It’s something that has always confused me: why do Christians believe in a God who quite clearly hates them??

Agree w/the point about why have faith-based adoption agencies anyway, seems a bit anachronistic. But then all religion does.

I’m sorry but this article makes a few obvious and oft reiterated errors…

1) The point is that the church, it’s community centres, carehomes, schools etc recieve PUBLIC money. HR law exists for a reason. If even the BNP have to refrain from discriminating on the grounds of race then why not the church?

2) All the examples you cite are about people’s actions or ideologies – sexuality is not a choice and as such race is a much better comparison – can you come up with a comparable example where it’s justified denying someone employment on the grounds of race or gender?

3) I’m tired of hearing the “why would they want to work there anyway”:
a) Gays are as diverse as everyone else… there are tons of Catholic people who are also gay – no, i don’t understand why either, but that’s up to them
b) Even if that wasn’t the case it’s irrelevant – the point is that once again the government is publicly marginalising this vunerable group, an action which legitimises public anomosity (still more than a third of people think being gay is “always or almost always wrong”) and leads to an increase in sexual orientation motivated violence.

@1

I wouldn’t say the Christian God hates people. The bastardisation of the Christian God by various groups hates people. God is probably* quite nice, he just has a dreadful PR team.

*never met the deity myself, so I’m only going on hearsay.

@3 That PR team wanna re-write Leviticus then…

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2010/02/natural-law.html

‘The interests of the children involved are the only real priority…’

In which case, why would anyone wish to shut the adoption agencies down, considering they cater for the interests of children?

‘and to deny them loving care on the grounds of an adopter’s sexuality is not the best way to advance them.’

and to deny them loving care on the grounds of disagreeing with the Catholic account of sexuality and family is not the best way to advance them either. Pot. Kettle. Black.

What sort of “senior positions” is the Pope referring to?

If we’re talking about headmasters of Catholic schools, then there is obviously an issue here. If we’re talking about Cardinals then it seems to me that there isn’t.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether there may already be one or two homosexuals in senior positions in the Catholic Church, it seems to me that, while there is certainly an argument to be had about church’s doctrine on homosexuality, the forum for that argument is the church rather than the house of commons.

To save everyone the bother of following Old Holborn’s link, this is part of his ‘take’ on things:

Harriet Harperson is claiming that Equality means the church MUST hire homosexual priests and put them in charge of the Church Youth Group because even though they will end up abusing innocent children, resulting in shattered lives and misery for all, she’s the boss and we must not discriminate against homosexual child molesting priests. So there.

Sometimes the word’s ‘pig ignorant bigoted cunt’ just aren’t enough…

Not allowing homosexuals near the church scout troop is not ignorant. It’s common sense.

Now, I’ll assume the Pope believes in a God, so he will ultimately be forced to face the consequences of his actions and pay whatever the price his God demands from him. His Church will be forced to pay compensation to the stretched ringpieces of thousands of innocent children even though he didn’t want it this way. Thousands of innocent lives will be ruined.

Harriet Harperson on the other hand will retire to a thatched cottage in the countryside on a massive pension and drink tea, far, far away from the consequences of her actions.

@7

The announcement comes after the rejection of clarification of previous laws – that churches can still discriminate for people who teach doctorine – vicars, bishops etc. but not for cleaners, school teachers and such.

The church’s right to fire gay bishops was never in question

please don’t engage old holborn – people like him/her have no place in a society that doesn’t still burn witches

Some forms of discrimination are reasonable and some aren’t.

Surely the point is whether people are qualified for the job. If some churches feel it is a necessary part of a preachers’ job to teach homophobic nonsense (clearly not all churches do, but some might) then it is easy to see why someone who is gay would not be suitable. (At the very least, their message might be compromised by allegations of hypocrisy.) It is less clear why sexuality would affect ability to be an admin assistant, or a cleaner.

In the case of adoption, any adoption agency not willing to consider gay parents should be secularised, allowing their important work to continue but on a non-discriminatory basis.

What I don’t understand is why Harperson and the “liberal” left in general think it’s any of their business what people believe or who they will allow in their church. If you have incongruent beliefs you can’t join the club, it’s that simple
Would harperson allow a member of the BNP to join the labour party ?

Blimey, we’re in the 21st century now, but the same anti-Catholic prejudices continue as we hadn’t left the 17th.

why have specifically Catholic adoption agencies in the first place? Aren’t they a throwback to the days when knocked-up Catholic schoolgirls needed somewhere to dump the unfortunate sprog before getting carted off to the nearest Magdalene Laundry?

No they aren’t. They don’t find homes for Catholic orphans/abandoned children. They find homes for ANY children who need them. Running adoption agencies is another form of charitable work. The Catholic Church runs CAFOD to feed the starving and many orgs like Shelter were Catholic charities originally.

The interests of the children involved are the only real priority, and to deny them loving care on the grounds of an adopter’s sexuality is not the best way to advance them.

Arguably so. But not an issue. Catholic adoption agencies have enough heterosexual couples on their books (indeed they have to turn some away) to take the children. All they ask is that gay couples go to some other agency.

if you want to work for the Catholic Church, your potential bosses might reasonably expect you to uphold the teachings of Catholicism.

At last, common sense begins to prevail.

why would a self-respecting gay man or woman want to be a member of an organisation that teaches them that same-sex personal relationships are sinful, anyway?

Because a self-respecting gay person might think that though the Church may be wrong about that (and maybe a few other things too), it is right about almost everything else – including things that are MUCH more important. An optimistic self-respecting gay person might also hope that the Church’s attitude might evolve over time.

By analogy, a self-respecting gay Jamaican might chose to remain in Jamaica despite the general homophobic culture because (a) his Jamaican identity is important to him (b)he likes the beaches and the music and (c) he thinks Jamaican society will learn to love him if it gets to know him.

There are plenty of wussy denominations that take a more inclusive line, not least the Church of England.

True-ish. But not, say, in Africa.

A substantial wing of the CoE even lays theological claim to a brand of camper than a row of tents Catholicity, and will happily do you all the smells and bells you can handle. What’s not to like?

Because substance is more important than style.

Now go and write an equally flip and insulting post about the key tenets of Judaism and Islam.

If you dare.

Not allowing homosexuals near the church scout troop is not ignorant. It’s common sense.

Only if your working definition of ‘common sense’ is ‘way too fucking stupid and bigoted to understand the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia’

Like I said, sometimes even the words ‘pig ignorant bigoted cunt’ aren’t enough.

@14: “Now go and write an equally flip and insulting post about the key tenets of Judaism and Islam.”

My understanding of Catholicism is indeed limited, but I’m fairly sure that ‘we hate gays’ isn’t a “key tenet”; any more than ‘nice beaches’ are a key tenet of what it means to be Jamaican.

“The interests of the children involved are the only real priority, and to deny them loving care on the grounds of an adopter’s sexuality is not the best way to advance them.”

I think this is simply to demand too much rational justification from policies enacted in civil society. The existence of catholic adoption agencies doesn’t in any way deprive homosexuals who would make appropriate parents from adopting children (they just apply to a different agency). People end up doing good for society for all kinds of weird reasons, some of which will be bound up in religions or ideologies that have some pretty objectionable premises. But if the state says “No you can’t do good unless you agree with us what it is to do good too” then you are just gonna find a lot less people doing good things.

It is a little similar to hard left attitudes towards market transactions as well. It isn’t enough for them that free markets make everyone more prosperous. Because the individual actors are pursuing their own interests, it doesn’t count as a “truly” good thing.

Unity, you only found out now about Old Holborn? He’s been spouting ignorant bigotry from day one. Rarely can you accuse libertarians of well informed commentary and he doesn’t disappoint.

What I don’t understand is why Harperson and the “liberal” left in general think it’s any of their business what people believe or who they will allow in their church.

IT looks like Tories generally don’t understand the law either.

I don’t think even a libertarian would argue that churches should be able to do anything they like in their own buildings – they shouldn’t be able to carry out a real-life re-enactment of the stoning of Stephen, for example. If that’s true, they accept that the government has some right to enforce the law even within churches. The question is to what extent. Many of us non-libertarians think laws against homophobic discrimination are important enough that they should be enforced too.

