An old and extremely rich German wearing funny clothes and a bizarre hat who, ostensibly, has neither knowledge nor experience of sex or sexuality, is going to the UK to share his outdated, uninformed, biased and bigoted views on homosexuality with anyone there who is still prepared to listen to the current pope. One of his defenders says he is only saying what his followers believe about this subject, but that doesn't wash. He is supposed to be a leader and I think he has made his views pretty clear on other occasions.
The pope feels that recent legislation in the UK runs counter to natural law. What 'natural law' is he talking about? Is he talking about the findings of a scientific community or some community of experts or is he merely using a meaningless phrase that anyone can use to support whatever prejudice they happen to be hawking? My question is merely rhetorical, by the way. I could claim that it runs counter to natural law to abstain from sex (or to purport to) but the fact that having sex is natural to many people does not preclude others from deciding to abstain. This is not because there is any 'natural law' involved, it's just that people are entitled to decide for themselves.
Such laws as the ones the pope is complaining about, the Equality Bill and the like, do not "impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs". They have no bearing on religious communities doing anything except things that are already illegal, such as discriminating against others on the grounds of their sexual orientation, for example. I would hate to have to list for the pope the excesses that have been perpetrated over the centuries by religious communities and the lengths that his colleagues have gone to in order to allow such excesses to continue, despite their being proscribed by (positive) law.
Religious communities acting in accordance with their religious beliefs, whatever that happens to mean, doesn't itself sound like something governed by 'natural law'. Or perhaps the pope would claim otherwise. Perhaps some religions are more natural than others. Perhaps having no religion is 'unnatural', at least, according to natural law. But to be frank, the pope's defender seems to have to resort to meaningless arguments to defend his boss. For example "[the pope] wants his reasoned voice – formed by the treasures of the Christian heritage which is deeply embedded in our culture – he wants that voice to be heard", etc, blah blah.
The current pope follows a long line of popes who have done everything they can to perpetuate various forms of bigotry and discrimination. I'm surprised he is intending to spread his vitriol in the UK, where I imagined most people to be fairly unswayed by any particular religion. But he has certainly done a lot of damage in African countries he visited. Perhaps he hopes for the same level of 'success' elsewhere. The man seems to have little respect for concepts like human rights and democracy and I hope he gets an appropriate reception, wherever he goes.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Religion is exactly what it preaches,exactly what it does,and exactly what its orgins,and dogma have and continue to be.
Religion is the organized use of a belief for its purposes of social comformity.
It can be argued that it is by historical orgins and present use... as being organized discrimination for purposes to discriminate in a creation of social comformity if not social dictatorship that uses the concept of a God to justify its concepts of social order.
Early civilizations used different forms of worship,i.e idol worship,nature worshop and or single or many god worships as a means of creating early forms of law and order.
This is found thoughout history and is still used in areas of the world as a means of social law and submission of women and or differing lifestyles.
To believe in God and believe this same God created it all then for a religion to selectively judge parts of it as being an abomination, is for a religion to place itself not only in judgment of others but also in judgment of the very thing it believes in.
A religion that says a God created laws for a disobeying species to obey then to give those same laws to the very same disobeying species to enforce? is letting the fox run the chicken house.
There is no problem with a personal belief in a God if one chooses to do so. It is a personal hope of something better or hope for something better.
There is no problem with no God belief.
The problem is when either is used un-ethically.
The nature of the human race is its nature,be it same sex or opposite sex, be it transsexaul or un-sexual.
This same nature is not exclusive to the human race, it is the universal nature of nature and that nature of nature has always been and shall always remain.
There are humans just has other animals that are intolent of other species yet only the human excuses it and will justify it as a belief.
The battle is not about science verses religion or a belief in a god verses no belief.
It is a battle against an evil that has created more war, hate,child abuse,torture and illness then all other evils combined.
Its name is bigotry and it will organize around anything that encourges ignorance and excuses prejudice.
History is over loaded with examples of its power.
Until religions are properly reckonized and constantly reminded of their history and use they will remain a hidding place and breeding ground for excused justiifcation for discrimination.
The enemy is not the hope of a God or no God the enemy is wrongful use.
The only absolute un-questionable reality is that we are all a part of the world and none of us is a part from it.
We are here to learn from it, to exist within it, this is the purpose of life.
Hi, thank you for your comments.
Simon
Post a Comment