The Equality Bill includes a clause set to ensure that religious organisations are not able to discriminate between potential employees on the grounds of a person’s sex or sexual orientation – legislation that Pope Benedict XVI believes “violates natural law”.
It’s not just the pope who’s got himself in a flap about it; Bishops of the Church of England are also expressing concern, although the bill also intends to ban discrimination on religious grounds, so it’s not all bad news for the clergy.
Freedom is a powerful thing, allowing opinions to be voiced without restraints imposed by others. It’s only right that we have religious freedom, freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination on ‘any ground such as race, sex, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion’. The Human Rights Act says so. From that, I assume that no one freedom from discrimination outranks another. If religious freedom impinges on someone’s employment prospects it contravenes their right to freedom from discrimination.
I’m far from being on a high horse about this; I’m more saddling a slightly dishevelled, confused looking pony. My religious knowledge has its holes, so I don’t claim to have all the answers. After all, I’m not the Pope, and nor could I be, as a woman. Besides, I’m not a ‘hat person’ anyway.
The proposed changes to the UK equality legislation take such religious constraints into account. It won’t prevent religious groups from discriminating when appointing people to religious positions.
People who don’t ‘fit in’ with a particular religious ethos won’t be eligible for priesthood within that religion, but they also won’t be refused consideration for non-religious positions such as clerical staff or cleaning posts. I would have thought that this could make a nice compromise, but it still doesn’t quite conform to the tick-box society the Vatican wants to mould us into. If social equality violates natural law then perhaps, for once, I’d actually prefer something synthetic.
It’s no use asking certain religions to ‘move with the times’, and why should we? With Christianity as the lime-lit example, there are plenty of denominations which have taken a step back and re-assessed how to proceed into the twenty-first century.
There are plenty of religious groups that focus on morals rather than rules. There are plenty of groups that uphold their religious beliefs without excluding people. There will, of course, always be groups whose religious beliefs simply can’t coincide with certain practices or ways of life, but is it too much to ask merely to co-exist?
I think it’s rather likely that, by the time the Pope visits the UK in September, he’ll be more in favour of the bill than he’ll let on.
Those in power will have to listen fairly to his potentially controversial statements, protected from religious discrimination by equality legislation.
At a time of all-time lows in Church attendance, peaks in atheism and general media unease of all things papal, it seems that the Pope has bigger fish to fry.

1. Terrtulian
A thoughless article. Some thoughts to think about for next time. There is such a thing as religious liberty. People who work for the labour party, communist party or national secularist society are required to be in favour, sympathetic and agreement with it’s aims. Then what is wrong with the catholic church so “discriminating”? The Pope, would rather I live according to catholic teaching, I don’t. However he has the right to persuade me so to do.Is That what you mean by Vatican wants to mould us into. That is his human right, along with a billion or so Catholics to assemble as a church. You have a rigtht to argue against his and thier views. However, don’t insult the intelligence of the readers of this newspaper. Church attendence at time low? What! the growth in Christain church attendence in the the wolrd has continued rigtht through the 20th Century. Perhaps you are being Euro-centirc (I’m saying racist). In West-Europe church attendence did decline. However in eastern europe the people gladly dispence with state athism and the Orthdox and catholic churchs are blooming. In Britain since 2000 the millienium, the 20th century decline is no longer the trend. The just published 2008 British Social att survey clearly shows this.
2. Terrtulian
sorry not lost I’m NOT saying racist, lol.
3. Adam Troth
Terrtulian, there is a very clear difference between the Labour Party discriminating against people who hold conservative views, and the Catholic Church discriminating against homosexuals and women.
Your political views are something that you have an element of choice over. Your gender (sex change operations aside) and sexuality are not something which you can choose to change as people do with their political opinions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7054097/Average-age-of-churchgoers-now-61-Church-of-England-report-finds.html
The Telegraph can hardly be accused of holding an anti-Christian agenda, so this article punches quite hard in my view. When people talk about church attendance dropping, they usually mean specifically in Great Britain. Other parts of the world are certainly experiencing rebirths and fluctuations in religious observance.
It is time that the Church realised that it is not above the law, and its values do not automatically trump everyone else’s. When they bang on about “forcing Catholics to put children for adoption with gay couples violates their freedom of conscience”, they are talking nonsense. Freedom of conscience means the right to believe whatever you please. It does not give you carte blanche to discriminate against those you judge to be unworthy or immoral.
If the Government were to grant the Catholic Church exemptions under the Equality Bill, it would be sending out a message that it does not take gay rights or women’s liberation seriously. If it comes to a choice between ensuring that gay people are free to express themselves in public and that women are no longer marginalised, or allowing a bunch of hypocritical old men in purple dresses to undermine social progress, I know which one I’m backing.
4. Liam Lord
Terrtulian,
As I understand it, the law has already been changed to stop Religious groups discriminating against ‘heretics’ in roles where the right creed isn’t essential for the job. The objections are directed at a clarification to the bill to make this clearer, required by religious groups’ flouting of the law. I may however, be wrong.
I have some sympathy for your argument, however that’s a longer post.
5. Terrtulian
Ok, Liam I understand your point. However, I have faith in the judgment of the first class lawer and Bishop John Semantu and the highly intelligent Bishop Rowan Williams. Both of whom I have have met and heard talk on a number of occaissions. The concern is not that cleaners or catering staff might have non-christian life styles as this article states. Rather that the non-ministerial or preistly but teaching roles such as youth group leaders and faith-school Heads, will be affected. You probably would rather such didn’t exsist however they do and in demand from families which want education with Christian, Jewish and other faith values.
6. Liam Lord
Terrtulian, thanks for the reply- if you don’t mind, why do you post under the name Terrtulian? I’m curious about that.
I’m afraid we won’t agree on the intelligence of those 2 gentleman, though I know far less about John Sentamu, I have a low opinion of Rowan Williams. I have read a fair amount from him and think he can talk for a long time without saying anything. I must applaud his ability for doublethink as well.
On the matter of youth group leaders or faith school heads, I think you have a point. If they are employed to preach the ethos of the organisation, they should be able to do so. You are also right in that I would rather that children were not brought into any religion before they are old enough to have really thought about it. The values of behaviour that I assume you intend with the term ‘faith values’ can be taught non-religiously just as well IMO. That said, I’m assuming what you meant by faith values. I don’t doubt the demand from religious parents, but I believe there are grave risks to have state sanctioned faith schools. That is however another discussion.
7. Terrtulian
Pluarism and liberal democracy which I support means not choice between ensuring that gay people are free to express themselves in public and that women are no longer marginalised, or allowing “a bunch of hypocritical old men in purple dresses to undermine social progress”. It means not allowing any group to oppress the rights of the other. Roman-Catholics have the right to express themselves in public. Young sincere student ones in your old uni. Such as Gordon Lawerence for instance.
8. Terrtulian
that last post was a reply to Adam’s Contribution.
9. Adam Troth
Of course Roman Catholics have the right to express themselves in public. However, the rest of us have the right to criticise these beliefs when they are stark raving bonkers, malicious or discriminatory, and should be able to do so without being accused of being disrespectful.
“Not allowing any group to oppress the rights of others?” What about the rights of gay people to not be treated like second class citizens? What about the right of women to access the morning-after pill without having to go between several pharmacists? The rights of children not to be physically abused or indoctrinated with unscientific, backward-minded, Medieval claptrap? As with many religious people, you only seem to give a hoot for your own rights, and to Hell with everybody else’s. Where there are potential conflicts of rights, everyone else must back down whilst the religious will steadfastly refuse to compromise.
And you wonder why people are turning away from the Church in droves.
10. Liam Lord
Although the last comments were directed to Adam, if I may interject: I found Gordon Lawrence decidedly insincere in fact.
He wrote an article for GR full of misinformation and bigotry that pushed the vatican’s dogma on contraception and sexuality. Many contributors noted this and asked if he was catholic as it would explain the bizarre combination of rules raised. He dodged the question repeatedly, then gave a carefully worded ambiguous statement, then disappeared when questioned further. A brief facebook search revealed that elsewhere, he is proud to call himself catholic. For this deception, I find him insincere, and wrote a counter article.
As for not allowing one group to oppress another, the Catholic church is particularly bad for this. Their refusal to let same sex couples adopt from their agencies, as Adam wrote, is one such example.
