Some ridiculous posts there about how Christians are allowed to interpret the bible, from people with (doubtless) no idea about churchman ship and different approaches to hermeneutics.
As for DC, my personal guess is that he will personally be in favour, but I agree with Dave that its a bit rich him trying to make out his party is that liberal.
Still, he's a leader and whilst he must balance placating the competing views on his own party, he's right to try to move them forward.But is that what he's doing, and/or why he's doing it? Is this just another attempt to shake off the 'nasty party' image?
Steve W
Detoxify its all the rage.
Doesn't really matter who interprets what. What really matters is there is a significant enough number of christians amongst the rank and file of those taking an active interest in their religion and those working within the CofE and other christian denominations to effectively set the agenda with regards to vetoing gay marriage officially from the point of view of those churches.
Not only that, but they have a significant enough voice to effect legistlation and laws.
That's democracy.Or are you saying religious people shouldn't have the same rights to lobby and vote as everyone else?
Anyone can set or affect an agenda, religious or otherwise.
But again, we're off topic.Back to DC.
Steve W
I suspect it's his cunning plan to make sure nothing goes through - the same as with House of Lords reform.
Most gays value their distinctive partnerships and don't want to exchange them for a mockery of marriage, and despite all his cosying up to the tiny minority of Stonewall activists, he probably agrees with the majority and doesn't want it either, but can't afford to offend his LD pals by setting out against it.
No, I am stateing that anyone who attempts to dismiss prejudice or opinions contrary to those held by the majority of the population on human rights within the christian faith in general and specifically within the CofE as only belonging to an insignificant minority is misguided.
All too often we have seen debates and arguments about the impact of religion on society dismissed by appologists claiming that religion doesn't interfer with other peoples rights and only insignifcant minorities hold views considered contrary to generally accepted ethics.
In a democracy they are entitled to their opinions, just as I and others are entitled to point out that they do causes issues and effect peoples rights and legislation.
TB, you've a way with words.
You regularly come on here religion bashing, now you blame religion for the arguments.
I'm in favour of a pluralistic, free, equal society where we all try to understand and get on with each other.
You want to argue, criticise, and generally stick the boot in, bizarrely painting religious people as the unflinchingly prejudice ones.
The truth is, there are nasty, bigoted individuals in walks of life.Their existence in religious circles is no more (or less) proof of the lack of validity of religious belief than your posts are proof of any failings in atheism.
Any solution to the issue of gay marriage, which is not one which brings equality to gays, is to be rejected. Any solution which is a glib, empty gesture, paying lip service to equality, is also to be rejected.
Steve W
My comment is not about the validity of beliefs.
When we discuss religion and belief, there are various levels and categories, those being the validity of beliefs in general, specific beliefs
and the effects of beliefs on the individual and society.
My point is that often when discussing the effects of belief on society and individuals, whenever a negative effect of a particular belief is shown to be a demonstratable fact, it is often dismissed on the basis of only a small insignifcant minority(extremists, radicals, orthodox) ofhold to them and therefore has no effect.
Clearly with regards to the current issues of women bishops and gay marriage, there is significant christian opposition enough to shape church policy and effect government legislation.
Most bigots don't have laws drafted on their behalf though, in fact they are increasing having their views marginalised by the people/culture and outlawed by the state.
Homophobia, racism, sexism and religious discrimination are only deemed acceptable by the state when performed by religious organisations.Often by the same ones that preach love, tolerance and inclusivity, but seemingly only when they choose to.I would cry hypocrite, but someone would only apologize on their behalf.
Very good, that's true. I didn't see it that way. Quite funny that we have got around to creating laws that protect individual freedom now that we have run out of laws restricting individual freedom. Looked like that its bloody funny. I wonder if we might see groups like BNP applying to have laws written to protect their freedom to be racist. Even murderers could ask for a law that allowed them to be a special group where murder was legally practised. Now I see that view point its quite obvious such a law cannot possibly exist and if it does, then all other tolerance law must be null and void.