‘But on the matter of employment, the Pope has a rather stronger case, albeit on strictly secular grounds. It is not the province of government to rule on whom any voluntary association may or may not accept into membership or put on its payroll.’

The problem – as ever where religion is concerned – is expecting rational (secular) behaviour to emerge from irrational beliefs. If a religion clings to the scribblings of Bronze Age desert-dwelling madmen it’s not surprising if they also think those who (for instance) consume shellfish deserve persecution.

And while I agree with the principle of associations to select their own members Tom is correct: religions are subsidised by the tax payer. If they want exemptions they have to pay their own way. Ratzo isn’t exactly short of assets.

IT looks like Tories generally don’t understand the law either.

Judging by what happens whenever there is a post here that is actually about the law, that’s a generalisation that applies across the board.

Tim F (19)

Very well put

This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about how gays should be treated:

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Doesn’t sound like ‘homophobic discrimination’ to me.

“most prominent former Hitler Youth”

- This is really cheap Dave. For shame.

I wonder if in fact Pope Benedict isn’t being a little cute here. Pretend to draw the line at sexual orientation, and then in private negotiation concede it oh so gracefully in return for an assurance that he’ll be able to go on discriminating on the grounds of marital status in respect of the priesthood.

[24] “This is really cheap Dave. For shame”.

Well, the pontiff has already made one howler siding with the Nazis, but perhaps we can ascribe that error of judgement to his relative youth, now he’s having a go at the gays, is it because he is an old fart – or, does he think, like OH, that being gay is tantamount to being a paedo?

‘Pretend to draw the line at sexual orientation, and then in private negotiation concede it oh so gracefully in return for an assurance that he’ll be able to go on discriminating on the grounds of marital status in respect of the priesthood.’

I’m not so sure religious beliefs can be so easily traded for political benefits.

You’ve been watching too much West Wing mate.

@26 ‘Well, the pontiff has already made one howler siding with the Nazis, but perhaps we can ascribe that error of judgement to his relative youth’ – ha ha ha – that’s like blaming the Jews for going along with Hitler’s policy and strolling into the gas vaults willingly – perhaps they did the Macarana or perhaps the Tango.

You utter, contemptable twat.

[28] yes thats right DTP “blaming the Jews for going along with Hitler’s policy and strolling into the gas vaults willingly” is exactly the same as a bad choice made by an impressionable young man during a time of national turmoil – there is simply no difference in these two positions.

The A&E Charge Nurse @ 26,

“Well, the pontiff has already made one howler siding with the Nazis, but perhaps we can ascribe that error of judgement to his relative youth, now he’s having a go at the gays, is it because he is an old fart – or, does he think, like OH, that being gay is tantamount to being a paedo?”

- Erm, he was *conscripted* into the Hitler Youth, dimwit.

Like I say, the Nazi jibe is a cheap shot in a pretty piss poor post from Dave Osler.

#30

I don’t think the Nazi jibe is fair either. He was clearly not a fervent member, doing as little as possible and seems to have tried to avoid meetings etc. Worth noting that he deserted the German army too, although this was right at the end of the war when it was obvious the Germans were going to lose.

Nonetheless, Ratzinger could have refused to enroll – and he could’ve refused to serve under the Nazis, too. A small minority of people refused. He wouldn’t have been able to continue his tuition (being ineligible for financial support he needed), and may even have been sent to a concentration camp. It’s easy to understand a 14-year old not having sufficient mettle, or faith, to make that sacrifice. Nonetheless I hope, but can’t guarantee, it’s what I’d have done.

We can understand his actions as a teenager, but shouldn’t excuse them. I would personally like him to be more open, and transparently pentitent, about his past. I don’t think he has a duty to do that – I can see that why he might think it’s between him and God, and now forgiven – but I think it would be helpful.

I don’t want to particularly big-up Catholicism because (a) it’s based on unsubstantiated fairytales and (b) much of it abhorent but one of the few admirable things about it is the notion that people can redeem themselves – even former members of the Hitler Youth.

That’s pretty central to the liberal view of justice, isn’t it? A second chance?

The fact that Ratzo is a homophobe doesn’t mean he bears the weight of the Holocaust on his shoulders.

