09.01.07
Yes and your point is?
There’s a demonstration today. It’s by some religious types and they make an interesting point. Should they have to abide by the new rules forbidding discrimination against gay and lesbian folk? In other words should a christian hotelier have to give a room to a gay couple when he really wants to cast them into the wilderness and/or flay the skins off their backs?
Well yes they should.
One organiser of the demo states:
“unless these regulations are amended, they will outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, only to replace it with discrimination on the grounds of religion”
Good that sounds about right to me. They seem to have forgotten that deciding to live your life following a set of arbitrary rules is merely a choice not the way you were born (unless born into a family with one of those sweet and loving religions that says you should be killed if you ever leave the faith). The state of gayness isn’t (usually) such a thing as far as I’m told by gay people.
But the religious morons (by which I don’t mean all those with a faith, just this angry and idiotic lot) starting this grief seem to be a: lying horrendously to overstate their case and b: blackmailing people by threatening the withdrawal of services (the catholic church is threatening to withhold soup to gay people in their soup kitchens for the homeless - how very christian of them).
And the government thinks that faith based services are the way to go. Can you believe the idiocy?
Their opposition is entirely based around bigotry for others and concern for what they themselves think and screw everyone else.
The sad truth is that, once again, they are being horrendously selective of what they take from their book to batter the public with. For instance do you think that if successful here they’ll try and argue for the right to have slaves as is expressly written in their books? I wonder. There are parts in the Koran that exhort Muslims to kill infidels “wherever you find them” - perhaps stopping them doing so would be seen as a refusal to allow freedom of religion? (NB I may have taken something out of context here but that is no worse than the selectivity shown by these idiots).
Look you lot just have your religion and shut up about it. You made a choice to follow whatever you wanted. You can’t prove anything about it beyond that other people believe it too. How you dare to profess that you know best astounds me (and is somewhat at odds with your claim to be humble and meek).
Damn right I would “outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, only to replace it with discrimination on the grounds of religion”. I can’t think of a single reason why this would be a bad thing.
Have fun.
J McG said,
January 10, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I get what you’re saying… but:
“I can’t think of a single reason why this would be a bad thing”
What if it’s discrimination in favour of religious types?
for example:
Don’t know how it is in the UK, but schools in here in the Republic of Ireland that were set up by religious groups [1] are now funded (largely) by the state. They may reject a kids’ application to attend the school if they judge that the kid is of the wrong (or no) religion.
So the kid that lives next door to a good school which was set up by the church may have to go to a crap school 5 miles away if she wasn’t baptised into the correct religion.
[1] The majority of schools in Ireland were set up by religious groups (primarily the Roman Catholic church)
PS I’m a juggler who has enjoyed reading your blog for a long time. Thanks, and keep it up.
alby said,
January 10, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Hi there – Glad to see I get some lurkers.
I’m slightly confused by your comment though.
Are you saying this is a bad thing? I think that’s what you are saying. In other words you agree with me that discrimination is bad. But your “but” at the beginning would suggest otherwise (I think).
The point I hope I was trying to make was that discrimination is generally pretty bad no matter who it’s against. But there is a clear difference between discrimination against someone who has no choice and discrimination against someone who has a choice.
No-one can stop themselves being black or a woman or, as I’m told by my gay friend (sadly only got the one) being gay. However all of us whther straight or gay can make a decision to live a decent life or a debauched one – then and only then do I think people should make their judgments (whichever way – and we’re all free to hold conflicting opinions about either of those paths).
People can make a choice about whether they pick a religion (or choose to stay in the one they were adopted into by their folks). Religion (just as athiesm or whatever) deserves no respect unless it earns it and at the moment these protesters clearly deserve nothing but contempt. They can’t assume deference without demonstrating just cause.
We can discriminate very clearly against people’s choices and there should be no problem with this. We also discriminate against personal attributes (eg exams discriminate against the stupid and the police and army have physical tests that discriminate against the unfit). In both these instances the person can do better and change and manage to overcome the hurdle. Somehow I doubt the gay person can overcome the hurdles these protestors feel they want to erect. They can therefore be discriminated against until they do something to earn some respect instead of contempt.
It also dismays me to see religious folks from all quarters putting aside their hatred of each other for the sole purpose of jointly hating another group. I thought all these religions were about love and unity. It’s sad that they can’t do something positive and help to deal with some important issues in the world instead of this pathetic non-issue.
My position re state funding is that no purely religious group should have any state funding at all. Sadly that’s not very likely and state subsidy may even be extended in the UK. Something that’s riling quite a few people.
Anyway that’s a bit more rant for your money.
Have fun.