The sexualisation of heresy

Margaret Muller-Johansson

Maria Eagle are you out of your mind? if I am a lebsian I mean lesbian I wouldn't go out looking for a job in a mosque, that wouldn't happen girlfriend
Sorry!

Andre

The more I read Mel's articles and reflect on Israel, hetro-sexuality, Christianity and the corruption endemic in British politics the more I am drawn to the contention that we are witnessing a visible struggle between good and evil. I know it sounds melodramtic but then the dark side's greatest weapon is its invisibility - 'I don't really exist, I am not a threat.' Meanwhile the forces that would morally bankrupt our sexuality, society, religion and indeed country as a whole creep ever onward. There is no middle ground in the final analysis. Decide which side you are on and argue and fight accordingly. We stand to lose the very liberty we defend otherwise.

Ronnie

It will be for the churches and their members to test this in the courts using the human rights laws against this unreasonable government position. As with many poor pieces of legislation, cobbled together by our increasingly low-calibre ministers, it may well be shown to be unlawful.

By the way, what is 'transphobia'?

Suki

Trevor Phillips is simply a byword for state oppression and wasting taxpayers' money.

His ghastly quango (along with many others) must be shut down.

This is how Labour has wreaked so much damage over the last ten years, by funnelling money into quangos that push the agenda far harder than the politicians dared.

Terry

Britain used to be Great Britain. It is now in its death throes A moral cesspit in which 1984 has finally arrived.

For the rest of us it is important to look to Britain as an example of what should be derised and avoided. It is truly a sick place, not least because the Conservatives are a Labour Party in waiting. No point in electing the monkeys when you can stick with the organ grinder.

How glad I am that I left many years ago.

David

Secularism is the new established religion.

Fabio P.Barbieri

I loathe the BNP. But it is becoming increasingly impossible to find any candidate outside it to whom any decent person could give the vote without vomiting.

Nick Kaplan

Those that govern us seem to have forgotten that the fundamental principle of free- association entails the right to free- disassociation. Without the latter the former is meaningless. The right to free-association should entitle anyone to associate with and disassociate from whomever they like for whatever reason they choose, however distasteful that reason may be.

This means that not just the religious but also racists and homophobes should be allowed to discriminate (NB this is not to say they should do so; they should not). When the state can force people to associate with other people whom the former do not want to associate with a fundamental liberty has been violated, even if it was violated for noble reasons.

Thus this ‘equalities’ bill violates the most (and only) kind of equality that is important in a society; the equal rights of citizens, by denying to the religious, to homophobes and to racists the same rights of free-association as all others have.

Norm

I'm reminded of the Tory poster years ago of Blair with the eyes of the devil. How true that turned out to be. Yet the Church fidles while its house burns down.

Corin

Why isn't this article in the Daily Mail?

Half Man Half Biscuit

The meaning of transgender phobia or transphobia is prejudice against woman who change herself to a man or man change his self to a woman in a medical way or something like that

Florence

"Anyone who speaks out against gay rights is immediately vilified as a 'homophobe' and treated as a social and professional pariah".
Swap a few words around in that statement and you could apply it to someone who has concerns about the present rate of immigration into Britain.
... and if any of you think that this law will be applied to force mosques to employ gays well it's time to stop partaking of the whoopee weed !

Nick Kaplan

Polly Gamma;

If Paedophillia is attraction to children wouldn't 'Paedophobia' be fear of children rather than of Paedophiles??

Perhaps you meant Paedophileobia??

MikeF

The words 'bigot' and 'bigotry' are two of the most misused terms in current political discourse. Properly speaking a bigot is someone so suffused with a sense of their own rightness and righteousness that they are intolerant of other people's freedom of expression. That, of course, is a perfect description of the attitudes and practices of much of the liberal-left.

But because they believe themselves to be both morally and intellectually superior they have appropriated the word and changed its usage to mean expressing, even just holding, different opinions to them. They are not merely invincibly self-righteous but reflexively self-referential. In their minds bigotry is thinking differently than them.

The sick joke in all this is that they use words like 'diversity' to justify their own attempts to expunge the only form of diversity that is actually worthwhile - i.e. diversity of thought and belief - and without which all other forms of diversity are meaningless. It is a house of cards that will fall down some day. What will replace it remains to be seen.

Ray

And to think: those of us who once warned that the gay rights lobby wouldn't be satisfied until heterosexuals were regarded as freaks and treated as outcasts were ridiculed as being hopelessly reactionary.

Michael B

It was Leszek Kolakowski, in an essay titled "Why an Ideology is Always Right" who noted "the social function of ideologies is to furnish an existing power system (or aspirations to power) a legitimacy based on the possession of absolute and all-encompassing truth." LK, at the time, was exampling ideological prescriptions such as Lukacs' western form of Marxism, but the effect is precisely the same: to proscribe any and all criticisms stemming from or based upon "external" criteria.

Kolakowski was right to emphasize the "social function" of ideologies because it is in the broad social arena where conformity to ideological strictures is marshalled via everything from well crafted circumlocutions on through to blatant forms of sniffs and sneers and facile forms of browbeatings and contempt in general. It's a boorish and essentially brown & black shirted form of praxis, but it continues to work. Hence it continues to be applied in virtually all strata and sectors of the general social/political order, or disorder - generally under the Orwellian and self-congratulatory banner of "enlightenment," doncha know.

Mark

The core flaw here is Mel's strange desire to differentiate between 'normative' (which means what, exactly?) and 'deviant'. The real question is why she feels the burning need to draw this distinction? It implies a moral hierarchy, the 'normative' being the ideal from which the 'deviant' falls short - a distinction the bloggers following up her post are only too happy to seize on in venting more openly prejudiced views. Why not just enjoy our differences as well as our surprising similarities?

phil

I am very confused here probably because I am a dinosaour .I always thought that the Queen was the defender of faith and that the teachings of the bible were sacrosanct. Why am I reminded of Sodom and gommorah and the punishment for homosexuality,and where is the states position on this matter .

What I cannot understand is the way it is defended so strongly now by what passes for our society in a Christian country .Personally I have no problem with those that are homosexual so long as they do not seek to push it at me and mostly of course they do not and the vast majority are both artistic and kind .Nevertheless I do have a problem with "gay rights" as I have never heard of heterosexual rights,nor do I understand why either are necessary -I do believe a child who is to be adopted has rights and that is to have a mum and dad and not two mums or dads ,can you imagine the jibes that child will receive in the playground ,and that is a child that had no choice .

When it gets to the stage that employers have lost their freedom of choice I believe we have reached Alice in wonderland and it does gay people more harm than good to be singled out in this way -Let them get on with their lives with toleration and understanding ,a way of life that I remember growing up with .I mean these words to be tolerant and understanding ,I hope it comes out that way

Redvers

I'm not sure I understand. There are fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals. So homosexuality is less common.

Now my problems begin. Homosexuality is less usual...more unusual....abnormal....deviant. All these are - to me inappropriate ways to describe it.

What is normal? Normal - to me - is people falling in love, having relationships. The gender of the two people is irrelevant. Homosexuality should not be 'tolerated' - how insulting that word is in this context - but celebrated as part of the human condition.

Pragmatist

In the name of so called 'tolerance' these supremely intolerant idiots want enforce "their" perception of morality on everyone and of course ONLY their interpretation is allowed. That is not equality or tolerance that is dictatorship and a perverts charter.

Suki

Mark, it's not about a moral hierarchy. It's just that biology you need a male and a female to procreate.

Moreover, it is demonstrably the case that children with a mother and father grow up more contented and happy than those who don't.

This is not to say that the world is a perfect place and that relationships don't fail - they do. That does not detract from the fact that children thrive better with a mum and dad about them.

Tell me what's normative about two men having a baby? Or women? Nothing. It's biologically impossible. For it to happen there has to be some sort of social engineering via adoption or sperm donoring.

What's normative about a biological parent disappearing off the scene in a situation like that?

I am fed up to the back teeth with spiteful social workers ruling out blood relatives from adopting grandchildren because a gay quota has to be filled by the adoption service. Tell us what's normal about that?

Tas

Anyone who has read the Bible and contemplated the history of Israel would know that this sort of wicked nonsense by the ruling class is the rule, rather than the exception. And the nation has always reaped what it has sown. This stupidity of the ruling elite, elected into power by the people, is going to end in terrible trauma for the UK.