11. Jonathan
It’s a responsiblity not a right to adopt children. The child comes first, that’s princple enshiren in the 1986 childrens act and the UN child convension.( let not digression way lay us). He and the RCs have views I don’t share. Indeed I find many RC teaching on the subject bizzar. However, to express a dislike for the comodification of male and female bodies and thier congress. I do not find bigoted. Deception? What did he say “it’s not the entire reason for my views” or something like that. Yes he didn’t want to be dissmissed as just a robotic catholic. I read your article, sorry I thought it was Adam’s. I also talked to Gordon. You had a rigtht to publish your article. I think, it needed more editorial input. However, that is my view.
12. Jonathan
Calm down Adam. I will demostrate for your rights. Given you suffer, what I consider a violation of them. Being never offend is not one of them. As you yourself have said. Also I toke part in the MBC2 demo for be half of the Islamist Assaid Begum. He later became head of youth Respect. Giving a interview to the Islam TV channel. I shan’t go back to our so very long discussion from before. However, you should have a look at the 2008 BSA survey report, which has just been published. The trend in church attendence is no longer down ward, even in Little Britian.
13. Liam Lord
Jon/Terrtulian- are you one and the same?
“It’s a responsiblity not a right to adopt children. The child comes first, that’s princple enshiren in the 1986 childrens act and the UN child convension.( let not digression way lay us). He and the RCs have views I don’t share. Indeed I find many RC teaching on the subject bizzar.”
Sweet, common ground!
” However, to express a dislike for the comodification of male and female bodies and thier congress. I do not find bigoted.”
Oh… kay… Merriam Webster defines a bigot as ” a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
I would say rejecting a happy, healthy, loving couple the chance to adopt because the couple is same sex or heteronormative is bigotry. Would you not?
As for Gordon, that’s essentially what he said. The issue was his hidden interest- he was acting as a robotic Catholic, following their dogma against the evidence. If someone has a hidden agenda that can detract from the validity of their arguments. His avoiding questions on it was, as I said, IMO dishonest.
I’d also agree with you that the article needed more editorial input. The word limit was very constraining, resulting in it being overly concise. The trouble is that refuting a lie takes longer than telling it, and I would have liked the extra 500 words to go into detail why Gordon and the dogma he slyly promoted is thoroughly wrong. Still, I had to make do with the word limit.
Gordon can say “I’m a Catholic, I believe the Vatican is correct and I follow their teaching for that reason.” Fine. But when he poses as an objective reporter and writes flawed, biased statements, he deserves to be called out on them.
14. Adam Troth
Jonathan, of course adopting children is not something anyone should have an absolute right to do. Naturally, the child’s welfare has to be considered as paramount. However, when I say that gay couples should have the right to adopt, what I mean is that they should not be treated any less favourably than anyone else on account of their sexuality.
I did indeed read the BSA report you cited in a previous discussion. I would equally suggest you read the Telegraph article I highlighted in post 3. The figures it gives are for 2009, and are therefore more up to date than the BSA report. Also, the Telegraph is a rag which prides itself on journalistic integrity, and is about the last media outlet which you could accuse of having an even remotely anti-Christian bias. Keep repeating that “church attendance is not falling” as long and as hard as you like. It will not make it come true. The Telegraph’s article not only gives some very damning figures on the marginalised role of Christianity in Britain, but also shows that the average churchgoer is in their sixties, and many of them will be merely cultural Christians who go out of loyalty to the flock, to see old friends and get them out of the house. All in all, a pretty damning report from a newspaper which is usually very sympathetic towards Christianity.
15. Terrtulian
Who wants gay people to treated like second class citizens? Tolerance is your only right. Freedom from hate crimes, not that every body must be nice to you. Believe it or not not everybody likes me. That’s thier right. You seem to be implying if anyone disagrees with you or Peter Tatchell they are homophibic. Having to shop around for morning after pill. A family planning clinic would be my recondemdation. So put a bus ride or a few telephone calls beside the pain inflicted forcing a pharmist to go against thier faith and ethics. Forgive me if I have the wrong idea. However, it seems sexual rights above all else are, for you, a top trump all other rights. Why? yes sex is important. Unless you cause GBH (mutilation etc.) on your adult partner or partners. I wouldn’t want restrict those rights of yours. However, you must understand to a RC the morning after pill or abortion or euthaniasia is killing human life. You disagree ok. I’m not a paificist but ever I will fight for thier right not to be conscripted.
