The text of the interview is not available online and there is no way I am going to scandalise my devout and hard-working Hindu neighbours by buying a copy in their shop, so I am relying on quotations. Ruth Gledhill has helpfully focussed on his remarks on Christianity. (See: Cameron tells Rowan: Make your Church pro-gay)
Cameron effectively confirms that if a Conservative Government is elected there will be no change in the current drive to prevent "faith schools" from teaching Christian doctrine. In response to the loaded question
'Do you think that the right of gay children to have a safe education trumps the right of faith schools to teach that homosexuality is a sin?'Cameron replies:
Basically yes - that's the short answer to that, without getting into a long religious exegesis. I mean, I think, yes. I think..... [long pause]Well at least we were spared Dave's attempts at a long religious exegesis. We do get a short one, though. Quoting the wisdom of his PPS ("someone of deep religious faith"), he says:
That if our Lord Jesus was around today he would very much be backing a strong agenda on equality and equal rights, and not judging people on their sexuality.That surely has to rank as one of the more adventurous attempts at a "What Would Jesus Do?" exercise: but there is more. Cameron has some unusual advice for Dioceses drawing up the umpteenth recension of their Pastoral Plan "From Closure to Brightness" (or whatever):
I don’t want to get into a huge row with the Archbishop here, but the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through. Sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom-line, full essential.Well I suppose that suggesting to the elderly swingers in the local "We are the Future" Fairtrade Coffee Morning that the solution to the problems of the Church is to follow the Conservative Party would certainly give them something to ponder while enjoying the organic oatmeal and marmalade flapjacks. It might even be a reassuring prospect, all things considered, to wear a blue rosette with pride after all.
Sadly, Dave has jumped on the bandwagon just a little too late. Apparently the Spaniards have already left us behind on radical Spartist moral liberalism.
24 comments:
So this pandering twit is about to become your PM? God save the Queen.
I followed your link and nearly fell off my chair!
I must ask, if your Hindu neighbours are so devout, why are they selling Attitude?
We have an Episcopalian Bishop here in the US reinventing St. Paul (really it's old hash) on the whole homosex thing. Tired stuff.
Nothing new under the sun...sin just gets 'reinvented'.
Virtue is much more beautiful, challenging and well, eternal!
There's a lengthy extract from the interview on the Independent's website:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lets-talk-about-sex-johann-hari-grills-david-cameron-over-gay-rights-1888688.html
Simply to win votes? The rights of "gay" children? God help us!
Douglas Adams, in Hitchhiker's guide wrote:
‘On [that] world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.’
‘Odd,’ said Arthur, ‘I thought you said it was a democracy?’
‘I did,’ said Ford, ‘It is.’
‘So,’ said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, ‘why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?’
‘It honestly doesn’t occur to them,’ said Ford. ‘They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.’
‘You mean they actually vote for the lizards?’
‘Oh yes,’ said Ford with a shrug, ‘of course.’
‘But,’ said Arthur, going for the big one again, ‘why?’
‘Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,’ said Ford, ‘the wrong lizard might get in.’
And that was 20 years before D
avid Icke;)
Hhmmm . . .
Sorry, Mr Cameron, but NO.
What is needed is for the Conservative Party to recognize that it needs to do what the Church has (always) done - accept that there are some things where the will of mankind (ie the ballot box) cannot, and must not, prevail over the Will of God.
Get that straight, and you might even come up with some sensible policies !
Is there going to be anyone that we CAN actually vote for in concience at the General Election?
No wonder there is so much apathy about voting. It is NOT only the young who feel that they are not represented by our politicians!
I am wondering whether to vote at all in the coming Election. I have lot of respect for my local MP, Oliver Letwin, who although an atheist, has never pushed any libertarian agenda and has been sympathetic and responsive to my letters to him regarding recent issues like euthanasia, advertising abortion and so on.
Maybe a letter to him, explaining my dilemma might serve to get a message to Mr Cameron.
I checked out your link to the Spanish experience and I noted one of the comments mentioned that the communists are in power again and all it needs is a new General Franco. The thought had already crossed my mind. Abuse of power is how civil wars start.
One can cosy up to some of the people, some of the time. One CANNOT cosy up to ALL the people ALL of the time. There wouldn't, by any chance, be a General Election coming up, would there ? Dave, baby. You are so off message, you are positively embarrassing. I've had enough. Where's my plane ticket ? I'm off to Reykjavík !!!
On this very issue, I was prompted to re-read the 1986 Letter to Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, (incidentally signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger) which can be found on this link:-
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Careful reading will show the Church's great charity towards these people, while still reiterating the Truth and admonishing the sin. Indeed it is surely be a serious failing of charity not to point out a behaviour which could endanger souls to the fires of Hell!
Nazareth Priest says... 'sin just gets 'reinvented'. Virtue is much more beautiful, challenging and well, eternal!'
So beautifully put and bang on the nail! Nice one.
Ever since he supported Blair in the abolition of the Catholic adoption agencies I have distrusted Cameron. Private Eye got him right "I'm trying to adopt the gay vote."
He probably reckons that those who detest the anti-Christian approach of Labour will vote for him anyway.
He may be right too.
Oh dear.
Is this man for real. Has he read the bible and researched what Jesus taught while on this earth and what he continues to teach through His Catholic Church.
If Cameron was to think with the mind and heart of Jesus he certainly would not talk such self centred rubbish.
Should we decide what is right and what is wrong by a majority vote according to the whims of society??
Proof that Cameron is singing from the same hymn sheet as the opposition...
Cannot Cameron see the difference between persons and beliefs? -
On the one hand, homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". Excellent! That is part of Catholicism, for it is a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para. 2358).
On the other hand, there is the nature of homosexual acts. It is the belief of Catholics (CCC 2357), and of other traditional Christians and others, that such acts are contrary to the will of God.
If a government says that the only belief that can determine my conduct is Stonewall's belief as to the nature of homosexual acts - that I cannot, whilst fully respecting homosexuals as persons, base my conduct on my conscientious religious belief as to the nature of those acts, then that is legislating for tyranny.
Can he not see that?
"On civil partnerships, Cameron said it was 'worth looking' at changing civil partnerships to marriage but at the moment he favoured staying where we are".
Dave! The homosexuals are way ahead of you. In San Francisco the forward thinking is for gay polygamy (if that is the word)
See Lifesite News and NY Times article
The article quotes a certain aptly named Joe Quirk, author of the sex-themed bestseller 'It's Not You, It's Biology,' who argues that 'the combination of freedom and mutual understanding can foster a unique level of trust.'
It's the way they say it with a straight face...
But does Cameron have an answer to the Gay question? Can he just quote "No, it is a sin?" Catholics have been extremely poor at giving reasons why homosexuality is wrong? If the Church is in the Modern World it is not good enough to say "It is sinful" or "It is a disorder". We should long ago have caught onto the fact that sin is destructive. The Health Services in Britain and America do not allow Gays to give blood? Why? Because too many have blood which is infected with HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases. No Government would even argue with this. Add to this the number of Gays dying from Bowel Cancer which is a 400% increased vulnerability if you are a prcticing homosexusal. If you really love others that love is shown not by letting them go ahead and destroy themselves but by warning them even if it means you are despised. A gay lifestyle is far from normal and safe, it is lonely life where the search for pleasure leads to despair. This is what we must focus on. Politicians take up gay causes just as Cameron did because it seems to make them popular not because they care a hoot for homosexuals. Despite Stonewall and the Soho Masses the Catholic Church is the only institution that really cares. That is the message we need to give.
laicus;
you said '. . . I cannot, whilst fully respecting homosexuals as persons, base my conduct on my conscientious religious belief as to the nature of those acts, then that is legislating for tyranny.'
Unfortunately, whilst you and I, as Catholics, would treat Homosexuals in accordance with the quotation from CCC which you mentioned, we have to remember that there are those - certain militant Islamic factions, for instance - whose conduct towards them, based on their 'conscientious religious beliefs' might include decapitating or stoning them.
That, I fear, is the root of what is, like it or not, a complex problem. Ultimately, it requires a recognition of the moral difference between discrimination and positive discrimination : something which sadly few people seem to understand.
Of course Jesus would be concerned with equality. Both sin and repentance are options for all human beings. Obedience or disobedience to His commands is open to all.
The problem is that people assume that Jesus' idea of equality doesn't entail certain people having to repent, amend their lives, and attempt to sin no more. There aren't any sins that don't count. There's equality for you.
As homosexual activity gains greater acceptance in our culture, there’ll be more pressure among Christians to explain away the Bible’s clear prohibition against it. The liberals are trying to strip the Bible of its moral power, and run in rhetorical circles trying to escape its clear message.
I have now calmed down after reading about Dave's Damascene Conversion. Having assessed all things, both pro- and anti-, from a detached and rational, non-prescriptive, non-prejudicial, extremely-well-balanced point of view, I have now, definitely and irrevocably, realised that I MUST vote MONSTER RAVING LOONY PARTY in the forthcoming General Election. Give the Loonies a chance. They're already in Parliament !!!
The game's up!
What exactly ARE the differences between the three political Parties in the UK?
Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.
As Zephyrinus rightly points out 'you can't cosy up to all of the people all of the time...' and this is the PROBLEM with British Politics - it's all about celbrity and popularity. Never mind actually leading the Country through thick and thin, as long a you say or promise something to appease EVERYONE and wear that constant grin on your face - you know the one for which Tony Blair is so famous.
Dominic Mary,
Good point. But note that it's "unjust" discrimination that CCC 2358 speaks against - which would certainly cover the outrageous conduct you mention. Quite different from the way in which Catholic organisations want to be free to conduct their own activities where (and only where) this is reasonable.
Post a Comment