Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Why we should care about Catholic Care

It is strange how one’s enemies shift and change: one day it’s the French, then the Welsh, then the Scots, and then the Roman Catholics. The next day it’s the Irish, then the Germans, then the Russians, followed swiftly by Darth Vader. And finally it’s – well, it’s not very clear: sundry mad mullahs of middle-eastern extraction who want to blow us all to kingdom come, or the European Union. The object of hate changes with the nation’s geo-political strategy, when there is one.

But no-one is looking amongst us; our eyes are diverted from the enemy within.

His Grace has been pondering the judgement in the case of Catholic Care – a charity which sought exemption from equality laws which prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples wanting to adopt. The charity simply wished to follow their conscience and continue to place adoptive children with heterosexual parents, in accordance with their understanding of Christian orthodoxy and the desire to adhere to Church tradition, not to mention the research which clearly establishes that children flourish best in a family with both a mother and father in a committed relationship.

After two years of tenacious arguing (which His Grace has supported, exhorted, and encouraged), they have had their final appeal rejected: they now either agree to place children with homosexual couples or they close. The Tribunal determined that ‘Religious belief is... protected by ECHR and by the Equality Act 2010 in certain private circumstances’. But adoption is a public service, funded in part by local authorities, so does not have the same exemptions under the Equality Act 2010 as those which cover private religious worship, as the charity had pleaded.

Catholic Care argued that if it were to close, children would be left unadopted. The tribunal acknowledged there would be ‘a loss to society if the charity's skilled staff were no longer engaged in the task of preparing potential adopters to offer families to children awaiting an adoption placement’. But the panel said it had to balance the risk of closure of the charity's adoption service - which it said was ‘by no means certain’ - against the ‘detriment to same-sex couples and the detriment to society generally of permitting the discrimination proposed’.

The charity argued that its stance attracted potential adopters who did not approach other agencies. It told the tribunal that same-sex couples could get adoption services from local authorities and other voluntary agencies and said failure to secure the exemption would hit the voluntary donations which keep it afloat.

Responding to the ruling, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds Arthur Roche said: "Catholic Care is very disappointed with this ruling. The trustees are considering their position and whether or not to appeal. It is unfortunate that those who will suffer as a consequence of this ruling will be the most vulnerable children for whom Catholic Care has provided an excellent service for many years.

"It is an important point of principle that the charity should be able to prepare potential adoptive parents, a service recognised for its excellence by the local authorities who are responsible for placing children, according to the tenets of the Catholic faith."

The full judgement may be found HERE. Of interest is the utterly reasonable response of the charity to any homosexual couples who sought to use their services: they didn’t tell them they suffered from an ‘objective disorder’, were guilty of mortal sin and would go to hell: they helpfully pointed them to ‘other voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities’. The Charity argued that unless it were permitted to continue to discriminate as proposed, it would no longer be able to raise the voluntary income from its supporters.

The Commission asked the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal and relied upon case law on this issue – specifically Islington London Borough Council v Ladele and Eunice and Owen Johns v Derby City Council.

The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Right Reverend Arthur Roche, the ex-officio Chairman of the Charity. He is responsible for ensuring that its activities are within the tenets of the Church: “in effect I am the arbiter of faith in respect of the activities of the Charity”.
The Bishop told the Tribunal that the Church’s teaching is that a full sexual union without marriage is unacceptable, so that adoption services could not be offered by the Charity to unmarried heterosexual couples or to same sex couples. He did not think it generally acceptable for a single person to adopt, although he was aware that the Charity had in the past placed a child for adoption with a single adopter. He said he could not explain why the Charity’s website apparently suggested that single adopters were able to use the Charity’s services and said that whilst he was involved in setting the Charity’s policies, he did not necessarily know what went onto its website.
Helpful, huh?

There’s more:
The Charity’s proposed objects (as currently drafted) did not seek to discriminate against same sex foster carers. The Commission had been informed by the Charity during the internal review process that the Charity did not object to placing children with same sex foster carers because this did not involve the creation of a family. When asked about this, the Bishop disagreed with this statement of the Charity’s policies and said he did not know why the proposed objects had been drafted in that way. He did not think the Charity had ever placed a child for fostering with a same sex couple and did not think it should. He thought that if a same sex couple who were already fostering a child applied to the Charity for assistance to adopt it, they would be referred to another voluntary adoption agency.
So, ‘the arbiter of faith in respect of the activities of the Charity’ disagrees with the Charity’s policies.
He did not think that the Charity could re-structure so as to be able to continue its adoption work because he said the necessary financial backing from its supporters would not be available. He said that “the people who provide us with funds have clear views on these matters”. The Bishop told the Tribunal that he did not know how many Catholics supported same sex adoptions, he just knew that the stance the Charity had adopted in this matter had attracted much support. When asked if a change of stance might not in fact attract new supporters who did not oppose same sex adoptions, he responded that this was untested water.
It’s good when your key witness is so well prepared.

When asked to describe how the ability to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation would assist the Charity in its work, he explained that charities want their income to be applied to their own vision of what is in the best interests of the child. He thought that voluntary income had dropped off in areas such as Birmingham and Cardiff when there had been de-mergers of voluntary adoption agencies from the Church. The Bishop told the Tribunal that he agreed with the principle that a child should have the widest possible pool of potential adopters. He said he had heard that same sex couples rarely adopt hard to place children, although when directed to the evidence before the Tribunal which contradicted that view...he was prepared to accept that he might be mistaken on that point.

The Tribunal had before it a letter which had been sent unsolicited to the Charity Commission by the Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and which stated that other Catholic adoption agencies which had been required to change their way of operating in order to comply with equality legislation had continued to attract support from ‘Catholics (including Bishops), showing that intransigent opposition to adoption by same sex couples is not an essential element to a Catholic ethos”.

And so the Tribunal concluded that basically because Bishop Arthur Roche was all at sea and the Gay Catholic Movement said some Catholics do offer financial support to adoption agencies which provide services to same sex adopters, Catholic Care has no case. They also (of course) took into account ‘the European authorities as to the dis-benefit to society arising from discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation’.

But here’s the crucial section of the judgement:
...religious conviction in the sphere of personal belief is protected in both domestic and European equality law, so that acts of devotion, worship, and prayer (including ceremonies) are exempt from equality obligations. However, with the greatest of respect to the Bishop, his argument overlooked the essential distinction between private acts of worship such as blessings and the provision of a public service such as an adoption agency. In other words, in advancing this argument, the Bishop did not take account of the law by which the Tribunal is bound.
This is not a question of ‘homophobia’ (though the allegations will come as swiftly as those of 'bigotry'), and neither is it some irrational prejudice: most Christians will reasonably agree that there may be instances where placing children with a single parent or a gay couple is preferable to a loveless life in a local authority children’s home. This is about the Christian conscience and the freedom to act in accordance with it. This judgement makes clear that there is now no question that Christians may no longer manifest their beliefs in the public sphere on this issue of sexual ethics: they may no longer worship God in spirit and in truth in their daily lives; they may no longer make their bodies a living sacrifice or act in accordance with their consciences, biblical teaching or Church history. Cardinal Keith O’Brien was quite right.

We are told to render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar: the traditional view of marriage, family and sexual ethics do not; they belong to God. The time may be at hand for the law of the State to be confronted by the Law of the Church. Let them bring you to Court: He promises to give you the words (+Arthur couldn’t have been listening):
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you
(Mt 10:16-20).
It is not the EU which is responsible for this; it is our politicians. They are doing the job of the Germans, Russians, mad mullahs and Darth Vader combined.

Either the Conservative Government repeals the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010 (not to mention the European Communities Act 1972), or we will forever be subject to and bound by precepts which violate natural law, deny our liberties and offend against our customs and traditions.

If you don’t care about Catholic care, you have already surrendered freedom of religion.

107 Comments:

Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Which Conservative Government?

27 April 2011 at 11:38  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

So religion is a private matter but sexual activity a public one? No wonder the judges are so considerate in handing out super-injunctions. They live in a topsy-turvy world. Andrew Marr's sex life was until now hidden from us but his religion could be made public. Do they follow a set pattern or is it made up on the back of an envelope.

Perhaps judges should have been miners, as Peter Cook once observed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofUZNynYXzM

27 April 2011 at 11:39  
Blogger Albert said...

The idea that religion is a private matter, is an untruth made up by secularists in order to control people with whom they disagree. Any law which enshrines this untruth is unjust and so is anyone who abides by it or enforces it.

27 April 2011 at 12:34  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

It is always the involvement of the state that is the problem. As soon as churches take money from Caesar they are tainted and compromised. They have sold themselves and cannot therefore complain. This is one of the end-products of the Christendom idea. It is that idea that leads to almost every problem you discuss, Cranny.

27 April 2011 at 13:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

‘Either the Conservative Government repeals the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010 (not to mention the European Communities Act 1972), or we will forever be subject to and bound by precepts which violate natural law, deny our liberties and offend against our customs and traditions.’

If there was a Conservative Government with a large majority – then there may be a chance of repeal.

But there isn’t.

As Mr Charles Moore recently wrote in a national newspaper:

‘Perhaps when I am very old, my grandchildren will ask me what England was. It will be a hard question to answer, but I think I shall tell them that it seemed like a good idea while it lasted, and that it lasted for about 1,000 years.’

Why is it that I hear and read of nothing but the defeat of Christians?

God will not turn away a penitent heart.

God is permitting this so that we will finally accept that our strength is not enough.

If we pray for our country, on our knees, those prayers will strenghthen the angels who are marked to fight on our behalf: God will blow the trumpet for our deliverance.

He is, I am convinced, about to raise a new generation of William Wilberforces.
Their voices will roar in parliament.

We must recollect; we must recall; we must remember our story that has been told from generation to generation:

Battle.

Defeat.

Ressurrection.

Victory.

What a story.

27 April 2011 at 13:08  
Anonymous Papal Bull said...

Slightly off-topic - but why should questioning the wisdom of homosexual adoption be the exclusive preserve of religion?

Surely it's possible to be an atheist and still believe marriage is the best foundation for adoption.

27 April 2011 at 13:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

children flourish best in a family with both a mother and father in a committed relationship.

It’s a sorry state of affairs when the best interests of a child are dumped in order to enforce fashionable theories of equality.

27 April 2011 at 14:08  
Blogger Fr Levi said...

What a strange world we live in. On the one hand, one arm of government in the UK proposes allowing RC bishops to sit in the House of Lords; while at the same time another won't even let them run an adoption agency in accordance with the stated principles of their faith.

27 April 2011 at 14:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"children flourish best in a family with both a mother and father in a committed relationship."

If this is a proven fact(??) then I await claims for damages in the future by children who have been adopted by same sex couples. Indeed Johnny R, why should a child be deprived in order to satisfy fashionistas!

27 April 2011 at 14:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But for the political elites who presently rule Britain, there is no distinction between private and public, or rather there is no such thing as private; the state, whether secularist or Islamic owns us all and there is no way back. Western European civilisation has neither the moral courage or energy to reverse the trend, Consequently we will sip from a cup that will proffered to us and our grandchildren decade upon decade, until we have drunk it to its last bitter dregs.

T.S. Eliot said:

“If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it.” -

27 April 2011 at 15:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'If this is a proven fact(??) then I await claims for damages in the future by children who have been adopted by same sex couples.'

Yes. On the basis of sociological research and applying the balance of probabilities test.

Claim for damages would be made against the agency placing the child.

Thank goodness left-liberal lawyers are not going to be short of a shilling or two.

27 April 2011 at 15:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I should add - that if the adoptive parents are rich - then they can be joined along with the placing agency.

27 April 2011 at 15:22  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

For many years I was the chair of a local authority adoption panel and thereafter served for some years as the decision maker for recommendations from these panels.

You wouldn't believe the scrutiny applicants who professed a christian belief were subject to. Their adherence to christian ethics was seen as a potential weakness in rearing 'liberally'. Non-believers and I even recall a Budhist couple, faced no such prejudice and their ethical codes didn't attract too much attention.

At work I state my catholic christian principles and declare those situations where I feel compelled to exercise my right of conscience. You'll know what these are. But I'm part of the State apparatus, provide a public service, and one day may well recieve 'a knock on the door'.

This Bishop screwed-up at the tribunal because he was ill-prepared. It's also possible a few 'modern' catholics are in the organisation and are writing ambiquous policies or even policies which contradict church teaching.

One point of law overlooked is that it is still a biological parents right to specify the faith they would like their child to be raised in if placed for fostering or adoption. Few social workers actually ask these days and even if they do 'christian' has such a wide and a loose definition. Roman Catholic is, however, pretty clear.

This adoption agency could specialise in placing catholic children within catholic families.

27 April 2011 at 15:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

One point of law overlooked is that it is still a biological parents right to specify the faith they would like their child to be raised in if placed for fostering or adoption.

That's interesting, because I would have thought the need to declare socially acceptable views on the quesiton of homosexuality meant it is impossible for (faithful) Catholics to get through the adoption procedure. In other words, Catholic children cannot be placed with Catholic parents because to do so would offend homosexuals.

If so, no one should pretend the present legal position places the rights and needs of children first.

27 April 2011 at 15:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

Gay-boys and children don't mix.

27 April 2011 at 16:28  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Albert said ...

" ... I would have thought the need to declare socially acceptable views on the quesiton of homosexuality meant it is impossible for (faithful) Catholics to get through the adoption procedure. In other words, Catholic children cannot be placed with Catholic parents because to do so would offend homosexuals."

Interesting points.

Approval of applicants isn't always as 'politically correct' as the recent reporting suggests. Sounds like the couple attracting all the recent publicity ran into a social worker deliberately seeking answers she knew would rule them out.

You can approve people for specific situations and for specific children - race, creed, age, etc. I believe it is lawful to approve a couple specifically for Catholic children. Certainly this is how I've always practiced and will continue to do so until informed it is 'unlawful'. It's also lawful to do the same for various other denominations.

As I said, the law does permit parents to specify a religion and the local authority has a duty to do all in its power to honour this. That's part of a public service too! And now that Catholic agencies are facing closure, the option of local authorities referring couples and children to catholic agencies no longer exists.

27 April 2011 at 16:49  
Anonymous non mouse said...

So let me get this straight.
Some female gets in the what used to be considered a 'family' way ... because she and the lads have a 'uman right - nay duty - to fulfill their fancies, but not to take responsibility for the consequences.

Said female reproduces, but neither she nor the lads are interested in anything but their own 'uman rights. Never mind the offspring.

The state moves in to give orders to female they're maintaining anyway, and they hand offspring over to what used to be an orphanage or a workhouse. Female carries on practicing 'uman rights.

Offspring get shunted to other 'umans, half of whose rights involve pretending to be either female or male; the other half of the dyad or triad (or whatever) being concerned with giving orders to whatever kind of 'uman they are not (female or male).

Well isn't that how breeders are supposed to treat young animals, anyway? Take them from the parents, and sell them to the most powerful or highest bidder?

The neu system'll be a whole lot tidier once the State sets up its breeding batteries. Perhaps the Masters will also get around to the idea of gender-blind 'Pleisure Centres.' That way everybody'll be happy. Won't they?

27 April 2011 at 17:26  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

T.S. Eliot said: 27 April 2011 15:16

Good man was Eliot, very much inspired by Indic Philosophy.

He new the importance of blending Christianity, with Indo-European Traditions of poetic metaphor.

For tis in metahpor does the deeper knowledge reveal itself and in poetry we find Truth beyond a need for proof.

Den of Vipers, speak with forked tongues, render unto caeser by all means but let caeser come and cease it himself, because I call caeser a pussy, as do all the Northern Tribes!

27 April 2011 at 17:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you for that Dodo. I'd been wondering about that for some weeks. So, in effect, by discriminating against Christians or anyone else who dares to challenge state orthodoxy on sexuality, the courts are making it harder for local authorities to keep the law regarding their responsibilities to vunerable children.

P.S. (Naughtily) I can't help noticing this phrase "all in its power" appearing. In other words, the authority does not have to place children in a religion specified by the parents.

27 April 2011 at 17:58  
Anonymous malvoisin said...

I must admit that posts like this one cause me no end of amusement. HG and many more on here wail and gnash their teeth at the goings on in this country and then keep on supporting and voting for the three main parties who have caused this, you cannot put a cigerette paper between them and you have known this for years.

You hope the Tories will repeal the Human Rights and Equality acts? Perhaps in your dreams, for no politician in the three main parties has the backbone to implement such a remedy.

You also state we will be bound for ever by precepts which violate natural law, deny our liberties and offend against our natural customs and traditions. You and many on here have voted for this, and have kept on voting for it. Is this stupidity or naivety? I hope it will get far worse then some on here might develop a backbone or at least wake up and smell the coffee.

27 April 2011 at 18:01  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace has some interesting thoughts on this matter , however interpretation is what is at fault.

The law was surely enacted to put to one side the idea that same sex couples should not be impeded from adoption. An agency wishing to ensure (whether catholic or other denomination) to find heterosexual adoption places is breaking what law exactly ? The law does not state a prefered form for adoption , to turn it on its head , it is prejudice to claim a same sex couple have more right to adopt than a heterosexual couple.

The possibility and no doubt the difficulty is saying ,evidentially how one form may have benefit that should be considered in applying the law . The commisoner should perhaps have pondered if there was any evidence (without prejudice) that a priority could be discerned. Being as there is no social statistics on the outcomes of same sex adoptions ,that may themselves highlight childrens upbringing and developement as being problematically different.

It is not only a new law ,but a new social untested belief that is in itself prejudice that the outcomes will be the same and of no consequence to the adopted child future in life .

The technicality that catholic care , was prejudice in maintaining a christian position , could be turned back and asked for evidence why it should not be allowed to continue with sucessful same sex adoptions ,given that the law could not prove ,its priority in belief of the form of heterosexual adotion they promote is detremental to the childrens upbringing ,wether under christian belief/faith or not .

The commisoner cannot prove that what the bishop believes in the matter of heterosexual adoption is wrong in substance.

The commissoner is applying the law that says to hold the view that on religous grounds , same sex adoption will not be allowed via catholic care is breaking the law ,ergo catholic care no longer fullfills the role of an adoption agency .

There are a number of approaches to consider a repeal , but these will require a determination of what is preferable when considering a childs adoptive parents.

If of course in the future some differnces do occure in outcomes then the loss of all the skills and goodwill of catholic care will have been wasted for what at best is minority and untested social theorem .

Catholic care should at least be kept going if the law is proved to be cruelly inept at encompassing the intricate needs of children in need of adoption , as the equality of outcome is unproven/tested .

27 April 2011 at 18:37  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Why we are on the subject of childrens care, let us remember Caesers ant-terror laws were used to harass innocent children in the streets.

Yet stood back and did nothing when the IRA marched in balaclavas, so when innocent children grow up to be cop killers, lets not ask why.

We all know its Darth Vaders fault, or some other metaphor for the Truth, we fear to speak.

27 April 2011 at 19:14  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Albert

That was naughty of you slipping in that phrase!

However, I misrepresented the law. Must have had that phrase in my mind. Wonder why?

All a local authority has to do is give "due consideration" to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background as expressed by parents and by the child.

However, I would maintain that to give "due consideration" means taking it seriously and having a pool of potential carers available or an agency to whom they can refer.

It isn't within the law to simply dismiss catholic orthodoxy as homophobic or discriminatory. And catholics are entitled to a "public service", including a care system sensitive to their needs regardless of European legislation and the homosexual lobby.

27 April 2011 at 19:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is nothing to stop Catholic Care dropping their appeal and carry on with their adoption work, even if it is only a few children a year. They just have to stop their bigoted arrogance and join the 21st century. Remind me again where in the New Testament does it say homosexuals are not allowed to adopt - cant recall it being a big concern of Jesus although he was not a big fan or organised religion.

27 April 2011 at 19:18  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

malvoisin said...
You and many on here have voted for this, and have kept on voting for it. Is this stupidity or naivety? I hope it will get far worse then some on here might develop a backbone or at least wake up and smell the coffee.

27 April 2011 18:01

Not so much stupidity, but certainly naivety mixed with perfectly understandable wishful thinking, as well as spending a lifetime perfectly surrounded by liars telling lies.

Although some infamous scientist, once said something like, "repeating the exact same experiment time and time again expecting a different result, is the very height of stupidity."

I have been telling people for many years, that they are flogging a dead horse if they are still persisted in believing that democracy is capable of bringing an answer to any of their most important problems.

Democracy is a major part of the problem, which is why it has never contained any answers, just more and more seemingly unanswerable questions.

Democracy was in the past simply a method by which the establishment measured the effectiveness of their propaganda, now it is not even that important to them.

Today Nationalism, tomorrow Internationalism. Today nice socialism, tomorrow nasty fascism. Today established religion, tomorrow Premier League Football. Today the Muslims, tomorrow the Jews. Today the Roman Catholics, tomorrow real christians, and so on and so forth.

There could be described as being only two basic theories as to how we got to where we are. The first one being the Cock-Up Theory, the second being The Conspiracy Theory.

When I was very young I thought I knew much. Therefore I believed my history, and biology teachers when they strongly suggested that virtually everything was based on one great big enormous cock-up.

When I finally grew up and started to actually know things, I suddenly realized that I actually knew virtually nothing at all, as I had been lied to all of my life.

At which point I started to rapidly understand that that which had up to that point seemed to be an exclusive product of cock-up or evolutionary chance, was nothing of the sort.

That, we are where we are, because someone had DESIGNED it to be so, often to even the finest of details.

Which is an extremely enlightening Revelation, I can tell you. Virtually everything suddenly came into focus. ALL which had seemed to have no explanation to offer, became as clear as a bell.

Answers to life's most illusive mysteries came thick and fast. My consciousness seemed to expand all over the place, until I seemed to have answers to virtually all important questions, as well as know exactly which questions could not possibly have answers to them.

Since this time I have tried my upmost to past this experience to as many as possible.

HOWEVER.

This is the rub. Passing on things such as this, is as close to impossible as impossible gets.

It seems that people have to walk their own journey. The problem is that it is virtually impossible to get them to even make the first step, never mind help them walk it.

The degree to which our minds have been fundamentally DESTROYED, is most worrying.

People who believe that they have a real education, simply because an establishment OWNED university at some time gave them a piece of more then useless paper, stating that they have one, are the most LAZY thinking of all. Indeed trying to get these types to rethink their entire programming, is harder then anything Moses himself ever attempted.

This of cause will not stop me trying, even though the task of walking across a baron deserts for 40 days and nights, and then rescuing an entire nation of people from Egyptian bondage, seem like a relative walk in park, breathing fresh air.

27 April 2011 at 19:21  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

Well said, your grace.

Perhaps it's time that the Catholic church organised some direct action against these commissions of unelected busybodies. How would we be worse off?

27 April 2011 at 19:47  
Anonymous Gladiatrix said...

The Catholic adoption agencies should simply have refused to acknowledge the Equality Act, and ignored any attempt to take them to court and any court order issuing as a result.

If the agencies had simply refused to comply and treated the courts with indifference, there would have been very little that either the courts or the Government could have done about it.

27 April 2011 at 20:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The ultimate end--whether intended or inadvertent-is the destruction of the Christian Church. It can either abide legally or close its doors. That's why I signed the Manhattan Declaration; I could see this coming a mile away. It's only a question of time until churches refusing to "marry" homosexuals on moral grounds are forced to close their doors. Statism brooks no dissent: all must obey. These are the death throes of the Church.

27 April 2011 at 21:07  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Gladiatrix said...
"The Catholic adoption agencies should simply have refused to acknowledge the Equality Act, and ignored any attempt to take them to court and any court order issuing as a result."

Adoption agencies are state regulated and subject to inspection - so the resistance you've recommended is not a realistic tactic. Plus, contempt of court is not a course of action any responsible body would contemplate.

They need to appeal and their Bishop needs to be somewhat better informed about adoption practices and the policies of his own agency.

27 April 2011 at 21:07  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

English Viking: "Gay-boys and children don't mix."

Nor do the clergy and children if that is the case.

27 April 2011 at 21:29  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

His Grace makes an eloquent case as usual. However:

"This judgement makes clear that there is now no question that Christians may no longer manifest their beliefs in the public sphere on this issue of sexual ethics."

The problem there I think is that other people always seem to have to be involved and must make special allowances when the religious 'manifest' their beliefs in these news items.

Who gives a crap whether a religious person doesn't want to have gay sex, or refuses to have sex before marriage, or doesn't make lewd jokes at work, or refuses to take up employment which involves issues of conscience? Manifest away on those.

27 April 2011 at 21:41  
Anonymous Atlas shugged said...

Roger Pearse said...
Well said, your grace.

Perhaps it's time that the Catholic church organised some direct action against these commissions of unelected busybodies. How would we be worse off?

27 April 2011 19:47

Good question, however I do not believe you will like the answer.

You could be very much worse off, because you would be taking on forces that you do not even know exist, therefore at all understand, and so beat, by any type of means that are easily at your disposal.

All that can happen is that all Christians will be seen as the enemies of the will of the people, instead of most of them.

This most surely if the BBC has anything to do with it, which as The BBC has much to do with most things notably divisive, and dare I say EVIL, the Christian Church would do well to keep a low profile in all respects for the foreseeable future, and perhaps forever.

There is less then no point in seeking to resist, never mind fight an enemy when you don't have the slightest clue how big its army is, where it is, who it is, what they are trying to achieve, why, or how they are intending to achieve it.

Under these circumstances the result is, I am afraid to say, more then inevitable.

This fish is fast rotting, and like all rotting fish is rots from the head down.

Therefore if you truly wish to understand the forces ranged against you, it is essential that you look to the very top. Then when you have looked up, then understand that you are still nowhere near where you need to be looking. Therefore look ever higher, then higher still, and then you may start to get close.