16. Jonathan
It’s worrying the Church of England, has problems. The rump that cals itself the Church in Wales doubly so. I could bore you to tears about what they are however I won’t. The C of E only amounts to 1/3 of church attendence in England. The WIC is marginal in Wales. The evanglical part of both of those churches is the part which is growing. The anglo-catholic or high church is the dying part. While it decomposes it will depress church attendence. When it ceases to be a hinderence to serving the people of english parishes the growing part will take over. Such a process is starting even in the CIW. That assumes anglocatholics don’t realise Jesus didn’t come to make pretty churches, burn insence and play organs.
17. Adam Troth
Jonathan, since when have I ever mentioned Peter Tatchell? While I do not agree with many of his political views, you have to at least commend him for putting his own life and limb repeatedly in danger to campaign for equal rights for gay people.
You do not seem to be able to get any of the ideas behind asking for the morning-after pill into your head. The pill is at its most effective when taken as soon as possible after possible conception. Therefore, timing is of the essence. It may not be a huge issue somewhere like Cardiff, but late at night and in rural areas, it can be a real inconvenience.
You have a lot of cheek harping on about the “pain inflicted on a pharmacist to go against their faith and ethics.” They are public servants, paid for by taxpayer’s money. They exist to provide us, the public, with a service, not to inconvenience the rest of us with their religious beliefs at what is often a very stressful and difficult time. A pharmacist who will not dispense the morning after pill for religious reasons is not fit to do his job. Nobody forces anybody to train to become a pharmacist. It really does make me very angry because often the Christians who moralise about contraception and the morning after pill have no personal experience of either. In the words of Andy Parsons “how has it got to the stage where those of us who never have sex, are telling those of us who do have sex, how to have sex?”
“to a RC the morning after pill… is killing human life.” Fair enough, they have the right to believe that. However, they certainly shouldn’t expect everybody else to simply go along with it without question, or for it to inconvenience people who have fallen foul of a Durex’s 3% failure rate.
As with their ongoing persecution of gay people, there is no firm evidentary basis for the Catholic church’s opposition to the morning-after pill etc. They merely recite “it is against our religion” like you’ve set off a motion sensor somewhere, and everyone else is expected to just respectfully tiptoe away. That may have been the case for years, and still be the case for some, but it is paramount that people stand up to this tyranny and do not let religion be the trump card once again.
18. Adam Troth
Jonathan, the study may have been carried out by the Church of England, but as far as I can tell, the study is of all church attendance across the board, not only in Anglican ones. It is remarkable how the Anglican church is dying, while evangelical ones are growing. In the context of numbers still reducing overall, it says a lot about how Britain is now a culturally Christian or post-Christian nation rather than an intrinsically Christian one. While most people did use to be broadly religious, it is now the case that most people are not, and religion is now left to a small dying breed of rabid evangelists. Incidentally, “evangelist” can be re-arranged to spell “evil’s agent, a joke that is probably lost on Jonathan unless he has made it his New Year’s resolution to spellcheck his GR forum comments.
19. Liam Lord
Terrtulian/Jonathan- are you one and the same? If so, it’s silly to post using sock puppets.
‘Who wants homosexuals treated like second class citizens?’, you ask? Well, broadly speaking, the religious do. That is however, broad. The Vatican is already doing it, refusing rights to marriage, to jobs, to adopting a child- and yet they claim that THEY are discriminated against?
I didn’t bring up Peter Tatchell and don’t know enough about his specific campaigns to be for or against him. You seem to have raised a straw man there. What I did write was this:
” However, to express a dislike for the comodification of male and female bodies and thier congress. I do not find bigoted.”
Oh… kay… Merriam Webster defines a bigot as ” a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
I would say rejecting a happy, healthy, loving couple the chance to adopt because the couple is same sex or nonheteronormative is bigotry. Would you not?
An answer to that would be appreciated.
As for why sexual rights seem to be the ones we stand up for most, it’s because they’re the ones most readily under attack by Religions. However, Free Speech, Research and Medical Ethics are also areas of contention.