Pedro

When the gay lobby were campaigning for the decriminalisation of homosexuality back in the '60s and '70s, one of their most used slogans was that "the State has no role in dictating what was morally unacceptable behaviour between adults". Adults should be free to decide their own moral values without State intrusion. Yet ever since gay acts were legalised the gay lobby has been campaigning for the State to dictate by law what is morally acceptable. And they are succeeding.
What is the difference between a State dictating by law that gay acts were unacceptable back then and a State now dictating that gay acts must be accepted and tolerated by everyone. And enforced by law? Two sides of the same coin, I think.

jose garcia

where the hell is the catholic church and the church of e and all the other mainstream religions doing about it?

i dont hear any "civil disobedience" proposals or challenges to this, as a matter of fact i am gobsmacked that the catholic church allowed herself to close their adoption agencies without a plain refusal to comply, not even by force.

hasnt anyone got the balls to do something about this?.

Redvers

Let me put it another way. In this country it is legal for two people to have sex, so long as they are consenting and of legal age.

As a country we will tolerate people with religious beliefs. But if their beliefs cause these people to make judgements about other people's morality, leading to potential verbal or physical abuse of homosexuals, or discrimination against them, such people will face the legal consequences.

Is that clear enough?

stanley Jerusalem

So now Aleistair Crowley comes into his own with " Do what thou wilt shall be the whole Law."
Charming!

Fabio P.Barbieri

Redvers: the stupidity of your statement can be tackled from a thousand different angles, but one that occurs to me is: not everyone falls in love. Quite a few people go through life without ever meeting The One And Only. Homosexuals are particularly highly represented in this group, but that is not so important as the fact that, by your statement, the person who does not "fall in love" is to be treated as abnormal, freakish, possibly dangerous. Congratulations. You are so stupid that you have brought bigotry - and a highly personalistic kind of bigotry, too - back in through the front door, while flattering yourself that you had driven it out through the window.

This is not to argue that anything can be said in favour of Redvers's sentimental nonsense. It is to say that it is poisonous even beyond the evils that are being pointed out in this thread. The possible amoung of mischief this moronic adoration of "falling in love" as defining the human norm literally has no end.

marksany

I can see that a religious conviction can limit what a person wants to do with his own life, and that is his business; but since when did it give him a right to place limits on others?

The state you propose, where a particular type of Christian view limits the actions of people who believe differently, is a totalitarian state.

dominic lennon

Mel, a fine lament to broken, brain-washed Britain. You now, in one's darker moments you can actually enjoy the prospect of these equality Nazis trembling before the onslaught of sharia.

Polly Gamma

Nick I think you are on to something there. I wonder if the Oxford Dictionary have properly defined it yet?!

Maybe I'll check and whilst I'm at it I can check on whether labiaphobia is on the list too!

I thought there was still a tradition of being sympathetic to 'fears' and when you treat a phobia I believe treatment doesn't eradicate all the fear because some of it is necessary to keep safe?

Paul

Redvers says:
"As a country we will tolerate people with religious beliefs. But if their beliefs cause these people to make judgements about other people's morality, leading to potential verbal or physical abuse of homosexuals, or discrimination against them, such people will face the legal consequences."

Well, my beliefs will lead me to make judgments about people's morality - or lack of them. Nothing that the state should really be able to do about that.

Secondly, I will discriminate against people I have judged to be devoid of morals because I will choose not to associate with them. After all,
why would I want to do to defile myself? If we were able to exercise our birth-right as Englishmen, there is not a lot the State should be able to do about it. Or are you going to jail me for thought crime? Whatcha gonna do, you Tyrant?

Bill M

"This is not progressive. It is totalitarian." Thank you, Melanie.

They are saying is that Christianity isn't true; the State is Truth. Therefore, the State is doing nothing less than claiming that it is God.

History tells us where that quickly takes societies and civilizations.

Al

Melanie,

your argument might be quite dangerous in face of the threat from Muslim extremism. If you say that some religious groups should be exempt from the law of the land, then you open Pandora's box. How can we impose and cultivate necessary moral and patriotic values (leaving aside, the rule of law) in some religious groups while saying that other groups should be exempt from intervention?
And, by the way, I believe that exempting conscientious pacifists from frontline fighting is wrong because when country is in danger, people should defend it no matter what they believe in.

Redvers

Paul - it's nothing to do with thought crime.

You want to make moral judgements, I have no problem. You want to avoid contact with people you judge to be 'immoral' - fine. You want to present your views on this forum - again no problem.

If, however, you were to take it further in terms of verbal or physical abuse against individuals, or discrimination in the workplace or with regard to provision of services, I have a big problem.

Redvers

And Bill M

We are not saying that the State is truth. We are saying that the democratically elected government decides what the law is. Fair enough?

One of my formative political memories was watching an interview with Nigel Lawson, in which he said he felt 'sorry' for homosexuals, because they could not experience a 'normal' family life. Thankfully his attitudes have largely disappeared, today's Conservative party have accepted that the case put forward by the homophobes has had its day.

Maurice, MD

Any nation that has an Equalities Ministry is already Orwellian.

dp damato

Spot on as usual. The foundation for all this is the word equality. Conservatives must deconstruct this word until it has no meaning. A society should be based on unlimited opportunity for all, a general sense of fairness, and dignity and respect for the work of each individual. In the workplace the only deciding factor should be merit. Equality should play no role. Trying to make everything "equal" is the square peg in round hole. There is no such thing as equality. There are no equal situations. There is always a context. Dr. King was not marching so a black man with a Phd should be equal to a white man living in a shack. He was marching so the black man could have unlimited opportunity based on his potential. The idea of equality is catnip for the superficial, the unintelligent, and the emotionally immature. One day equality will be seen as hopelessy antiquated, and profoundly limiting.
The tories have been doing everything they can to avoid engaging in the culture wars that are raging in Britain. They think they can avoid it but they cannot. There will be a right wing backlash to left liberalism in Europe. The right in the US has been fighting the culture wars for forty years, and the culture wars are coming to Britain and Europe. If the tories do not engage then they will find themselves in charge of a government without a mandate and with minimal support. The left will soon turn on them, and the right will not rise to their defense. Unless they fight cultural marxism, the left will soon so dominate their agenda, that the only issue they will be allowed to have an opinion on is reforming the postal service. Do they want to be a serious right wing party that is despised by the left but admired by most for standing up for their principles, or do they want to be a weak, ineffective tool for the liberal left. Do they want respect and loyalty or do they want ridicule and snickering.

Minnie Ovens

Half Man Half Biscuit I'm getting really muddled.
Can I hate myself, or is it illegal?

Christopher Reason

The Bible [or at least the Old Testament bits] was written in the Bronze Age! Are we really still supposed to abide by Bronze Age morality. Cos if you accept one bit then you'll have to accept all of it. Including the slavery and the stoning to death and all the other nonsense that's in Leviticus. Really, Melanie, you are so wrong. If it doesn't hurt anyone, it is really none of your [or anyone else's] business.

Sam Armstrong

I am gay. But you wouldn't be able to tell from looking at me. I run two businesses. I look after myself. I don't need anything from the State. If somebody wants to insult me for being gay then I will smack them in the gob, I don't need a hate law to sort it out for me. I would never lower myself to the level of dhmmitude required to work in a mosque. Phil is basically correct in that most gay people want nothing more than to exist privately without being reminded of their sexuality every five minutes. In fact many gays are Tories, and admirers of Thatcher, like me. The gay 'agenda' is a construct invented by radical lesbian feminists and self-hating fairy boys with an aim to destroy the family, and where possible, the red-blooded male spirit. It is an arm of feminism. I despise it.

TomTom

The Lord Chancellor used to be a Churchman and Church and Law were once united as literate men such as Thomas More.

The separation of Law and Church led to the onward march of a New Religion of Legalism attempting to supplant Christianity.

We are simply victims of Legalism and the end-result can only be violence to overturn the tyranny imposed by administrative fiat (for such is Secondary legislation)

We are heading towards disorder if not actual civil war in Anglo-Saxon polities. We are back to the 17th Century in so many ways

Arius

In British society the unconscious forces of deconstruction are nearly without limit, in ecstasy while running toward self destruction. This is a culture of self annihilation, preparing the ground for the coming dominance of Islam and its purging of what it considers the heresies of Western culture in the arts, literature, education, religion, etc. This is the end game of Western civilization, the striving for liberation that leads to its demise.

Michael B

Mark, similar to Redvers and noting the "core flaw here," and absent any irony, informs us as to what the true faith is, and what true normative values are: a prescribed and normative antinomianism.

Convenient, as it requires no measured thought and no accompanying backbone either, hence it promotes or even prescribes a certain laziness of mind as applied to moral categories, though this too for high-minded purposes. After all, we have our dignity to consider ...

dp damato

Spot on as usual. The hatred of Christianity and conservative Britain is all based on this notion of equality. The word itself is the problem. It must be deconstructed. There is no such thing as equality because no two people or groups are the same, nor should be. No two situations can be equal. All situations have a context and difference is almost always explanatory in attempts for clarity. Equality is the ultimate square peg round hole. Mental midgets like Maria Eagle are typical of the adherents to left liberalism. Anyone who subscribes to the belief that societies should always strive to be equal tend to be the emotionally stunted, the unintelligent, and the superficial (i.e a left liberal). Dr. King was not marching so a black woman with a Phd could be equal to a white man living in a shack. His mission was much bigger than that. Society should be based on giving each citizen unlimited opportunity. Society should also emphasize the dignity of each individual, and a general sense of fairness. Using equality as the baseline will be seen by future generations as evidence of backwardness because it is confining and profoundly limiting.
There is a an American style culture war in Britain and Europe. The right in Spain and Italy recognize this. American style conservatism will eventually become the norm in Britain and Europe. The only question is when.

Russell Streeter

Melanie, I find your message in this article somewhat hypocritical, given your articles and views on Islam in Britain. You say that "One of the key tenets of a liberal society is that it grants religious groups the freedom to practise their religious faith and live by its precepts".

However, surely this is at odds with your views on Islam and its "precepts" such as Sharia law, honour killings, forced marriages, etc, etc. We rightly condemn these principles as being at odds with our liberal society. Yet if we apply the same approach to "Judeo-Christianity" we are seen as "illiberal and oppressive"?

I am sympathetic towards the plight of the Church in this matter and believe they should have flexibility. However, surely all religions should have the same rights and exemptions?

Alert Eagle

Well, there will be one group that will get a de facto exemption from all this rot -- the community led by the likes of its forces for "community resilence", such as Anjem Choudary, Abu Izzadeen, Abu Hamza al-Masri, Abu Qatada, Abdul Aziz Ibn Myatt, et al. who will get a de facto exemption on the basis that "they are a misunderstood minority engaged in 'Just' Struggle against Western Imperialism and trying to get Britian to follow "the Way of Survival"(shariah), and that this oppression must not be borne, because it would hinder "diversity". The PC Multiculturalists will swallow all us with unbelievable speed.
From another angle, if secularists were to think of religion as bacteria, what is being done is that the antibiotic is killing off the helpful bacteria (Native faith [judeo-Christianity])which will make room for superpowered bacteria ("non-western" religion) to come in and take over. I am NOT insulting Islam by saying this, just pointing out that Islam is resistant to the PC Rot, because it is "non-western" and the PC Multi-cultis won't attack it (it also is brilliantly sophisicated and cunning).

Mark my words: As PC powers- that-be become MORE OPPRESSIVE towards NATIVE WESTERNERS (NOT non-western minorities) and "non-western minorities" maintain freedoms that have been taken away from from Westerners, the weaker Western Culture becomes. The PC Progressives after all, will drive native europeans into servitude to them, while using "non-western minorities" to give them votes to maintain control [which they will, as long as they are exempt from OPPRESSION]. When the forces of "community resilence" kick out the PC Progressive oppressors, maybe working class Westerners won't have much to lose anyway.

Verity

Terry writes: "Britain used to be Great Britain."

See, Terry, it still is. That is because that is the formal name of a formal, discrete piece of territory.

France has Brittany, otherwise known a few hundred years ago as "Little Britain". It is smaller that "Great Britain", which is larger. So you can immediately grasp the difference.

So the name "Great Britain". Just to be clear for the morons, "great" means "big", not "fantabuloso!". Brittany and Great Britain. Try to learn this and stop writing "formerly known as 'Great' Britain" as though our country had been at the top of the charts.

God, illiterates are so irritating.

stephen kay

The religious gave the world homophobia they are responsible for it and the reason we have been at the arse end of humanity for 1500yrs.We are goimg to clip the wings of the religious it`s a matter of survival for us.

stanley Jerusalem

Christopher Reason
May 25th, 2009 6:06pm
"If it doesn't hurt anyone, it is really none of your [or anyone else's] business."
That's just the point!
They want to make it their business.

Florence

Verity... Terry may have made a basic mistake ref.the 'Great' in Great Britain,lots have in the past,but he is certainly correct in stating that Britain is turning into a 'moral cess pit'.
The for children to be taught all about 'normal'sexual relations before they have even reched school age is a case in point.

david skinner

What we see here is that it is the state that becomes that which no greater can be thought. The state operates society that has become a game/ machine, refereed by the party bosses whose job it is to keep the machine running smoothly. There are no fixed rules only those which the referee makes up in order to keep the game interesting, stimulating and distracting.. Hence the need for a vast amount of legislation. Soon we will all be wired to a central computer that tells us at any given second what the norm is.

Francis Bacon, the homosexual artist said about his art:

‘ Also man now realizes that he is an accident, that he is a completely futile being, that he has to play out the game without reason. I think that even when Velasquez was painting, even when Rembrandt was painting, they were still , whatever their attitude to life, slightly conditioned by certain types of religious possibilities (prejudices) which man now, you could say had cancelled out for him. Man now can only attempt to beguile himself for a time, by prolonging his life- by buying a kind of immortality through the doctors. You see, painting has become - all art has become- a game by which man distracts himself. And you may say that it has always has been like that, but now it’s entirely a game. What is fascinating is that it’s going to become much more difficult for the artist ( indeed for us all) because he must really deepen the game to be any good at all, so that he can make life a bit more exciting.

Life is absurd and meaningless so let’s find ways of spicing it up.

david skinner

If I am a heterophile, someone who loves and respects the complementarity of creation, I cannot, at the same time, be its antithesis - a homophile who loves the reduction of everything to the same and equivalence. And if homophiles claim to be a genetically and immutably formed species why cannot I equally claim to be a genetically formed heterophile and therefore incapable of being a homophile? By default I am homophobic and therefore according to this reasoning, I cannot be classed as either disordered or criminal.

david Skinner

Churchill, when trying to alert Parliament to the threat of Nazism, in 1938, said: "I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said - indeed, I hear it said sometimes now - that we cannot allow the nazi system of dictatorship to be criticised by ordinary common English politicians. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."

Well Mr Churchill that bitter cup is with us like never before and I fear that Britain has indeed lost the moral health and martial vigour to rise again and take its stand for freedom as in the olden times.. Who then will lead this nation out the night and barbarism? Does anyone have the contact details of General Sir Richard Dannat, presently head of the army in the Middle East but soon to be supposedly put out to grass as Keeper of the Tower of London?

david skinner

No doubt that in another age, when we enjoyed in Britain a liberty, of which we can now only dream, we would find it extraordinary that we should be forced to go cap in hand to a government, that claims to represent the people of Britain, begging for Lord Waddington’s free speech clause which would take away any doubt in the mind of the public as to a) what we dare not criticise and b) what we must embrace. I know that the government wants to turn us all into gamblers but when the stakes are so high what member of the public would be prepared to play this dangerous and reckless game?
A policy of keeping the public in the dark and telling them to wait and see whether an attorney general would wave either the sceptre of innocence or guilt towards them is totally unacceptable. This could be classed as mental and emotional abuse. Indeed it is a practice used by torturers to terrorise their victims. The law should be plain, even to the most dull- witted.

Ronnie

Thank you Half Man Half Biscuit, I'm finding it hard to keep up with all the phobias.

I'm still wedded to the idea one's simple dislike of something is merely a human foible. I dislike shouting and hysteria, a foible of mine, but I fear now that it may soon be categorised as a phobia and then legislated against.

I imagine a future New Labour world, sterile, endlessly agreeable and uneventful where the lights are never turned off because 'they' always want to see what we are doing.

Harriett Harman's household must only function on a vocabulary of around 150 acceptable words and a small group of sanitised phrases.

Iraklion

"Terry writes: "Britain used to be Great Britain."

See, Terry, it still is. That is because that is the formal name of a formal, discrete piece of territory.

France has Brittany, otherwise known a few hundred years ago as "Little Britain". It is smaller that "Great Britain", which is larger. So you can immediately grasp the difference.

So the name "Great Britain". Just to be clear for the morons, "great" means "big", not "fantabuloso!". Brittany and Great Britain. Try to learn this and stop writing "formerly known as 'Great' Britain" as though our country had been at the top of the charts.

God, illiterates are so irritating."

Welcome back, Verity - your inimitable style has been missed!

Susan Hill

Melanie, one of the most difficult problems for both Jews and Christians who believe that physical expression of homosexuality is morally wrong ( i.e. distinguishing between the condition and the practice) is that we have been betrayed by the Liberals in our midst, the very ones who should be standing with us. They take the bits of our faiths that do not happen to suit them and find a way of explaining away any prohibitions. So we have the situation in Scotland - replicated, I know, throughout the country, where a priest leaves his wife and children for another man with whom he sets up a home and a relationship, and coerces the Church of Scotland into approving. Rowan Williams has made the situation so much worse. How can I, as an Anglican Christian, say I believe active homosexuality to be morally wrong when priests, Bishops and other church leaders are saying it is not, that the Bible does not mean what it says, that somehow the sacred text can be interpreted to suit. America is going the same way and only the Pope dares to stand up and speak out - only to be berated by Tony Blair ! But we must all speak out on this one and try to indicate that we will not be attacked as homophobes because of our moral values. It is easy to hurl abuse, far harder to take the abuse and carry on but it must be done. Well said.
Incidentally, I have a feeling that Ms Eagles and her new laws may just find it a little harder to ride roughshod over the Moslems and the mosque authorities on this one.

Anth

Corin asks the right question : Why isn't this piece in the Daily Mail ?
More generally, it occurs to me that the tactic of homophiliacs seems to be to get us to swallow the idea (disproved by modern scientific research) that homosexuality is simply an inborn characteristic. Obviously, if this were true, the expression of homosceptic opinion would become a kind of racism.

Bhaskar

Last week I attended a lecture given by Trevor Phillips at the Centre for Policy Studies. The general consensus, amongst an audience which was almost exclusively Centre Right was that it was a thoughtful speech. Phillips came across as a decent and ethical person who was willing to engage in dialogue with his political opponents. As a public person he is head and shoulder above many of our current members of parliament not least by virtue of his intelligence. One can legitimately question Phillips' approach to equality which relies heavily on the instrument of legislation. However, the demonization of Phillips by certain section of the reactionary and social authoritarian right speaks volume about their intolerant attitudes not to mention their lurking bigotry and xenophobia.
History books tell us a similar hysteria was generated by the authoritarian right nearly 40 years ago when the first equality legislation (the Race Relations Act) was passed. Some on the reactionary Tory Right said that this will result in the end of our freedom, the end of Western Civilization and a possible Communist takeover. Yet 4 decades on our freedom hasn't disappeared, Western Civilization is very much alive and Communism has entered the dustbin of history. Yet this legislation has worked. I should know since I, together with myriad other Britons of minority ethnic extraction have achieved equality, at least at some level, thanks partly to the pioneering effort of progressive legislators all those years ago.
A strong (Centre Right) Libertarian case can be made for the equality and diverse lifestyle agenda. The much despised Barbara Amiel wrote a brilliant article a few years ago in the Evening Standard advocating the legalization of gay marriages (I think the article can be found on the internet). Question legislative approaches to equality by all means. However, hysterical reaction and the painting of armageddon scenarios every time an attempt is made to improve the life chances of all sections of our society demeans and diminishes all of us who regards ourselves as Conservatives.

Pot Head

The West Wing The Bible & homosexuality

http://tinyurl.com/5d57lj

stanley Jerusalem

stephen kay
May 26th, 2009 3:49am
"The religious gave the world homophobia they are responsible for it and the reason we have been at the arse end of humanity for 1500yrs.We are going to clip the wings of the religious it`s a matter of survival for us."
What a load of bollocks!
The religious DREW ATTENTION TO HOMOPHOBIA might be more accurate. They didn't give it to us.They didn't give us adultery or murder or theft either.
Don't blame religion for your self-hate.It's a fact that some are born in the wrong bodies or with the different hormonal instincts but religion didn't give it to us.The likes of Peter Tatchell did, with his 144,000 mentions on Google, and all he ever did was to ram it down our throats [sorry!].
Most non-heterosexuals just want to get on with their lives without prejudice and most heterosexuals would prefer not to have the alternatives thrust before them at every possible opportunity. We would all just like to get on with our lives without these strident militants.

Dan

Melanie (and many of the commenters below) feel the church should be allowed to discriminate as much as it desires. This is reasonable enough for it's closed congregations but where a church promotes services to the general public, it's right that these services should be available to all and staff are subject to the same employment laws as everyone else.

In short, the best candidate for the job should get the job regardless of being straight, gay, bi, male, female, black white, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Atheist.

There should be no exemption, no privillege, no special treatment, no favouritism.

That's real freedom.

caged vole

oh Melanie, thank you a thousand times just for standing up and saying all these things. I so much fear that Tas is right and sooner or later, most likely sooner, there must be a dreadful reckoning for this nation. But while at least someone is speaking out, it still seems as if there is hope!

Joseph

Melanie, it is also in the teachings of the Bible that slavery is acceptable. Slavery is forbidden in this country, the result of the liberalisation of our society. By your reasoning, however, if a Church decides to apply to the letter what is written in the Bible and start taking people as slaves, they should be allowed to as for the state to intervene and forbid it would be totalitarian. We have progressed beyond religious fundamentalism in this country and all facets of our society need to reflect that this world is now more accepting and egalitarian. Why should Churches be given special dispensation to discriminate just because they have conviction in their own prejudice?

david skinner

Bhaskar, What you say about Trevor Phillips sound all so reasonable and rational and yet in the Times, February 26th 2006, it was reported:

‘Sir Trevor said that non-Muslims must also accept the right of imams to denounce homosexuality in a way that many would find offensive.
“One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is…………”
“That’s why freedom of expression — including Muslim leaders’ right to say they think homosexuality is harmful — is absolutely precious.” ‘

Yet in the following year, In the Pink News October 18 2007, Sir Trevor said:

"Let me put it as crudely as I can do it as a public official. If somebody is guilty of discrimination of any kind, and with sexual orientation we usually know what it's about with sneering and contempt and all the rest of it, we want them not to be just be punished by the court but frankly to feel the contempt and hatred that they have visited on other people.
"They can argue what they like, but there's a law now and frankly if these people want generally to pose as they often do as the decent and moral people in the community, perhaps they should remember that the first elements of decency in a liberal democracy is the rule of law.
"As far as I'm concerned there isn't a conflict here.
"There is a law. Your faith does not protect you. I understand what you are asking me but to be perfectly honest I haven't
got time for it. If people want to use in my view, the mantle of faith to be bigots, I'm not buying it."

Clearly he no longer believes “freedom of expression” to be “absolutely precious,” or if he does it will be reserved for the sole use of Muslims:

Carrie, North Wales

Pragmatist:
"In the name of so called 'tolerance' these supremely intolerant idiots want enforce "their" perception of morality on everyone and of course ONLY their interpretation is allowed. That is not equality or tolerance that is dictatorship and a perverts charter".

You are talking about a certain kind of "Christian", aren't you?

Ronnie

Dan, a church is not a social club. It is an institution that guides people in the practice of their religious faith. I'm afraid that your remarks are a little off the mark, rather shallow and inappropriate. I mean that literally, I'm not trying to be rude.

There is no such thing as dealing with a closed congregation and 'promoting to the general public'. We are not talking about Marks and Spencers here. Churches do not hand out loyalty cards...

To attempt to impose this kind of legislation on churches, whether we support it or not, is an attack on peoples' right to freedom of conscience.

Mark

Dan makes the right point: where churches are offering public services such as youth work or adoption, they should be expected to conform to socially agreed values,including non-discriminatory employment policies.
I'd like to try (for the fourth time!) to get this point posted: the fundamental flaw in Melanie's argument is that is rests on the idea that an extension of rights to one group (here, gay men and lebsbians) automatically diminishes the rights of others (heterosexuals). She tried to make this argument when opposing civil partnerships a couple of years ago. What can possibly justify this position? Surely a more morally valuable stance would be that an increase in the rights and happiness of others benefits me, both morally and socially? The only argument for discriminating in favour of one group is that you believe that group to be superior. Mel says this is not her stance, and that she believes in tolerance, and yet she then contradicts herself. I would like to ask again, what exactly do 'normative' and deviant' mean, and are they really anything other than value-laden terms with implicit discrimination - or worse - contained within them?

stanley Jerusalem

Mark
May 26th, 2009 1:43pm
Mother nature has determined that the best chance a child has of growing to maturity with a balanced outlook on life and with instincts commensurate with a fruitful existence both physical and material it to possess one parent of each sex. Despite the fact that we all can think of exceptions to this condition, they remain exceptions to a generality. It follows as a logical consequence that the psychological imbalances contributed by two 'fathers' or two 'mothers' will harm that child's development irrespective of how many organisations, movements and shrill militants protest that in the sacred name of EQUALITY they should be offered similar facilities for providing their monochromatic version of parenthood.It's as though the burglars are asking for splinter-proof glass to avoid injury when breaking into peoples' homes or paedophiles requesting guarantees of HIV and Hepatitus-free victims to prevent their contracting an unpleasant didease as a result of their perversions.
This is the trend of the present discussion. The so-called normals want to perpetuate the status quo and the so-called abnormals want a permanent stake in the normals' lifestyles irrespective of logic, health or benefit to the victims of their desires.Our woolly-minded liberal legislators, in a feeble attempt to placate and secure the ballot support of the 'abnormals' see no reason to deny them their wishes.What could be more nonsensical than a marriage between two people of the same sex? Call it a social contract for the purposes of fiscal and legal considerations and conformity with fiscal conditions of local authorities and it's fine. Call it marriage and it's a bloody joke but not a funny one.We may as well rename an elephant an ant and treat it as such.

Trumpeldor

@ Christopher reason "The Bible [or at least the Old Testament bits] was written in the Bronze Age! Are we really still supposed to abide by Bronze Age morality. Cos if you accept one bit then you'll have to accept all of it. Including the slavery and the stoning to death and all the other nonsense that's in Leviticus. Really, Melanie, you are so wrong. If it doesn't hurt anyone, it is really none of your [or anyone else's] business."

Let me humbly remind you that stoning of deaths and all the "other nonsense found in the leviticus" have been discussed and amended in the Mishna and the Gemara (200 to 600 AD)and Jewish judges were not very eager to apply death penalty
A tribunal which applied it nonetheless was called "bloody" and his members were despised if not cursed by the whole community.
I do think that these laws,dating back from the bronze age have the undisputed merit to draw the lines in the sand between good and evil !

Nick Kaplan

David Skinner;

Thanks for the Trevor Philips quotes, I never liked the man but I hadn’t realised he was quite so stupid. I particularly liked the phrase “perhaps they should remember that the first elements of decency in a liberal democracy is the rule of law.”

Nick Kaplan

David Skinner;

Thanks for the Trevor Philips quotes, I never liked the man but I hadn’t realised he was quite so stupid. I particularly liked the phrase “perhaps they should remember that the first elements of decency in a liberal democracy is the rule of law.”

Does he not realise when the law is compelling people to say or refrain from saying certain things, or to associate with certain people against one’s will then we no longer live in a ‘liberal’ democracy, with live instead under egalitarian (read totalitarian) oppression?!

Steve SE

I think it is extremely sad reading these comments that so many people here are so intimidated and threatened by gay people wanting to be treated equally, and with as much respect as the rest of society.

What is very clear is that genuinely so many people here do see greater acceptance of gay people as a threat to their way of life.

I can only say how incredibly sad I find this.

Nick Kaplan

Mark and Dan;

Why does the offering of public services mean that one has to do anything? What is the moral distinction between providing a ‘public service’ and providing a private service or privately associating with people? i.e. what is so different about providing a service to people that one doesn't know such that so doing entails that one is duty bound to behave in a different way to the way in which one is permitted to behave when freely associating privately?

Your posts assume there is some difference but you don’t argue for it, and it is by no means obvious that there is such a distinction.

As far as I can see choosing to provide a service is the same as choosing to make friends with someone in that one is entitled to do so on whatever terms one chooses. This is because one is dispensing with something that is fundamentally one’s own (i.e. one’s friendship or one’s labour) and over which one is sovereign such that others therefore have no say. Thus when an individual decides to offer a service to other individuals it is up to the service provider to decide on what terms his services are dispensed. This means the service provider has a right to decide to whom he will provide the service and at what price, it is up to the user of the service whether they will accept those terms, this is called free association; anything else is coercion.

What the potential user of the service should not do is use force/ violence or the threat thereof, either directly or indirectly (i.e. through the state) to ensure better terms of contract. Instead he must take his custom elsewhere if he doesn’t like what is on offer or if it is not on offer to him.

This surely also extends to the right to discriminate, i.e. if an individual provides a service (say running a B&B) that individual has the right to deny the service to whomever he chooses for whatever reason e.g. the potential customer won’t pay enough or has some feature which the service provider disapproves of, perhaps being a homosexual.

NB this is not to condone such discrimination, I think it irrational and immoral but from this it does not follow that I may force others to do otherwise. To say some action is morally wrong is to say that someone should choose to do otherwise not necessarily that they should be forced to do so.

Any other arrangement would involve using force or the threat thereof (via the state) to compel the provider of the service to work for someone against their will; this is little more than slavery. What gives you the authority to force anyone to so act? What could give anyone such authority?

Mark also criticises what he takes to be Melanie’s view that:

“extension of rights to one group (here, gay men and lebsbians) automatically diminishes the rights of others (heterosexuals)”

Extending anyone’s rights (properly understood as restraints on what the government or other individuals may do) doesn’t restrict the rights of anyone, thus I agree that homosexuals should have every right to do as they please with other consenting adults. However extending the rights of people where those rights are understood (mistakenly) as entitlements to things i.e. as the right to be granted or provided with something, most certainly does restrict the rights of others, namely of the person doing the providing. Forcing someone to act in a certain way towards someone else e.g. by forcing them to provide services, comes under the second category for it is done without the consent of the service provider and hence fundamentally violates their freedom.

“The only argument for discriminating in favour of one group is that you believe that group to be superior. Mel says this is not her stance, and that she believes in tolerance, and yet she then contradicts herself.”

In fact Melanie does not contradict herself at all, for to say that others should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of their (irrational?) beliefs in the inferiority of others (or for any other reason), is not to hold those beliefs about others inferiority oneself. Instead it is only to recognise that the person who has the right to decide the terms of association is the person doing the providing (in an association between a provider and a consumer) for that person shouldn’t be forced to associate with anyone. Melanie’s view is thus far more tolerant than the nutty egalitarianism that says that we must all be forced to work for others despite what we want to do ourselves, or what moral qualms we have about so acting.

Michael B

Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality is relevant here in terms of the social, psychological, developmental, historical and anthropological review in general it presents. Given the sniffs, incomprehensions and the facile forms of contempt in general that so often pass for "engagement" and "discourse" I hesitate to provide the link, but there it is. (The link is to a foreshortened version of a still lengthier and documented review.)

Ronnie

Steve SE.

It is a simple fact that people are afraid of and intimidated by many things. It may or may not be sad but it is a staple of human nature.

I believe it is unwise and indeed false to legislate against peoples' simple fears and non-violent prejudices. That way lies an endless round of equal and opposite discrimination. In this case those who genuinely and deeply believe homosexuality to be wrong will become the victims of state-sponsored discrimination. Particularly where their religious practise is affected.

I believe that most people don't care one way or the other about the private lives of others. But they will start to care when the government starts telling them what to think and how to behave.

david skinner

Michael B, Stanley Jerusalem and Nick Kaplan, whilst searching for something else I found this quote from John Adams the second President of the United States of America:
“The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations“.

