Pope Benedict XVI is correct: the Equality Bill is fundamentally un-British

THX1138

And hating gays is fundamentally Catholic.

Walsingham's Ghost

Am I the only one wondering why we have heard not a peep from Muslim Imams over this issue?

Are they assuming an automatic 'opt out' for the Islamic faith?

Curious...

WG

Sacre Bleu

I assume Ms Harpic has informed all residents not just the newly arrived and registered immigrants, that we look forward to seeing the first female Rabbis and Mullahs very soon. As part of the right to vote Labour it is a small price to pay to keep this present government in power. Men will have limited and non exclusive rights for all religeous and non religeous groups so beware but then it is just a small part of the Charter for citizenship of Great Britain so that's alright then.

Vulture

Shurely shome mishtake THX? Without gays, the Catholic Church couldn't muster enough priests to form a hurling team.
Come to think of it, nor could the C of E.

mjc

"If enacted, the bill will require organisations to employ without thought to suitability...."
And there's nothing worse than having to deal with an unsuitable poof....

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

This government won't pay attention to a Catholic Pope, but just watch if a Muslim Iman pronounced.

TGF UKIP

And, THX 1138, pandering to gays is fundamentally Blairite and Heirite.

TGF UKIP

Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing much from Dave & Co on the Harman Bill. As I recall, they usually jump on board every PC wagon Labour start rolling - just ask the Christian adoption agencies.

ajs

Atheistic homosexuals must not feel abandoned.

David Ossitt

“The Equality Bill is fundamentally un-British.

If enacted, the bill will require organisations to employ without thought to suitability, and allocate resources under the perverse dictates of positive-discrimination.”

Everything about this horrid government is un-British; it has done damage with every act, it has perverted our traditional values of, fairness, moderation, tolerance and tries to impose its own perverted diktats.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Sacre Bleu: Ms Harpic is an amusing name for a most unamusing harridan, but it is not apt. The creature in question does not kill germs and leave the atmosphere smelling fresh and clean. Filth and rubbish breed around her, its called Nu Labour.

David Lindsay

One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry. The demonstrations against the Pope's visit to Britain are to feature Peter Tatchell, who, by lowering the age of consent to 14, would legalise practically all of the acts that have brought scandal on the Church.

Except when Catholic priests engage in them, sexual acts between men and teenage boys are glorified by the Political and Media Classes, who vilify anyone who objects. Tatchell's treatment as a National Treasure illustrates this. As does the political role of Harriet Harman of the Equalities Bill, formerly legal advisor to the Paedophile Information Exchange and to Paedophile Action for Liberation, as reported in The Daily Telegraph last March. What does a story have to do to make the front page?

Perhaps the Holy Father expected the Tories to take the cue, and pipe up that they would repeal the Equalities Bill and other anti-Catholic, anti-Christian legislation. But I doubt it. Their votes, on this and on eighty-five per cent of the Government's programme, speak for themselves. So his point is made precisely by their, and the Lib Dems', failure to say a word: do not vote for any of them, but make alternative arrangements instead.

David Ossitt

ajs

"Atheistic homosexuals must not feel abandoned."

Why ever not?

Fergus Pickering

Abandoned atheistic homosexuals! Hallo SAILOR! Sounds like the great George Melly to me.

Carroll Barry-Walsh

THX1138 - "And hating gays is fundamentally Catholic". No it isn't and what a disgraceful thing to say. Doubtless Labour think that they can invoke the latent anti-Catholicism present not far from the surface in Britain so that people will ignore what the Pope is saying and what the real issue is.

There are 2 issues here: the right of gays not to suffer discrimination and the right of religious groups to practise their faith freely. I see no good reason why religious groups should not be able to say that if you want to join them, work for them then you need to subscribe to the faith i.e. if a gay person wishes to work for the Catholic church then he should be expected to be a Catholic. To say otherwise, to say that a synagogue or a church or a mosque should be required by law to employ someone who does not share their faith, indeed, may be hostile to it or behaving in a way incompatible with it is abhorrent. This is not about equality or toleration: it's about an intolerant secular world view seeking to impose its view on those who are religious.

The second issue follows from the first: when minorities have rights which clash with each other, whose rights come first? Or do we have a sort of Top Trumps where this group's rights trump that group's rights?

Labour have led us into this cul de sac because they simply do not (or refuse to) understand what true toleration is in a liberal democracy - live and let live - but rather think that there is only one approved way of thinking or living and that it is the state's job to ensure that everyone should share that view.

More generally, if Judeo-Christian values which - in their broadest sense - underpin Western civilization, are pushed out of the public domain, there will be a vacuum into which all sorts of nasty, un-Western and/or definitely not liberal or tolerant views will come rushing in: Fascism and Communism in the last century and their bastard child - political Islam in this.

Interestingly, the National Secular Society and the rest have not said that they will be demonstrating against the visit later this year by the President of Iran who has in a recent speech (see Cranmer) specifically instructed Muslims in Britain to challenge British laws in a way which is much more potentially dangerous than anything the Pope has said. Funny that.

Noa Zrk

It's niave I know, but anti-discriminatory laws are by definition - discriminatory.
As one of the remaining post middle age hetro male, of Catholic origin if not practice, my fear of persecution is becoming realised.
Number plate- Nope, sorry but you're misinformed, Catholics don't hate gays, but homosexuality is considered a sin, this is of course an almost obsolete concept for Protestants and irrelevant to atheists and agnostics, who must judge this practice, or preference, on different criteria.
So it is perfectly common and reasonable for people to accept the personal right for individuals to practice homosexuality, as with hetrosexuality, within the limits considered acceptable by society, whilst finding its practice personally unappealing and repugnant.
On the same basis, neither hetro nor homosexuals, of whatever religion, age or gender, should be subject to discrimination or its concomitant, woefully misconceived equality legislation.

Bloody Bill Brock

For some time after he took the leadership, I ran with Cameron the social liberal. After all he did get BBC staff to say "conservative" without gobbing on the floor. However, this matter would be a good time to start acting like a proper Tory.

Herbert Thornton

What next? Ordain that medical schools must award all people who attend the the schools - even the ones who fail the examinations – the same degrees, with the right to practise as doctors, because to withhold the degree from a group that has failed denies them "equality" and "discriminates" against them?

