Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
Here is the splendid Lord Justice Laws in McFarlane v Relate:-
"In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content. The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right (and every other person's right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society.
The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.
As I have shown Lord Carey's statement also contains a plea for a special court. I am sorry that he finds it possible to suggest a procedure that would, in my judgment, be deeply inimical to the public interest."
"In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content. The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right (and every other person's right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society.
The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.
As I have shown Lord Carey's statement also contains a plea for a special court. I am sorry that he finds it possible to suggest a procedure that would, in my judgment, be deeply inimical to the public interest."
Bluebarge said:
Paedophilia is an involuntary attribute. The desire to protect children from paedophiles is a voluntary one. I don't think I want to play your game of Top Trumps.
The fact is that there is one predominant sexual behaviour (heterosexual)and many minority behaviours (homosexuality, paedophilia, incest etc). These are all "natural" and involuntary, but some are frowned on for cultural reasons. Homosexuality was frowned on for centuries in many cultures (including our own) but not all. Paedophilia is still frowned on in most cultures except Radio 1. Homosexuality is now increasingly accepted in most elements of our culture but not all. The objections are not exclusively from a religious dimension and Churches are not "homophobic" - they merely believe that marriage should be a permanent union between a man and a woman and will not perform the marriage ceremony where the couple cannot comply with the solemn vows of the ceremony - which is why divorced couples are not normally allowed to marry in Church - gay couples are still welcome in Church, it's just the Church won't amend their ceremonies to encompass something that is contrary to their teaching - whether that be heterosexual couples who have already broken their marriage vows, or gay couples for whom the ceremony was never intended.
So, the fact that homosexuality is gaining acceptance is not a "rational" development which is opposed by the "irrational", it is merely a change in cultural norms; just as it is now unacceptable for a man to marry a girl of 12 who may be sexually mature from a biological perspective, when once it was the norm (and is still the norm in some countries) because women didn't often survive long past their 30's.
So, stop waving your "rational" and "bigot" cards people. There may be a shift in cultural norms, and I think the fairies are slowly winning, but it will take some time and in the meantime we should share some "peace n'love" (although not that sort, obviously).
FWIW, I think this whole issue would be solved by the separation of Church and State, a la Francaise.
Love how you want others to stop labelling and name calling then resort to calling homosexuals "fairies".The fact is that there is one predominant sexual behaviour (heterosexual)and many minority behaviours (homosexuality, paedophilia, incest etc). These are all "natural" and involuntary, but some are frowned on for cultural reasons. Homosexuality was frowned on for centuries in many cultures (including our own) but not all. Paedophilia is still frowned on in most cultures except Radio 1. Homosexuality is now increasingly accepted in most elements of our culture but not all. The objections are not exclusively from a religious dimension and Churches are not "homophobic" - they merely believe that marriage should be a permanent union between a man and a woman and will not perform the marriage ceremony where the couple cannot comply with the solemn vows of the ceremony - which is why divorced couples are not normally allowed to marry in Church - gay couples are still welcome in Church, it's just the Church won't amend their ceremonies to encompass something that is contrary to their teaching - whether that be heterosexual couples who have already broken their marriage vows, or gay couples for whom the ceremony was never intended.
So, the fact that homosexuality is gaining acceptance is not a "rational" development which is opposed by the "irrational", it is merely a change in cultural norms; just as it is now unacceptable for a man to marry a girl of 12 who may be sexually mature from a biological perspective, when once it was the norm (and is still the norm in some countries) because women didn't often survive long past their 30's.
So, stop waving your "rational" and "bigot" cards people. There may be a shift in cultural norms, and I think the fairies are slowly winning, but it will take some time and in the meantime we should share some "peace n'love" (although not that sort, obviously).
FWIW, I think this whole issue would be solved by the separation of Church and State, a la Francaise.
How charming.
Im also quite disturbed by your linking of homosexuality with paedophilia and incest. Without jumping into hysterical waters, paedophilia, incest, necrophilia, bestiality, paraphilia etc are forms sexual behaviour, not sexual orientation or sexual identity. I'm sure Jimmy Savile would still identify as being heterosexual despite his alleged paedophile behaviour.
