From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com   
      
   This was very good; put me quite in mind of the bigotry and totalitarianism   
   of a certain noisy 'liberal' around these parts...   
      
   'Think about it. This debate is not code for homophobia. It's about the   
   proper boundaries between the state and the individual; it's about   
   conscience in a free society, and it affects all of us in a free Europe. Gay   
   people have experienced vilification for many years, yes - and often from   
   people who identify themselves as religious. But now the attitudes displayed   
   towards religious believers in public life look exactly the same: a form of   
   prejudice and discrimination.   
   The legislation under discussion in Britain is not yet law, but in Northern   
   Ireland it is already on the statute book. It was imposed by proconsular   
   edict from Peter Hain on 1 January - rushed through by Order in Her Majesty's   
   Privy Council without the normal process of consultation proper to a   
   democracy.   
   Have we forgotten the lessons of the totalitarianism of the 20th century?   
   The bloody histories of other 'new moralities' - in Germany, Russia, China   
   and Cambodia to name only a few - have shown that the real threat to a   
   democracy comes from the encroachments of the state on individuals, not vice   
   versa. For democratic societies to thrive, individuals must fight vigorously   
   to retain the right to practise their faith.'   
      
   The Spectator   
      
   Published in: the current issue   
   Issue: 10 February 2007   
      
      
   Beware the Taleban of tolerance   
   Carla Powell   
      
   The temper of the debate on gay adoption and the Catholic Church has been   
   astonishing. I have never seen such a concentrated display of anti-Catholic   
   venom as I did from Westminster and what used to be called Fleet Street.   
   Read the articles on the subject published in the Independent on Sunday   
   recently and judge for yourself. In place of reasoned critique are vicious   
   and personal attacks on Catholicism. If you were to substitute the word 'Jew'   
   or 'Muslim' for 'Catholic', the police would already be making   
   incitement-to-religious-hatred inquiries.   
   Nick Robinson of the BBC pointed out that it was stated repeatedly, as if   
   fact, that Tony Blair was acting under orders from his Catholic wife. And   
   almost every time Ruth Kelly was mentioned, she was referred to as 'Ruth   
   Kelly, a Roman Catholic', or 'Ruth Kelly, a member of the secretive Roman   
   Catholic Opus Dei sect', even by the BBC. Fair comment, yes, as both facts   
   are certainly relevant. However, the three MPs leading the opposition to any   
   opt-out for the Church all campaign on gay issues, and one is an   
   office-holder in the National Secular Society.   
   How is it that when it comes to gay adoption and Catholic charities, 'being   
   Catholic' is a conflict of interest but 'being gay' is not? A notable   
   journalistic exception was Matthew Parris, usually a critic of Catholicism,   
   who pointed out the sheer lack of proportionality from the opponents of the   
   Church's position and asked how much of a problem this would really have   
   presented in the first place. How many gay couples would want to approach a   
   Catholic adoption agency in any event?   
   So much for the way the debate was conducted, but what was it actually   
   about? Not, primarily, homosexuality, nor fundamental human rights. At   
   heart, this debate was about conscience.   
   After all, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury   
   and York and the Muslim Council have not been calling for a ban on gay   
   adoptions. What they have said is, 'You do what you want as a society. That's   
   part of the democratic process. But we are not able to do this for reasons   
   of conscience. Since this is so, we ask for a space for people who cannot in   
   conscience participate. Why do we need this space? Because we are part of   
   this society, and we want to continue providing what everyone sees as a   
   first-class service for society's most deprived children - something we have   
   done with distinction for over a century.' That's what the Cardinal and   
   others have been arguing. And we have found, in the last few weeks, that   
   this is something the anti-discrimination fundamentalists cannot   
   contemplate. It has been amazing to observe the intolerance of those who   
   have been so loudly crying for tolerance.   
   You may say that this doesn't affect you. But it does. There are very   
   serious issues here. The democratic process is being by-passed and   
   legitimate views marginalised. Where will our society end up when compromise   
   is not even discussed?   
   The question is simple: is any politician who is Christian, Muslim or   
   Jewish - or indeed of any faith - to be vilified for believing their faith's   
   teaching? The answer from the fundamentalists is 'Yes'. It's happened   
   already with Ruth Kelly. And it's happened in Europe. Three years ago Rocco   
   Butiglione - renowned as one of the most thoughtful politicians in Italy -   
   was vetoed as Italian European commissioner by a militant alliance of gay   
   activists and pro-abortion advocates because he held mainstream Christian   
   views on family life. What if your Christian, Muslim or Jewish sons and   
   daughters want to take part in the political life of their country or of   
   Europe? Are they to be told effectively to hang their religion and   
   conscience at the door or abandon any hope of advancement?   
   Let's be more practical. What about Catholic doctors who will not refer   
   women for abortions? What about the surgeons who will not perform them? At   
   present there is a conscience clause, but many within the NHS wish to remove   
   it. They would like medical students to agree in advance to 'deliver the   
   full range of services pro-vided by the NHS'. This means, of course,   
   performing abortions and a range of other morally problematic procedures.   
   Catholics and others who cannot in conscience perform them will be told to   
   leave their religious views at the door, or give up their places at medical   
   school.   
      
   What about schools? If schools refuse to promote abortion, contraception or   
   the equality of gay partnerships and marriage - as Catholic schools can   
   never do - are they to have their funding removed because they are deemed to   
   be failing in their duty to promote equality and citizenship? And teachers   
   who cannot teach these things because they are against their conscience -   
   are they to be removed from the register of approved teachers?   
   What about books such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Are copies to   
   be removed from shelves because they promote 'hatred based on sexual   
   orientation'? Perhaps you regard this as an exaggeration. Well, it's already   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)