And what about the nation's security services or whoever is charged with maintaining its nuclear weapons in a state of readiness? Are they to be compelled to recruit people from the community that is the source of virtually all so-called "home grown" terrorists on the grounds that they are entitled to equality and to freedom from discrimination?

Anybody who believes that blind enforcement of "equality" is a good thing or who believes the mantra that "discrimination is wicked" must be either malevolent or very stupid indeed - or insane.

TGF UKIP

Carroll Barry-Walsh, my compliments on a splendid post which speaks so eloquently on this subject for, I would guess, a large number of Coffee Housers.

JONNY

'Without gays, the Catholic Church couldn't muster enough priests to form a hurling team'

The graffiti seem to get cruder.

Steven Rhodes

There is an error in this piece, a serious error. Nothing in the proposed legislation would enact so called 'positive discrimination' There are no quotas to demand that a proportion of gay men must be shortlisted. Instead, no religion will be able to deny employment on grounds of sexuality per se. They are still free refuse if they think the candidate is not suitable on general grounds. I know so many gay priests that to suggest they cannot undertake this ministry merely through their sexuality is near laughable.

Incidentally, now that we have openly gay servicemen in our armed forces has anyone noticed that, far from initiating the terminal decay of British military effectiveness, they have given us reason to be as proud of them as we have ever been.

Ivy Eileen

@ Carroll Barry - Walsh

"This is not about equality or toleration: it's about an intolerant secular world view seeking to impose its view on those who are religious."

Agree entirely .... and the self-trumpeting son of the manse promotes this stuff (or, as Macavity, permits Harridan to do so).

THX1138

Carroll Barry Walsh The Catholic Church calls gays "disordered and morally evil" sound like hate to me..

The Catholic Church is the biggest force for evil that human beings have ever the misfortune to encounter .. Islam is but a rank amateur in human misery in comparison.

Can I suggest you watch the church of hate and superstition thrashed out of site in a recent IQ2 debate.

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/catholic-church

Before the debate, for the motion: 678. Against: 1102. Dont know: 346. This is how it changed after the debate. For: 268. Against: 1876. Dont know: 34. In other words, after hearing the speakers, the number of people in the audience who opposed the motion increased by 774.

2trueblue

Yet another situation where to get around discrimination you discriminate in favour of the discriminated. But isen't that discrimination?

badman

This post is bilge, I'm afraid, although I'm sure that's down to ignorance and not just hysteria.

The Equality Bill does not impose positive discrimination; in fact, it makes it illegal.

The Equality Bill will not require organisations to employ without thought to suitability: if they do that, they will be in breach of the Bill.

Despite its grandiose title, the Equality Act is an act against prejudice, not an act in favour of equality. It is a human rights measure. All human rights instruments derive from the post war precedents put through the United Nations with the support of the British Government and the churches. Many of them were then developed by governments of both UK main parties when drafting constitutions for former colonies. These provisions are as British as any internationally recognised rights can possibly be: we practically invented them.

The Equality Bill actually protects religious freedom and enforces it. The right to practise your religion and manifest your religious beliefs is entrenched in the Bill.

Finally, nothing in the Bill affects priests, clergy, or those who promote various religions. The Bill protects ordinary employees - not clergy - from religious, gender and other forms of discrimination - people like cleaners - and quite right too.

mitch

Are they taking the piss?...no I mean really are they taking the piss?, have we run out of pressing and important matters that we can do this.
The Human race is doomed, it will discriminate against itself and step aside for pond scum as it had a bad upbringing.

PAUL GILBOY

Peter Tatchell takes umbrage at the Roman pontiffs request for England to uphold their established legal right to freedom of conscience, by stating that he is interfering in the law of the land; blithely ignoring the fact that the equality bill is not yet the established law of the land.

A religious institution is not an industrial or corporate workplace, but an association of people who share a religious, spiritual conviction; they are not independent actors coming together to participate in a joint enterprise to fulfil some secular goal. That’s why the right to discriminate on the basis of conscience, is a right that public and private institutes should not have.

But yet again the totalitarian ideology of European liberty that Tatchell and Harriet H subscribe to is undermining the laws and liberties of the English people.

The pontiff knows there is a fog of darkness rolling over the continent and, the last stand against it will come from the people of England who have liberty and the law written into their DNA.

Fearless Frank

Sacre Bleu: ...we look forward to seeing the first female Rabbis and Mullahs very soon...
Too late on the Rabbis, Sacre, they already have them. There's even a Radio 4 sitcom calld "The Attractive Youg Rabbi" or something.
Female mullahs - Mullettes? Mullareens? - bring it on (Inshallah, of course)!

David Ossitt

THX1138

Come on THX; you are trying to wind everybody up, with your "disordered and morally evil" “sound like hate to me”.

No; it does not; and you know it, it sounds like what it is an opinion, not one that you could agree with but an opinion non the less, and one held by many.

Then we have your “The Catholic Church is the biggest force for evil that human beings have ever the misfortune to encounter, Islam is but a rank amateur in human misery in comparison”.

This is just laughable, complete and utter hokum.

On the other hand, it is good to see you back.

CS

***What next? Ordain that medical schools must award all people who attend the the schools - even the ones who fail the examinations â“ the same degrees, with the right to practise as doctors, because to withhold the degree from a group that has failed denies them "equality" and "discriminates" against them?***

You really are a prat, Herbert. Do you seriously believe that banning organisations from employing people on the basis of what they do in bed is the same as banning hospitals from employing doctors on the basis of their medical qualifications?

The Church should have no more special treatment than any other social organisation. They should have the same legal rights as a tennis club - no more no less. No-one should be able to earn legal exemptions simply by claiming that their bigotry is ordained by a supernatural power. The Church and 90% of Catholics cherrypick the teachings of The Bible according to what is convenient for them. If they truly venerated the word of God, they'd never dare to take it upon themselves to decide which of His commands to observe and which to ignore.

Tim Carpenter LPUK

Let us cut through the specifics and get to the generics.

This is about freedom of association.

Those in favour of the bill are basically saying they support the right of someone, to put it bluntly, thrusting themselves upon an organisation with the lurking threat of a lawsuit if they don't get their way.

Freedom of association is a fundamental freedom and is far more important, far superior than any employment regulations.

I do not support a special case for religious groups. I support the right of ANY group to decide who it wants to be in or not in that group. Therefore I support all-women clubs, male-only golf cliques, lesbian tennis associations if that is what they want.

This is very far removed from another problem in employment, that of an individual enacting their own personal prejudices - for or against, mind - in the workplace. However, if there is any claim, to me it is by the group over the group member not conforming to the code. A prospective member has no contract with the group before, say, employment, so I fail to see why a group should be punished because of an errant employee before employment (it is another thing if an employee is subject to discrimination and nothing is done about it, for then a contract exists). Yes, it is more convenient for the State to impose its will this way, but being a supporter of the Rule of Law, administrative convenience is, IIRC, no justification for legislation.

hadrian

I am no Roman Catholic but an old fashioned Reformed Protestant. I can assure the poster who thought Protestantism had virtually given up the concept of sin that he is much mistaken. Evangelical Protestant Christianity holds any and every infraction of Divine Law ( ie SIN) to be deadly and only forgiven through Faith alone in Christ alone.
As for the Pope's pronouncement on this bill, he is not so short of the mark. Contrary to what others posting on here in absurdly frivilous manner suggest, opposition to this benighted bill does NOT centre on opposition to sexual deviance from the Christian nor. No, it is simply that this bill will deprive groups of like minded folk the right to associate freely and voluntarily around that cause. In the case of the churches no one is forced into their membership, no one is forced to submit to their authority. We render it entirely voluntarily, knowing the expected norms of behaviour.
This bill, risibly, could quite mischievously be used to force other voluntary associations- such as political parties, pressure groups etc- to accept into membership folk diametrically opposed to their ideals and aims.
The Scottish Presbyterians have long and bitter experience of this kind of State interference in their affairs and endured the Covenanting Killing Times to secure freedom for the Church to run its on affairs, free from State control. As I say, our rights of free association for common goals is under enormous threat from this utterly miserable piece of bureaucratic bungling legislation.
That the Church alone is talked up as its main opponent does not alter the fact other groups will be affected, not least Islam, as has been pointed out. Still, I look forward to the day, if this rubbish is rammed through, when the Labour Party will be hauled before the Courts for refusing to employ a Tory!

Mark

CS: How dare you tell me what I cannot believe as a matter of faith.
Your post is a true manifestation of liberal dicatorship - believe what you want so long as I agree with it. Truely chilling.

stephen

I hope it's not too Un PC to say but did not Roman Catholics enjoy a status not too dissiilar to that some would accord to Muslims these days viz threats to National Security?

Edward Sutherland

THX1138. Posting comments such as yours surely merit our knowing your real name. I know the Catholic Church, of which I am proud to be a member, has been responsible for some terrible things, not least anti-semitism and the serious abuse of trust of children. What you don't hear about are the thousands and thousands of unknown members doing their best to help their fellow men. I think of the Comboni Sisters working in hell holes in Africa and elswhere, caring, unpaid and not swanning round in air con 4x4s like the aid agencies. Have a sense of proportion and some common decency.

DavidSI

THX1138 says "Before the debate, for the motion: 678. Against: 1102. Dont know: 346. This is how it changed after the debate. For: 268. Against: 1876. Dont know: 34. In other words, after hearing the speakers, the number of people in the audience who opposed the motion increased by 774."

A television survey of viewers forms the basis for your beliefs???! Hilarious!

AndyinBrum

Anyone who claims to believe in a god loses all right to comment on anything.

Also why should we care what a deranged ex Nazi thinks about anything?

Just as bad as mainstream Islam that people get all frothy at the mouth about. Both are as mysoganist, bigoted and stupid as each other. Harumpf, garumpf and grumble etc

Linda Smith

“This bill, risibly, could quite mischievously be used to force other voluntary associations - such as political parties, pressure groups etc - to accept into membership folk diametrically opposed to their ideals and aims.”

Like the BNP ….?

sean martin

The Rawlsian difference principle comes alive!

David Blackburn

Steven Rhodes,

I'm afraid the mistake is yours. The sentence you refer to clearly contains two separate clauses. Any legislation that prescribes the allocation of resources (that is a financial not a sexual term) in favour one particular group is positive discrimination, regardless of how you dress it up.

Sorry to be patronising, but it's quite simple stuff.

THX1138

I meant every word of it ,no other organization has caused more and causes human misery than the Catholic Church.

David Ossit I know it's in your nature but I find your fringe right wing views "disordered and morally evil" But hey it's only an "opinion" (not very nice is it)

Sign petition against £20m taxpayer money being used for "disordered and morally evil" Pope's visit.

http://tinyurl.com/yflnqgb

John Lea

THX1138 - what a nasty, ignorant and cowardly little individual you are! And like all cowardly individuals who use this site to spew their own bile, you hide behind a silly pseudoynm. Leaving aside your cowardice for one moment, your point - if it can even be called that - is nonsense. Did you happen to hear Iris Robinson's view on homosexuality? Or have you familiarised yourself with what her church believe should be done with such people?

The Pope is making an important point about religious freedom, and I'm glad David Blackburn has picked up on that. Once we start diluting religion, or - like the CoE - adapting faith to fit in with contemporary morality, then we risk damaging our commonly shared values.

AndyinBrum

Yes John, you do what your nice make believe god tells you to do. Whilst we're at it, the only cowardice on here is you people not brave enough to stand up against religion

AndyinBrum

The only cowardice on here is from those showing intellectual and physical cowardice by following a wholely discredited religious doctrine instead of becoming free and facing life without a fake spiritual crutch

Bloody Bill Brock

@ANDY IN BRUM
I assume the Ex Nazi you refer to is the Pope. Why do you show such crass ignorance about the man? He was a 15 year old kid conscipted into a Luftwaffe Flak unit for defence against allied bombers. Thousands of young Germans were called up to do the same thing.Do you think he had a choice?
You are as bad as the BBC with their Nazi storm troopers, Nazi U Boats and Nazi bombers. Like no ordinary Germans were involved in the war. Certainly the Bavarian boy who became Pope was nothing more than an ordinary German kid. I AM NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC.

AndyinBrum

@bbb he was in the hitler jugend and plenty of german kids didn't join.

Dean

As so often, the lurid posts here generate much more heat than light. The Equality Bill allows churches to take sexual or gender orientation into account when selecting individuals for religious positions. So it does not require or even encourage the Catholic church to appoint gays or transsexuals to positions as priests or vicars. There is no way either the Commons or the Lords would accept this.

What it does do is prohibit them from discriminating against staff in non-religious roles, such as school caretakers or church gardeners, on grounds of sexual orientation. It is difficult to see why anyone living in a modern secular society would object to this, unless of course they are already prejudiced against the aforementioned minority groups.

There is an unfortunate tendency for some on the Right to cast themselves in the role of the "oppressed" moral majority whenever sexual or ethnic minorities have the temerity to assert themselves. To people like that, I would ask the following question: are you at risk of being murdered in Trafalgar Square, in full public view, because of your choice of sexual partner? Do you fear being beaten up at night because you dress in a way the local hoodies consider "effeminate"? If not, please do us all a favour and shut up for a change.

john lea

AndyinBrum - it's quite depressing reading - and finding myself responding - to comments like yours. I feel tarnished just reading the stuff. But, really, have a good hard think about this. Do you seriously believe that Pope Benedict is a Nazi, or an ex-Nazi for that matter? That really is low. Simply because the man was born in Germany during that period. I don't know if you're trying to be cute, or whether you seriously believe what you're saying. If the latter, then God help the whole tone of this debate.

EC

THX1138,

My my, they don't like it up 'em do they? It's the same old story. Scratch away the veneer of piety, expose the humbug beneath and the religionists turn into an militant, ugly, homicidal mob. Personally, based on all the historical evidence, I think that they are a threat to world peace.

Bloody Bill Brock,

There is nothing 'ordinary' about Bavaria, or Freistaat Bayern as they insist on calling it.

AndyinBrum,

I'm right behind you on this one son!

AndyinBrum

Mainly tounge in cheek but with a hint of truth behind it

PAUL GILBOY

andyinbrum, what an ignorant individual you are, Catholicism and nazism are polar opposites, yet you indulge in ad hominem attacks using fallacious arguments because you clearly don’t understand the concepts and principles that the rest of us are discussing. I’m sure if the rest of us wanted to read this rubbish we would buy the viz.

EC

"Catholicism and nazism are polar opposites"

Oh really? During 1939-45 the Catholic Church was a willing collaborator with the Nazis and afterwards helped many of them to escape justice.

Bunnykins

Fearless Frank. Female Rabbis are as anathema to Orthodox Jews as female Priests are to the Roman Catholic Church.

Edward Sutherland

EC says "the Catholic Church was a willing collaborator with the Nazis". What a shame the message never got through to my father,who spent three years of hell as a Jap POW, or my mother's three first cousins who died in WW2,two killed in action fighting Nazis, or my mother's American cousin wounded on Omaha beach, or my naval chaplain uncle on the Russian convoys, devout Catholics all. Your posting is an insult to millions of Catholics who bravely fought Nazism. Remember, a church isn't just a place, it's a community of believers.

PAUL GILBOY

EC@

The philosophical position of Nazism and Catholicism are polar opposites, as one is secular & specific and one is religious and universal.
If religions have to seek accommodations with secular realities its not because they find succour in them, they don’t, its merely a reality on the ground. The Americans helped far more Nazis escape justice and American liberalism is in no way sympathetic to a totalitarian existential ideology.

Moreover, your historical analysis is bears no reality to historical facts

Accordingly

Read the exceptions section of the published Bill (especially pp.214-17) before throwing about nebulous accusations of 'unbritishness' and 'suppression of liberty'.
I think they look really quite liberal.
Unlike the Pope.

EC

The holocaust and the Catholic Church's participation in it, by action or inaction, is a matter of public record you hypocrites. Why does the Vatican still keep silent when their church in France felt the need to apologise for it?

The Catholic church and the Pope suffered a failure to condemn the sectarian murders in Northern Ireland and that is also a matter of public record. In the 30 years of the troubles, unequivocal statements condemning the murder of innocent civilians were as rare as rocking horse sh*t.

You can shove your pious, even Pius, indignation up your fundamentalism as far as I'm concerned.

David Lindsay

When Cortés cast down the blood-drenched Aztec idol and replaced it with a tiny statue of Our Lady, the ground shook with the anguished roar of the demons thus exorcised. Much the same has happened in Britain today, including on here. What very, very, very sore losers you are.

Well, you have seen nothing yet. We are on a roll. All three parties come out of this whole business extremely badly. So let's get rid of all of them. Bring on the Election. If we can achieve this, then why not that? Why not, at least, 10 MPs in the coming hung Parliament? Or 20? Or 50? Or 100? Of course, to have MPs, we first need candidates.

Barbara

We can all look to religions and see faults, but the Pope's comments went deeper than perhaps we realise. This bill is against the people, its stops the will to be free and speak and say what a person wants. Its a truly proper ploy of communists, create laws to make you comply. We do have a fundemental right to freedom of speech, but who we employ, with this bill will be ruled by it. We cannot choose on merit anymore but by gender. Harmon's policy has done more to destroy and divide this country than Hitler, and the silence from the opposition speaks volumes. Are they all so brainwashed they no longer can argue or debate? We have a government and parliament which is under the EU and therefore is not really now necessary, they agree and pass all bills, this has been approved by them too. No, this nation is now subserviant and laws past will make us more so, our voice is now dead. God rest England for she has surrendered.

THX1138

Indeed EC my father was nearly killed by a bomb planted in a pub in Covent Garden by Irish followers of a "peverted form of Catholicism". No doubt they were given absolution for their crimes by a priest..

And let us not forget that Ratzinger did all in his power to cover up the bestial rape of children by his priests. And to think that we have to pay £20M to protect the evil bastard, when really we should be locking him up with the other paedo's and throwing away the key..

I almost wish there was a god so Ratzinger could face him with his evil crimes when he dies.

The stench of pious hypocrisy is too much for me

PAUL GILBOY

EC you seem to be completely losing the plot! Your analysis about anything beyond your daily human needs to be tenuous to say the least!

Your mish mash of spite and liberalism is indicative of a personality that does not like them-selves, and for what you have wrote, it appears you are spot on.

Another mooted liberal suggestion is assisted suicide, as a conservative I’m normally opposed to this, but in your case I will talk you through it, as an act of charity; as it is probably the only way your going to announce a popular decision amongst your friends and family.

Accordingly

From David's above response:
"Any legislation that prescribes the allocation of resources (that is a financial not a sexual term) in favour one particular group is positive discrimination."
Surely this definition could include all targeted public spending? Which is a bit strong, no? Or at least, means you must concede that positive discrimination is not necessarily contemptible.

EC

Yes, THX1138, do not forget that Christian Catholic 'militants,' members of the bombing fraternity, have killed more people in the UK than bombers of the Muslim persuasion. Maybe these facts need more 'analysis' so that they can be airbrushed out of history.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is rotten to the core, corrupt and, as you say, evil. In an unguarded moment their PR Man, Mel Gibson, left us in no doubt how they really view the Jews.

Paul Gilboy, your attempt at an ad hominem attack wasn't very good. It wasn't without a modicum of amusement but you really must try harder. We expect better.

Edward Sutherland

EC and THX1138: Do you carry out all your correspondence under the cloak of anonymity? Before you ask,yes, Edward Sutherland is my real name.

John Lea

Edward Sutherland - spot on! Over the years I've noticed - unsurprisingly, I suppose - that it's invariably those individuals who reduce the debate to personal attacks, who feel the need to hide behind idiotic pseudoynms. They obviously believe that disparaging a religious faith or an individual somehow makes them brave, funny or 'edgy'. It doesn't. Giving their real names and engaging in the debate without resorting to personal insults, would give more credence to their posts.

THX1138

Good old "Killing Joke"

http://is.gd/7GJ3G

EC

John Lea, February 4th, 2010 11:42am,

I have made no personal attacks, only responded to one. Perhaps you would like to re-read the comment left by Paul Gilboy on Feb 3rd @10:00pm He wants to see me dead. Nice! I think that this counts as a very personal attack. This rather detracts from the bluster and fudge of your comment.

Let the record stand.

fifer

I've always taken the view that it's irrelevant what someone chooses to believe in - God, Jesus, Mohammed, fairies at the bottom of the garden, whatever - provided three conditions are met:

1. They don't use it as an excuse to hurt anyone else
2. They don't expect me to change my behaviour
3. They don't expect me to pay for whatever nonsense they choose to believe.

The main issue with the Pope's pitch is that his outfit is heavily subsidised (and indeed perpetuated) by the UK taxpayer in the form of Catholic schools and charitable status. Stop asking me to pay for your beliefs and I'll let you discriminate in whichever way you see fit. Simple.

David Ossitt

I find it disturbing; that so many who have posted on this subject, are so full of hate.

David Ossitt

I can’t remember a recent subject; that has attracted as much venom and hatred as this one has, nor the number of very personal attacks.

The old mess rule; of no politics no religion, was probably very wise, but for obvious reasons must not be applied here.

I am not a Roman Catholic; and though I do not worship regularly in my heart I am a Christian, as, I suspect the great majority of those who dwell in these islands are.

Christianity; a faith based on love, is and always has been a force for good, but it is also true that many bad and evil things have been done in the churches name.

This fact; does not give those who do not believe, a licence to mock or vilify those that do.

John

This issue neatly frames a question we are now being forced to answer.
Is it more important to worship God or our sexual preferences?

digbydolben

The pope is correct in this matter, but he made a serious faux pas, considering British history with Catholicism, by not leaving it up to his own hierarchy in Britain to make the case. He is, as a world leader, curiously inept and undiplomatic. His "pontifications" constantly demonstrate insouciance regarding human susceptibilities, as compared with his obsession with theological dogmatism. And, although I agree that he was, as a young boy, not responsible for his involvement in the Hitler Jugend, I still think the Catholic Church was extremely negligent of public opinion, world-wide, to pick someone of that background as their world leader and spokesperson.

I am a nominal Catholic, an admirer of Newman (whose beliefs regarding the supremacy of conscience are, I suspect, personally anathema to this pope and his predecessor), and I am a supporter of "gay rights," which I think would not be well-served by this "Equality Bill."

Bunnykins

David Ossitt, (Feb 4th 7:17pm) Thank you for your post. It always amazes me how atheists feel it's their duty to ridicule believers. They see us as ignorant and superstitious because we don't believe the world exists by chance or that creation was a completely random event which occurred ex nihilo. We are the victims of a massive, three-thousand year old con trick and should be pitied. Therefore, one might ask why it is they get so frothy-mouthed about such foolish folk.

hadrian

The sheer animosity towards religion in general on here betrays the self defeating crass and specious irrationality of those revelling in it.
First - the idea of Fifer that one's worldview must never impinge upon the practical business of living and social behaviour and be 'irrelevant' and trivial, simply negates the whole concept of religion or worldview. ALL of us MUST operate and frame everyday policies and ethical decisions according to a grander understanding of the scheme of things. The sociologists have a term for it- 'the social construction of reality' - and it is an inescapable element of being human to operate from such a framework, deriving all of ethics and principles for liviing and behaving from those deepest, fundamental principles. Indeed those who fail to establish some reasonably settled worldview will be in danger of falling into 'anomic collapse', a fatal psychological loss of grip on reality. This is NOT about trivial irrelevancies such as fairies at the bottom of the garden! The atheist may mock the theistic view as such and of course it suits his agenda very well to force the opposing worldview into a box. The result however is downright anti democracy that will not tolerate an opposed viewpoint but simply wishes to outlaw and silence its arguments.
But that enforced silence, if accomplished, can come back and 'bite' the atheist too! It was Voltaire who said I may disagree with my opponent fundamentally but I shall defend to the death his rght to express it. That is the spirit of Toleration that is vital to a peacable democracy.
To come to the focus of the Pope's point ( and I hold no truck at all for Roman catholicism but the point IS well made) A) This bill would vastly constrain the freedom of ALL of us to VOLUNTARY Association for a common purpose so that even secularist societies and organisations could in theory be targeted by it. If Christian groups in certain universities have been threatened with expulsion for not allowing anti-Christians membership and even leadership, I do not see why any specifically secularist group should not also be so threatened and challenged. It is a manifest absurdity.
And of course in the last analysis a society and culture that is dumb enough to think it can deny and challenge God without long term disastrous consequences will find God is never mocked.

egh

Well said, Hadrian; as ever. I agree.

Those nasty bits of parchment, by the way.
You know, the ones that abrogate all our rights and freedoms to the euSSR. They are in Rome, aren't they?

God moves in mysterious ways. May His wonders manifest themselves ever more clearly.

THX1138

The magnificent Pat Condell defends Aggressive atheism and puts the boot into man made religion:

http://is.gd/7Vyvm

The pious hypocrites on this thread should watch this and remember that not so long ago in this country, I would have burnt alive by the religious zealots for having these views

Bunnykins

THX 1138 - Ah.....the halcyon days......

Geoff Miller

Where within anti- discrimination law is there any allowance for the fundamentals of freedom of speech, belief, thought and association?

How have we arrived at a place where democracy does not function and the views of minorities hold sway over majorities?

How come political parties that seek to address the serious and legitimate concerns of the population are marginalised, criminalised and shut out by State forces and the "liberal" media?

We are truly moving into yet another Dark Age.

Geoff Miller

It's funny how every post about Catholicism brings out the "frothing at the mouth" protestant bigots.

It has long been said that protestantism is akin to Islamism. Like Islam, to quote Churchill, it is as dangerous as hydrophobia in a dog.

It shares much of the same hatreds and has connived with Islam for centuries now.

I suppose that fundamentalism has naturally translated into the policies of the Harmans of this world and hatred of the West.

The Catholic Church may yet be suppressed and protestants will follow their natural path to Islam.

Then? Game over. Human progress will be at an end.

Richie Craze

The mistake in this article is to say that "toleration and freedom in Britain were dervied from the right to religious observance free from state proscriptions". Bearing in mind that it's only a few hundred years since Sir Thomas More and the Catholic Church were publicly executing people for the crime of owning a copy of the bible in English (how tolerant! such freedom!), history shows that toleration and freedoms have always been won *despite* the best efforts of religion.

It also ignores the fact that society has changed a lot recently, with a decrease in belief in the supernatural as science has improved our understanding of the world we live in and the universe at large. Not only that, but we no longer live in a country where everyone believes more or less the same thing. It is now a country of many faiths, with an increasingly large minority with no faith. The same old rules can't continue to apply, whether or not the religious (such as Bunnykins, apparently), wish to bring back the good old fire and brimstone days of burning heretics and controlling through fear and the stifling of individual thought (which has, let's be honest, been the core purpose of religion throughout the ages).

This is why society must become increasingly secular. Freedom to practice religion - by all means - but freedom FROM religion co-existing with freedom OF religion. And I'm sorry, but when it clashes, such as over the rights of people to get on with their lives free from descrimination and the rights of the religious to impose their views; then people who are born, for example, gay, with no choice in the matter; shouldn't be legally discriminated againt by people who choose to believe in the supernatural.

It's an obvious but important point to say that the faithful cannot prove or rationally argue their man-made prescriptions for living, and that they only cherry-pick the bits that support their own prejudices anyway. They ought to be glad to live in a society with a sound legal framework that does not tolerate the stoning to death of unruly children, to use just one example. As for disproving a deity, try reading a little science, remember where the burden of proof lies, and bear in mind that what can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

CS: "No-one should be able to earn legal exemptions simply by claiming that their bigotry is ordained by a supernatural power."

Quite. High time the religious stopped hiding their bigotry behind a "moral" shield. Of course there will always be bigoted people, but they shouldn't expect the rest of society to treat their views (which they are entitled to) with respect, especially when expressed through the hypocritical framework of religious piety. This is why some atheists rightfully scorn and mock.

As others have said, let religions pay for themselves then we'll stop complaining. Let the Vatican release some of its obscene wealth to pay for Ratzinger to visit. He can come if he wants to, the silly old fool, but I'm rather miffed I have to pay for the privilege.

stephen Green

Ther was an old woman called Harperson
Who thought of herself as a starperson
But the size of her rump
A consirable hump
Revealed her as only an arseperson

Icedbun

This is all very well but the British taxpayer supports the Catholic church with tax repayments though it charitable status as well as paying it to run indoctrination centres (whoops Catholic Schools). Whilst the taxpayer is a major unwilling funder the church should play by our rules.

Of course, it could do without its schools and charity status and stand on its own two feet. Then it might deserve it radical attitude to some parts of the population.

Wahiba

Why on earth should religious beliefs have precedent over 'fairness' to all.

When being 'fair' to everyone there are always the bigoted opinions who feel left out - tough.

Derek Payne

Sacre Bleu: I would just like to point out that Yes, there are many female Rabbis.

Roy Smith

On this occasion the Pope is right. The equalities commission is a further demolition unit for British/English rights, fast disappearing into the bog of multiculturalism and political correctness.

Roy Smith

Geoff Miller says this: "It's funny how every post about Catholicism brings out the "frothing at the mouth" protestant bigots.
It has long been said that protestantism is akin to Islamism. Like Islam, to quote Churchill, it is as dangerous as hydrophobia in a dog."

Ever thought Geoff, there might even be reasons for this, if you could just think a little deeper. In fact you half answer your own question in your reference to Islamism. Except you have this back to front. Islamism is replacing Catholicism in its diabolical obsessional policy of fighting its cause by encouraging their people to breed as quickly and as often as is earthly possible.

jch

I usually enjoy UK press letters, much more erudite than those found in the antipodean press. But for cruel, splenetic drivel the letters/comments above have plumbed a new and saddening low.

