The amendment to the Equality Bill, which was tabled as a free vote by gay Muslim peer Waheed Alli, received overwhelming backing in the Lords, including from a number of prominent Anglican bishops.
Under current UK law religious venues are forbidden from holding civil partnerships, although some liberal denominations within Christianity and Judaism have been willing to bless gay unions once a partnership ceremony has taken place elsewhere.
The lifting of the ban, which still needs to be approved by the House of Commons, will now give religious venues the option of conducting civil partnerships – but it will not compel them to do so, as some traditionalists had feared.
Lord Alli denied the suggestion that religious communities would be forced to accept gay marriages.
“Religious freedom cannot begin and end with what one religion wants,” he said. “This amendment does not place an obligation on any religious organisation to host civil partnerships in their buildings. But there are many gay and lesbian couples who want to share their civil partnership with the congregations that they worship with. And there are a number of religious organisations that want to allow gay and lesbian couples to do exactly that.”
No doubt the religious fundamentalist set will denounce this as an anti-religious move, but as Alli points out this, if approved by the Commons (and how appalling would it be if the Commons struck this down?), would allow civil partnerships on religious premises, not demand them. It’s amazing how often the devoutly religious wilfully mix the the two up, but the distinction is pretty important because it’s about religious freedom for all. As Stonewall Chief Executive Ben Summerskill says:
‘We’ve argued throughout that this is an important matter of religious freedom. Ministers have known for some months that we intended to table this measure and we regret that the Government didn’t stand up to the bullying it faced from some churches on this issue. We’ll now work closely with ministers to ensure that we secure implementation of this further step towards equality. This vote is hugely important to those gay people of faith (and, as Lady Neuberger pointed out, to their Jewish mothers too!) who wish to celebrate their civil partnerships in their own place of worship.’
It should have been unthinkable to have had a ban in the first place. Why any religion should have the freedom to discriminate based purely on the grounds of the bigoted beliefs of some, is beyond me. But this government has kowtowed incessantly towards the religious lobby, and in the run-up to the general election will no doubt continue to do so. Remember civil partnerships are still only for gay people, and marriage is only for straight people. In a European Union where even Catholic Spain has marriage equality I fail to comprehend why Britain’s inequality is allowed to continue.
When Christians, Jews and others feel that the ideology of human rights is threatening their freedoms of association and religious practice, a tension is set in motion that is not healthy for society, freedom or Britain. Rather than regard the Pope’s remarks as an inappropriate intervention, we should use them to launch an honest debate on where to draw the line between our freedom as individuals and our freedom as members of communities of faith. One should not be purchased at the cost of the other.
It’s the same logic which Lillian Ladele and others have tried to justify, but he masks it in the language of human rights. But look how he misuses it:
We all have an interest in freedom, the freedom to act differently from others. Indeed, at the core of human rights is a religious proposition: that we are all, regardless of colour, creed or culture, in the image of God.
No. At the core of human rights is a proposition that we’re all equally deserving of fundamental dignity and rights. It’s a secular argument, which presumes that we’re all entitled to the same treatment before civil law, which in turn should protect those things equally for everyone, and under all circumstances. So when he suggests that human rights threaten freedom of religion he’s operating under an entirely false premise. Human rights don’t threaten the right to religious association, but they do presume that no organisation or association has the right to discriminate against people for being gay. And religion is far from fundamentally predicated on the right to discriminate, which Ratzinger clearly believes to be the case. The government ultimately remains short sighted in having allowed this clash to happen, and to continue. Having equality legislation which equates inherent characteristics such as age or gender with the imagined quality of belief makes a mockery of equality. Human rights are not about justifying discrimination or legitimising bigotry.
The UK Independence Party is to call for a ban on the burka and the niqab — the Islamic cloak that covers women from head to toe and the mask that conceals most of the face — claiming they affront British values. The policy, which a number of European countries are also debating, is an attempt by UKIP to broaden its appeal and address the concerns of disaffected white working-class voters.
UKIP would be the first national party to call for a total ban on burkas, though the far-Right BNP believes they should be banned from schools.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the leader of UKIP, said yesterday: “We are taking expert advice on how we could do it. It makes sense to ban the burka — or anything which conceals a woman’s face — in public buildings. But we want to make it possible to ban them in private buildings. It isn’t right that you can’t see someone’s face in an airport.”
