God trumps all
When I was having religious intolerance beaten into me by the Jesuits at the start of the sixties, Catholics said simply that homosexuality was unnatural and evil, and those afflicted with it should be forced into celibacy or incarcerated. I'm not sure if they actually told me not to shake hands with one for fear of catching it, but that was the spirit of it.
Catholics took a while catching up with the idea that discrimination isn't fashionable any more, but the adoption agencies row is the second very recent example of a new, and clever, way of turning the discrimination argument against those who use it.
Here's how it works. Yes, the Catholic Church wants to discriminate against homosexuals. And yes, of course discrimination is bad. But if you don't let us discriminate, you're discriminating against the beliefs of Catholics, and that's worse. In the various forms of discimination - sex, race, disability - religion trumps all. Neat, really.
It was trialled a few weeks ago, when the Catholic Church was working on wrecking anti-discrimination laws. You can imagine the nights of anguish (and, I assume, prayer) that went into finding possible scenarios to show that these laws actiually discriminated against Catholics. The regulations, they said, would "force a family-run B&B to let out a double room to a transsexual couple, even if the family think it in the best interests of their children to refuse to allow such a situation in their home."
Now it's us who are doing the discriminating, against Catholic bigots who think homosexuals must not be allowed to bring up children.
The Church of England is convinced, apparently. We don't agree with the Catholics about homosexuality being sinful, they say - but we're not going to stand by and watch co-religionists being discriminated against. For discriminating against homosexuals. "The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning" they say. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1997404,00.html.) Sounds good. I dislike what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it. Except, of course, in Catholic countries, where the Church demands legislation to outlaw abortion.
I look forward to the Muslims jumping on the bandwagon. I suspect the Church of England will tie itself in knots trying to find a way not to support them. How's this for a start? A married woman teacher dresses in a way that Muslims consider immodest. If the school refuses to fire her at the request of Muslim parents, who is being discriminated against? Naturally, the Muslims, whose beliefs are being offended.
If we're trying to trump discrimination, two can play at that game. How’s this? A gay couple runs a restaurant, and a Christian family insists on saying grace before they sit down. The gay couple throw them out, on the grounds that, to them, religion means persecution. If we refuse them the right to do this, who is being discriminated against most? Why, the gay couple, of course. OK, there are some rough edges to iron out, but the germ of a trump is there.
Quite how Catholics have the brass nerve to be moralistic about homosexuality after recent revelations about the activities of paedophile priests worldwide, I don't know. Now do I understand how Cardinal Murphy O'Connor manages to do so when he defended his decision to allow a known paedophile to continue working as a priest, despite warnings the man would re-offend. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/840594.stm.)
But perhaps we should hold fire for a bit. The Catholic Church is throwing everything it has into this battle because its power in the land, on which it has grown fat for ten years, is waning every day. It has a Prime Minister who (as David Hencke and I showed in our book The Survivor) is, to all intents and purposes, a Catholic. The Church discreetly boasted about it. Most of our sources for this information were Catholic ones.
But Tony Blair's power is visibly draining out of him, and with it the power to enable the Catholic Church to discriminate against anyone. The Catholic Church may win this battle. It will lose the war.
Catholics took a while catching up with the idea that discrimination isn't fashionable any more, but the adoption agencies row is the second very recent example of a new, and clever, way of turning the discrimination argument against those who use it.
Here's how it works. Yes, the Catholic Church wants to discriminate against homosexuals. And yes, of course discrimination is bad. But if you don't let us discriminate, you're discriminating against the beliefs of Catholics, and that's worse. In the various forms of discimination - sex, race, disability - religion trumps all. Neat, really.
It was trialled a few weeks ago, when the Catholic Church was working on wrecking anti-discrimination laws. You can imagine the nights of anguish (and, I assume, prayer) that went into finding possible scenarios to show that these laws actiually discriminated against Catholics. The regulations, they said, would "force a family-run B&B to let out a double room to a transsexual couple, even if the family think it in the best interests of their children to refuse to allow such a situation in their home."
Now it's us who are doing the discriminating, against Catholic bigots who think homosexuals must not be allowed to bring up children.
The Church of England is convinced, apparently. We don't agree with the Catholics about homosexuality being sinful, they say - but we're not going to stand by and watch co-religionists being discriminated against. For discriminating against homosexuals. "The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning" they say. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1997404,00.html.) Sounds good. I dislike what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it. Except, of course, in Catholic countries, where the Church demands legislation to outlaw abortion.
I look forward to the Muslims jumping on the bandwagon. I suspect the Church of England will tie itself in knots trying to find a way not to support them. How's this for a start? A married woman teacher dresses in a way that Muslims consider immodest. If the school refuses to fire her at the request of Muslim parents, who is being discriminated against? Naturally, the Muslims, whose beliefs are being offended.
If we're trying to trump discrimination, two can play at that game. How’s this? A gay couple runs a restaurant, and a Christian family insists on saying grace before they sit down. The gay couple throw them out, on the grounds that, to them, religion means persecution. If we refuse them the right to do this, who is being discriminated against most? Why, the gay couple, of course. OK, there are some rough edges to iron out, but the germ of a trump is there.
Quite how Catholics have the brass nerve to be moralistic about homosexuality after recent revelations about the activities of paedophile priests worldwide, I don't know. Now do I understand how Cardinal Murphy O'Connor manages to do so when he defended his decision to allow a known paedophile to continue working as a priest, despite warnings the man would re-offend. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/840594.stm.)
But perhaps we should hold fire for a bit. The Catholic Church is throwing everything it has into this battle because its power in the land, on which it has grown fat for ten years, is waning every day. It has a Prime Minister who (as David Hencke and I showed in our book The Survivor) is, to all intents and purposes, a Catholic. The Church discreetly boasted about it. Most of our sources for this information were Catholic ones.
But Tony Blair's power is visibly draining out of him, and with it the power to enable the Catholic Church to discriminate against anyone. The Catholic Church may win this battle. It will lose the war.
posted by Francis Beckett at
8:03 AM
1 Comments:
How wonderful to hear the truth pursued with logic (and humour); ever since reading yu HISTORY OF THE BRITISH COMMUNIST PARTY I have been a devotee; as an 'old' (in all senses) Party member I have of course profound regrets: and it seems that what we swallowed, and many of our attitudes were not so different from catholic dogma. For example, the total 'outlawing' of Koestler and his work - 'anti-Soviet, comrade', and our blind acceptance of all that went on in the 'socialist sixth of the world' - where all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.... how could we....
Voices like yours are so to be cherished now that the whole tawdry business of the Labour sell out is screamingly obvious - they clearly have no shame, apart from being amazingly incompetent. I do resent being treated as a cretin. Keep up the good work!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home