Now if you are merely expressing that homosexuality was illegal in the same way that those forms of sexual behaviour are are currently, then I would agree with that, and societal change and a concerted campaign by gay rights campaigners brought about the recognition of their orientation and the reversing of the illegality.
But I would strongly disagree and you would be quite wrong, in linking them in ANY other way.
By that logic, someone who does not like black people should face no sanction for refusing to employ them.
Attitudes change through education. The law can give a nudge. In any event, a civilised society is entitled to take the view that it will protect those who have been victims of prejudice. A policy decision is taken to accord the views of the prejudiced less weight than the rights of those affected by such views.
Attitudes change through education. The law can give a nudge. In any event, a civilised society is entitled to take the view that it will protect those who have been victims of prejudice. A policy decision is taken to accord the views of the prejudiced less weight than the rights of those affected by such views.
TallbutBuxomly said:
elster said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Breadvan72 said:
By that logic, someone who does not like black people should face no sanction for refusing to employ them.
Attitudes change through education. The law can give a nudge. In any event, a civilised society is entitled to take the view that it will protect those who have been victims of prejudice. A policy decision is taken to accord the views of the prejudiced less weight than the rights of those affected by such views.
That may be the case but as yet no one has given a reason whereby the lgbt community are being prejudiced against. Attitudes change through education. The law can give a nudge. In any event, a civilised society is entitled to take the view that it will protect those who have been victims of prejudice. A policy decision is taken to accord the views of the prejudiced less weight than the rights of those affected by such views.
It is not prejudicial to not allow them to describe their partnership as marriage as it is merely a descriptive term it gives them no further legal right.
What is being argued is that they feel hard done by as the definition of marriage which has existed for centuries does not include same sex relationships in essence and they want it changed to include them to the detriment of others because by allowing lgbt members to describe themselves in law as married will cause legal issues through the equalities bill.
"I "xxxx", take you "xxxx", to be my civil partner under law"
Thats is the contracting vow/phrase in a civil partnership. Would you feel happy, committing to the person you love, for life, using those words?? I mean their just words right?
Or maybe you would want to use the words that carry the depth of feeling, emotion, love and commitment that the word "husband" or "wife" do. Because that is what same sex couples are currently being denied in law.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Yet again what are these "rights" that the LGBT community are being denied in law that the word marriage would change?
The right to be treated the same as straight people. This is not complicated stuff. The law would be simple to draft and apply. The only problems lie with those who wish to cling to atavistic prejudices. Monotheistic religions have bad hang-ups about sex. They particularly hate female sexuality, but don't like gay people either. Polytheisms tend to be more into partying.
Homosexuals want equality out of spite??
You really are deluded.
Show me examples where in European countries that have same sex marriage, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands for example, where churches have been forced against their will, and against Article 9 of the ECHR to marry homosexual couples.
ETA
Please also show example where there has been a demonstrably detrimental affect to society in the 18 or so countries where same sex marriage is legal. The plummeting of the either the opposite sex marriage rates, huge divorce increases, or a sudden plunge in birth rates after same sex marriage became legal in those countries.
Considering many of those countries consistently appear above the UK in various tables of "the nicest places to live" type indices that weigh social factors etc, I find the hyperbole and unfounded claims of the "the end of society" by the church and other posters on here to be ridiculous.
You really are deluded.
Show me examples where in European countries that have same sex marriage, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands for example, where churches have been forced against their will, and against Article 9 of the ECHR to marry homosexual couples.
ETA
Please also show example where there has been a demonstrably detrimental affect to society in the 18 or so countries where same sex marriage is legal. The plummeting of the either the opposite sex marriage rates, huge divorce increases, or a sudden plunge in birth rates after same sex marriage became legal in those countries.
Considering many of those countries consistently appear above the UK in various tables of "the nicest places to live" type indices that weigh social factors etc, I find the hyperbole and unfounded claims of the "the end of society" by the church and other posters on here to be ridiculous.
Edited by djstevec on Friday 12th October 15:49
TallbutBuxomly said:
walm said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Just because its what you are wearing not your skin colour does not stop it being discrimination.
Actually it does stop it being discrimination.You can change your shoes.
