andygates

I'll be joining the National Secular Society's demonstration when he does arrive.

Oh, and they have a petition: http://www.secularism.org.uk/petition-the-pm.html

From:

We pay for all sorts of visiting nobs to get protection, it's part of being a World Power don'tcha know? :)

Like I said elsewhere: Pope to Lords: "You're big meanies for pushing this equality bill. We won't be able to discriminate against faggots and freaks. They'll overrun us!"

Griffin to Commons: "You're big meanies for making us take people of all races. We won't be able to discriminate against faggots and niggers. They'll overrun us!"

...I await an argument that separates the vile Griffin from the Holy Father on this one. "Tradition" isn't enough.

From:

...I await an argument that separates the vile Griffin from the Holy Father on this one

Purely for the intellectual challenge, I accept your gauntlet.

Holy Father is the spokesman for the One That Drowned the World(TM), so is basing his arguments on a belief in a moral absolute. His argument is therefore the same as the argument Rabbis would raise if a law was passed requiring everyone to feed their children prawns; that believers should not be forced to commit acts of sin.

Nick Griffin however is arguing from a position of traditional British society and, as such, makes his argument implicitly subject to the very rejection of absolutes that characterises English legal history.

From:

But surely that only works if the Equality Bill mandated buttsecs for all? As it is, it merely prevents discrimination against the sinner, it doesn't force anyone to commit the sin themselves.

From:

And indeed it doesn't force anyone to employ anyone. That's the kind of scaremongering rubbish the right put out.

From:

It has been a while since I poked Catholicism, so I might not be perfect in my understanding; however, there are certain things that cannot be done for someone in a state of mortal sin, such as giving communion. Therefore preventing discrimination for a role that requires the taking of communion (such as the priesthood) is forcing the person giving the communion into a state of sin.

From:

Indeed, but confession & absolution are a requirement before receiving communion anyway, and that's the magic eraser of mortal sin. Secondly, priesthood in Catholicism involves celibacy, so it doesn't matter what the priest's orientation might be, he's not getting any, and if he *is* getting any, then he's in a state of mortal sin even if he's doing the ladies.

From:

If prawns, why not stoning? Consistency, else accept that it's all whims.

And Griffin is arguing from a *fictional* tradition. May as well be arguing that there should be a ban on elf/dwarf interracial marriages. All of the Oleaginous One's points are just rationalisations of a gut reaction.

Hmm, actually...

From:

I think they are both wrong, but that is my whim. The difference is that Griffins appeal to Britishness can be rationally shown to be fictional, whereas Rat-zinger's argument is based on the word of his god, so cannot be attacked without proof of (i) what his god actually said, or (ii) proof his god does not exist.

From:

I can show that his bok is not a trubok. Start with inconsistencies and work from there, a trivial operation beloved of teens falling out of love with the Church the world over.

Unfalsifiability in the real world is usually indicative of a scam. ;)

From:

simoneck.livejournal.com

Interestingly, isn't Leviticus the main bit saying no man on man action and doesn't that also mention no shellfish (along with no mixed fiber clothing).

From:

As far as I know most, if not all, of the "rule" come from Leviticus.

There is quite a thriving industry in DaVinci-Code-esque novels and conspiracy texts on Christian sects who did not accept the Levites as religious authorities.

I think there is even a theory that Leviticus was added in to texts much later by the priestly class as an attempt to control the populace.

What is interesting is that the Council of Nicea kept it in the authorised line-up but did not mandate observance of all of it.

From:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/02/pope-benedict-harman-equalities-bill

Presumably they liked shrimp more than buttsecks.

From:

simoneck.livejournal.com

The holy father - our club has had very definate rules saying our priests should be both male and celibate for a very very long time and this bill might stop us applying that rule of ours.

Griffin - I believe (and also think that lots of other people in this country think) that we don't want people with different skin pigments to come to this country. Though frankly I haven't read what Griffin is saying about this, I'm just guessing.

One is saying this goes against certain rules his club has, the other is saying that this goes against certain rules he would quite like the club he's a member of to have.

From:

simoneck.livejournal.com

From:

The nub of this (once you get past the anti-Harman screed) is "it is illiberal to enforce liberalism" and that's bunk. It's the interpretation of liberalism as so open that it'll let anything in, even fascists: so open-minded that its brain has fallen out.

"We shall tolerate everything except intolerance" is a better liberal truism. It sounds similar, but it works: if you accept intolerance then you accept the diminishment of tolerace over time. If you believe (as I do) that the greatest benefit to the greatest number comes from the greatest tolerance, then intolerance must be challenged at all times.

Popeface's argument, anyway, is bogus. He implies that hordes of poofs will try to get senior positions in the church. Why on earth would they want to do that? How on earth would they do it when the church is strictly hierarchical - you don't just get to be an Archbishop by applying on monster.com. Senior people are known in the ecosystem. It's bogus as point of fact and it's rhetorically bogus because it clearly uses the slippery-slope "and then where will we be?" threat.

Why, we might end up with a church full of skirt-wearing boy botherers!

How would they even tell the difference?

From:

The whole 'they'll make us put poofs in the church' thing is nonsense anyway; religioners get an exclusion clause: http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/Equality%20Bill%20and%20Religion%20for%20press%20and%20website%20%283%29.pdf

From:

So it's not even mere homophobic scaremongering, it's an outright lie?

From:

Basically, yes.

Although they could be compelled to offer 'services' (eg the adoption row again) to gayerists, and they could be compelled to employ gayerists as accountants or cleaners. But there's absolutely no suggestion that they will have to employ gay people or women in a religious role such as a priest.

From: