"Are my fellow Muslims so weak in their faith that they think God needs their violence to defend His eternal truth? I believe that their weakness and ignorance of Islam is the reason that they fear honest debate."

Yahya Merchant

“The tragedy of the episode is that the Pope was arguing against the idea that violence can be justified in any religion. He was making the case for the compatibility of reason with religion at a time when fundamentalism is gaining terrifying ground across the religious spectrum.

The irony is that the Islamic response illustrates how desperately the world needs to hear his message.”

Ruth Gledhill

The sight of violent Muslim-hothead reaction to the ill-chosen words of the Pope is galvanising further anti-Islamic sentiment in the West.  It is time for moderate Islam to make its voice heard.

It had to happen of course, as night follows day.  Terrorist elements amongst the Animal Rights fraternity have shown already that harassing and threatening opponents is an effective means of controlling and forcing them to submit to its will.  The tactic is catching on amongst other single issue groups, the most recent example being  anti abortionists, as is reported today by Sandra Laville.  As yet, our home grown hard-line anti abortionists have yet to blow up an abortion clinic as happened in the United States but, no doubt, from now on we can expect little acts of harassment and intimidation here and there against anyone who is seen or suspected to support, legal abortion.

In the case reported today in The Guardian, the miscreant anti abortion group is UK Life League which is run by a James Dowson.  Like Animal Rights groups, it also appears to rely upon doctored photographic evidence as part of its case in drumming up support and finance.

"Life League, which is a registered company, raises money through donations, and stalls on streets across England and Scotland, a tactic successfully employed by animal rights groups."

Remember that name and next time you pass a Life League stall in the high street, please give it a wide berth.

It is curious that as academic interpretations of various tracts of the Bible are corrected, updated and improved, often and more usually the new or refined explanations seem never to be widely disseminated amongst the wider populace.

I had always understood from the Book of  Genesis, that God had struck down Onan, the second son of Judah, for "spilling his seed" (either by masturbating or by engaging in coitus interruptus.)  Onan, you might recall, sought to avoid making his wife, his deceased brother's widow pregnant by indulging in one of those solitary or self-centred practises whereby his seed went everywhere, save where it was supposed to. Had he not acted thus, by Ancient Custom the resulting first-born child would have been deemed to be that of his deceased brother. The medieval Roman Catholic Church went on (logically, upon the basis of the original interpretation) to argue that thereby contraception was against God's Will.

It appears that scholars of a theological vent, by putting these tracts from Genesis in their historical and cultural context, have decided that the story of Onan was much more likely to have been a warning against the breaking of the aforementioned Levirate marriage custom.  This 'new view' has been probably in the public domain for years but only recently, have I heard of it.  Well, there you go!  Yet another biblical tract taken out of context by the early Church and used to support dogma which has brought inadvertently distress to millions of people.

A moral argument might still be put forward reasonably to the effect that contraception is wrong but it should no longer be on the basis of the story of Onan. In consequence the theological argument against contraception (or masturbation or coitus interruptus) cannot have such weight, as had been formally the case.  On the evidence of what is said in Genesis with its modern interpretation, to use a Scottish legal turn of phrase, the case against contraception is 'not proven'.