He explained that UKIP wanted to bring to the fore the issue of the increasing influence of Sharia in Britain: “We are not Muslim bashing, but this is incompatible with Britain’s values of freedom and democracy.”
He’ll start claiming to have Muslim friends next. I don’t like the burka or niqab either. They irritate my sense of equality, I feel they’re an exercise is misogyny, and their basis in Islam is open to interpretation. But I’m well aware that Britain’s real values of freedom and democracy are based around people being allowed to live their lives as they choose. If a Muslim woman feels the cultural need to cover her entire body in a public space she should be as allowed to, as say any other woman would be to wear the most immodest clothing. Not Muslim bashing? Of course the rotten little racist is. The country’s no more at risk from Sharia law than from imminent Nazi German invasion.
Are the ban and the convictions really a problem for the group? Their reactions to previous bans would suggest that, organisationally, things will carry on as normal, just with a new title and web domain. Moreover, last night’s and this morning’s broadcast news were filled with Choudary and chums, highlighting how their convictions and banning proved that democracy and free expression are at best a sham and at worst a conspiracy against Islam. It’s not quite free publicity, but it’s exceptionally cheap.
So a mixed week for Anjem, but an exceptionally bad one for justice and free expression. The conviction of the five Luton protesters throws up massive problems. While their slogans were nasty, they called soldiers “baby killers” and “rapists”, they were part of a political protest, of which police had been made aware. Anyone who’s been on a protest knows that the language is rarely of the “rectify the anomaly” variety. How many times has Tony Blair been called a murderer? How many times have “Nazi scum” been ordered off our streets? A protest’s sole function is to get noticed — and strong language gets you noticed.
If there had been a public order issue at Luton, the police could have told the protestors to disperse, or even detained them temporarily; it’s far from ideal, but it beats a conviction.
I couldn’t agree more. There’s no way the banning wasn’t in response to the group’s so-called planned march through Wootton Bassett and banning the group on those grounds is patently ridiculous. Is the right to protest contingent on who you are, what you say or what your political agenda is? From the conviction of the protesters in Luton it would appear so and Peter Tatchell is right when he says:
But I defend their right to express their opinions, even though they are offensive and distressing to many people.
Insult and offence are not sufficient grounds in a democratic society to criminalise words and actions. The criminalisation of insulting, abusive or offensive speech is wrong. The only words that should be criminalised are untrue defamations and threats of violence, such as falsely branding someone as a paedophile or inciting murder.
Some sections of the Public Order Act inhibit the right to free speech and the right to protest. They should be repealed.
Posters have also been placed around Belfast encouraging people to download the song [Mrs Robinson by Simon & Garfunkel] and it is currently at number 45 in Amazon’s download charts. The Official UK Charts Company told AFP yesterday that download sales of the song in Northern Ireland last week were up 1,200 per cent on the week before.
The song was made famous in the 1960s film The Graduate, in which a much older woman seduces a young man. Robinson, 59 at the time of the affair, reportedly took 19-year-old Kirk McCambley into her marital bed while her husband Peter, Northern Ireland’s first minister, was away.
It contains the lines: “It’s a little secret, just the Robinsons’ affair. Most of all, you’ve got to hide it from the kids” and “God bless you please, Mrs Robinson. Heaven holds a place for those who pray”.
Robinson, an evangelical Christian, said God had forgiven her for the affair. She said in 2008 that gays were an “abomination”.
Brilliant. Now if there’s going to be a rigging of the charts, this makes far more sense than a crazy, staged battle by the record label between Rage Against the Machine and X-Factor winner Joe McElderry. Do it! Buy your copy now! Celebrate Iris’ love of hot twinks!