John Thomas

I'm just looking foward to the day when Labour have to employ so many Conservative-minded, anti-left wing, people - due to their own actions - that they, and all their works, are undermined.

hadrian

To say Protestantism is akin to Islam is to be pig ignorant of the heart of Reformation ( and New Testament) doctrine. This states categorically that man is spritiually fallen and totally depraved in all his faculties so that 'those in the flesh CANNOT please God.' Thus salvation is entirely of Grace alone, NOT of works lest any man should boast. This Gospel was hated by the corrupt Roman Church and solemnly cursed in the Council of Trent and being irreformable by its own boast, Rome will never recant this anti-Gospel cursing nonsense.The result therefore is that ROME, not classic Protestantism, is the one with more akin to works righteousness Islam; both teach our own native choice and works, our self righteousness is the crucial factor in commending us to God. Both have the seeds that drive the self righteous fanaticism that lurks behind the suicidal bombers. Protestantism completely cuts from under man any shred of such pride or ability and duly chastens and humbles us. Salvation is entirely of grace alone in Christ alone. Rome, with its synergism or mix of works and grace cannot stand this monergism, nor can Islam and so these two parallel each other and it is New Testament Protestantism that is totally distinct from them both.

hadrian

One further remark. The Spectator's forthcoming debate on whether Great Britain is ripe for Re-romanisation seems a very unevenly balanced one as those arguing against are persons no genuinely Protestant denomination would accept as members. Two approve of life styles condemned in Holy Scripture and the third sounds like a humanist rather than one holding to man's moral impotence and depravity. I realise those contra Rome need not necessarily be proponents of classic Protestant doctrine but you could have at least sought out one of them from that constituency! After all, it is due to the Protestant Reformation our country decisively rejected Rome and Popery. I suggest someone from the Protestant Truth Society or a Protestant minister who has an intelligent grasp of why and where Rome is in egregious error. There are also converted Roman clergy who are highly clued up on Rome's faults. This is after all first and foremost a theological, spiritual, ecclesiastical matter.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley

If this Bill will require organisations to employ people because they're more likely to be able do a job, given appropriate support if necessary, rather than because they seem "suitable" then surely this is a fairer standard. When firms employ people because they're "suitable" one wonders; "suitable for what?" The idea that somebody will "do" seems less rigorous somehow - which may reflect badly upon the employer, later.

Anyway, I've been wondering about the relationship between the Pope and This Equality Bill in terms of the "governance of the firm" and the "governance of the commons". The Pope is the head of the Catholic "firm" and Harriet Harman is the Leader of the "Commons" here in the UK - it could be an interesting way to look at the situation.

I don't believe positive discrimination in the common sense can conflict with anyone's rights of individual expression. Common sense helps us understand that positive discrimination is intended to make sure everyone has a fair chance when eg going for a job. Whether they're onto a winner in their endeavours may still boil down to the luck of the draw, or even "events dear boy, events".

But I'm glad the government is taking steps to ensure religious firms/organisations or individuals can practice their faith without hindrance - this goes to show that in the end it is "the commons" which understands and is best placed to sort out all our concerns, fairly.

Rick

"Hating gays is fundamentally Catholic" I'm not sure what to say about such bigotry.

hadrian

Many Christian organisations prize the right to employ staff who all share the Faith which the organisation exists to promote and see shared communal prayer as integral to that being properly carried out in the eyes of our God. It also goes without saying that those who actually believe that Faith and so have an intelligent understanding of it will work with far more commitment than one who doesn't. Our church is cleaned by Christians who are highly concerned for it always to be looking its best to adorn the Gospel. Unbelievers may be diligent but their motivation is quite different and on balance less likely to be so fastidious that the work be done meticulously. If people approach a specifically Christian organisation it is not unreasonable to expect every area of that work will flow from and with Christian commitment.
In any case this humanistic atheistic government has no right to interfere in Christ's church and the right to association. They will end up destroying our blood bought liberties, history despising, shallow fools that they are- and some out and out enemies of Christianity.

Richie Craze

Rick
March 1st, 2010 8:07pm
'"Hating gays is fundamentally Catholic" I'm not sure what to say about such bigotry.'

It would only be bigoted if it weren't true. Unless you're talking about the bigotry of the Catholic Church against homosexuals? If not, please don't spin the tired old canard about "hating the sin and not the sinner". The very notion of "sin" in the context of what consenting adults do is bigoted (and quite ridiculous generally). The Pope calls gays "evil" and "intrinsically disordered". I think 'bigoted' is entirely warranted.

To point this out is not in itself an act of bigotry.

Over-regulation

Has Harriet Harman started an assault on gentlemen's clubs yet? Here in Melbourne we have a very chippy and unpopular Attorney General (he went to the same school as Sir Les Patterson, so you do see), who is mustering the barbarians outside the gates of the Melbourne Club (not quite White's, but more so than any other club in Australia). He misses the point that eligibility for election to a gentlemen's or a ladies' club is not based on "success", but on other attributes. It is sad to see Britain going the way of the most over-regulated society on earth.

Linda Smith

Just want to clarify Derek Payne's assertion of 20 Feb 2:07pm "Sacre Bleu: I would just like to point out that Yes, there are many female Rabbis.

ORTHODOX Judaism does not allow female Rabbis.

EC

Well, it's now April 14th and Easter 2010 has come and gone. Theo Hobson's blog has, evidently, not risen from the dead and the Vatican is still defending the indefensible.

hadrian

Yes, it does seem that Theo is a most desultory blogger!
However, on topic, I wonder if any of you have seen the rather ironic assertions of the Devon headmaster, Gary Read who took umbrage at one of his pupils telling another pupil of the classic Christian doctrine of hell? Having dragged the child and her mother through legal hell he then has the breath taking lack of self awareness to declare airly that all faiths are respected in his school! Ere, so when Christ warns of hell, Mr Read, your 'respect' for His religious doctrine would be to drag him to the Court? Sounds familiar....

EC

Hadrian,

No, I hadn't heard of this, but if you had told me that Rowan Williams had appeared for the prosecution then I wouldn't have been surprised. Torquay - don't mention zee var and now Dante's inferno is verboten! Forty years ago South Devon used to be such a lovely place to live but you should now know that it is now run by Common Purpose - regardless of any general election on May 6th.

Sounds like this Read chap is overdue a visit from the Bishop of Bath and Wells brandishing a red hot poker!

One last drive, Hadrian, and we'll get the century up. Over to you....

hadrian

My point simply is, EC, that the PC brigade operate as authoritarian an ethic as traditional Christianity- it's just that the Authority and source of their ethical system is quite different from the Biblical one. Hence the inceasing clashes of the PC state's operatives with classic Christian teaching and belief. What is amusing and alarming in equal measure is the utter contradictory and so incoherant mindset these persecutors fall into : simultaneously affirming 'equal toleration' of all religions and yet denouncing a major Christian doctrine as 'unacceptable'! Essentially they are self deceived or liars. Of course fear and hatred of the doctrine of eternal punishment for impenitence, unbelief and self righteous rejection of any need for a Saviour is hardly a new thing as I hinted at in my post. The point is these persecutors of Christians should be called just that and not allowed to get away with their idiot and spurious claims to grand toleration.
As a former teacher in the days when Christianity was still largely seen as the unique source of values and morals these developments do not really surprise me. When the State sees itself as the real source of justice- not merely its minister- we are in big trouble. Increasingly this is the case and big troubles are in store for uncompromising Christians. As for the Archbishop of Cant, he showed himself an enemy of Biblical Christianity long ago. Our mainstream churches caved in years ago to anti-Biblical humanism- man, not God speaking in the Word- as supreme arbiter.

EC

Hadrian, Thank you for your reply, and your patience. I agree with your analysis. Whatever else they are, I don't believe that the proponents of PC are self-deceived. I think that they are organised and know exactly what they are doing

Is Don Cupitt the culprit? I was never impressed by the concept of the 'Sea of Faith.' Any religion, or none, will do? I happened upon this little gem...

"In his writings Cupitt sometimes describes himself as Christian non-realist, by which he means that he follows certain spiritual practices and attempts to live by ethical standards traditionally associated with Christianity but without believing in the actual existence of the underlying metaphysical entities (such as "Christ" and "God").

For a deacon or priest or whatever he liked to call himself that's quite breathtaking!

EC

Just to break free from the bad juju that is post 101, then here's some more news(?) of the Vatican coverup ....

"The church official who initially said it was his fault that a paedophile priest was given succour in Pope Benedict XVI’s former diocese has broken ranks, alleging he was bullied into taking responsibility to protect the pontiff."

http://is.gd/bAf1v

The intense scrutiny of this issue has been about the alleged cover up as much as it has been about the original hideous crimes. Admittedly, Der Spiegel Magazine doesn't automatically spring to mind when considering the sump of journalistic excellence but it seems that the more that the Vatican equivocates the less likely it is that the issue of an alleged cover up will be resolved.

Benjamin Waterhouse

Well all the atheist crazies on here will find out the truth one day...

hadrian

Just because we criticise one claiming to be 'Infallible' and leading an 'Indefectible' Church, it does not follow, Benjamin, that we are 'atheist crazies'. Far from it. Some of us believe Holy Scripture is Divine Truth from end to end.
As for the so called 'equality' laws, it seems they have very quickly been doing their poisonous worst. Christian B&B owners get criminalised for refusing gays a shared bed whilst gay hotels get away with proudly proclaiming they are exclusively for gays; and Christian evangelists get fined £1,000 and threatened with jail for maintaining under unrelenting demands from these types, the classic Christian view of homosexuality as sinful. Conservative candidates get ditched for daring to say homosexulaity is innately disordered and threatened with dismissal from his job. The more we side with these persecutors of Christian morality the more God will grind this nation into abject humiliation.

Hadrian

Further evidence of an emerging pattern of intolerance of the Christian Gospel comes in a Telegraph report that police 'community support' officer in Workington overheard a Baptist street preacher to say a homosexual lifestyle went against God's Word. Said officer thereupon arrested the long established Christian preacher and he is now charged with using abusive language contrary to the Public Order Act. Thankfully Mr McAlpine has pleaded not guilty and the case will come to court where we trust it will be thrown out. However what an emerging pattern of oppression of free speech and conscience we are seeing! Gone are the days when homosexuality was merely conceded toleration but rightly in the main was quietly respectful of those who disapproved of it. Now we move on the next stage where it is increasingly intolerant of dissent and seems to be determined to clash with and crush the old Christian values of this country. The authorities are making their own hostility to Christian ethics blatantly clear as they side with these militant homosexuals against Christian street preachers and B&B owners. Well, the Scriptures do make clear it is a crunch issue which will decisively show whether we be for God or against Him. For those in authority to range themselves with the forces of anti Christian Truth bodes extremely badly for our nation. As ever, we must simply in the end warn- God is never mocked. Try to undermine His Word and you will face dire consequences, often in quite unforeseen ways. The Bible and history supply ample instances of His retributive action.
Incidentally, one wonders why no Moslem as yet has been similarly arrested for their far more merciless pronouncements on deviant sex. Official cowardice, perhaps, combined with 'multicultural' incoherance?

David Spencer

There are a number of posters here who have worked themselves into a rage about the Catholic church. Why? If you have chosen not to believe in a God, fine... Move on! If God is nothing more than a fairy tale for you, why are you so angry about it? It's just a fairy tale, isn't it?
However, If you're angry about the recently exposed abuse of children by Catholic priests, you're absolutely right to be so....but while considering the genuine evil of the 1,872 priests that have provably molested children, why not spare a thought for the 42 million children that are aborted each year (a practice which the Catholic church campaigns ardently against), or the 91,000 children that are abused each year in the USA alone (Wikipedia report). You could also reflect on the fact that "Catholic Charities" (in the USA alone) is the second largest social service provider in the United States, surpassed only by the federal government.
Perhaps you hate the Catholic church because you think it conspired with the Nazis during the second world war (in which 56 million people died in a non-religious war). Actually, for what it’s worth, the Catholic Church was particularly suppressed in Poland. Between 1939 and 1945, an estimated 3,000 members, 18% of the Polish clergy, were murdered; of these, 1,992 died in concentration camps. Churches were systematically closed, and most priests were either killed, imprisoned, or deported to the General Government. The Germans also closed seminaries and convents persecuting monks and nuns throughout Poland. Eighty percent of the Catholic clergy and five of the bishops of Warthegau were sent to concentration camps in 1939. Doesn’t sound like much of a conspiracy does it?
I accept that you don’t believe in a God but your rage against those who do, especially the Catholic church, is irrational. Why get so upset about something which you keep claiming doesn’t exist?

Hadrian

The point is, David, that ideas have consequences. And the Roman Church's concept of both salvation and itself have led to this kind of very real and cruel behaviour. That is why folk get upset.

Nansen

Can someone on Speccie please revive this blog? Am really just a philosopical Christian... must I pray for it to happen?

susan walkling

dear Mr bishop xv1, I have today sent an email to you, but upon thinking I wonder if in fact I am indeed thinking of yu, therefore, I wish and will indevour to also attempt to contact the US president called Mr Ombara, because I am concerned for his safety. I feel their is enough to warrant a self alarm system if such a process be applicable. You have my best wishes. I must say bye for now.
From ms Susan walkling.