Pope Benedict: UK Equality bill "Violates Natural Law"

[Cingal]

Pope in attack on UK equality law

The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal".

Pope Benedict XVI said the legislation "violates natural law" and could end the right of the Catholic Church to ban gay people from senior positions.

The Pope has confirmed he will visit the UK this year, the first since Pope John Paul II in 1982.

The government said the bill, which is currently going through Parliament, would make the UK a fairer place.

And gay rights campaigners have condemned the Pope's comments.

'Unjust limitations'

The Pope told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: "Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society.

"Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.
“ We believe everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against ”
Government Equalities Office spokesman

"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

Religious leaders have voiced concern that the Equality Bill may force churches to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers.

No official itinerary has yet been drawn up for the Pope's visit but officials at the Vatican and in the UK told the BBC it was likely to take place in September.

A spokesman for the Catholic Communications Network said further details were expected in early March.

The Pontiff is expected to visit Birmingham - as part of the planned beatification of Cardinal John Newman - and Scotland.

'Ill-informed claim'

The National Secular Society said it would mount a protest campaign made up of gay groups, victims of clerical abuse, feminists, family planning organisations and pro-abortion groups among others.

President Terry Sanderson said: "The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some £20m for the visit of the Pope.

"A visit in which he has already indicated, he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination."

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the Pope's comments were a "coded attack on the legal rights granted to women and gay people".

"His ill-informed claim that our equality laws undermine religious freedom suggests that he supports the right of churches to discriminate in accordance with their religious ethos," he said.

"He seems to be defending discrimination by religious institutions and demanding that they should be above the law."

A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said: "The Pope acknowledges our country's firm commitment to equality for all members of society.

"We believe everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against. The Equality Bill will make Britain a fairer and more equal place."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8492597.stm

Published: 2010/02/02 04:10:24 GMT

© BBC MMX

TLDR version: The Pope has spoke out against an Equality Bill going through UK Parliament as it would no longer allow the Church to ban gay people from senior positions. (This applies to headmasters in religious schools and all that kind of stuff.)


So. Discuss.

[zipykido]

Meh, Pope is obligated to stand against gay rights, abortion, and all that other fun stuff. Not the biggest surprise there.

[Groteske]

Why would an openly gay person want a senior position in a Church or Church related association?

I mean gay men like being gay, and just the idea of working for a cult that hates you is kind of ridiculous. It's like if Anne frank worked for Hitler.

[Civil]

This bill displeases me.

[Norrin Radd]

Certainly a sticky issue. When the law of a secular government conflicts with the beliefs of a religion...who wins out?

It's easy to condemn the Catholic Church since they don't have the best of reputations (well, I guess they never had), but its kind of a thorny issue.

The government. Always.

There's a separation of church and state, and beliefs should never interfere with, nor inform, policy.

Religion has no place in government. You chose to believe in God, that's your call, but many do not. You can't rule a diverse nation, or world, with laws based upon your decision to believe in God.

[Krunkmasta Flex]

here is how badly the church messed up, before the crusades we were inventing new shit to help our fellow man left and right, since then we've done what?
make shit to blow up other people's shit.
Man the crusades made us assholes.

[Sandman53]

Nothing like a forum full of religion hating crazies that act just as bad as the religious crazies. While gays deserve equal rights, it is not a governments place to start dictating the beliefs of a religion.

Its also not up to religion to decide equality by the "eyes of god." We need the govt. to create laws to give equality to citizens who would not get it otherwise.

If we were to go with religious teaching than most women would be nothing more than baby machines, and we would all be stuck back in the dark ages. Thank god (irony?) for the age of reason.

[TaleWillPrevail]

Twisted situation. And I was so close to writing a paper about hypocrisy and bureaucracy in the catholic church. When will people realize that the whole catholic sect of Christianity is just a giant sub government. If the pope wants to impose his out dated hate against different individuals, by all means, start another crusade and male your own land. It's ridiculous parliament or any other democratic government gives an ear to ANY religous group.

Seperation of church and state. Over used but so concise and simple.

[Danuve]

The normal proceeding in a which-hunting case would not be, finding, if the which deserves to be murdered.
It would be if either the which repents and get's absolution, or it gets handed over to the state.

The state would have no such things as "processes", but rather just execute the unalterable decision of the agent of the sovereigns power.

The state burned witches, the church never did.

Requesting clarification please.

[shadowsworn]

I'm usually all for gay rights, but I don't think that the church should be forced to take on gay people if it doesn't want to.

[Orpheus]

Perhaps it's because I'm not really Catholic, so religion has no meaning in my life, but I have to agree with the church on this one. Catholics have always condemned homosexuality, there's nothing new here, so why should they be forced to accept homosexuals amongst their ranks? I guess it must be really hard for gay Catholics who wish to participate in their religion more actively, but for those that aren't Catholic this issue doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

[Str1der]

I find this amusing. So many people love to advocate that the Church should have no say what-so-ever in the affairs of Government, and yet when the Government decides it wants to overstep those bounds and impose something on the Church, you're all for it.