[30] Ahh, a Ratzinger apologist – admittedly tim f [31] deals with god’s rottweiler in a more balanced way, but only the Rat knows how he felt about his pledge of allegiance; “I promise to do my duty in love and loyalty to the Führer and our flag”.

We are clear, however that Ratzinger did not have sufficiently strong beliefs to decline membership – as a 14 year old boy one can perhaps forgive the old homophobe for his lack of political will back then.

But what cannot be attributed to the ‘victim’ role subsequently adopted by the pontiff after his brief flirtation with the fuhrer are the anachronistic and embarrassing papal pronouncements he has made in adulthood.

My word. Have I wandered into a DUP forum by mistake?

That’s what I was thinking Splinty!

the a&e charge nurse @ 33,

Yes, Ratzinger didn’t have sufficiently strong beliefs to effectively commit suicide by opposing the Nazis in 1941. It’s hardly a damning indictment of him, is it? If you hold that against him, I hope you hold the same feelings towards 99% of the residents of the Axis countries who were alive then, not just those who managed to become Pope.

No idea what you’re wittering on about with your second paragraph. Nowhere have I said I agree with the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality or the Equality Bill. It was you (and Dave Osler) who brought up his involvement with the Hitler Youth, even though it’s completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Tim F @ 31,

Great comment. Though given the immense costs of dissenting, I don’t think Ratzinger has much to be ashamed of in that regard. Dissenting would be superogatory perhaps, but not obligatory. I broadly agree with you though.

Tim F @ 31 and Peter

Actually I think even you are asking a lot for someone growing up in a totalitarian state to even know that there was something compellingly morally objectionable about the Hitler Youth or even the Nazi regime.

The perceptions of a 14 year old would mostly have been formed by unremitting pro-Nazi propaganda and peer pressure. The fact of the holocaust and other crimes would not have een apparent (indeed, the holocaust was only getting started at the time).

Ratzinger’s father was fiercely anti-Nazi but who knows whether he voiced his opinions at home? He may have kept quiet for fear of endangering his family.

@various:

The criticism of Ratzinger as ex-Hitler Youth is indeed problematic, given how hard it would have been to avoid. Criticism of him as Red Pope [1], on the other hand, is harder to dodge. He was the head of the Inquisition and the cardinals elected him to the White Pope’s throne. Is anyone really surprised that the leading advocate for fundamentalist, pre-Enlightenment dogma within the church is, well, acting like it?

[1] There are three; the Black Pope is the head of the Jesuit order, the Red Pope is the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Inquisition) and the White Pope is the Vicar of Christ, most commonly called the Pope.

2) All the examples you cite are about people’s actions or ideologies – sexuality is not a choice and as such race is a much better comparison – can you come up with a comparable example where it’s justified denying someone employment on the grounds of race or gender?

Technically the catholic Church has no problem with someone simply being homosexual – it’s the having sex they object to, which is regarded as a sin (which actually makes a prohibition on homosexual priests completely illogical, but there you go).

Arguing that it’s innate doesn’t really hold much water logically – you might naturally have a terrible temper, but it doesn’t mean that the RC Church wouldn’t consider it a sin for you to stab someone in a rage.

What is inadmissible about the Pope’s protest is his refusal to defend everyone’s right to choose whom we wish to hire or fire. Churches should not have any monopoly of freedom from egalitarian diktat.
Nobody normal would want to have sodomites in their work-place. Equally, if some homo boss declines to employ people like me, an old-fashioned chap who prefers girls, as God and Nature suggest we do, that sort of boss should have the right to do so.
Government should keep out of HR human resources policy.

Am I the only person here who doesn’t think that gays men and lesbians should not be regarded as a race – as suggested in comment 40. Such a definintion breaks down if you consider people who ’swing both ways’, occaisionally. It seems to be more about lifestyle choice / identity.

I await the insults with interest.

[36] oh dear, oh dear, poor old Peter, just doesn’t get it does he?

Few would dwell on the pontiff’s days decked out in leather shorts and a nazi arm band if it wasn’t for the rather disagreeable persona that has dogged him ever since.

That’s the problem – his earlier adventures (taken in conjunction with his latter day pronouncements) are seen as symptomatic of there being something inherently wrong with the man?