I understand that a RC claims to believe what he believes, but I don’t see this match up with his actions. As such, I doubt his sincerity. Furthermore, I agree with Adam- Access to the morning after pill is provided on the NHS. Citizens have paid for that access via tax. Pharmacists took the job knowing that they could be required to …well, frankly, DO the job. They have, in my opinion, no valid reason.
Additionally, to compare the ‘hurt and anguish’ the pharmacist may feel to the terror, and potential embarassment of the potential mother is crass.
Lastly, we’re a little far into this discussion, it would be great if we could keep the tone calm and civil. If we’re asked questions, it’s best to answer them, otherwise there’s no point in continuing. I’m enjoying this discussion and would like to continue enjoying it.
20. Jonathan
Yes, the torygraph (not a spelling mistake) does assume a knowege of CofE terms. The Church here refers to the Church of England. ASA is a measure used by the CofE for it’s performance. Actually alot of Christians like jokes like that. Did you know the Ned Flanders character int he simpsons is loved by many. See the book the gospell according to the simpsons. Rabid evanglists? thier are many differing cultures and churchmanships downder the evanglical label. The southern baptists “God hate fags” type are loved by the media however are not representive of the vast majority. Barrack Obama is Evangelical, yet few would describe him as a reactionary regressive or right Christian. I wouldn’t surgest you would.
21. Jonathan
Excuse me Adam, please don’t generalise. Did doesn’t help your case and is indeed more than iritating. Only Catholics ban controception. I’ve have used hundreds of condoms myslef. My farther had them in his underware draw. So I expect my parents did too. I have also distributed them. I can tell you in very rural areas doctors have stocks of drugs, from my own exprience (living in the Western Isles). PCT job is to take such issues in to account and make provision. Along with the the morning afterpill, mechanical process can be performed before the Zygot implants. If a woman can’t get emergancy treatment, I would say she is a long way from a chemist. Actuall Chemists are private enterpise.
22. Adam Troth
Jonathan, I used the words “Christians often have no experience of contraception”. Not all, or even a majority. Often. Please read what I’ve written before you go making accusations. As for my being irritating, well nobody forces you to come on here. There’s a little cross in the top right-hand corner of your screen, try clicking it so that the rest of us don’t have to put up with your illiterate spannerbrained musings.
Whether pharmacists are private enterprises or not really is clutching at straws. In either case, they are trained using taxpayer’s money, and provide a near monopoly on a vital service. Is it not unreasonable to expect any given pharmacist to do the job they are paid to do, without forcing their religion onto me or a female who is quite probably going through a very difficult time?
23. Jack Dance
Adam – Oh yes you can. Gender is chosen. Call it by its new name – sexual orientation, it is till learnt, it is still a life choice.
24. Liam Lord
Hi Jack,
If you come into the discussion quite late, it would be helpful to either directly quote from or state which post you’re replying to.
As for gender and sexual orientation, I’m interested to know how you form your opinion on it. Gender is not chosen- it is a function of genetics. You can be superficially modified to resemble a different gender, but you cannot change it.
Gender is very different from sexual orientation- which is indeed very flexible. As I understand it, there’s a blend of innate factors which combine with societal influence which ultimately create our ‘sexual orientation’. As for it being a life choice, I again have to disagree with you, based on the above. Additionally, the description f sexuality as a ‘life choice’ is typically a religious habit- are you of that persuasion? If not, how did you come to your conclusion?
25. Rachel
I’m not sure where to start! I’ve enjoyed reading the discussion provoked by the article but I’ll just reply to the comments initially aimed in my direction.
Terrtulian, I’m afraid I couldn’t quite work out, from your first two posts, whether or not you were implying that I am a racist and it would set my mind at rest if you could clarify that for me please.
When I mentioned declining church attendees I wasn’t just being Euro-centric, I was being UK-centric as the opinion piece was in relation to the UK legislation currently being discussed. There appears to be some disagreement about whether or not church attendance figures are falling or in the UK or not, so in retrospect it would have been better not to have included that in my piece.
I also hope that nobody else felt that I was insulting ‘the intelligence of the readers of this newspaper’. As a reader of gair rhydd, I rather like the readers and wouldn’t dream of intentionally insulting them!
Finally I feel that to reply with “A thoughtless article.” is a thoughtless response. I assure you that a lot of thought went into writing this opinion piece, and although you may not agree with those opinions they are mine to express in gair rhydd.
I tried to consider whether parts of my article would offend individuals, and I apologise if this is the case, however I can’t alter the fact that I don’t share the pope’s views on certain matters.
As a closing remark, I’d like to point out that I didn’t choose the title of the piece and wouldn’t have written ‘for God’s sake’ out of choice.
26. Tertulitian
“sorry not lost I’m NOT saying racist, lol.” means I left out a vital not in mypost. Therefore I wasn’t saying you were racist. Euro-centricism is a term so used by some wirters, so I wanted to clarifiy. Looks like the ommission of the not word succeded in muddying the point.
27. Tertulitian
Not a chance!, Adam will I alow coments like “so that the rest of us don’t have to put up with your illiterate spannerbrained musings” etc.. prevent me form taking part in this forum. It is my right as much as yours. No, more so as you are not a Cardiff student at all.
28. Liam Lord
Heya Tertulian (you’ve changed the spelling?)
Since you’re here, how about answering the questions put to you?
For instance, are you Jonathan posting under a different name? Your styles became remarkably similar a few posts ago, and neither of you have answered this question. Trying to avoid the 9th commandment by omission?
29. Tertulitian
Tertulitian I think is right. He was a lawer, Christian Apologist and Marytr. He lived in second century Lyon. He wrote in Latin one of his witist lines was “the Christains to the lion, all of them to one lion? My neighbours wife? ok no problem.
30. Liam Lord
Thanks for the info: it’s so interesting that I missed you dodging the question put to you 11 posts ago.
31. Tertulitian
“We are of a patch work,none of us the the same. Each is more different to themselves than we are from each other.” Montian the essays
Nom de plumes are away to avoid many things vilolence, threats, predujice…etc They have been a weapon in the fight for liberty threw many centuries. They have been used by contributers to GR’s pages. All ways telling everybody everthing, even when asked is not the only way to stand for the truth.
32. Liam Lord
Nom de plumes and sock puppetry are also good ways to sound like a pretentious cunt. Another way is to dodge questions with irrelevent asides – especially ones quoting from antiquity.
Don’t want to be accused of lying?Don’t lie. Your equivocation is plain as day.
33. Tertulitian
The renasence actually, he was a contempory of shakeshpere. My “equivocation” is my right. I don’t need to answer your questions. Puppetry has also had a long history in politics and what I want to do with my old socks is my right. Lying is also a right, many lives have been saved by careful use of deception. However, I have not used it here and only do so sparingly.
34. Tertulitian
So in these new Neurenburg Laws for what occupations will Catholics be baned? Doctors, Pharmacy, Scientist,Teachers and Academics are some of calling, you say they are unsuitable for.
35. Liam Lord
Jonathan-
1) It makes no difference if he was from the Renaissence, antiquity or Qing era China. You still sounded like a pretentious cunt. Now, you sound like a pedantic, pretentious cunt.
2) You say ‘noms de plume’ (If you weren’t deludely trying to prove your intellectual might you might say Pseudonym) protect from violence, threats and prejudice. True, but this is the GR forums. Do you honestly fear violence or threats? Grow up. As for prejudice, I think you’re deluding yourself. You have been judged solely upon what you have written. Your arguments have been found wanting. That is not prejudice, it is discussion.
In the case of the Gordon Lawrence, he was not called out for being Catholic but for dishonestly hiding that fact and hiding his agenda.
Perhaps you want to avoid being associated with unfortunate past statements? Tough, that’s called accountability. I post under my full name, and don’t mind people knowing it is me writing. I stand by my statements and haven’t tried to conceal my identiity with sock puppets. Especially sock puppets which attempt to make you sound cleverer than you evidently are. That would make you a pathetic, pedantic, pretentious cunt.
3) You may indeed equivocate, but that has no place on a discussion board. Here, people state their opinions and defend them when questioned. You can equivocate, but then you aren’t defending your position, which is the whole point of being here.
However, you, I and anyone following this already knows why you won’t answer. You are Jonathan, writing under a prickish pseudonym, and have been found out. Sock puppetry is looked down on. You won’t admit to it, but you also don’t want to lie, as you think I’ll cite that lie as evidence of your hypocrisy and the patheticness of your claim to moral standards based on religion.