Mark

Hi Nick

I hope this gets posted, because I'd like to answer your two main points.

First, on providing public services. I imagine you may be coming at this from some kind of untramelled free market perspective? The problem with your argument is that it would mean, to take one example, that segregation in the American Deep South should have been allowed to continue. To follow your line of logic, why should southern whites have been forced against their will to allow their fellow black citizens onto Alabama buses or into Mississipi schools or white-only parks or diners? In your word, racists of Arkansas to Louisiana would have been entitled to carry on discriminating like this for ever more.

On the second issue, about contradiction, you misunderstand the point I was making because you conflate it with the services debate. The contradiction I am talking about is this: if someone claims to be tolerant (leaving aside the problematic concept of 'tolerance' which, I think Redvers picked up on), why would they then wish to draw a distinction between 'normative' and 'deviant', and to want laws to discriminate in favour of the 'normative'? It is the desire to draw the distinction that is interesting. Why would anyone want to do that, rather than instead celebrating the diversity of humanity? The only reason to draw this kind of distinction, and then to call for laws based on it, would be that you do in truth believe one group to be better than the other, and that you want to entrench the position of the 'better' group by engaging in some form of social engineering. So, for example, you might think that straight marriage is better propped up by denying gay marriage. This, crudely put, was Mel's argument against civil partnerships. It never made sense. Is there a single heterosexual married couple in the country who has looked at each-other and said 'I see that nice gay couple up the road Paul and Fred are getting married - darling, we're just going to have to get divorced'.That links up with the main point I was trying to get across: that human rights aren't a finite pot of stuff to be shared out: someone else's liberation and freedom is mine too.

Nick Kaplan

Mark;

From what I have said it would not follow that segregation in the south would have continued. That segregation was based on the Jim Crow laws, i.e. it was legally enforced. Legally enforced segregation is of the same kind (but granted is a worse form of) legally enforced anti-discrimination, in that it violates people’s freedom of association. Government provided services must be provided on a non-discriminatory basis because the unique position of the state and the fact that it must operate under the rule of law requires it to be neutral. Hence the provisions of buses, schools or parks would have to extend to blacks, by law, for the law itself cannot (or shouldn’t) discriminate. But that the state is obliged to treat people in a different way does not mean private individuals (even those offering privately funded services to the public) are obliged to do so.

Moreover anyone irrational enough to discriminate would be forced to pay a heavy price, for example I certainly wouldn’t shop in a shop that had a ‘no blacks’ or ‘no homosexuals’ policy, I think most decent people would not do so. This means that not only would such a business artificially restrict its custom (and honestly even if you were a racist would you care that you were accepting money from people of the ethnicity you dislike? Why would a racist so restrict themselves?), but it would lose custom from the sectors of the population it hasn’t restricted itself from serving.

Moreover I think there may have been some justification for anti-discrimination laws when racism was significantly prevalent. Now however I think racism and homophobia are virtually insignificant and thus such laws can no longer be justified. The minimal gains of having such laws now do not justify the costs imposed by violating people’s freedom of association. Do you seriously believe that if such laws were lifted tomorrow there would be a significant change in the amount of shops serving minorities, or employing them? I very much doubt it, and I very much doubt that those business which did change their policy accordingly would remain profitable and hence in business for very long. And good riddance to those that don’t!

On the second point I apologise for misinterpreting your argument. It seems to me that Melanie is using the word normative in rather a strange sense, to mean normal. As I understand it normative means proscriptive or relating to moral ideals, but if this is the definition Mel is working with then the statement “normative moral principles” becomes a tautology, so I would imagine she does not understand normative in this way. If that is the correct interpretation, she is not saying homosexuality is immoral, she is saying it is abnormal, or in her words ‘deviant’ which I take to mean ‘deviating from the norm(al)’. Since normality can only be defined in relation to what the majority of humans do/ think, then I think it factually correct (although totally unimportant) to say homosexuality deviates from what is normal, given that only a minority (10%ish I think) are homosexual.

I don’t know what Melanie’s argument against gay marriage is so I cannot really comment. However if her position is that gay marriage is unacceptable but civil partnerships are fine I think this a reasonable compromise to accept. If she believes both gay marriage and civil partnerships to be wrong, then I would be concerned about her position on this issue.

Mark

Hi Nick - I sent you a response which was I hope measured and polite, but it seems to have been blocked: not sure why!

Original Tony

What is really happening here is that morality is being put on trial and I'm sad to say the bad guys are winning because they make the most noise, just like terror supporters do.

Nick Kaplan

Mark;

often there are problems on this blog when I try to post things, I find it helps to write it in a word document and if it doesn't appear to try again a few hours after. I doubt they are blocking anything you've written.

Mark

Nick - I'll try again and see if I can get this past the moderator.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. However I'd like to reply to your two main points.

First on services, I think it's more complex than you suggest. I'm glad you agree that public services should be obliged to provide these without discrimination. On private services however, I'm afraid don't believe your argument stands up. What would happen for example if building societies and banks discriminated (in making loans, or in employment policy) against a particular group - say gays and lesbians, ethnic minorities, a particular religion? According to your line of reasoning there would be no problem with this.

Incidentally, a couple of points here; I have to say it's disingenuous to claim that the discrimination suffered by blacks in the Deep South was solely at the hands of state agencies: it extended far into the private sector and every area of life. Is it really acceptable for one group to find themselves barred from hotels or bars or cafes, or from any other kind of service? The pain this causes was highlighted in a news item yesterday about high school proms in a town in Georgia, where segregation still occurs, through white parental pressure. I have a black colleague in the UK who had the experience a couple of years ago while taking her family on a seaside holiday and finding hotel rooms booked suddenly and mysteriously unavailable when they turned up, and apparantly vacant B and Bs suddenly 'full'.

You say that as Britain is more tolerant towards gays and ethnic minorities, equality legislation is redundant. I agree with you that we've become a far more tolerant country, and celebrate that fact. However it really can't be said that we have reached some kind of nirvana of tolerance: racial discrimination in employment, for example, is well-documented. And where advances have been made (say in gay employees' rights in big corporations), these have come only after long, hard campaigning by lobby groups such as Stonewall, frequently derided here as 'shrill' and 'militant'.

On civil partnerships, I'm afraid you'll find that Melanie's hostility went way beyond a desire to draw a distinction between conventional marriage and civil partnerships. Her opposition stemmed from her desire to draw a distinction, based on a personal judgement of moral and social value This takes me back to my original point: the real question here is, why would anyone wish to differentiate between 'normative' and 'deviant' in the first place? Redvers has it right - beyond recognising that majorities and minorities exits, any further form of differentiation leads us to discrimination.

Michael B

Racially based segregation laws and racial bigotry in general have (virtually) NOTHING to do with the homosexual issues of this present era. Race vs. gender/sexuality are not commensurate excepting within extremely narrow boundaries. That's one reason why a commensurate or "measured thought" was emphasized in a prior comment. Using analogies, metaphors, etc. requires a sense of proportion and balance, a commensurate and measured applicability - it requires rhetorical excess be eschewed. (Yes, I know, when pigs fly.)

Because it's all about garnering votes and variously persuading people in positions of influence and authority (e.g., jurists and legislators), it's similarly telling that the same people who so eagerly apply racial based analogies to the homosexual set of issues presently being faced resist to the utmost the far more applicable comparisons with multiple partner marriages, with intra-familial marriages, with bestiality oriented marriages (and yes, bestiality is a real if more marginal issue, not a figment of some overly excited imagination) or with other types of proposed, legally founded marriages and legally sanctioned relationships (e.g. man/boy approved relationships within some specifically tailored guidelines is also a real issue, reflecting a real if more marginal movement).

Mark

Nick - thanks for the advice on saving in Word - I always forget.

Nick Kaplan

Mark;

Thanks for the reply.

I am not saying that there would be no problem with a bank refusing to lend money to people of a certain race. I am saying that they should be allowed to do so (as long as they have majority shareholder approval, which is very unlikely! I thus think it is more insightful to consider examples where it is relatively obvious who owns the business and who is providing the service e.g. a B&B). To say someone is (legally) allowed to do something is very different from saying there is nothing wrong with their doing it, I think in this case (and in the case of the B&B) there is definitely something wrong. Similarly verbal bullying of others is wrong, but not illegal.