David Mitchell discusses the furore about the Islamist march ‘planned’ by Islam4UK in Wootton Bassett. Considering the group hasn’t even made the necessary initial representation to the police in order for the march to take place, I’ve found myself astonished at the level of invective raised, particularly the calls for it to be banned. Firstly it obviously was never going to take place anyway, so why make such a fuss, but doesn’t freedom of speech also bring with it the freedom to be offensive or to cause offence? Mitchell is thoroughly right in his support for the freedom to offend for all:
The thing about freedom of speech is that people are allowed to say offensive, indefensible things; that we needn’t fear that because we’re sure that wiser counsels are more likely to convince. “Let the idiots and bullies speak openly and they will be revealed for what they are!” is the idea. It’s a brilliant one and, in confident, educated societies, it almost always works – certainly much more often than any of the alternatives. Why has Alan Johnson lost confidence in this principle? Why have the 700,000 signatories of a Facebook petition calling for the event to be banned?
I know there are circumstances in which freedom of speech is rightly limited – I’m not arguing for a repeal of all libel or incitement to hatred laws. But it’s difficult to see how this demonstration would incite hatred of anyone other than the demonstrators. Public safety can also be an issue. I understand that the police couldn’t let the protest go ahead without a reasonable expectation that it wouldn’t become violent. But if it is banned, let us be 100% sure, let our consciences be absolutely clear, that public safety was the reason, not the excuse.
Entirely right. Of course it’ll never even get that far, because Islam4UK never intended for it to get that far; they merely wanted (as Mitchell says) the free, anti-Muslim invective to prove their case against the establishment. Alan Johnson has said he’d be prepared to ban the march on public order grounds, but contained as that was in the language of having himself felt offended by the march, it’s unclear on what grounds he was really prepared to do so. Let’s be clear: although it was never intended to take place, that march should have had the nominal right to take place in the same way that reprinting the Danish cartoons of Mohammed remains something we all have the nominal right to do. It may cause offence, but being offended is part and parcel for all of us of living in this society. Islam4UK’s Anjem Choudary articulates his own position:
Watch how he deftly blurs the lines between religion and race for his own, self-serving intent. What a bastard, right? He’s then followed by Gordon Brown:
And I couldn’t agree less with Brown’s reasons for wanting the march stopped – being ‘disgusting’, ‘not having public support’ and an ‘abuse of goodwill’ along with being (you guessed it) ‘offensive’ aren’t anywhere near good enough reasons for limiting anyone’s freedom of speech. I agree with his sentiments, and I suspect David Mitchell is right when he says Choudary and Islam4UK’s real intent is merely to ‘defile our holy places’, but is our offense at this really something we need protection from? At what point did our we lose our ability to cope with being offended, when there are so many straightforward strategies available to deal with speech we just don’t like, such as ignoring it?
In an attempt to limit the damage caused by the Iris Robinson scandal,the Democratic Unionist Party moved today to expel her from the party.
Robinson will also leave her Westminster and assembly seats early this week as the DUP punishes her for the furore over her toyboy lover and the £50,000 loan she secured for him.
Her husband, Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland’s first minister, also came under further pressure tonight in his fight to maintain his position and remain leader of the DUP.
The East Belfast MP has one week to turn his fortunes around as he faces allegations that he failed to report the loan given to his wife, which is a breach of the ministerial code.
The Free Presbyterian church founded by his predecessor, the Rev Ian Paisley, and which is inextricably linked to the DUP, dealt a blow to Peter Robinson today when a senior minister and close confidant of Paisley, the Rev David McIlveen, called on the first minister to step down. “I do believe that his position is becoming increasingly untenable,” McIlveen said. “He has a major problem with regard to solving his own family difficulties and I personally cannot take the view that a person’s private life does not affect their public life.”
Allegedly raising £50,000 for your teenage lover whom you’re committing adultery (and betraying your friend) with, and allegedly choosing to retain £5,000 as a kick-back were never really signs of mental illness were they? They were signs of greed, arrogance and double standards. So next time a Christian fundamentalist politician starts pontificating on the evils of homosexuality you know they’re either a) gay or b) up to no good somewhere. It’s certainly clear who the most moral turned out to be after all. The real danger of course is that her disgusting, hypocritical behaviour actually has an impact on the Northern Irish peace process.
As Mrs Robinson’s lover was named as Kirk McCambley, a 21-year-old cafe owner, it emerged she was facing allegations over a business venture she supported on his behalf.
The 60-year-old mother-of-three, an MP since 2001, admitted on Wednesday that she had a brief relationship 18 months ago with someone she had been supporting after a family death, and that her guilt led her to try to kill herself last March.
He was named by the BBC as Mr McCambley, a Catholic man, who was 19 at the time of the affair.
He confirmed to the Spotlight Programme that he had an affair with the married woman.
It is understood that the lover set up his business in a building constructed by Castlereagh Borough Council, supported by the EU Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme and administered by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
It has emerged that 24 hours before the surprise announcement, a BBC documentary team had confronted her husband, Peter Robinson, at Stormont with questions about the couple’s financial affairs.
Asked if he was confident that neither he nor his wife had done anything illegal, Mr Robinson said: “I am absolutely certain that everything I have done has been done as it should.”
According to a BBC Spotlight programme broadcast last night, Mrs Robinson, 60, also demanded a £5,000 kickback from Mr McCambley for helping arrange the transaction.
Today, her husband Peter Robinson, who is Northern Ireland’s first minister, denied he had done anything wrong.
It was claimed he knew about the solicitation and had demanded the return of the money, but had not alerted parliamentary authorities.
So Iris, who famously said gay people were an ‘abomination’ and likened us to paedophiles and murderers isn’t just an adulteress but she’s facing an allegation of corruption too. Talk about pigeons coming home to roost! The allegations against her include:
• that she gained £50,000 for her 19-year-old lover Kirk McCambley from two property developers.
• that she took £5,000 of the money for herself.
• that when Peter Robinson found out about the loan and his wife’s affair he insisted she pay the money back but that he did not inform the authorities about his wife’s conduct.
• that when her relationship with the young man broke down she demanded the loan back and wanted £25,0000 paid into the account of her church, the Light and Life Free Methodist Church in East Belfast.
• that the payments which were used to fund McCambley’s refurbishment of a riverside cafe outside Belfast came from two major property developers, Ken Campbell and Fred Fraser.
• that Iris Robinson lobbied on behalf of Ken Campbell for a building scheme he was involved with in her Strangford constituency.
It doesn’t look good for Iris and her ‘mental illness’.
It’s now pretty easy to see Iris’ attack on gay people as the cynical embarrassment most rational people took it as. It had nothing whatsoever to do with a clash of gay rights and religious rights – it was a vile attempt to legitimise the basest of bigotries – her thoroughly immoral behaviour has proven that – and she should be as condemned now as she was then. Yesterday Iris said God had forgiven her. But what do you think? Vote here.
Mrs Robinson was not to be seen at her luxury home today, but in her penitential statement she spoke about how severe bouts of depression had altered her mood and personality.
She said: “I fought with those I loved most, my children and friends; saw plots where none existed and conducted myself in a manner which was self-destructive and out of character.
“During this period of mental illness I lost control of my life and did the worst thing that I have ever done. Over a year and a half ago, I was involved in a relationship.
“It began completely innocently when I gave support to someone following a family death. I encouraged friends to assist him by providing financial support for a business venture.
“Regrettably, the relationship later developed into a brief affair. It had no emotional or lasting meaning, but my actions have devastated my life, and the lives of those around me.”
Mrs Robinson, 60 and an MP since 2001, added: “Everyone is paying a heavy price for my actions. Psychiatrists may suggest that my mental illness was a significant factor explaining my irrational behaviour.
“I do not in any way question or doubt their judgement. But in order to master my life, I do not want to dilute the blame or resist taking full responsibility for my actions. I am completely ashamed and deeply embarrassed.”
She said she had hurt her husband, family and friends, let down thousands of people who had placed their faith in her and – though her medical condition was a factor – she had not been true to the values she professed.
It’s a common factor with these religious zealots, who use their devoutness to attack people they don’t like, never to be able to live up to the moral standards they accuse others of breaking. Iris Robinson comes from a proud tradition of born again hypocrites who ask for forgiveness when they sin, yet have no issue with condemning gay people for indulging in the love their religion preaches. And personally I’m sick of them, I’m sick of her and the apology she isn’t making is deafening by its absence; the ‘word of God’ only suits her some of the time it seems. And it really does seem to matter to her:
“I am aware that I did not only hurt Peter, I hurt my family and friends. I let down thousands of people who placed their faith in me and though my medical condition was a factor, I was not, at this time, true to the values, I professed. I grieve that I have damaged my profession in Christ, but I am comforted that He was able to forgive even me.
“I would pay any price on earth to take back the wrong I have done and the hurt I have caused to those around me. I love my husband more than I can ever say. I know this more now than ever before.
“So great was my guilt and regret that I tried to take my own life ten months ago. I have received the best of care and support both from family members and from health professionals. While, as might be expected, I am struggling at present with my illness and receiving treatment I am determined to regain my health and strength, and work to repair the damage I have caused to my marriage and family.
“I do not deserve a second chance but I have been given one. Nothing is more important to me.
“I sincerely apologise to all those I have hurt and let down. I have inflicted deep pain on my husband Peter, my family, friends, staff and all those who have supported me. I am so, so, sorry.”
Nice for her to have been so easily forgiven, and so quickly. And yet she can’t extend this new-found self awareness to the reality that as head of the Stormont health committee she was responsible for causing immense hurt to gay people across the province when she said homosexuality was an ‘abomination’. So some hurts she’s caused remain more important than others (when they actually affect her). Very sad on a human level if she really did try to kill herself, but her behaviour as an MP is no less abominable for it.
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has today supported calls from British Muslims for Secular Democracy to counter a demonstration planned by Islam 4 UK in Wootton Bassett. Islam 4 UK, a group who have held demonstrations in the past calling for Shariah law in the UK, plan to hold the march in the town which has become a symbol of mourning for British service men and women who have died in conflicts abroad.
If the march goes ahead, British Muslims for Secular Democracy are planning to organise a counter demonstration bringing together a number of religious and non-religious groups.
Pepper Harow, Campaigns Officer, stated, ‘The BHA supports free speech, democracy and freedom of belief and expression. By organising this march against such values, Islam 4 UK seek to offend and to divide. The BHA will support any counter demonstration that brings together people from diverse backgrounds and celebrates the values that we share as a free and open society.’
On public order grounds it’s pretty obvious the Islamist march will never take place. I just hope that those so easily drawn into Islamophobia appreciate that Islam 4 UK really doesn’t represent British Muslims.
From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.
This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.
We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.
A law criminalising blasphemy, as the article says ‘abusing or insulting’ anything to do with religion, is dangerous, and is a flat out step backwards in time. We live in an age defined by the rule of law, not ‘God’s law’, where evidence and reason are supposed to hold sway. To protect an idea from attack is just plain backward and must be challenged wherever possible. To that end I’m posting the list of 25 blasphemous quotes which Atheist Ireland published in the link above, which are illegal to publish in Ireland, and which you can read with but a click. Read the rest of this entry »
“Over the years, I have undergone a long series of operations and, though I have never talked about it publicly, I have also battled against serious bouts of depression.
“Only those who have faced similar challenges in life will know the ordeal faced by those who are profoundly depressed, and the distress caused to those around them as they grapple with personality-changing illness. One in four of the population struggle with mental illnesses at one level or another, yet few talk about it openly.
“The stress and strain of public life comes at a cost and my health has suffered. Regrettably, I have concluded, after considering the matter over Christmas and discussing it with Peter, who has always been most supportive and caring, that I can no longer maintain the high standard of service I require of myself, meet the demands of office and cope with the pressures of public life, without my health deteriorating further.”
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Last year Iris compared gay people to murderers and child abusers, and we’re now supposed to be sympathetic towards her because of ‘depression’? I’m sorry, I have no sympathy at all with unashamed homophobes, particularly when they’re elected representatives who make abusive expenses claims against the taxpayer:
Records showed the Robinsons received more than £500,000 a year in salaries and expenses, while a further £150,000 in wages was paid to four relatives – including their daughter Rebekah and son Gareth – for constituency and other work.
An Islington registrar who refused to carry out civil partnerships for gay couples has lost her appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled today that Lillian Ladele had not been discriminated against. She had said she could not hold the ceremonies because of her Christian beliefs.
Lord Neuberger expressed some sympathy for her position but said that in a “modern liberal democracy”, only “very limited exceptions” could be made.
The Christian Institute, which is supporting Ladele, has said it will appeal to the Supreme Court.
The ruling was welcomed by Stonewall.
