|Toxic Drums • Home • Book Reviews • Site Navigation • Contact • Blog|
|See also: • God won't save stupid people • Good & Evil • The God Delusion • Good God the Oppressor|
There seems something contradictory about the Pope claiming that the British equality laws are unjust. Slightly ironic too when he won't meet women without them wearing a veil. Can you imagine Jesus refusing to meet women without a veil? Mind you, can you imagine Jesus living in a palace, wearing the most ridiculous head gear, lording it over the rest of the world... hang on... wasn't that what Satan offered Jesus in the desert? Has anyone pointed this out to the Pope? I think he ought to know. He wouldn't be living like he does if he knew. Or is it perhaps that he does know but he doesn't care and most of his "flock" are too "sheep like" to notice?
What is the difference between the Mafia, Catholicism and Fascism? It's not a joke. I just wonder if anyone knows. The Pope accepts child sex abuse in the form of the Jewish practice of circumcision under the guise of "religious freedom". To make a law, a humanitarian law, to prevent adults taking a knife to children and cutting their genitals would, according to the Pope's logic, be an infringement of the "adults" rights to be adults and do what adults do.
The Pope claimed, in his address to the British Bishops on 1 February 2010: "Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society, yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."
Krikey! What sort of paradoxical, contradictory, mind bending nonsense is that? The weird thing is that I completely understand what he means. I really do understand that he thinks he is talking sense. Like the famous quote from the American Major who said, after the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, "In order to save the village we had to destroy it." It's one of the problems with control freaks. They think they are right and simply use the "intellect" to justify their assumed beliefs. It's a psychological distortion but one that works very well in maintaining control. What the Pope is referring to is the effect the equality laws have on Catholic adoption agencies and their rights to deny same sex couples the right to adopt. The Pope's mind is travelling along one line of "deep" thinking that sees the "natural world" as some sort of guide to what is "right" and believes that "nature" (God) provides a male and a female to produce and nurture offspring. He concludes, along this "intellectual" pathway, that it is surely wrong to mix things up by putting a child with two blokes or two females. Well that point is up for grabs. Whether it is right for homosexual couples or lesbians to adopt children is a colourful and interesting consideration (muses to one's self: I wonder if God wanted white couples to adopt black children) but pertinently that is not the question at hand. The question is whether it is acceptable to have one law protecting human rights which does not apply to anyone professing a particular religious belief. Either it is acceptable to discriminate against same sex couples when it comes to adoption or it is not. It is not a question of one sect's chosen beliefs. If there is some reason why a particular couple are deemed to be not "suitable" for adopting children then let that reason be examined. But to discriminate on a categorical basis is fundamentally wrong by the Catholic church's own professed philosophy. To illustrate this point consider the imagined situation where more banks are robbed by gay black people in a particular region (because the black population is discriminated against, marginalised and generally oppressed and deprived of a living and their dignity and self esteem). Would it therefore be reasonable to allow banks (because of their religious fiduciary beliefs) to be an exception to the anti-racist laws and to prohibit black people from entering or using the banks? The answer is "No" it would not be reasonable. It might be practical. But it is not reasonable. In fact, in reality, it is hardly practical because it is actually enforcing and increasing the very cause of the expressed "problem". It is increasing the discrimination which can be clearly seen to be the cause of the "problem". But it is "reasonable", however, to any self interested, self orientated, control freak who wants to look after their own interest at the expense of any arbitrary group of oppressed individuals they can.
Incidentally there are many holes in the Pope's reasoning and another is in his equating "nature" with "God". It is a crafty trick and is slipped in to many an argument. But if "nature" can be used to define God then pretty well anything goes.
The idea that it is reasonable to categorize a set of people because of an interpretation of their beliefs and then to discriminate against anyone who fits that label is a tried and tested abomination.
|See also: • For God's sake lets get real • Do Aliens wear ties? • List of Charities|