Befrocked brats in the news
The Pope's rubbish, isn't he? He thinks there's a 'natural law' against gay people. The Archbishop of Westminster agrees, which was news despite that being his job. Mind you, Muttley mostly went on and on about Dastardly's right to speak out, which - from the reactions I saw - was an argument he was having entirely with himself. But while their bigoted drivel was widely reported, the dynamics of the criticism meant the media were surprisingly hostile - he was criticising 'our' equality laws, so it became a nationalistic thing. Outside of the usual circles it was only a few lefties who decided they agreed, which was a bit bloody weird: they seemed to fall for the 'why would you want to work for homophobes anyway' trick.
It's really quite easy: there are human rights, and that's it. No 'natural law'. No 'natural justice'. No religious rights. You get the human right to hold whatever beliefs you like. You get the human right to be treated according to your ideas, where they are relevant, and not your biology. There are more. The equality bill puts these transparently correct ideas into law. It's not difficult, yet the Pope still struggles.
He's coming to the UK later this year. I say we do our best to annoy him so he doesn't bother visiting at all, but, failing that, protest him when he arrives. Protesting is a tricky business, as you don't want to seem anti-religion and generally unpleasant, but I think it needs to be done. You can't let people claim condoms aggravate the spread of aids, or that equality laws don't apply to religious people. When people say things like that, there's a duty to point out that they're a dick.

February 3rd, 2010 - 09:34
Hi there, Just want to say that i am a regular reader of your blog and enjoy its content. I think your post about the pope’s latest outburst is spot on. Beautifully put, thanks for the good read!
February 3rd, 2010 - 10:02
The lefties-agreeing thing is indeed weird. I saw Simon Jenkins in the Guardian this morning saying they agreed with the Pope because Catholics should have the freedom to choose their own employment criteria — which is a perfectly respectable position, but it’s a position of wanting to see all anti-discrimination legislation scrapped wholesale. It’s in no way an endorsement of the current piecemeal exemptions-where-the-laws-are-most-needed system.
I’d love to see a protest where 100 people with signs turn up and all the signs are about different aspects of the Vatican’s dickery.
February 4th, 2010 - 10:03
chrissie – you’re welcome! Thanks for reading.
Andrew – just read that Simon Jenkins article. Most strange – he’s oddly libertarian sometimes. I don’t personally have any problem with banning discrimination based on gender, race, sexual orientation etc., with exemptions for special cases. But such laws are undermined when ‘homophobia is in the job description’ is a valid excuse. The hiring of gay cleaners / clerical staff is a no-brainer, but I do wobble a bit on whether the same should apply to priests (which obviously isn’t in the current bill, no matter how much the church might pretend otherwise). Maybe it’s this balancing of personal freedom and anti-discrimination that makes Mr Jenkins take the easy way out.