You can't change your skin colour (unless you are Michael Jackson or live in Essex).
did you not read what I posted I said almost exactly the same you :-)
The problem with the "no gays please - I am a Christian" signs is that they are as bad as "no blacks please - I am a racist".
Aren't they?
I think the problem is that Christians still see homosexuality as some sort of choice.
Hence - it's a sin.
If it wasn't a choice - then it would be absurd to suggest that something that was nothing to do with you is somehow your fault.
So these charming Christians running the B&B would never in a million years exclude a black person because - being black isn't a choice - it's not their fault - they were just born that way.
TB - your analogy with dress code also slightly highlights that underlying view, if you see what I mean.
Unfortunately for the church - it isn't a choice.
TB - you say you don't like peas.
Wouldn't you be a little put out if a B&B owner kicked you out because you don't like peas?
Even if they had a sign up saying "no pea-haters - we really love peas"!?
Personally I believe there is a god however I don't live life by the bible nor do I go to church but I am in awe of everything and fail to see how it could just BE hence my belief. People are entitled to believe in god Allah or whatever other deity that they may please and live their lives according to the rules of their faith regardless of whether you me or anyone else may think it is bokum or nuts or stupid .
Hence if I go to a halal restaurant I don't get annoyed when I can't get a bacon sarnie. Its my choice to be there and I consider myself there guest and will not enforce my view on them that bacon is friggin awesome and they are being utterly ridiculous
Same with the b and b analogy there are other b and b's that will take gay couples I see no reason to make a big deal out of someone's faith.
As to the pea issue no I wouldn't be put out at all IF I was made aware in advance of their pea hater stance so that I could go somewhere pea haters were welcomed as contrary to popular belief not everyone hates pea haters...
So do the b&b couple.
However, when they run a business that discriminates based solely upon those religious beliefs, they cross the line.
When a religious organisation says to anyone that is NOT a member of that religion, that they also must live by that churches rules, they also cross that line.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Breadvan72 said:
A Kosher deli does not have to sell sell pork, but will not refuse to sell its products to Gentiles.
Yeah, but a lot of ordinary schools in UK are making ALL the pupils eat Halal meat. I guess you'd probably like to see a few teenage boys in the corridors whey they photograph the F1 drivers walk through after a race victory. No what the hell, make them all teenage boys. And pretty ones too.
OO, your first contribution to this thrad was as follows:-
You say that gay people are not capable of marriage, but why? Marriage is a social construct, which previously our society has not made available to gay people. Our society is now more tolerant, so offers the construct to all. Why should it not do so? I can see only two reasons: (1) religion, and (2) tradition, but neither is a good reason.
Physical ability stops a wheelchair user from dancing in Swan Lake. There is no such impediment to a gay person marrying.
Ozzie Osmond said:
They want us to think they are normal, that's why.
Perhaps a new class of "real marriage of one man and one woman" is needed.
You appear to see gay people as not "normal", even though being homosexual is a natural condition. Your attempt to distinguish between discrimination against people because of their ethnic origin and because of their sexuality fails to explain why in one case discrimination is wrong but in another is acceptable. It's nothing to do with culture; it's to do with making choices on the basis of some fixed attribute that person has. Perhaps a new class of "real marriage of one man and one woman" is needed.
You say that gay people are not capable of marriage, but why? Marriage is a social construct, which previously our society has not made available to gay people. Our society is now more tolerant, so offers the construct to all. Why should it not do so? I can see only two reasons: (1) religion, and (2) tradition, but neither is a good reason.
Physical ability stops a wheelchair user from dancing in Swan Lake. There is no such impediment to a gay person marrying.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Breadvan72 said:
A Kosher deli does not have to sell sell pork, but will not refuse to sell its products to Gentiles.
Yeah, but a lot of ordinary schools in UK are making ALL the pupils eat Halal meat. I guess you'd probably like to see a few teenage boys in the corridors whey they photograph the F1 drivers walk through after a race victory. No what the hell, make them all teenage boys. And pretty ones too.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 13th October 16:49
Ozzie Osmond said:
Breadvan72 said:
You appear to see gay people as not "normal"
That is what I wrote and you are picking at nothing more than the dictionary definition of the word. Substitute "typical" and my meaning may be more precise for you.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff