Many congratulations to Downing Street for their excellent plans to end the 300 year old exclusion of Catholics from the throne.
Although I have condemned the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to abortion, contraception, embryo research and IVF, I do not believe we should discriminate against anyone for their religious beliefs. I am not anti-Catholic or anti any other religious faith. I am against certain dogmas proclaimed by the Catholic Church where they undermine and attack the lives and aspirations of women.
I also believe that members of the government should maintain collective responsibility for government legislation. This means that if a member of the government cannot vote for government legislation because it goes against their religious beliefs, they should resign.
It's also good to see that Downing Street proposing that the throne will be inherited by the oldest child irrespective of gender.
Of course we will still have a hereditary head of state, but that, I think, is another argument.
I can only agree with Geoffrey Robertson QC quoted in the "Guardian" on 25 September:
"I welcome this as two small steps towards a more rational constitution. The Act of Settlement determined that the crown shall descend only on Protestant heads and that anyone 'who holds communion with the church of Rome or marries a Papist' - not to mention a Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Rastafarian - is excluded by force of law.
"This arcane and archaic legislation enshrined religious intolerance in the bedrock of the British constitution."
At last we are beginning to shed our ancient prejudices. About time too.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Friday, 26 September 2008
Friday, 1 August 2008
DO RELIGIOUS RIGHTS TRUMP ALL OTHER RIGHTS?
An interesting case in Islington has recently come to my attention. An employment tribunal has ruled that Lillian Ladele a registrar at the council does not have to officiate over same-sex civil partnerships as it offends her religious beliefs. The registrar in question has called the decision a "victory for religious liberty".
I am horrified by the decision of the tribunal. A civil partnership is not a religious marriage; God does not and should not figure. That this lady can refuse to bring together a loving couple, as is their right in UK, because it offends her religious sensitivities is ridiculous. She is a public servant and the right to civil partnership is the law, applicable to everybody, no matter their sexual orientation.
This case seems to row back on precedent set by the magistrate Andrew McClintock who refused to preside over adoption hearings involving same-sex couples. McClintock lost his case against the Government that he was being discriminated against on grounds of his religious belief.
Like McClintock, Ladele should not be allowed to dismiss this law and discriminate against people on the grounds of her personal beliefs. If your beliefs prohibit you from doing a particular job as a matter of conscience then you should consider whether you are fit for that job. This point is particularly pertinent when your job involves upholding the law. For example, if you believe with your whole heart that drugs should be legalised and would have serious problems convicting anybody found in possession of drugs then you should not become a police officer or judge.
This case is setting a dangerous precedent. What if she or another registrar will not officiate over the civil partnerships of couples who have been living together “in sin” or where one partner was previously divorced, or one partner is of another religion or race than the other? Should she be given the right of refusal in these scenarios too?
Where does the right of the religious to press their interpretation of the world on the rest of us end?
Luckily, Islington council have given notice of their intention to appeal and I certainly hope they do and that their appeal will be successful.
I am horrified by the decision of the tribunal. A civil partnership is not a religious marriage; God does not and should not figure. That this lady can refuse to bring together a loving couple, as is their right in UK, because it offends her religious sensitivities is ridiculous. She is a public servant and the right to civil partnership is the law, applicable to everybody, no matter their sexual orientation.
This case seems to row back on precedent set by the magistrate Andrew McClintock who refused to preside over adoption hearings involving same-sex couples. McClintock lost his case against the Government that he was being discriminated against on grounds of his religious belief.
Like McClintock, Ladele should not be allowed to dismiss this law and discriminate against people on the grounds of her personal beliefs. If your beliefs prohibit you from doing a particular job as a matter of conscience then you should consider whether you are fit for that job. This point is particularly pertinent when your job involves upholding the law. For example, if you believe with your whole heart that drugs should be legalised and would have serious problems convicting anybody found in possession of drugs then you should not become a police officer or judge.
This case is setting a dangerous precedent. What if she or another registrar will not officiate over the civil partnerships of couples who have been living together “in sin” or where one partner was previously divorced, or one partner is of another religion or race than the other? Should she be given the right of refusal in these scenarios too?
Where does the right of the religious to press their interpretation of the world on the rest of us end?
Luckily, Islington council have given notice of their intention to appeal and I certainly hope they do and that their appeal will be successful.