Now to help you along, here is the best clue you are likely to be given, which any kind of half qualified fraud detective would be happy to give you.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

27 April 2011 at 21:53  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

Very true, but the agency is not placing children with the clergy.

27 April 2011 at 21:57  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

The agency is getting kids away from the clergy by placing them, you mean?

27 April 2011 at 22:13  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Roman Catholic Adoption agencies is a just a small aspect of how the establishment is eating its own children.

IMO Real Christians have ultimately ONLY one option. This option may not seem self-apparent today, but it will one day without any doubt in my mind.

Real Christians much make a clean break with all forms of established religion, and form only smallish congregations of close family, friends and associates. Very much like they did over 1700 years ago.

Organized or established Religion is a corporation. This means many vitally important things, but the most important one is that faith is governed by the very top, not by The words, or mission of Jesus Christ, or much, if anything else contained with the spirit of the Holy Scriptures.

Christians can not trust their own leaderships, anymore today then they could a thousand years ago, I would strongly contend far less so.

If real Christians continue to be confined by long or short established corporate bodies such as The Church of England, or The Vatican then they will continue to perish by their OWN once all conquering corporatist sword.

All is being consumed by The Great Whore, is this not obvious?

All, including democracy, the nation state, democratic accountability, corporatist religion, atheism, humanism, socialism, capitalism, communism, indeed you name it, it will all be melding into one.

But first all, must be turned against all else, and if anything still remains sacred, that too is going to be turned upside down.

I predict that within our lifetimes virtually nothing at all will seem as it did no more then 10 years ago.

Now some of you may still wish to hope that this can be reversed, or is the result of some kind of giant cock-up, but sooner or later you will be forced to realize that you were very much mistaken.

Therefore cast off your slave masters chains, and finally become free to worship what you want, as you want, and so live as you see fit.

27 April 2011 at 22:24  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The European Union has Gay Rights as its totemic value system. It is a form of Test Acts in Great Britain. European History is littered with the doctrinaire faddism of ideological rigidities.

One day it will swing 180 degrees and the hunt for incriminating statements will be the nemesis of today's persecutors

27 April 2011 at 22:25  
Blogger The Fact Compiler said...

Thank you.

27 April 2011 at 22:29  
Anonymous matt j said...

your grace,

I really think you exaggerate on this issue. we haven't lost religious freedom.

You say the charity "simply wished to follow their conscience" - well why don't we allow people who say that black people or jewish people are subhuman to follow their conscience? There are some beliefs that are not acceptable and people need to learn that these are wrong.

Your statement that "children flourish best in a family with both a mother and father in a committed relationship" is slightly twisting the truth. studies show that they do best in a family with two parents but there is little to no difference in the outcomes for children of whether those parents are gay or straight.

If this charity was allowed to discriminate, then others would want that right too and it would make a mockery of the law.

27 April 2011 at 23:52  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

No.

But if you want me to say that the cat-licks are over-represented on the pædo front, I'll sadly agree.

If one suppresses the natural (ie marriage, between a man and a woman) as the cat-licks do with their 'clergy', then the unnatural (gayness, lessing, kiddy-fiddling, etc) appears.

Sad, but true. But no excuse for filth.

28 April 2011 at 02:08  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"It is not the EU which is responsible for this; it is our politicians" ...

1)...and the particular mischief of this case is in the notion that "adoption is a public service", which is a falsehood, as if truth-speaking or -seeking, or matrimony, were properly to be regarded in that way. Albert's remark (27 April 12:34) applies: "Any law which enshrines this untruth is unjust..."

2)...but our politicians are complicit in the ethos of the EU, which, as Voyager remarked (27 April 22:25) "has Gay Rights as its totemic value system".

28 April 2011 at 02:41  
Anonymous len said...

The 'established Church' is rapidly becoming sidelined and perhaps we should ask ourselves why?
The'established Church married,
to the State became part of the problem,NOT part of the solution(which is Christ)
Christ seems to hardly have a place in the 'established Church '.
The 'Church''married the State and became corrupted by it,merely an extension of it,prostituted herself to it. We have not 'rendered unto Caesar' we have taken Caesar and deified him.

28 April 2011 at 07:12  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

‘Who gives a crap…[when Christians] refuses to take up employment which involves issues of conscience?’

When you quote SS guards can you at least acknowledge the source?

28 April 2011 at 08:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

matt j

‘‘You say the charity "simply wished to follow their conscience" - well why don't we allow people who say that black people or jewish people are subhuman to follow their conscience? There are some beliefs that are not acceptable and people need to learn that these are wrong.’

Equating a sexual practice that has been condemned in all societies because of what it leads to as the moral equivalent of race; is racist.

Black people are sick and tired of you left-liberals reducing them to the status of mere tools to be used in your campaign to promote that which the majority of them disagree with.

So take your patronising racist attitudes where they will be better appreciated – over to The Guardian.

28 April 2011 at 09:34  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"DanJ0,
No.
But if you want me to say that the cat-licks are over-represented on the pædo front, I'll sadly agree."

An ignorant, bigoted and factually inaccurate post.

Catholic clery are NOT over represented in sexual crimes against children. Try looking at the figures and compare them to teachers, care workers and, highest of all, family members.

There is no actual evidence that celibacy causes sexual dysfunction - why would Christ have recommended it for the sake of the Kingdom if this were so? And it's not just catholic clergy who are celibate - but I guess you know that, don't you?

Do grow up the pair of you and advance reasoned arguments rather than prejudiced nonsense.

28 April 2011 at 09:42  
Blogger Albert said...

D Singh,

Well said. The "condemning gay sex is the moral equivalent of racism" is a category mistake. Racism is wrong because it condemns someone simply for their being. Condemning gay sex is about condemning behaviour. It is sloppy thinking to equate the two.

No behaviour should be protected from general moral discourse. The fact that political correctness bands around words like "racism" to prevent free discussion of certain behaviours is a reflection of the fact that political correctness is the enemy of genuine freedom.

None of this alters the fact that homosexuals are entitled to be protected from unjust discrimination etc.

28 April 2011 at 09:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Nooo, there's been no systemic abuse amongst the cat-licks for decades, covered up by Bishops, Cardinals and the old bloke from the Hitler youth, has there?

Just firmly asserting that which you wish were true will not make it so.

Christ referred to the fact that if God had made you a EUNUCH (not celibate, a word which does not appear in reliable translations), then so be it. This was in a person's personal capacity, never as a 'priest' (falsely so called). He NEVER spoke about organised clergy in the fashion of the cat-lick system (or the CofE, or any other for that matter), because it is un-Christian and unnecessary.

Do read that dusty book in the corner once in a while, eh?

28 April 2011 at 14:33  
Blogger Matt said...

D Singh....
1) I am not a left-liberal, I am a red Tory.
2) Sexual orientation/ being gay is a moral equivalent of race - both are things that cannot be changed in a person and people should never be judged or treated differently or discriminated against based on those things about themselves which they cannot change!
3) what exactly are you implying by the comment "because of what it leads to" - If its that it leads to bad outcomes for the child then you should read what the science actually says before making wild assertions. The science shows that there is no detrimental affect on a child from having a same sex couple looking after them as parents. To suggest otherwise without good evidence to back up your claims is a lie and you should know better.
4)It really doesn't matter if it has been condemned in all societies...there are plenty of things condemned in those societies which we now think is morally acceptable and vice versa. That said, you are also wrong in your facts on this too because some historical societies supported homosexuality e.g. greco-roman societies.

28 April 2011 at 15:44  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said ...
"Dodo,
Nooo, there's been no systemic abuse amongst the cat-licks for decades, covered up by Bishops, Cardinals and the old bloke from the Hitler youth, has there?

Just firmly asserting that which you wish were true will not make it so."

Never denied the abuse or the cover up by parts of the church, just putting it into a wider context of evidence relating to the abuse of children. Check out the Welsh, English and Scottish figures on the systematic abuse of children in the care system.

Neither is there any evidence that I know of linking the sexual abuse of children with celibacy. True, there appears to be some association with homosexuality, but then where's the evidence the ratio of homosexuals in the Catholic Church is greater than in any other organisation?

So far as Christ's comments about eunuchs, do read the relevant passage. It is clear what's being referred to. It precedes a discussion about marriage. Surely you don't think He's advocating physical castration for the sake of the Kingdom?!

28 April 2011 at 15:55  
Blogger Matt said...

Also, this catholic adoption agency is asking for the right to discriminate against people - why should they be allowed such a right? no one else gets that right.
Almost every time there's a claim of "persecution of Christians" its because Christians want the right to discriminate against other people, usually gay people, and because their privileged position in society is slowly being removed so they are finding it harder to discriminate, they are making a big fuss! The arrogance of it is absolutely outrageous!!!