Director of public affairs Derek Munn said: “Stonewall are pleased that the Court of Appeal has upheld the right of lesbian and gay people to receive public services from public servants. We are glad that Islington council have seen this through for the sake of their lesbian and gay council tax payers.
“You can’t refuse a service to a person based on their gender, race or disability and you can’t on the basis of their sexual orientation either.”
You may remember civil registrar Ladele was fired by Islington Council for refusing to perform civil partnerships, and then took them to a tribunal, alleging religious discrimination. It’s becoming a reassuringly familiar refrain that appeals tribunals and courts, despite the appalling way in which gay and religious rights have been set against one another by this government, have brooked none of this from her or her ultra religious friends. The Christian Legal Centre however thinks otherwise:
“Civil partnerships were not being discriminated against, they were able to be performed by other registrars. Lilian Ladele has been discriminated against because of her Christian convictions.
“In a tolerant and civil society, we should be able to accommodate different groups.
“There will be serious consequences for religious freedom, conscience, acts and speech if we can’t learn to accommodate different groups.”
Except that wasn’t the issue – it was about Ladele refusing both to abide by her employer’s equal opportunities policy and then refusing different work, when offered, for the same pay. She felt that her religion afforded her what would have been essentially special rights – the right to discriminate in her employment on the grounds of belief. Now noone has suggested that she or any other theist should believe anything other than what they want, but their actions in civil society are governed by civil, not religious law. And despite the flaws in our equality legislation under civil law, she’s not allowed to act in a way that is detrimental to gay people. Accommodating the right to discriminate on the grounds of belief would not be the hallmark of a tolerant and civil society, and it’s something Symon Hill acknowledges:
Christians can welcome the court’s decision. We can emphasise that it is not an affront to Christian values – it is a victory for Christian values. Using traditional Christian terminology, we can point that it is not homosexuality, but homophobia, that is sinful. Those of who have gone along with homophobia in the past can declare our repentance of it.
In Jesus Christ, we have a messiah whose life embodied a message of radical inclusivity, a man who challenged religious hypocrisy and the abuse of power, who socialised with outcasts, broke religious and secular laws and forgave his persecutors as they killed him.
The New Testament’s ethical message is that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). It’s time for pro-equality Christians to make clear that our commitment to equality is not in tension with Christianity, or incidental to it, but flows naturally from it. Occasionally, I hear someone say “Symon’s against homophobia, even though he’s a Christian”. That’s just not true. I’m against homophobia because I’m a Christian.
Hill acknowledges the absurdity of Ladele’s position – her objection isn’t to anything she finds abhorrent to her zealous beliefs, just the gay bits. It’s an intellectually vapid take on religion, and fortunately one which neither the legislature nor the judiciary have any interest in enshrining into law.
When Rowan Williams became Archbishop of Canterbury there was a presumption that because he was a more thoughtful, seemingly more liberal man than his predecessor, the Church of England might begin to liberalise from its more recent mysoginistic and homophobic past. Yet at every turn Williams has sought for expediency’s sake to appease the extremists in his camp, so scared is he of leading the Church towards schism. And yet again, with the election of out lesbian bishop Mary Glasspool by the Episcopal Church in the United States, Williams is at it again:
“The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.
“The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees.
“That decision will have very important implications.
“The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.”
“The trouble with a lot of Government initiatives about faith is that they assume it is a problem, it’s an eccentricity, it’s practised by oddities, foreigners and minorities.
“The effect is to de-normalise faith, to intensify the perception that faith is not part of our bloodstream. And, you know, in great swaths of the country that’s how it is.”
And yet faith is a problem, he himself uses it justify bigotry, by implying that the primacy of faith is more important than the rational world of human rights. Faith is not part of our bloodstream, it’s an outmoded habit, but it could quite effectively be brought into the mainstream if the organised religions underpinning it had the guts to stand up against bigotry and for human rights. Although cases do exist where this actually happens (I’m thinking the response by the leaders of all Christian Churches in Liverpool to the murder of Michael Causer and the attack on James Parkes), Anglicanism’s leadership still cravenly panders to the worst bigotry rather than displaying any principles at all. As long as that persists, faith will remain a problem.
Recent Comments