store for us.

21 thoughts on “Old-Testament Religious Lunatics Oppose Civil Partnership

  1. No. And they won’t be either. Ahern finally saw sense and he’s talking now about amending the constitution to take blasphemy out of it.

  2. I’d like to see the Burkes done for blasphemy with the shit they are coming out with, “I find them religiously offensive and extremely blasphemous to me, as a new testament Christian, your honour”
    Would that work?

  3. But you do know that Leviticus isn’t even Christian as such? Well, the whole old testament is Jewish actually. Levi is part of the foundation of the Jewish orthodoxy which is as ancient and backwards as it gets.
    I wonder sometimes why orthodox Christians stick to Jewish beliefs instead of the more liberal ones of Jesus – more liberal in comparison to the old scriptures.
    Not that I’m fond of both.

    In Germany we say, if we want to put someone down: We read the “Leviten” to you – which means to read the riot act to someone. Fits, doesn’t it?

    About the couple who sent their children out to do some protest: Isn’t it a kind of child abuse?

  4. Of course I know it isn’t Christian, not that I’d care which fairy-tale to ignore. It’s still one of the books revered by Christians, Jews and Muslims.

    Leviticus is a horror story designed to scare the shit out of a bunch of ignorant prehistoric goat-herds to keep them in line.

  5. Of course I know you know. Was just a confirmative general expression.

    Not only Leviticus is a horror story. As a child I was horrified about all the stories in the old testament. Fathers killing their sons or selling them into slavery, husbands abusing their wives… Was forced to learn them at school until I was bright enough to get exemption from religious education. They are still ingrained in a way. How else would I be so upset about them. Religion is pure brainwashing, but we all know that.

    I think the whole bible stuff is still used to keep people in line. And that means to be able to abuse them to all sorts of things. Abuse is not just about sex and violence. It’s about manipulating people’s minds, keeping them as goat-herds or even better, goats. It’s not about gays or freedom of women/men doing their own thing, it’s about control, power and money (land, in ancient times – still in Ireland, though).

    Ach, don’t get me started…

    I’d rather believe in Paul the squid.

  6. To answer your earlier question, yes, I do believe that indoctrinating children into this hate-filled ideology is a form of abuse. Teaching your children that gays caused AIDS is positively evil.

  7. I was just wondering earlier would there be a case for putting a case forward of finding these fuckwits offensive to my religion I was born into and haven’t practised sine I was around 12.

  8. Luckily it isn’t illegal to offend someone in this country, apart from the absurd blasphemous libel provision which will never be used.

  9. But shellfish are an abomination!

    And I never touch women’s things, just in case. Apart from my housekeeper’s things. And she is transitional.

  10. And furthermore, IMO the taboo should be extended to octo-pies/pussies possessed by demons.

  11. ten kids anyway,,,,,,so at least the oul sex is good,,,,thats something, at least no-ones goin to burn in hell for ridin

  12. Reminds me of Hitchens’ book on Mother Theresa called “Missionary Position”.

    Bock, your two paragraphs about their poor little girl really hit home for me. I’m currently in recovery from a religious lifestyle, and everyday that goes by, I feel like I’m stunting my kids future by letting them remain religious. I could say a lot more about that, but I’m not sure that I really want to get into it here.

    Yeah, a lot of that Levitical stuff is pretty weird, although I’ve heard not so bad justifications for some of it.

    Regarding black pudding – you people actually eat that stuff – for breakfast? I didn’t even know what it was, but Wiki came through again, with a whole detailed article about it.


    Must be one of the most disgusting articles I’ve read there! But you all are not alone – almost every country has its version of this blood sausage (I understand why you call it “black pudding”). But don’t worry – eating blood is one of the majority of prohibitions that don’t apply to gentiles, so bon appetit!

    Thinking about it, I guess that it’s not that much worse than eating any other part of a once living animal. (One of the 7 Noachide laws for everyone is actually not to eat a limb from a living animal. At least that. Guess they had a craving for that back then, from their more animalistic, carnivorous origins). Vegetarianism does make a lot of sense. Maybe my aversion to eating blood is from my lapsing biblicality.

    Somehow, I’ve lost my appetite for breakfast…

  13. Funny thing is I never heard of these nutters until now, and I live in Dublin. Perhaps it would be best to leave them in their ignorance and shadows?

  14. #11 above Bock: “it isn’t illegal to offend anyone in this country…” apart from blasphemy. Hmm..I seem to recall that there is a common charge of ‘threatening behaviour’ (two-finger signs etc.) and ‘behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace’ (Rangers and Celtic fans mooning at each other on the terraces – remember that cultural gesturing in Lansdowne Rd some years back by fans from Belfast?) and shouting at a guard or politician or anybody in a public place “You’re a shit-spewing bolix”. There is no absolute freedom of speech. Wait for eirigi protestors to be arrested next year when they shout Fuck the Queen during a certain state visit. Conventions of decorum and politeness also enable freedom loving citizens to limit and/or modify with discretion (and commonsense) their freedom of speech right at certain times and within certain socialising contexts. Such conventions exist in many societies and serve to protect citizens against unwelcome bloody noses etc.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.