The anti-homosexual agenda started in the 1998 Lambeth Conference now bears its full bitter fruit.
We see that the Archbishop of Canterbury is unable to bear witness against pure evil - the proposed anti-homosexuality bill which includes the death penalty for some 'offences' and imposes threat of imprisonment on any who fail to 'inform' on a homosexual - do we not recognise Stalinism made manifest?
Very little evidence of Lambeth 1.10 Anglicans having any ability to recognise what's happening and speak out.
Oh it's very sensitive. It's complicated. It's cultural.
I imagine there were people who said the same about slavery, apartheid, other forms of absolutism.
I'm not in favour of 'x' but if I speak out it might be counter productive. I'm changing things quietly from the inside - yeah right. How very comfortable, how very Anglican, how very hypocrtical.
Well we can all relax now because the game is well and truly up and we can see what there - what's really always been there. And has been there from the beginning.
Either the Anglican church (C of E and its colonial derivatives in whatever formation they find themselves) believe in human rights and human rights advocacy or they don't. And they either believe in the humanity and personhood of LGBT people or they don't.
Well now we know they don't. Or at least not sufficiently enough to stop a lynching.
It comes into clear relief as the Archbishop of Canterbury has made a vaguely threatening statement about the Diocese of Los Angeles appointing a highly qualified bishop who is a lesbian.
It's in sharp relief with his refusal to make any pronouncement with regard to Uganda even though there is well established Anglican teaching on human rights. Oh but they didn't really mean that bit (I'm sure they felt warm and fuzzy when they passed such resolutions and felt a tinge of smug superiority), least not when LGBT people are in the firing line of the religious right empowered - that is to say with the ability to make their nightmare fantasies part of the law of a country.
So I think it's pretty clear what anti-gay Anglicanism really stands for and I am at least thankful for that. It is for the rest of us to speak out, if we can find it in ourselves to do so.
And it is therefore imperative that the election of Cannon Mary Glasspool be given the necessary consents for her consecration to proceed.
Showing posts with label religious right. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious right. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Will the Anti-Christ be a Homosexual?
Just too good an article which I post a link to for the sheer enjoyment one can gain from reading the outgushings of an unbalanced mind - all the way from Sarah Palin country.
Article here referenced by (Andrew Sullivan) and too good not to post. Just read a smattering of the comments to heighten the enjoyment.......
Article here referenced by (Andrew Sullivan) and too good not to post. Just read a smattering of the comments to heighten the enjoyment.......
Friday, December 19, 2008
Employment Appeals Tribunal overturns 'Ladele' Employment Tribunal
News in today, causing much relief as the original ET ruling was a complete nightmare. There is no doubt that the original judgment was at the very least badly written (and in parts incomprehensible).
If upheld it would have led to chaos in many employers as employees religious scruples would presumably have to have been given effect by employers irrespective of the core business of the employer in question which would in effect have completely up-ended the traditional set up of our system of employment law.
Quite good coverage can be had from Pink News and the good ol' Christian Institute (who had backed the case).
The full ruling can be obtained from the above sites and totally demolishes the original ET case in almost every aspect and makes for a very interesting read for the substance of its analysis.
The ruling is a great Christmas present and the occasion of much relief that proper equality protections for all people (without a 'trump card' for the religious) have been re-established by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
In a scarcely less significant case, the Court of Appeal ruled 2-1 in favour of the case taken against Sanderson blinds by someone experiencing homophobic harassment even though he wasn't gay himself (BBC news report). This is an important ruling in the attempt to create workplaces without homophobic harassment, irrespective of whether an employee is gay themselves.
If upheld it would have led to chaos in many employers as employees religious scruples would presumably have to have been given effect by employers irrespective of the core business of the employer in question which would in effect have completely up-ended the traditional set up of our system of employment law.
Quite good coverage can be had from Pink News and the good ol' Christian Institute (who had backed the case).
The full ruling can be obtained from the above sites and totally demolishes the original ET case in almost every aspect and makes for a very interesting read for the substance of its analysis.
The ruling is a great Christmas present and the occasion of much relief that proper equality protections for all people (without a 'trump card' for the religious) have been re-established by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
In a scarcely less significant case, the Court of Appeal ruled 2-1 in favour of the case taken against Sanderson blinds by someone experiencing homophobic harassment even though he wasn't gay himself (BBC news report). This is an important ruling in the attempt to create workplaces without homophobic harassment, irrespective of whether an employee is gay themselves.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Beyond Belief
I am very troubled by the recent Employment Tribunal on a Registrar refusing to carry out Civil Partnerships (in a case financed by the Christian Institute).
It seems to cut across the view expressed by Parliament in the Goods and Services regulations on sexual orientation regulations (where Parliament did debate 'conscience' exemptions being pushed by LCF and Christian Institute but did not go down that route). As such it is potentially an egregious example of a lower court superseding parliamentary sovereignty.
It seems to imply that an employer is unable to identify a policy of equal treatment and ensure that its staff (acting as its agents) are expected to adhere to it.
It states that rights accorded to sexual orientation cannot trump those accorded to religious belief yet it does the opposite with free abandon. If you have a religious belief you're exempt from having to adhere to an employers policy of treating all its service users equally.
It requires publicly funded employers to implement an equality policy whilst mandating them to employ people that don't and immunises such staff from any come back (even criticism as this would amount to harassment).
It makes great play of the fact of the complainant being an "orthodox Christian" in her views. This is appalling. The Employment Tribunal is here making a judgment about religious matters, while the Church of England (the established Church within England) supported Civil Partnerships and incorporates them in its own legislation about clergy who are Civil Partners (has the ET ruled that the Church of England is not an "orthodox" church?).
It seems to state that Civil Partnerships are de facto marriage - I welcome this one progressive (though doubtless unintentional) aspect of the ruling.
It makes no mention of the distinction made in human rights instruments between freedom of religion and the freedom to manifest a religious belief, the latter being susceptible to being curtailed to protect the rights and freedom of others (hence the manifestation of a religious belief by means of discriminating against others ought not to be given legal immunity). Religious freedom (something that ought to be precious and revered by all) is turned into a licence for hatred, bigotry, discrimination and a society riven by discord and division.
Under the rule of law there can never be a licence to discriminate and where given will be exploited by a variety of religions to undermine employers' intentions in carrying out their business - a pharmacy selling contraception has to employ staff refusing to provide that service, a local authority required by the law to provide civil partnerships without discrimination has to employ staff unwilling to further such aims - no matter what chaos is caused to the service or to employment relations.
It's a bad day for the law. I can only hope a higher court reviews the ruling and provides a more coherent statement of the law without granting a generalised licence for bigotry to self proclaimed religionists.
Pink News - 'Employment Tribunal has "legitimised homophobia"
National Secular Society Press Release - Registrar judgment potentially catastrophic for equality
Comment is Free (Terry Sanderson) Paying to be discriminated against
British Humanist Association appalled by judgment in Registrar's Employment Tribunal
It seems to cut across the view expressed by Parliament in the Goods and Services regulations on sexual orientation regulations (where Parliament did debate 'conscience' exemptions being pushed by LCF and Christian Institute but did not go down that route). As such it is potentially an egregious example of a lower court superseding parliamentary sovereignty.
It seems to imply that an employer is unable to identify a policy of equal treatment and ensure that its staff (acting as its agents) are expected to adhere to it.
It states that rights accorded to sexual orientation cannot trump those accorded to religious belief yet it does the opposite with free abandon. If you have a religious belief you're exempt from having to adhere to an employers policy of treating all its service users equally.
It requires publicly funded employers to implement an equality policy whilst mandating them to employ people that don't and immunises such staff from any come back (even criticism as this would amount to harassment).
It makes great play of the fact of the complainant being an "orthodox Christian" in her views. This is appalling. The Employment Tribunal is here making a judgment about religious matters, while the Church of England (the established Church within England) supported Civil Partnerships and incorporates them in its own legislation about clergy who are Civil Partners (has the ET ruled that the Church of England is not an "orthodox" church?).
It seems to state that Civil Partnerships are de facto marriage - I welcome this one progressive (though doubtless unintentional) aspect of the ruling.
It makes no mention of the distinction made in human rights instruments between freedom of religion and the freedom to manifest a religious belief, the latter being susceptible to being curtailed to protect the rights and freedom of others (hence the manifestation of a religious belief by means of discriminating against others ought not to be given legal immunity). Religious freedom (something that ought to be precious and revered by all) is turned into a licence for hatred, bigotry, discrimination and a society riven by discord and division.
Under the rule of law there can never be a licence to discriminate and where given will be exploited by a variety of religions to undermine employers' intentions in carrying out their business - a pharmacy selling contraception has to employ staff refusing to provide that service, a local authority required by the law to provide civil partnerships without discrimination has to employ staff unwilling to further such aims - no matter what chaos is caused to the service or to employment relations.
It's a bad day for the law. I can only hope a higher court reviews the ruling and provides a more coherent statement of the law without granting a generalised licence for bigotry to self proclaimed religionists.
Pink News - 'Employment Tribunal has "legitimised homophobia"
National Secular Society Press Release - Registrar judgment potentially catastrophic for equality
Comment is Free (Terry Sanderson) Paying to be discriminated against
British Humanist Association appalled by judgment in Registrar's Employment Tribunal
Monday, May 26, 2008
Doubt over Russian blood ban move
This recently reported on Pink News and also on the Gay Russia website.
I, however, remain unconvinced. In such cases I follow the biblical rule of requiring 3 independent witnesses and here we have a lot of websites reporting from each other. There is no official confirmation (although to be honest, my Russian isn't as good as it should be so I might be missing Russian reporting of it).
It is being reported that it took only 2 years of campaigning (from I can tell this consisted of a few letters to the Health Ministry and an attempted - and outlawed - demonstration) to get the ban overturned.
This is being reported to be Russia 'setting a good example' to Western European countries. Hmmm.
It is also reported that the ban on prostitutes and drug users is also being lifted. Maybe there was a campaign by drug users and prostitutes to get their respective bans lifted as well. If so it has been very effective.
It's all a bit incongruous so I am not ready to believe it until I see independent confirmation.
Meanwhile our enemies on the religious right have also picked up on the news and are using it as a stick to beat us with, with a very interesting (and credible) statistic (from the FDA in the US) that MSN are 800 times greater risk of being HIV positive than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher risk than repeat donors.
I, however, remain unconvinced. In such cases I follow the biblical rule of requiring 3 independent witnesses and here we have a lot of websites reporting from each other. There is no official confirmation (although to be honest, my Russian isn't as good as it should be so I might be missing Russian reporting of it).
It is being reported that it took only 2 years of campaigning (from I can tell this consisted of a few letters to the Health Ministry and an attempted - and outlawed - demonstration) to get the ban overturned.
This is being reported to be Russia 'setting a good example' to Western European countries. Hmmm.
It is also reported that the ban on prostitutes and drug users is also being lifted. Maybe there was a campaign by drug users and prostitutes to get their respective bans lifted as well. If so it has been very effective.
It's all a bit incongruous so I am not ready to believe it until I see independent confirmation.
Meanwhile our enemies on the religious right have also picked up on the news and are using it as a stick to beat us with, with a very interesting (and credible) statistic (from the FDA in the US) that MSN are 800 times greater risk of being HIV positive than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher risk than repeat donors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