Friday, 25 July 2008
POPE ON THE ROPES
Benedict XVI won't address the European parliament because of our 'militant secularism'. What a foolish and self-defeating stance. Take a look at my article on the Guardian's Comment is Free site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/25/catholicism.eu
Monday, 14 July 2008
RELIGION IN EUROPE
This article appeared in the most recent edition of the monthly publication, The German Times.
http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6329&Itemid=28
http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6329&Itemid=28
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
EMBRYOLOGY BILL
In May I wrote an article for the Guardian's Comment is Free website designed to spark debate about the issues surrounding the role of religion in the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill.
Needless to say I am not and have never been anti-Catholic. I do believe that all organisations seeking to lobby Government - whether it be big business, NGOs, professional lobbyists or religious groups -should be subject to proper scrutiny and debate.
However, looking through some of the press coverage resulting from my article, I've become concerned that my views have been misrepresented. This is particularly the case in relation to Conor McGinn who has resigned his position as vice-chair of Young Labour seemingly in reaction to my comments.
In the sprit of openness, I've decided to compile a list of media articles making reference me or my original article.
With the exception of BBC Radio Ulster, none of the journalists contacted me in advance of publication to check my views.
As you'll see there are some serious misquotes - nowhere have I questioned the right of Catholics to hold public office.
I am pleased to engage in vigorous debate. But it serves no benefit to misrepresent anybody's views. Let's engage in a debate based on the facts.
TIMELINE OF MEDIA COVERAGE
MARY HONEYBALL MEP AND CONOR MCGINN
20 May
Guardian Comment Is Free
‘Cardinals Sins’ published by Mary Honeyball
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins
Cardinals' sins
Politics and piety are becoming increasingly entangled as the human fertilisation and embryology bill passes through parliament. But democracy and religion do not mix. Pious pro-life Tory MP Nadine Dorries claims her high-profile campaign to reduce the abortion limit is non-religious and non-political; according to Sunny Hundal, she is in fact backed by Christian Concern for our Nation and the Conservative Christian Fellowship.
But it is Gordon Brown's kowtowing to threats of resignation from three Catholic government ministers - Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, Des Browne, the defence secretary and Paul Murphy, the Welsh secretary - that has undermined his strength. In allowing a free vote on three of the bill's most important clauses (selecting and screening embryos for diseases and "saviour siblings"; allowing the creation of hybrid embryos from animal and human cells; and obviating the need for a father in IVF treatment), the PM has failed to protect the rights of the general public, over half of whom support the three causes, according to a recent Times poll.
Notwithstanding the result of the vote tonight, Brown put the interests of the Christian few over the rights of the many. Most people obviously disagree with a Catholic morality that puts the rights of the non-extant over those of the living.
Gordon Brown's failure to stand firm flies in the face of Department of Health (DoH) advice that the bill is essential to improve the technologies for assisting human reproduction and conducting high level research into finding cures for various diseases. The DoH also stresses that the bill is necessary to maintain the UK's position as a world leader in the science of embryology. It would not help our economy if we were to lose out in the same way as the US under George Bush, where embryonic stem cell research was denied federal funding nearly eight years ago.
Brown's about-turn has led many to conclude that the government's front benches are becoming increasingly religion-led. One Times reader this week pointed out that he had never before thought about "the religion of candidates for public office" but in future may not take such an "enlightened" approach if faith is given such sway in parliamentary votes. The idea that British voters may look closely at candidates' religious affiliations when choosing their MP raises fears that the more conservative style of religious voting seen in parts of Europe may come to Britain.
The vice-like grip of Catholicism holds fast across large parts of the continent. Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland are just some of the countries in Europe that have been subjected to interference by meddling cardinals. Abortion is still outlawed in Ireland and was only recently legalised in Portugal. Anti-abortion campaigns have, almost without exception, been led from the pulpit.
Catholicism has never taken a back seat; it has always actively interfered in democratic politics. In 2006 Pope Benedict castigated Catholic politicians in Canada for voting for gay rights and Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of Scotland's Catholics, is alleged to have compared same-sex relationships to paedophilia. The same Cardinal O'Brien is now accusing the human fertilisation and embryology bill of challenging "standards by which we have lived throughout our lives and by which Christians have lived for the past 2,000 years".
The European parliament has, fortunately, made a stand against some of this Christian fundamentalism. In a dramatic exercise of power in 2004, MEPs opposed the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione, nominated as a European commissioner by Silvio Berlusconi. Set to take up the justice, freedom and security portfolio, Buttiglione enraged the European parliament justice committee with his views on the role of women and his belief that homosexuality is a sin put forward during his confirmation hearings. The Italian government eventually withdrew his nomination as commissioner, due in large part to pressure from MEPs.