As I said before all that follows from a certain action’s being immoral or wrong is that the person performing that act should choose not to perform it; it does not necessarily follow that they may be forced not to perform it i.e. that the law may intervene. I see no good reason (now that Britain is as it is i.e. predominantly not racist or homophobic) why anyone should be forced to provide a service to anyone else based entirely on a third parties moral sentiments (including my own). I think a lot more argument is needed than my being uncomfortable with discrimination to justify such coercion.

I didn’t say the discrimination faced by blacks in the south was wholly at the hands of the state. What I did say is that the discrimination you complained about e.g. in schools on buses and in the law, was state discrimination. Many restaurants for example would have operated discriminatory policies even if the Jim Crow Laws were abolished, I believe that these restaurants should have been allowed to discriminate, although I do not believe that they should have done so. Moreover it is not acceptable that any racial group should find themselves barred from restaurants, hotels etc but from this it does not follow that it is acceptable to force people (through the threat of coercion) to serve anyone they do not want to serve. What should be done is to boycott such businesses and protest against them and try to educate the owners so they are no longer racist (if possible).

I dispute your claim that racial discrimination in employment is well documented. All that is well documented is pay disparities, which is assumed to show discrimination (largely by people with an agenda), but does not. There are many factors which could account for such disparities, and the apparent evidence for discrimination does not compare like cases with like. If one does compare like with like apparent discrimination disappears. E.g. from statistics I have about the US (quoted from Sowell economic facts and fallacies):

“a study of men 26 to 33 years old who held full-time jobs in 1991 found that when education was measured in the traditional way (years of school completed), blacks earned 19% less than comparatively educated whites. But when the yardstick was how well they performed on basic tests of word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, arithmetical reasoning, and mathematical knowledge the results were reversed. Black men earned 9% more than white men with the same education- as defined by skill.”

This would indicate (although it certainly doesn’t prove) that discrimination by private individuals is not the problem; instead the issue is with the provision of education, which as it is done by the state, should be done non-discriminatorily.

I would agree that groups such as stonewall should be allowed to campaign thereby improving the attitudes of people, I just disagree that there moral views ought to be legally enforced by forcing those who disagree with them to associate with people they do not approve of.

As I said earlier I cannot comment on Melanie’s views of civil partnership; I haven’t read what she thinks.

Poppy Koch

If such a thing is at all possible a trusted and altruistic secular governance is maybe now the only way to go forward from here when all the ground work and experience of the last two thousand years has led us to a point where we need to gather all our canons of wisdom and trust humble intelligent honourable people to reside with respect over everyone’s right to tap into their spirituality in the way that is best for them yet at the same time having rock solid boundaries which allow different groups with common consensual beliefs their privacy and space. Of course this has no doubt always been the aim of wise elders among any community and God being transcendental and out of reach has been a useful tool –untouchable and beyond inquisition.

Maybe we should all look more closely at the Jewish example where there are many Jews who live as secular Jews. Many are a great example of a people who recognise the history and benefits of their culture which have grown out of the strong tenets of Judeo-Christianity and as with any effectively nurtured people are not weak enough to throw away a treasury of historic reference, reflecting among other things, the tenacity and endurance of their forebears. They still embrace their religious traditions even though they have moved on they are able to enjoy all the continuity, sense of belonging and beauty and serenity of collective worship. They can freely channel their spirituality from within without focus on a deity for their spiritual fulfilment when they gather together and meditate and celebrate and share a collective appreciation for Good with other Jews who still enjoy a transcendental focus. They are all able to reap from what has been sown from generations of brave wise forebears who have been steadfast throughout their history in order to furnish them with this legacy and their progeny now have a strong contingent reaping a faith – in themselves - which makes them valuable members of a community adapting to its evolution and protecting its chances of survival.

Perhaps this example is a good enough example to support secular civic governance. Perhaps also therefore needs to be wider honest acceptance and acknowledgement of how few cultures there are that can draw on enough self-belief and confidence and therefore nurture healthy measured self interest with enough concurrent humility, to support their survival.

An evolved secular governance is surely really the only way that safe sensible boundaries can allow the self-interest of different faiths/lifestyles to - grow and evolve/implode and die naturally - without different beliefs and cultures intruding on each other constantly. This truth is blocked by too many religions which have been abused and hijacked to exercise control and who are either reaping disaffected confused over-dependent followers who are desperate to find elusive solid sustenance from deities and clerics on one side and on the other side societies who are being persuaded into giving up the evolution and respect for their own spiritual health completely. Consequently a perverse spiral of self-destruction and a widening void is taking hold and the dark manifestations are rapidly swallowing the light.

Mark

Hi Nick,

It looks as though we aren't going to be able to agree on this, as we come from such opposite ends of the spectrum. From your posts I am guessing that ideology ( to pout it crudely, something like a belief in complete free market/libertarian systems?) create problems in facing up to of certain realities and conflicts with what seem from my perspective to be core decent values. I think these contradictions lead you to an unrealistic belief in the power of consumer boycotts, etc. If you believe in equality as passionately as you seem to, why would you not wish to consider ways in which society might enable this? I would call a belief that banks are entitled to withhold services from groups they dislike pretty extreme. A couple of quick points: on employment, different surveys will of course often throw up conflicting results. There has been ample evidence of applicants been given interviews/jobs when their ethnicity was hidden, only to have these offers withdrawn when their racial group becomes evident.

On civil partnerships: sure, don't take my word on Mel's stance - but you could check the records.

OK - I'm going to be away for a few days, so, all the best.

Nick Kaplan

Mark;

You are right that I am philosophically a libertarian (although more a Hayekian than a Nozickian). But I think the principles of free- association and non-coercion, on which my views on this issue are based, are fairly widely held, if not consistently applied. Suffice it to say though that my ideology does not ‘create problems in facing up to certain core decent values,’ rather my ideology is built on trying to apply decent values (like non-coercion), consistently.

I don’t know quite what you mean by ‘if you believe in equality as passionately as you seems to,’ as belief in equality is presumably some kind of normative/ prescriptive belief (about what ought to be the case) rather than a positivist/descriptive belief about what is the case (it is quite clear that as a descriptive term the equality of people is simply false; in most respects we are, factually speaking, unequal). Thus belief in equality must amount to something like ‘you ought to take all people’s interest into account equally.’ This I disagree with, e.g. surely one need not pay equal regard to the interests of the cinema owner 100 miles away as one does for the cinema owner that lives 5 minutes away, whenever one wants to watch a film?

Perhaps then belief in equality means that ‘you ought not to treat people differently for arbitrary reasons e.g. their race or homosexuality.’ In the main I agree with this second formulation although I don’t think it is absolutely right (for example I think one may love someone on a completely arbitrary basis; that you cannot give reasons for it, in a large part, is what distinguishes love. Moreover there are also all sorts of problems with deciding what is arbitrary e.g. Is someone’s being very intelligent, simply because they have good genes, arbitrary; does this mean one cannot employ people on the basis of their intelligence?).

However even accepting this second formulation nothing follows about what other people can be forced to do, for as I have repeatedly said, that ‘Person A ought to do X for/ to Person B’ does not mean that ‘person C may force A to do X’. (Further argument to this conclusion is needed). Thus the only way society (by which I presume is meant individuals acting together) ought to enable this kind of equality is by educating people not to be racist and by boycotting racist businesses.

I do not think I over estimate the power of a boycott, I think you underestimate the amount of people who would boycott businesses that are openly racist. Moreover even if there would be enough people willing to shop in racist stores and businesses to keep such businesses profitable I certainly believe there are enough non-racist people for there to be enough businesses to adequately provide for the needs of all minorities and moreover to ensure they had a huge range of choice (think any high street bank, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Waitrose, all chain restaurants, the vast majority of hotels and clothes shops etc etc).

I’m not sure how extreme my view is regarding banks given that the structure of most banks is so complex it is hard to decide where the decision power would lie (is it with the CEO? All the executives? The share holders? A majority of the shareholders? A supermajority?)and so I think it unlikely that there would even be the structures in such an organisation to make such a decision as to discriminate against a particular race. Thus I think it as good as impossible that banks would actually discriminate, especially as there is a financial disincentive, even if they could. This is why I wanted to focus on more simple cases like the B&B in which case I think it is fairly easy to see how reasonable my principle is. I think it completely abhorrent that anyone running a service should be forced to serve people they do not want to serve, simply for choosing to provide a service at all. (I don’t see what principle this would even be based on; presumably something like ‘if one chooses to work one must work for anyone who wants to benefit from that work, regardless of whether you want to work for them or not.’ Which I don’t know how you could begin to justify). To say otherwise is to say that a person may legitimately be forced to work for someone else’s benefit. As far as I am concerned this is little different from slavery (with the small benefit that there would be wages, but most slaves got homes and food so this is a difference of degree and not of kind).

Unless you argue that it is legitimate to coerce people into working for others, I do not see how you can accept the principle that the state may compel people not to discriminate. I think you would have to have very very good reasons for it to be legitimate to coerce people in this way (for I think it is a kind of slavery). Such a reason may be that without such coercion minorities would not be able to survive in society. As I think this is not even nearly the case I do not think there are sufficient grounds for the state to coerce people in this way (although there may once have been), regardless of my views about equality which have no bearing on what the state may force individuals to do.

Merseymike

If religionists wish to have the right to discriminate against others because of their institutionally homophobic beliefs, this must be kept to an absolute minimum. Essentially, these religionists need to recognise that, as we allow people to be in the BNP and to be anti-semitic or racist, we also allow people to be in homophobic religious groups and be anti-gay. But those beliefs are no more acceptable or to have public approval than those of the racist or anti-semite.

Ronnie

Merseymike, I'm sure that all those who neither think like you nor believe things that you would like them too will be very grateful to you for allowing them to think and believe within boundries that you find permissable.

Your version of freedom is truly inspiring.

david skinner

Mersy mike if Hegelian Marxist wish to have the right to discriminate against others because of their institutionally heterophobic beliefs, this must be kept to an absolute minimum. Essentiallly these Evolutionary Humanist homophiles, call them what you will, need to recognise that , as we allow people to be Muslims and to be intolerant, and bigoted , we also allow people to be in heterophobic ideological groups and be anti- Christian. But those beliefs are no more acceptable or to have public approval than those of other discriminatory, excluding hate groups

Merseymike

I think its important that, whilst people are allowed to think as they wish, that a good society does not indicate that racism, anti-semitism or homophobia are in any way acceptable.

Of course, you are entitled to disagree, as do, for example, supporters of the BNP, but whilst they have the right to exist, I certainly don't think their views or values should be looked at as in any way acceptable. You must be an entirely libertarian moral relativist - or do you simply wish to allow people you dislike to be discriminated against?

Ronnie

Merseymike.

'Essentially, these religionists need to recognise that, as we allow people to be in the BNP and to be anti-semitic or racist, we also allow people to be in homophobic religious groups and be anti-gay.'

I'd like to know who this 'we' are that are going to allow people to think and believe as they do.

I'd also like to know what this 'we' could do to stop people thinking and believing as they wish. How are the 'we' planning to abolish disliking and discrimination from human society?

I intensely dislike discrimination and I try to oppose it whenever it crosses my path. I also dislike and oppose the periodic etsblishment of 'we's' who think they can tell others what to think.

Edward in the USA

Ronnie asked
"By the way, what is 'transphobia'?"

I believe it's fear of Trans Fats in snack food.

Merseymike

Ronnie: people are free to think as they wish, but once they start putting those thoughts into action, that is another matter.

I simply don't accept the libertarian starting point. I do think the state has and should have the right to decide if the law should prevent and punish discrimination in action.

Ronnie

Ah ha Merseymike, that's not what you were saying to start with!

Neil Saunders

I think Melanie is mistaken if she thinks that it is only religious people who hold traditional views about what is or is not sexually normal.

I am an atheist, but (like many irreligious people) I would wholeheartedly endorse Melanie's defence of such traditional views against the coercive and illiberal legislation that is being proposed under the Equality Bill, and will be enacted should it pass unopposed - as seems likely - into law.

Raymond Joseph Douglas

My own church , an Evangelical baptist Church , completely ignores these issues .Why ? I don't know . Whether it is because of just ignorance to what is going on , or a desire not to scare the horses , I do not know . Whatever , I suspect many Christians are not well informed about these issues because their churches do not tell them !

stanley Jerusalem

Raymond Joseph Douglas
June 2nd, 2009 9:00am
Says heaps about both your church and about its members.
I believe the appropriate adjective would be Struthian.

Stanley Willis

Is this not an open discussion? Let me try again.

I'd like to know why, if prejudice against homosexuals may be defended using the "Judeo-Christian morality", then what criteria or criterion do the religious use to decide this? After all there's plenty of other references in Leviticus, to name but one book, that nobody observes now, such as forbidding men from shaving, eating shellfish, wearing clothes of more than one fabric and working on the sabbath. If these "morals" are not also observed, then why not? And, the corollary question, why is such a criterion acceptable for condemning homosexuals if it is no longer used for observing the rest?

stanley Jerusalem

Stanley Willis
June 2nd, 2009 2:53pm
"If these "morals" are not also observed,then why not?"
[1]They are observed to this day.
[2] They are not 'morals',they are statutes,in Jewish parlance, commands without biblical justification, to be obeyed implicity without rationalisation.
"then why not?"
Inapplicable consequence.
"why is such a criterion acceptable for condemning homosexuals if it is no longer used for observing the rest?"
It isn't, it's a matter for personal contrition from the orthodox Jewish religious standpoint. No-one castigates the individual. Unlike other religions, Judaism does not have 'Policemen.'True, we have authoritarian figures, but they neither hand out punishments nor pardons. The only confession Jews go in for is communal confession in the first person plural on Yom Kippur[The Day of Atonement] and on their deathbed, should they be so inclined [and conscious].
Judaism is very big on repentance and the greatest sinners are deemed worthy of the greatest respect should they 'return.'Thus the saintliest of Rabbis, whom may never have trodden the Primrose Path, are deemed less worthy than a sinner who has sincerely repented.
The only aristocratic rank in Judaism is that of priest or Cohen, who derives his status from patrilineal descent and not from study or devotion.
Go figure.

Stanley Willis

Stanley Jerusalem, that's very interesting, thank you for the post, very illuminating on Judaism.

Would anyone care to explain the Christian position?

stanley Jerusalem

Stanley Willis
June 2nd, 2009 4:22pm
I would, but Pete wouldn't post it!

Joy

Dan, if the Church is offering services, regardless of whom they may be offered to, she surely has a right to choose employees who will best represent her. as you said, true freedom is employing the best person for the job. its only natural that any organisation, club or company should want and be allowed to employ people who will represent the values and aims that institutionin espouses. thus, part of the qualification of being the 'best person for the job' involves how well the candidate will represent his/her employer.
one of the main reasons the Church wants to offer services to the general public is to demonstrate to everyone what Christianity is all about. that's historically and currently why we provide food, councelling, shelter and other services to those in need. it would rather defeat the point for a church agency to employ an atheist to represent Christian values to the community. it would be akin to England employing Shane Warne (the recently retired Australian spin legend) to be the face of a merchandise advertising campaign for the English cricket team. As a biased Australian, i personally think it would be a great idea but do you see my point? it would be just plain absurdity from every other perspective!!!
my personal perception is that 'politically correct' laws are designed by the Church's opponents to limit her freedom to openly state or even physically demonstrate what she is all about to the wider community. they are dirty and subversive tactics parading under the guise of fairness and equality.

Dan

The problem with this (and many other parts of modern legilsation)is the schizophrenia.

If we want freedom of speech and expression we have to accept that some people will have views that we (sometimes violently) disagree with and/or that will offend us.

You can't have it both ways.

Legilsating FOR the equality of one group, from one perspective is immediately legislating against all of the others.

Harsh and unfair as it may seem why shouldn't an employer be allowed to refuse to employ some-one for ANY reason they choose. They are the ones who are paying.

Bob

Maria Eagle's approach seems to be: 'We're going to FORCE you to agree with us.' Liberal democracy? No. Illiberal bigoted intolerance? Yes.

steve

melanie philips is tight to say that current political correctness bears no resemblance to true iberal tolerance, but the former is an inevitable consequence of the latter. Liberalism has no strong moral 'glue' such as Christianity to hold it together. In a society where anything goes, what is there to prevent people from discarding something so morally demanding as tolerance?