It really all depends on if it's a "right wing" part of the religion (intolerant) or a "liberal" part of the religion (tolerant).
The poor Episcopals are splitting up over all that right now. Peter --- In gay_bombay@yahoogroups.com, "mikel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In gay_bombay@yahoogroups.com, S S <pune_dost@> wrote: > > > > it appears those that you think should be most tollerant (religious > people) there the most likely to discrimmate against people... > strange to me > > > > > > Polly Toynbee > > Tuesday January 9, 2007 > > The Guardian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The > > religious are rallying by torchlight outside parliament this > evening. > > In the Lords they are trying to strike out regulations in the new > > equality act that outlaw discrimination and harassment of gays, > making > > it illegal to discriminate in providing any goods and services to > > anyone, from healthcare to hotel rooms. This is a mighty test of > > strength between the religious and the secular. Any peers against > > discrimination, get on down the Lords: the vote is at 7.30pm. Will > the > > Tories prove to be gay-friendly? > > Christians, Muslims and Jews are > > all fighting against the sexual orientation regulations with a > wrecking > > clause that would render them meaningless: "Nothing in these > > regulations shall force an individual to act against their > conscience > > or strongly held religious beliefs." Anyone could use their > > "conscience" to discriminate against gays. > > Get one thing clear: > > this law does not stop religions from banning gays joining their > > congregations or becoming priests. (Though they don't seem to be > very > > good at it.) But it does oblige any organisation or business > offering > > services to the public to offer them equally to all comers. Bizarre > and > > repugnant ads in newspapers from Christian organisers have spread > > outright lies about what this law does. Their campaign, strongly > > supported by the Daily Mail, has whipped up a degree of homophobia > > still lurking under an apparently tolerant surface. The gay rights > > group Stonewall has been horrified at the resurgence of threats and > > obscene abuse. > > To make their case, the religious have struggled > > to think up extreme scenarios where the law might affect them, but > each > > has proved to be wrong, as ministers have refuted them all. > > They > > claim the law will "force all schools to actively promote homosexual > > civil partnerships to children (from primary-school age) to the same > > degree that they teach the importance of marriage". No it won't: the > > curriculum does not "actively promote" homosexuality, nor even make > sex > > education compulsory. They claim the law will "force a printing shop > > run by a Christian to print fliers promoting gay sex". No it won't, > > unless the same printers promote heterosexual porn too. Or how about > > this one? "Force a family-run B&B to let out a double room to a > > transsexual couple, even if the family think it in the best > interests > > of their children to refuse to allow such a situation in their > home." > > Oh no it won't: it doesn't even cover transsexuals - and what a daft > > scenario anyway. The National Secular Society has complained to the > > Advertising Standards Authority. But on and on go the prurient > > situations the religious homophobes dream up. The Christian Concern > for > > Our Nation, petitioning the Queen, claims they "love their > neighbours", > > but "Christians, of course, earnestly desire the repentance and > > salvation of homosexuals". > > None of this might matter much if it > > were just about the strange practices in private of religious > bigots. > > But faith groups already run and are bidding to take over many more > > social services. If they win this debate, free to discriminate as > they > > please, they will prove themselves utterly unfit to provide state > > services or receive state funding. > > Lord Ferrers in the last > > debate said hospitals should be allowed to discriminate if they had > a > > Christian ethos. Does that mean they do now? Are they turning away > gay > > Aids patients? He said a pro-life Catholic hospital should be > allowed > > to turn away a lesbian for fertility treatment. (Though any > > non-Catholic turning to Catholics for fertility treatment needs > their > > head examined.) The Catholic adoption society said it will shut up > shop > > if it has to allow gay couples to apply. > > Churches say they will never > > let out a hall to a gay organisation. Christians running soup > kitchens > > say they want to refuse gays shelter and soup. (Soup!) The Catholic > > Archbishop of Liverpool threatens to withdraw all cooperation over > > schools and charity programmes if the law goes through. The Bishop > of > > Rochester says it will damage church work in inner cities. (Only if > his > > church shuts down services.) The C of E pretends that the law would > > force it to bless civil unions (it won't). > > Listen to all these > > good reasons why the state should step back from its current > > infatuation with faith provision of social services. In a democracy, > > public services paid for out of general taxes can't be held to > ransom > > by the weird sexual fantasies of unelected service providers. These > > faith groups are now showing exactly why they should not be running > an > > ever growing number of schools and academies. Homophobic bullying is > > rife in schools: 15-25 children a year kill themselves due to > bullying, > > many, if not most, tormented because they are perceived to be gay. > So > > why are we putting state schools into the hands of organisations > that > > openly preach homophobia as a creed so holy it trumps all their > other > > good works? > > Recently there has been an organised upsurge of > > religions protesting at secularism. Nothing surprising about a > > fightback from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest against > what > > they claim is militant secularism. That's their job. The recent > > Guardian ICM poll showed 63% are non-believers, with 82% regarding > > religion as the cause of division. Fighting back on these pages, > Tobias > > Jones intemperately called secularists totalitarian dictators > > pretending to be tolerant. However, secularists are not threatening > to > > deny services to the religious: it is they who want to discriminate. > > Keeping the public sphere free of dogmas is not a denial of the > right > > of anyone to act as they please - so long as they don't harm others. > > More > > alarming is the backsliding of liberal and left thinkers on > religion. > > Neal Lawson, an atheist from leftist pressure group Compass, laid > into > > secularism on these pages. He is right that many religious groups do > > good work in the toughest inner-city areas. But how depressing to > > suggest that moral leadership now only resides among the faiths. > > Indignation about social injustice may be lacking in politics, but > > today the faiths use their greatest firepower not to challenge gross > > inequality. No, what ignites their torchlit excitement is, yet > again, > > other people's sexuality. Given an ounce of power they abuse it to > deny > > basic liberties. Last year, they rallied to refuse the right to die > > with dignity. Now they are back harassing gays. Religion may appeal > to > > some on the left yearning for moral certainty in a complicated > world. > > But today's debate will be a sharp reminder of the intolerance and > > illiberalism that comes with it. Get on down the Lords for 7.30, you > > peers! > > polly.toynbee@ > > > > > > The original article and comments on the same can be found at - > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1985899,00.html > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure > protection possible contre les messages non sollicités > > http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail > > >
