The bishop of Rome
His holiness the Pope has condemned Britain’s gay rights legislation. In spite of protestations that they hate the sin but love the sinner, the Catholic church would like to continue discriminating against homosexuals.
He criticises “limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs”. I wonder exactly how widely he would draw the definition of ‘religious community’. I wonder how he would feel about the Exclusive Brethren, for starters.
What is particularly brilliant is his statement that “the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”
A copy of this natural law would be useful, but if it says that we’re all equal apart from the gays, I want no part of it. This is the same kind of antediluvian discussion we’ve had about whether American aborigines and Africans have souls. Equality so long as you conform to the majority is not equality, but a social tyranny of the majority. The freedom to practice your religion stops, surely, when it impinges on the ability of others to enjoy their rights.
If this were any other organisation – say, the RSPB – then they would be laughed out of court if they tried to ask for an exemption to anti-discrimination legislation. Religion retains its privileged position in our society.
It’s not often you’ll find me quoting from the Thirty-Nine Articles that define Anglican doctrine, but in light of the Pope’s comments on gay marriage, number thirty-eight seems appropriate.
Article xxxviii.—”The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.”
Quite.
xD.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Man, it’s a sad day when the Pope no longer stands for freedom and equality!
But, seriously, is he going to get an exemption from anti-discrimination legislation. And, if not, should we not just ignore him in the spirit of free speech?
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:40 pm
I was under the impression that states didn’t involve themselves in other states’ internal affairs.
More seriously, we should not just ignore him. Yes, he should have his say but he is the leader of how ever many of the faithful there are and an advocate, within sexual politics, of ideas that would be laughable if they weren’t so serious. We are obliged to challenge someone with a bully pulpit who uses it to spread such junk.
xD.
February 4th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
“I was under the impression that states didn’t involve themselves in other states’ internal affair” – may I suggest you take a closer look at the foreign policy of the current British government?
And how are we going to challenge him? Of course, military intervention is a possibility. Stylish, yes. A match for the military of [insert almost any country here], no. The Swiss Guard are going down!
But really, the FCO should issue a statement saying ‘we reserve the right to pass any law we damn well please’, and then we should, in fact, ignore him. The Pope is, like small children, resistant to logic, and engaging him will not work. “Don’t argue with fools/’cos people from a distance/can’t see who’s who”