You’d be right. I will do that, because it would be true. Truth hurts doesn’t it? So, how to avoid that trap? Well, you ignore the question, thinking it will go away. But it won’t, because everything we write is recorded here. I can read back what we wrote and see whether or not you answered. You didn’t.
So then, you try to blindside me with trivia. Didn’t work. Then you claim privilege- implying you need the nom de plume to protect you from the big mean atheists and their nasty questions. You say it’s your right! We can’t make you answer! So, that’d make you a prevaricating, pathetic, pedantic, pretentious cunt.
But then again, that’s a strong charge. Maybe you’re not Jonathan, you’re just strongly principled or… something. Either way, you could have answered a long time ago and we could have continued the discussion.
You’re right in that you don’t have to answer my questions. I also don’t have to continue a conversation with a prevaricating, pathetic, pedantic, pretentious cunt, and will not do so. After all, your childish refusals to answer a simple question clearly mark you as someone unsuited to a discussion board. In the future, I am unlikely to respond to you- this isn’t the prejudice you fear, this is knowledge. Knowledge combined with that from our previous discussion, that you are a childish, hypocritical and unpleasant prick who claims religious moral superiority and demonstrates none of it.
36. Lianne Wilson
Christ on a bike, I got into this discussion late! Bloody hell! Well, it’s useless for me to try and catch up, but there are one or two points I wouldn’t mind raising. This discussion as been a very entertaining read, after all.
Adam and Liam, excellent arguments as always. Full marks :)
Terrtulian/Tertulitian/Jonathan/Whatever: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Where do we start with you?
Firstly, creating a second ghost profile is a cheap trick that is considered against the rules on most forums and would get you banned. The only reason you ‘get away wit it’ here is because there aren’t any actual user accounts. It tells me several things: that you think you’re doing badly on the GR forums and need back-up, that you’re uncertain enough of your ability in debate to make a ‘nom de plume’ or, as it is less poncily called, ‘fake account’, that you’re devious and not afraid to mislead and cheat, that you may have some kind of social problem and that you’re a complete idiot if you thought anyone would be fooled by a misspelled account name posting the exact same woeful, misspelled arguments as your previous woeful, misspelled arguments. Nice disguise.
Secondly, it is a right to be able to seek the adoption of children just as it is a responsibility to succeed in doing so. Whilst the child does indeed come first, I don’t see how refusing to let them be adopted by a loving, caring couple who happen to be same-sex is putting their needs first. If the choice is between a loving gay home and continuing to live off the state in an orphan’s home or be shuttled around foster care, the adoption agency should, whether secular, Catholic or whatever, let the child be adopted without hesitation. Refusing to let a healthy gay couple adopt is damaging to both the gay couple and the child. You say “However, to express a dislike for the comodification of male and female bodies and thier congress. I do not find bigoted”. I would really like to know what you mean by this.
Thirdly, Adam is entirely right on the issue of pharmacists. If they accept a job, whether it is state-funded or not, then they have the duty to fulfil the requirements of that job whether it goes against their personal preferences or not. Pain doesn’t come into it.
Fourthly, Rowan Williams is intelligent? He couldn’t hold an opinion if it was glued to his hands! Peter Tatchell, on the other hand, is pretty good. Yeah, he occasionally takes it a bit too far, but mostly he’s a stalwart campaigner for gay rights, among other things, and he also attempted to arrest Robert Mugabe, which makes him seriously awesome.
Lastly, Tertulitian is not right. It is Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, known as Tertullian. Since we all are certainly enjoying hearing his many witticisms and musings, let’s have another one, shall we? How about this one written about women: “Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.”
Jack Dance: Gender is not chosen and gender is not the same as sexual orientation. They are entirely different. The only way one can choose one’s gender is by having a sex change operation. This does not change the basics of the body, it simply sort of layers femininity on top of the basic rather masculinity.
Sexual orientation is not chosen either. It is not learnt and it is not a life choice. No, there isn’t a gay gene, but that doesn’t mean one chooses one’s sexuality. Did you choose yours? Forgive me for assuming you’re straight here, you tend to find this sort of idiotic idea most amongst straight people (this isn’t supposed to be an attack against straight people, but I find that that group contains the most people who think like this), so when exactly did you choose to become straight? You didn’t, of course.
37. Lianne Wilson
Also, the Pope versus Harriet Harman? To the death? That’s a tough one.