Government should never be allowed to stop the Church from doing anything, short of illegal activites. Call it what you want, but Churches are in a sense a private organization. Christianity as a whole has a strong stance on homosexuality; why then would they ever be ok with homsexuals in their official positions? And who is the government to say that they can't deny those spots?

People may not agree with the Church, just as others may not agree with other aspects of life. You claim we shouldn't be allowed to ban gay marriage because it imposes the beliefs of a religion on the mass of society. Is this situation really any different, just reversed? I'm not stating any personal opinions on the matter, as I don't agree with Catholics as it is on many matters. I'm just wanting to point out to people the similarities/hypocrisies.

[Civil]

Wouldn't the Catholic Church be the hypocrite in this situation? "We will impose on the rights of minorities if we see fit, but you shall never impose on our beliefs, that's just absurd!" That seems to be their official position. I'm just saying that it's easy to take sides in this argument. We will have people that aren't religious, aren't Catholic, but are homophobic and will be supporting the religion side; then we will have people that aren't homosexual, aren't Catholic, but hate religion as a whole, and they will take the government side.

Nobody said any of that. What are you quoting from?

The government. Always.

There's a separation of church and state, and beliefs should never interfere with, nor inform, policy.

Religion has no place in government. You chose to believe in God, that's your call, but many do not. You can't rule a diverse nation, or world, with laws based upon your decision to believe in God.

But most do.

[Orpheus]

Nobody said any of that. What are you quoting from?

Durrr hurr. If I were quoting someone I would provide an actual source.
That's why I said "that seems to be their official position". I didn't say that's what they ACTUALLY said, but what I'm actually understanding.

[hobosexual]

But most do.

So?

Most people are stupid.

[Orpheus]

So?

Most people are stupid.

I see what you did there.

[V-Opolis]

I find this amusing. So many people love to advocate that the Church should have no say what-so-ever in the affairs of Government, and yet when the Government decides it wants to overstep those bounds and impose something on the Church, you're all for it.

Government should never be allowed to stop the Church from doing anything, short of illegal activites. Call it what you want, but Churches are in a sense a private organization. Christianity as a whole has a strong stance on homosexuality; why then would they ever be ok with homsexuals in their official positions? And who is the government to say that they can't deny those spots?

People may not agree with the Church, just as others may not agree with other aspects of life. You claim we shouldn't be allowed to ban gay marriage because it imposes the beliefs of a religion on the mass of society. Is this situation really any different, just reversed? I'm not stating any personal opinions on the matter, as I don't agree with Catholics as it is on many matters. I'm just wanting to point out to people to similarities/hypocrisies.

like ive been saying. if it doesnt agree with their opinions, burn it.

[Orpheus]

like ive been saying. if it doesnt agree with their opinions, burn it.

I know right, kind of like witchcra- oh wait.

[Ronin]

Requesting clarification please.

What is unclear?
Which burnings are political;
Either a populace of a city wouldn't want to "feed unnecessary eaters", or a person that was opposed to the establishment either as in opposed to the church or opposed to the political ruling.

If the person was practically sane (which it was mostly not), the church would in the usual case ask the "practitioner of sin", if he does repent his sins and desires absolution. If this is the case, the "sinner" would be spared.

Even if there was a fabricated claim of "sin" and the person was forced to admit into it in testimony won through torture, repenting would save the persons life.

However, once the person is not repenting, or not considered able to, it is handed to the respective governmental body, like the local noble ruler, or the heads of an independent city.
Those than without a trial would welcome the chance to murder their political enemies.

Killing heretics was not considered a sacrilegious act.

People have the impression that the church within a period of 1400-1800 suddenly went mental and decided that killing is a feat.
They think, that than the church invented the ceremonies attached to it and finally people would think, that supposedly priests themselves in their misguided furry crucified, hanged and burned people all through the lands, unrestricted by the people who believed in them.

When the last which-burning took place, the ones burned were down-syndrome affected twins. The time was around 1820 and the act was inspired through both, the kids being perceived as unnatural and unnecessary eaters (a concept that soon after the NSDAP would pick up). The ones who initiated the trial were the parents of the children, who resolved their problem of dealing with their kids this way.

People believe that the concept of repressing and prosecuting people who are different than us is an invention of the church.

I have no idea what would have prevented that these things found a safe haven in the church.
However, what people see the catholic church now being a symbol of, are the result of it having been unable in years far past, to fend of people who utilized it, for their own goals.

Blaming the church for homophobia, because of it being an evil club of which-burning, thought repressing crusaders, is a little shortsighted.
I could rant about the though repression or the crusades just the same.

The crusades were a natural occurrence; To big a nobility and to few land led to violent expansion politics. The church's believes are no factor.
@repressing science: The church was the one institution, that span whole Europe, that tried to uphold ethical rules. That is not a step backwards; Socrates was killed for being a "Sinner" in the democratic Athens.

Just the same as with all other things; Homophobia is not just going to cease to exist in the future.

[Cingal]

Does anyone know where I can read the bill? I googled it and stuff was too confusing so I couldn't find it... I'd like to read it first.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...10020.i-v.html

I think that's it.