28 April 2011 at 16:08  
Blogger Evil Auntie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 April 2011 at 16:47  
Blogger Evil Auntie said...

Adoption is big business in the UK, and an entire industry is busy harvesting children and tax money from the public.

Christians and their honesty are a nuisance in the eyes of the professionals with large pensions and empires to protect, besides that, they snaffle up children and money that could otherwise be used profitably by the NuLabourborn SS brigades, who also get the benefit of placing those children politically correctly.

The learned handwaving and oh-so-moral arguing about the finer points here doesn't matter to those raiders, gays are just a weapon to rob you with, they don't care about your opinion either way, they want your patch and now they can get it, they'll take it off you and don't care how bad they look whilst they do it because they know shame(if it still exists) is temporary but the powerchange is permanent.

(Seriously, you're dealing with professional baby snatchers here, and you expect fairness? Hrmpf...)

--------------

Regards the lofty claim to Christian morals and family ethics... well, not everyont agrees, and it would be wise to consider this before you proudly strut your stuff:

Before Christiany came to Europe, divorce was unheard of and marriage of widowed people was forbidden. Why? Because people believed in an afterlife and polygamy was an abhorrent concept, especially if polygamy was to be for eternity(and it turns to polyandry quickly too if widow marries widower, yuck), and also, allowing widowed people to rematch invites either spouse stealing or intergenerational marriages which is a poison for the peace and health of the community and weakens the bond between man and wife into a temporary arrangement which also makes the murder/neglect of an unloved spouse a possibility. If you only have one partner in life, your entire motivation and behaviour is completely different, and this is often forgotten by those who advocate 'freedom' and 'compassion' for people 'trapped in bad marriage'.

Then the Anglican church was founded on divorce, and the Catholics started to allow divorce a few hundred years later, and the result is the mess we're in now.(and how did Henry's need to get a special dispensation to marry Katherine, the widow of his brother, come about? That's Anglosaxon mores, not Christianity, there is no ban in the bible on remarrying anyone not blood related to you)

Christianity is no friend of the family at all and their morals regarding marriage are unfortunately not what they seem.

28 April 2011 at 16:50  
Blogger Evil Auntie said...

Quick heads up: I posted this anonymously and my id was still displayed. Not that I care, but those who do should be careful!

28 April 2011 at 16:54  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

One thing that makes me sick is the constant reference to paedophilia in the Catholic Church and yet not a bloody peep about various sick practises in the Islamic religion which I believe are far more widespread. All Sins are wrong, not just Christian perpetrated ones. Yet it seems that the Atheist/Secularist/Lefty mob only pick on Christians. I hope one day these muppets will be called to account.

28 April 2011 at 17:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Do grow up the pair of you and advance reasoned arguments rather than prejudiced nonsense."

And you need to read more carefully I think. Note the if in what I said: "Nor do the clergy and children if that is the case". I was entertaining his comment and showing the ramifications of it.

28 April 2011 at 17:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "When you quote SS guards can you at least acknowledge the source?"

No idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Nice to see you making more of an appearance again though. It must have been an effort crawling out from under your stone but I bet you feel better for it.

28 April 2011 at 17:42  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

The word 'eunuch' in the passage in question can, according to Strong, mean either a castrated person or someone who voluntarily abstains from marriage.

As, according to Christ, some are born in this condition and others are made so by other men, I am drawn to the conclusion that the word in this context means a castrated person.

28 April 2011 at 18:35  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS It is a fact that more children have been abused by cat-lick priests than by teachers in recent decades, unless you include cat-lick schools with the 'Father O'Reilly' variety of teacher.

28 April 2011 at 18:39  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 April 2011 at 18:47  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"Dodo,
I am drawn to the conclusion that the word in this context means a castrated person."

And what about those who become so for the Kingdom?! Surely this refers to voluntary abstinence from marriage i.e. celibacy? It would be a novel interpretation indeed to suggest Jesus was recommending self-castration!

Agree with celibacy in the priesthood or not, there is a scriptural basis for placing God above marriage.

King James Bible
"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]."

Or a clearer translation:

New International Version
"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

28 April 2011 at 18:50  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Less accurate (or just plain fiction) does not mean clearer.

KJV is crystal clear.

28 April 2011 at 20:17  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

PS It is a fact that more children have been abused by cat-lick priests than by teachers in recent decades, unless you include cat-lick schools with the 'Father O'Reilly' variety of teacher [citation needed].

The scandal was not the amount of abuse in Catholic children's institutions but the cover-up; please understand this as it underpins the entire case against the Church and refutes the entire case against celibates which (as a celibate by circumstance) I find frankly offensive.

One may prefer one translation to another; some may be more accurately literal and some may be easier to understand, but what makes one translation the true translation ordained by God and the other the Devil's handbook?

Maturecheese@17.08

Stranger still that no one raises the point that male homosexuals are rather over-represented when it comes to rates of child abuse. Can't think why they might want to shift the attention to the relatively under-represented Church...

28 April 2011 at 21:47  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

Pray explain the following if it is crystal clear:

" ... and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]."

Voluntary celibacy or self-castration?

28 April 2011 at 22:35  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

I would say that the most important thing is for traditional conservatives to draw up our alternative ideal on the English constitution. The left and the rest have decided that the ancient status of the Church of England and Christianity has little to do with the real constitution of England and therefore the can be overruled at will by parliament and such nonsense as the Human rights act. We must show even as it stands that act cannot operate as they aim to make it because the Church, and therefore Christianity, is a superior element of the constitution. An element that the monarch swears to uphold, an estate of the realm whose prerogatives cannot be encroached upon, even by parliament and the monarch together, without revolution.

29 April 2011 at 04:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester91: "Stranger still that no one raises the point that male homosexuals are rather over-represented when it comes to rates of child abuse. Can't think why they might want to shift the attention to the relatively under-represented Church..."

Can I see your stats and source please about the alleged over-representation? I hope it's not a church one.

I am a gay man and I have made comments about child abuse (sexual and other) in the church but not to shift attention away from male-on-male child abusers.

It's because I am bewildered that someone who has devoted his life to the church and who presumably thinks god exists and knows everything ... even as it happens ... could ever act or consider to act in that fashion. It's more a point about the alleged power or even existence of the Holy Spirit.

One has to be quite careful about terms and statistics. There's some good points in this:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

That's just from a trawl of the 'Net, I know nothing about the source as such.

For the avoidance of any doubt given some of the comments here ... child sexual abuse is a hideous crime in my mind. It's beyond rape. Prepubescent children are not even sexual subjects of themselves, let alone sexual objects.

29 April 2011 at 07:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Table 2.04 (cont):

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1210/hosb1210?view=Binary

Take a look at the gender of the victims there and the numbers.

Short textual roundup:

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/news-and-views/media-centre/press-releases/2010/10-01-25-21000-child-sex-offences/10-01-25_more_than_21000_child_sex_offences_recorded_last_year_wdn75078.html

Of course, as with any type of sexual issue, the available statistics and their validity are limited. For instance, I'd say stranger abuse is much more likely to be reported than abuse by a family member and I'd personally expect that men are more likely than women to be involved in stranger abuse.

29 April 2011 at 08:09  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

'It's because I am bewildered that someone who has devoted his life to the church and who presumably thinks god exists and knows everything ... even as it happens ... could ever act or consider to act in that fashion.'

It is the sin of Adam.

But more particularly men may believe, may love, may know to a good degree but not have yet come to fully and intellectually know, love and believe in God. Until a man has reversed the fall, what the Eastern church calls deification and the medieval West talked of in terms of the narrow door of heaven as opposed to the broad door of purgatory, then he is always more or less open to temptation and sin. This is the case even for the saved. To be simply saved, to be initiated into the lesser mysteries so to speak, is not to be Saint. It is but the beginning of a journey which the incomparable St.Gregory of Nyssa described as everlasting.

29 April 2011 at 08:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It is the sin of Adam."

Yes, in the religious view. But it's been put forward here a number of times in the past that Christianity is of prime importance to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Of what use is it as a force for good if even some of the clergy can't keep their grubby hands off kids?

29 April 2011 at 09:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What is most annoying is that the clergy are the very people putting it about that gay people, who have no choice over their sexual orientation, should be celibate all of their lives even if they don't believe in their church's god because having harmless, consensual, loving sex between adults is 'wrong'. It beggars belief. Quite literally.

29 April 2011 at 09:06  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

A post from an earlier blog overing some of the issues:

"The Catholic Church, like all churches and society at large, is facing many challenging issues in these difficult times. Christ warned Satan would attack the church but promised he would not prevail.

If you were Satan of course you'd attack the weaknesses of the clergy. He has done so for 2000 years - greed, lust, power, ambition - and not just the Catholic Church. It's a human organisation in a fallen world.

Do remember too that the grooming and sexual abuse of children was really not understood very well before the mid-1980's. Neither were the techniques for silencing children. Prior to this it was generally assumned it was 'men in dirty macks' who perpetrated such crimes.

We now know much more and, in fact, children are at greatest risk from their own family members. They've also been and are being abused, abused in care homes, by foster parents, by school teachers and by others in positions of authority, including ministers from other churches.

This is not exclusively a Catholic problem. It's a societal wide problem and, being part of the real world, for good and evil, the church will not be fully shielded from it. All it can do is own the problem, seek to understand it and get to grips with guarding against it as best it can.

I believe the Catholic Church is now responding appropriately to this serious issue - from the recruitment and training of priests through to clear procedures for dealing with suspicions and allegations of abuse.

Do stop attacking a christian organisation! Why not pray instead that it successful?"

28 April 2011 10:09

29 April 2011 at 10:04  
Anonymous len said...

Dodo, You ask me to pray for an organisation (Catholicism) which is based on compromise?

OK, I pray that the roots of Catholicism be removed and Jesus Christ replaced as the head(deposing the Pope)
I pray that all that is not of God in Catholicism be destroyed.I pray that Catholicism will line up its practices and traditions with Holy Scripture.

Amen.

29 April 2011 at 11:18  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester,

I don't need to provide you with citations, I'm not your nursemaid. You've got a brain (I presume), use it.

I do not believe that there is a single perfect translation, but it is quite clear that some are more accurate than others, and some are just plain wrong, deliberately so, in my opinion. NIV is one of them.

BTW I couldn't give two hoots however frankly offended you are at hearing the truth.

Dodo,

I have already explained it. See further up the thread.

29 April 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

'Yes, in the religious view. But it's been put forward here a number of times in the past that Christianity is of prime importance to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Of what use is it as a force for good if even some of the clergy can't keep their grubby hands off kids?'

I would have thought the inference was obvious; because it at least makes it less likely.

The clergy scandal anyway is hard to judge and appears not to, from American stats at least, to represent a greater likelihood of abuse than other clergy or non-clergy. Quite the reverse. It also was not paedophilia properly called, in general. It was not generally prepubescents who were the victims. So you first comments were somewhat inaccurate. Not of course that this absolves those who did commit abuse against anyone, it just puts it more accurately and in context.

29 April 2011 at 13:29  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Len,

But then who could you feel superior to?

DanJ0,

My point wasn't necessarily that homosexuals are inclined to abuse children, but that those who are so quick to accuse are very often just as, if not more, guilty of such crimes.

The sources you cite sadly do either nothing to my point, or just advance it. Consider that almost all sexual crimes have male perpetrators. If girls are six times as likely as boys to suffer sexual assault (14% boys), and there are 99 times as many heterosexuals than homosexuals (1% homosexual) then homosexual abuse is 14x as common as one should expect. Now your first article gives reasons for this (including use of the much discredited penis circumference test), but cites no sources. Perhaps it is foolish not to describe the adult orientation of the offender - but, as far more common than infant (pre-pubescent) abuse is teenage abuse and as your source describes (albeit with possible flaws) that homosexuals tend to be attracted to younger men, it is not illogical to state that sexual abuse of minors is disproportionately carried out by those of a homosexual orientation.

Of course this doesn't mean that we should discriminate against them any more than we should discriminate against men for similar reasons. However, when you consider the facts about Catholic sexual abuse it does make attacks against it rather hypocritical.

In the end I think Mr Dodo sums it up rather well. The problem is not homosexuals or clergy but our culture; something which is being addressed.

Mr EV,

I have above kindly provided an article that you may peruse. It is sourced adequately and I hope you may be enlightened. You do understand I was only asking a question, and not deriding the KJV (despite its understandable errors).

I posit to you that the reason you so condescendingly refuse to cite sources is not because you believe I could do so myself, but because you understand that none exist. Frankly if you accept the KJV with all its flaws, then I can't understand why you discount a more modern, and better researched translation. You claim the NIV is deliberately falsified, but it is a claim you have made without any basis whatsoever!

Even stranger is your claim about celibacy. You entrench yourself by claiming it as absolute truth. It is not to me to disprove an unverified assertion but to you to prove it. Seeing as you are unable, I put it to you that you are completely without base and therefore utterly wrong.

29 April 2011 at 13:38  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

'Dodo, You ask me to pray for an organisation (Catholicism) which is based on compromise?

OK, I pray that the roots of Catholicism be removed and Jesus Christ replaced as the head(deposing the Pope)
I pray that all that is not of God in Catholicism be destroyed.I pray that Catholicism will line up its practices and traditions with Holy Scripture.

Amen.'

I'm not a Roman Catholic but this position made little sense five hundred years ago and makes no more now. The Christian revelation is not based in Holy Scripture but in Christ(indeed even one could say in Christ the Logos as image and Word of God above even the historical incarnation of the Word as Jesus of Nazareth.). Scripture is but a prolongation of this revelation to the extent it is inspired, but it certainly is not the only one. Scripture and history alone inform us of others, such as sacred tradition, the authority of the church and the councils and the fathers, the sacraments and so forth. To truly interpret scripture we need to use our intellect, not just reason and certainly not just sentiment but our deepest, mystical intellect, love and faith. This can only be done through an mystical, transcendent or intelligible knowledge, love and faith of God's full revelation and its prolongations.

To set up scripture as you do is perilously close to idolatry, ironically no doubt.

29 April 2011 at 13:42  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Your Grace my post has disappeared.

29 April 2011 at 14:30  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

and now it has appeared again :P

29 April 2011 at 14:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester91: "If girls are six times as likely as boys to suffer sexual assault (14% boys), and there are 99 times as many heterosexuals than homosexuals (1% homosexual) then homosexual abuse is 14x as common as one should expect."

I think 6% is the usual estimate of the number of gay men and it could be as much as 10%. It could be 20% if one include men who admit to having had gay feelings at some point.

Those figures in the link are recorded offences. There could be 10x as many actual crimes (as some one said at the time of that nursery ring) so the figures could be way out. Female on male child assault may not even been seen as assault by the child especially if he is in early puberty. Certainly people have been very reluctant to see women as potential sexual predators or sexual abusers though that is changing now. Of course, rape is not always sexually motivated either.

I'm also not sure how you have arrived at your figures. Sexual assault of a male child could be by a male or female. I'm not sure how the crimes are being classified but rape of a male under 16 could be by a female too. Some of the offences have probably been committed by the same person on the same child.

In short, I think you're on dodgy ground. I mean, why would there be a correlation anyway? I'd look at your sources too to check but, well, you haven't posted any. I suppose coincidentally they're the same as mine because you obviously wouldn't just parrot that line about the alleged link between being gay and being a paedophile.

As for this:

"My point wasn't necessarily that homosexuals are inclined to abuse children, but that those who are so quick to accuse are very often just as, if not more, guilty of such crimes."

how can you possibly justify that? :O

29 April 2011 at 16:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Just to add, as a closet gay man I have been approached a number of times in my early 20s by straight male friends who spotted something accepting and fancied trying it out ... straight friends who are now happily married. In fact, go to somewhere like Morocco where unmarried sex with women is a little harder to come by in that culture and it seems like it is rife despite the Muslim hegemony over there. Sexuality is more fluid than people like to admit in public.

29 April 2011 at 16:23  
Anonymous len said...

Westcountryman,Lakester 91, RC ers,the Pope whoever.

I`m getting fed up with saying this, but I feel the mission field is ripe and Catholics must be evangelised, or at least given the chance to hear the Truth, (however much they resist it!) The religious seem to put up a much greater resistance to the Truth than Secularists.Of course this was always the case!!

Westcountryman seems to want to separate Christ from Scripture?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)The Holy Spirit reveals Christ and the Scriptures confirm Him.How can one seperate the two?

Lakester,
Why is Catholicism better than any other religion, I think that Muslims probably pray more and a lot of other religions have high standards of morality( on the surface at any rate ) so what( if I might be so bold as to ask) what drew you into Catholicism?
(Others feel free to answer.)

29 April 2011 at 17:00  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester,

Try these. I'd appreciate it if you didn't infer that I am a liar in future.

Over one Billion paid out in compo up to 2002 alone.
How much is it now?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

http://innocentvoicesuk.com/2011/03/21/5-damning-films-about-catholic-child-abuse/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8059826.stm

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-22/world/germany.abuse_1_abuse-by-catholic-clergy-child-abuse-diocese?_s=PM:WORLD

With regard to the NIV, try quoting Matt 17:21, 18:11, 23:14;

or Mark 7:16, 9:44, 11:26.

I could go on, but the point is that you cannot quote those verses because they, and many others, have simply been omitted from the NIV by the 'translators', apparently on a whim. Using a mixture of both formal and dynamic equivalence is hopeless, as the reader never knows whether he is reading a translation or the translators opinion on how best to express an idea. I want to know God's mind, not what a translator thinks I should think. Where words are added in the kjv to enable a comprehensible sentence to be constructed, this is ALWAYS indicated.

One final point; I own numerous Bibles, in numerous languages and in numerous translations. I can look in a KJV from 300, 400, 100, 75 or even 1 year ago, and they ALL read EXACTLY the same. This is not so with the NIV, which in the course of its 40 odd year history has had at least a dozen different editions, different not only in the dust cover, but in content.

I look at the men and women the study of the KJV produced, and compare it to what the NIV and other dreadful translations have produced, and, well, you can keep your Benny Hinn and Maurice Cerrello, I'll stick with CHM, Spurgeon and Studd.

29 April 2011 at 17:28  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr EV,

None of your links claims that abuse is more common by priests than anyone else just that it occurs (shock horror). One even provides evidence that it is not!

One wonders whether or not you have been naughty and simply copypasta'd from google search results... Actually I can answer that as I did and got the same results as you. WHOOPS!

Mr DanJ0,

"I think 6% is the usual estimate of the number of gay men and it could be as much as 10%. It could be 20% if one include men who admit to having had gay feelings at some point."

Except the most recent survey shows just 1% as homosexual. 10% is from a single discredited study of prisoners and hilariously optimistic for the gay community.

I did indeed use your sources. I never claimed, nor even implied that correlation = causation and in fact I said quite the opposite. What's duplicitous is claiming that there is no correlation at all. Yes some sexual offences are carried out by women, but not nearly enough to dilute the statistics. For God sake it may be that feeling repressed isolates, and feeling isolated leads to depravity. Were this true it would imply more work should be done to accept homosexuals.

Don't get me wrong; I may consider homosexuality a sin, but only as much as serial monogamists. If there is any reason that homosexuals are over-represented in the sexual crime area, I'd say it was a culture that obsessed with sex that was to blame not their sexual preference. But I'm sure you disagree that there is a problem at all...

29 April 2011 at 18:08  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester,

If it is not more common, can you name several organisations that have paid out more hush-money than the cat-licks?

Face facts. This makes it so much worse, and is in fact part of the cover-up that stretches as high as Fuhrer Ratzinger all the way down to the useful idiots like yourself. The Catholic Church had/has a SEVERE problem with child abusing employees. This problem was endemic and disproportionate. The problem was covered up, at the highest levels, thereby allowing it to continue.

A person is more likely to be assaulted by a Catholic priest than a Scout-Master, teacher (except Fthr. O' Reilly) or clerics in other Christian denominations. If this is not so, why has not the C of E coughed up more than Billion? Or the Scouts, or the Guides, or the Baptists, or the etc, etc. Trying to polish the turd that is the cat-lick clergy's record on kiddy-fiddling does you no honour, nor your 'church'. The best you can do is roll it in glitter.

I notice you have nothing to say on missing verses.

WV longlug. I most certainly intend to. Cheers!

29 April 2011 at 18:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

1%? 1.5%?

Had the ONS turned up at my door with flashcards then I would have lied and said Straight.

As the link below says, Gaydar has 1.5Mprofiles. How odd that the ONS finds only 726K by extrapolation from their results.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/26/gay-britain-national-survey-statistics

This one by ICM Research says 6% by sealed envelope:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/26/relationships

The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles puts the figure at around 6% if you count full of sex as indicative.

Government actuaries in 2005 put the figure at 6% too.

29 April 2011 at 18:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"If there is any reason that homosexuals are over-represented in the sexual crime area, I'd say it was a culture that obsessed with sex that was to blame not their sexual preference."

I'm pleased to say that no amount of obsession with sex in gay culture would make me want to shag a child. Paedophilia is a pathological condition, unlike homosexuality, and it causes significant harm. Some weeks ago, I was arguing here with a BNP-voting 'Christian' who said that people choose to be gay for fashion reasons. There are some very odd views about sexuality around.

Gay culture is changing in the UK anyway. Before the 80s, it was forced underground and sex tended to be more transient and impersonal. In the 80s, things started to change. Now, we have gay marriage (in all but name), everyday people are openly gay, there are gay storylines in soaps, high profile figures are open about it, and the law protects us.

If there is a residual sex obsession in gay culture, and this encourages a paedophile pathology as you suggest, then we should all be pleased that gay marriage etc exists as it will probably reduce it as the focus on quickie sex diminishes.

29 April 2011 at 19:15  
Blogger English Viking said...

Ahh, silence from the Lakester, one so used to being so loud.

You don't like facts, do you, you spangly turd?

29 April 2011 at 21:48  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

'"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)The Holy Spirit reveals Christ and the Scriptures confirm Him.How can one seperate the two?'

So you're saying that Christ, the God-man, the Son of God, the Second person of the Trinity, the Logos, Word or very image of the father himself, is the same or made equal to a work of human language? This is nonsense, it is bad theology, bad philosophy and bad metaphysics. It is also basically idolatry, to take the image for the essence in its entirety.

The Church has always separated the two, their separation is obvious. This strange bibolatry is the product of the renaissance, reformation and modernity. Scripture is not Christ but one aspect the prolongation in time of his timeless revelation. If we just focus on him as Jesus,ie ignore the Logos role as the creative principle of nature and the cosmos, then such prolongations clearly include the sacred tradition of Christianity, the Church and its authority, the sacraments and the Church Fathers, Creeds and Councils to name a few. Indeed in a real sense every committed Christian is more or less such a prolongation and every Saint, sage, artist or mystic even more so.

I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm a traditional, high church Anglican. I disagree with much in the modern Roman Church and not a little in the historic Roman Church, at least after Hildebrand. I consider the Eastern, Celtic and early Western Churches the greatest receptacles of the Church Invisible. The power of the Pope, who unlike Peter and the legitimate role of the Pope is not primus inter pares but Emperor and supreme head of the church rolled into one, and some of the additions of the Roman Church like priestly celibacy I disagree with.

However this idolatry of Scripture worship is very damaging. It cuts man off from the living process of revelation, of the full majesty of the Son and indeed of the Father and the Holy Spirit. It removes man's Loving, Intellectual, hierarchic, symbolic and sacramental understanding of the Christian revelation and of nature and the universe, which is a vital support for man. The nominalist, individualist and humanist causes and repercussions of such a fall were felt in the rise of modernity which was mechanist and materialist and turned its back on God(not to say that the role of scripture alone or even primarily is central to this fall but it has its place.). It is even felt in trying use scripture without the the true understanding of it and the basis of revelation and indeed the cosmos.

Scripture is truly symbolic, its adheres to the four levels of meaning that Dante described. The literal is but the base on which the moral, allegorical and anagogic meanings exist.It is these higher readings, and the ability to truly and Intellectually(not just discursively.) understand them which bring us, and Scripture, closer to Christ.

30 April 2011 at 00:53  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

'A person is more likely to be assaulted by a Catholic priest than a Scout-Master, teacher (except Fthr. O' Reilly) or clerics in other Christian denominations.'

The only available stats are from the US, where I believe the exact opposite is true. It is other clergy, scout-masters, teachers, coaches and so on and simply other members of the population who are more likely to abuse children.

30 April 2011 at 00:55  
Anonymous len said...

Westcountryman,
You speak to me of Idolatry when you are surrounded by Idols whenever you enter your church?. Admittedly Anglicans have less Idols than Catholics but is not one Idol one too many?
You obviously hold Scripture to no great account.?
How do you regard Biblical Prophesy?
You seem to Idolise your intellect above Scripture is this not the reason for the fall of man,ie regarding knowledge above the Word of God?

30 April 2011 at 08:58  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr Angry Norse man,

What possible reason could I have for not responding on a Friday evening? Hmmm.... Some people don't stay glued to a blogs just to win pointless internet arguments.

I don't suppose you have the mental capacity to understand that the entire scandal was not the existence of abuse but the cover-up; hence the hush money. The situation is actually far more complicated than your simple norse mind would like to think, and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) was and is the greatest asset we have in dealing with the abuse. I have yet to see the state address its own child abuse problem, perhaps because it is easier to claim that there isn't one?

Mr DanJ0,

2% or 6% that's still far short of 14%. Correlation still stands. I've nothing against homosexuals and neither do I think toleration is a terrible thing. I might question the mainstreaming of homosexuality but your inference that I believe the correlation between homosexuals and minor abuse means that we should suppress homosexuality is unfounded. Once the problem is admitted it can be addressed.

30 April 2011 at 12:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"2% or 6% that's still far short of 14%. Correlation still stands."

If only we could establish where the 14% you claim comes from ...

You want the correlation established, that much is apparent. In fact, all the points I have made about the recorded crime numbers have amounted to naught with you as far as I can see.

"your inference that I believe the correlation between homosexuals and minor abuse means that we should suppress homosexuality is unfounded"

Erm, where is this inference in my words to this point?

30 April 2011 at 13:35  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

Len you didn't really respond to most of my comments.

God gave me my Intellect and my reason, they are too be used to know, love and believe in him.

I certainly did not say I hold Scripture to no great account. Because I properly understand its place in the Christian revelation I hold it to great account. The fall of man was knowledge of privation, knowledge of good and evil. The 'and evil' is key, before the fall man had knowledge only of good, the absolute good. With the fall he grip on this knowledge loosens and he has the knowledge of the relative good and with it evil or the privation of the good. Man is generally far less knowledgeable know than Adam was before the fall and than God wants him to be.

You misuse the word idol of course. Idolatry claims that the image either fully captures or is an essential part of its archetype. When you aim to so far conflate Scripture and Christ's revelation then you come close to this idolatry. The use of sacred images is not idolatry if one realises that though the image reflects the archetype, but does not capture it in any sense that is constitutive. An Icon, like Scripture, is a living, real reflection of Christ that partakes of his essence without depleting or changing it one bit.

30 April 2011 at 14:07  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Your own sources claim abuse of girls is 6 times as likely as with boys. This is equivalent to 86%/14% (rounded) of total abuse cases. Given that the overwhelming majority of abuse is

a)carried out by men
b)carried out on post-pubescents

The value of 14% is roughly acceptable.

Funnily enough, the point you make about being underground is one I postulated earlier. I have not ignored your points about recorded crime numbers, they are persuasive and not illogical. However they don't really make enough of a dent in the figures to change much.

Angry scandinavian,

Missing verses. They were not taken out on a whim, but in many cases taken out due to the KJV version being a mistranslation or insertion into the original text. Grow up; people don't mess with scripture on a whim, or because they're generally bad people.

30 April 2011 at 14:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester,

Ahh, I see it all so clearly now. The KJV is wrong, and for the last 400 years good Christian men and women have based their faith on a totally useless translation.

Good job they've got the NIV now though, eh?


BTW Your statement does not address the fact that different NIV's say different things. Which one is correct? Let me guess, the latest one, so hence the need for individuals and churches to continually buy new ones, for the sake of 'accuracy'.

The serpent said to Eve '..did God say?'
Same old trick, and people fall for it all the time.

30 April 2011 at 14:49  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Yes Mr EV,

because I point out that there are some minor translation flaws in the KJV (which I also point out are understandable given the texts they worked with) I must be saying that it is a totally useless translation. How old are you 8? The fact that there are several translations is testament to the difficulty in getting a translation that works in English, not that they are all totally useless. They might not be getting more accurate, but they might serve different purposes.

500 years ago we spoke a different language and in 500 years we will speak a new one. If you wish to keep the same translation despite changes in language then you should procure a Latin or Greek one and stick to that, rather than one from an arbitrary point in time. You're making it very difficult to defend yourself against accusations of book worship.

30 April 2011 at 16:19  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Surprise, surprise but the sexual abuse of children has been going on since the beginning of man.

Parents, grandparents, both male and female, uncles and aunts, are by far the highest group of offenders. Then comes neighbours and other trusted adults, including nursery nurses, teachers, doctors, priests and care home workers.

Thank God we know about this now and are able to take steps to detect and prevent it.

Do stop turning it into an inter-faith 'punch-up'. It's unbecoming and most certainly unchristian to be so gleeful about the failings of others.

Anyone read the Our Father lately?

30 April 2011 at 17:19  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

If you knew anything about statistics, you would realise why your latest offering is nonsense.

One must consider the size of the set, as a percentage, to be able to make comparisons. Given that approximately 1 in 3 of all human beings in the world is either a parent or a grandparent, uncle or aunt, it is hardly surprising that a reasonable percentage of them are abusing children.

What is surprising is the fact, statistically speaking, that a totally insignificant number of world population are cat-lick clergy, yet they rate so highly in the pædo league tables.

Go figure.

30 April 2011 at 19:58  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester,

No purpose can be served by inaccuracy.

I thought I already told you, I have dozens of Bibles in numerous languages. Nothing comes close to the KJV in terms of beauty of prose, precision of meter and accuracy of translation. The fact that it employs words which are few in syllables makes it easy to remember. It contains approximately 350 words which are not in common usage today, so hardly archaic, is it? Those words are listed in a helpful glossary towards the end of most recent editions, so no excuses, please.

One (as a Christian) will either be dragged down to the level of the street, in terms of language, else raised to the pinnacle found in the KJV (amongst others, but not the NIV).

You should be grateful you have a Bible, of any kind- it was strictly forbidden until fairly recently for your sort. Those pesky priests didn't want common people knowing what God thinks, because then they might realise they had been sold a crock by the Pope, eh?

Not in your case though, sadly.

30 April 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 May 2011 at 03:59  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 May 2011 at 04:08  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

The KJV is wrong, and for the last 400 years good Christian men and women have based their faith on a totally useless translation.'

I have the utmost respect for the KJV. It is the superior English edition of the bible in my opinion. However I think it is ironic that you make the above comment when, like Luther, you think that for 1,500 years almost all Christians were mostly misled. You think that most of them have been for 500 more years.

'What is surprising is the fact, statistically speaking, that a totally insignificant number of world population are cat-lick clergy, yet they rate so highly in the pædo league tables.'

You mean low in the league tables. The only available stats, from the US, show they are less likely than other clergy, coaches, teachers, scout-masters and the general population to abuse children.

It is a bit rich to talk about statistics when your argument is basically that because the media, aided by the Church hierarchy''s incompetent handling of the issue, makes the Church's cases into a scandal, then they must be statistically more likely to abuse children(though the vast majority of the cases were post-pubescents.). The statistics just aren't there to support your claim, in fact they seem to support the opposite viewpoint.

1 May 2011 at 04:09  
Blogger English Viking said...

Westcountryman,

Popiness is dirty and lots of cat-lick 'priests' are pædos.

Ughhhh.

1 May 2011 at 14:25  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'You should be grateful you have a Bible, of any kind- it was strictly forbidden until fairly recently for your sort. Those pesky priests didn't want common people knowing what God thinks, because then they might realise they had been sold a crock by the Pope, eh?'

I see... So the KJV was the first ever written. Explains so much.

No wait! It's all coming back to me! My knowledge of history, whilst not comprehensive, is still good enough to understand why the Bible was only published in Latin. It wasn't a convoluted and entirely unnecessary conspiracy to keep the population in the dark, but a matter of logistics and cost! By God if the only people that can read can also speak Latin, and the purest form of scriptures in existence are in Latin and Greek then one might as well publish scripture in those languages. Further, as the printing press wasn't given to man directly by God around AD60 I expect that writing and copying such scriptures would be very time consuming and expensive, rendering the finished products highly valuable.

Amazing how a tiny bit of historical knowledge, combined with a touch of critical thinking, can turn a conspiracy into a rational and acceptable policy.

Popiness is dirty and lots of cat-lick 'priests' are pædos.

It seems that arguments are not lost with a bang but with a whimper. Bless.

1 May 2011 at 14:46  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester,

You're either a liar or you're deceived.

http://www.wayoflife.org/files/4ef3f30d5ea4253059dc014c8c9f6db3-79.html

It is historical fact that the 'church' did all in its power to prevent the common man reading the Bible in his own language, including burning Bibles (when it wasn't too busy burning people).

Bless you too.

1 May 2011 at 16:19  
Anonymous len said...

Responding to the increasing flood of Protestant Bibles in English, the very first complete Bible in English to be produced by the Catholic Church was the Douay Rheims, a translation from the Latin Vulgate, which was finally completed in the early 17th century. The New Testament was begun in 1578 and finished in Rheims France in 1582, and the Old Testament was finished in 1609-10 in Douay. Note that it had been over two centuries since Wycliffe had completed his English Bible!

( Hardly a rush job was it)

2 May 2011 at 17:09  
Anonymous len said...

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue." Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."
.........
Thank God for the men who gave us the Bible in our 'common tongue' that we might find out the Truth of God`s Word for ourselves, and not as relayed through Catholic Priests!

2 May 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2011 at 00:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Matt

'2) Sexual orientation/ being gay is a moral equivalent of race - both are things that cannot be changed in a person and people should never be judged or treated differently or discriminated against based on those things about themselves which they cannot change!'

Hasbians.

The allegation of racism dircetd at you sticks.

3 May 2011 at 07:28  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older