Given a similar opportunity, I wonder whether the Commons would have stood in the way of Ruth Kelly's appointment as minister for equality. Her strong religious beliefs obviously made her an inappropriate choice for this job, which involved standing up for the rights of homosexuals. Kelly famously refused to deny or confirm whether she thought homosexuality was a sin on Five Live in 2006.
Ruth Kelly's contention, supported by other religious politicians, that she can separate her private morals from public policy does not stand up to scrutiny. During the passage of the legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services in 2007, she is reputed to have fought hard for Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of the requirement to place children with same sex couples. When it came to the crunch, her Catholic faith won the day. Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?
Politicians are voted in to represent their electorates. People who vote for me and my colleagues expect us to further the interests of the public at large, not those of any particular religion, church, mosque, synagogue, temple or indeed any other interest group. We go against the democratic foundations of our country at our peril.
30 May
The Times Online
Faith News
NIB reporting that the vice-chair of Young Labour has resigned after particularly objecting to Mary’s language in comment is free piece.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4035217.ece
The Catholic Herald
“Labour activist quits post over anti-Catholicism”
Quotes Conor McGinn heavily including about Mary Honeyball “This type of sectarian diatribe makes me wonder whether a prejudice we all thought was long consigned to the past is slowly re-emerging.”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000291.shtml
6 June
Tribune
John Street’s Diary
Connor (sic) McGinn…has quit his post in disgust over what he perceives as the party’s anti-Catholic stance. He was particularly upset at the suggestion from Mary Honeyball MEP that Ruth Kelly’s strong religious beliefs “…obviously made her an inappropriate choice” for the job of Communities Secretary.
13 June
Total Catholic
“Labour’s anti-Catholicism raised with PM”
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:brown-faces-anti-catholic-concern&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
16 June
New Statesman
“Whiff of anti-popery”
Written by Paul Donovan who also writes weekly columns for the Irish Post and Catholic weekly the Universe. He also contributes to the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, Tribune and the Morning Star.
Again article heavily quotes Conor McGinn and no response from Mary Honeyball was sought.
McGinn describes Honeyball's language as harking back to the days of Guy Fawkes. "Imagine substituting the words Jew or Muslim for Catholic in Mary Honeyball's comments - there would have been a furious reaction," says McGinn, whose stance resonates with several Catholic Labour MP.
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/06/anti-catholic-labour-party
Labour Home (blog)
“Is the Labour party anti-catholic?”
Is the Labour Party anti-Catholic? Conor McGinn, the vice chairman of Young Labour has resigned his post in protest at the party's alleged anti-Catholic prejudice and its hostility towards the pro-life movement.
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274
18 June
BBC Radio Ulster
Talk Back
Debate with Conor McGinn and Mary Honeyball on the separation of religion and politics and the influence of the Catholic Church. We were contacted by the show. The researcher asked us to defend our case and we were told Conor McGinn was going to speak on the show about the reasons for his resignation whether we appeared or not.
19 June
Labour Home (blog)
“Labour MP decries Labour anti Catholicism”
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/18/1919/41752
20 June
Tribune
“Religious persecution may drive us out of the Labour Party”
Comment piece by Conor McGinn
Cites Mary Honeyball’s comment piece as “the most vicious of recent attacks on Catholics in the Labour party”
23 June
New Statesman
“Faith and reason”
Mary Honeyball responds in a letter accusing Paul Donovan’s piece of “…misconstruing the pro-democracy message of my article…I am not anti-Catholic but anti any religion that attempts to coerce or control parliament by exploiting the religious convictions of MPs.”
Total Catholic
“Labour’s ‘anti-Catholicism’ raised with PM”
“Church’s social welfare work threatened”
Conor McGinn quoted discussing emails requesting his phone number from Mary Honeyball.
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:churchs-social-welfare-work-threatened&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
Theo’s Blog
Posting starts: “Shocked to see local MEP Mary Honeyball’s statements in her article…”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/06/shocked-to-see-local-mep-mary.html
26 June
Dolphinarium (blog)
“Venomballs”
Leaked email to Prospect/Fabian Review posted on blogsite
http://dolphinarium.blogspot.com/2008/06/venomballs.html
27 June
Islington Tribune
“Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias”
In the piece Conor McGinn says“..an article written by Mary Honeyball MEP made his position “untenable”.”.
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/062708/news062708_09.html
2 July
Political Betting online (comment)
“What Price the Gordon Comeback?”
Extract from 171st comment in response to posting: With that Catholic youth leader resigning over anto-Catholic bias ( http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274 ) and Mary Honeyball MEP writing her piece in the Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins ) I think any deliberate mention of a policy issue such as the HF&E bill by Cardinal O’Brian will be a massive psychic wink to the Catholic vote that Labour is no longer their party. by Morus July 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/01/what-price-the-gordon-come-back/#comment-712304
4 July
Tribune
“Condemn these Catholic tastes for intimidating those who disagree”
Letter from Mary Honeyball in response to Conor McGinn’s previous comment piece.
Islington Tribune/Camden News Journal/Camden Gazette
Mary Honeyball responds with letter to “Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias” article.
Theo’s Blog
“No to Da Vinci Code politics”
Article starts: “Mary Honeyball’s bizarre and illadvised crusade against Catholics in the cabinet continues apace in today’s Tribune….”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-to-da-vinci-code-politics.html
5 July
Political Betting.com (article)
“Will the Catholics abandon Labour?”
“…with the resignation letter of Conor McGinn (vice-chairman of Young Labour) claiming an ‘anti-catholic’ hostility in the party, and a recent article by Labour MEP Mary Honeyball that asked whether Catholics should be allowed to hold governmental office, there is much discussion amongst Catholics as to whether this natural loyalty to Labour is something that should be perpetuated.”
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/05/will-catholics-abandon-labour/
8 July
Daily Telegraph (comment piece)
Article by James MacMillan "Why Gordon Brown will lose Glasgow East". Mary Honeyball's "Cardinal Sins" article quoted out of context - "should devout Catholics such as Ruth Kelly, Des Browne, and Paul Murphy be allowed on the front bench?" The writer then infers - "we have to assume that there is no place any more for Catholics in New Labour."
The "Cardinal Sins" piece about the Embryology Bill and previous government legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services actually said, "Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?"
Needless to say I am not and have never been anti-Catholic. I do believe that all organisations seeking to lobby Government - whether it be big business, NGOs, professional lobbyists or religious groups -should be subject to proper scrutiny and debate.
However, looking through some of the press coverage resulting from my article, I've become concerned that my views have been misrepresented. This is particularly the case in relation to Conor McGinn who has resigned his position as vice-chair of Young Labour seemingly in reaction to my comments.
In the sprit of openness, I've decided to compile a list of media articles making reference me or my original article.
With the exception of BBC Radio Ulster, none of the journalists contacted me in advance of publication to check my views.
As you'll see there are some serious misquotes - nowhere have I questioned the right of Catholics to hold public office.
I am pleased to engage in vigorous debate. But it serves no benefit to misrepresent anybody's views. Let's engage in a debate based on the facts.
TIMELINE OF MEDIA COVERAGE
MARY HONEYBALL MEP AND CONOR MCGINN
20 May
Guardian Comment Is Free
‘Cardinals Sins’ published by Mary Honeyball
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins
Cardinals' sins
Politics and piety are becoming increasingly entangled as the human fertilisation and embryology bill passes through parliament. But democracy and religion do not mix. Pious pro-life Tory MP Nadine Dorries claims her high-profile campaign to reduce the abortion limit is non-religious and non-political; according to Sunny Hundal, she is in fact backed by Christian Concern for our Nation and the Conservative Christian Fellowship.
But it is Gordon Brown's kowtowing to threats of resignation from three Catholic government ministers - Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, Des Browne, the defence secretary and Paul Murphy, the Welsh secretary - that has undermined his strength. In allowing a free vote on three of the bill's most important clauses (selecting and screening embryos for diseases and "saviour siblings"; allowing the creation of hybrid embryos from animal and human cells; and obviating the need for a father in IVF treatment), the PM has failed to protect the rights of the general public, over half of whom support the three causes, according to a recent Times poll.
Notwithstanding the result of the vote tonight, Brown put the interests of the Christian few over the rights of the many. Most people obviously disagree with a Catholic morality that puts the rights of the non-extant over those of the living.
Gordon Brown's failure to stand firm flies in the face of Department of Health (DoH) advice that the bill is essential to improve the technologies for assisting human reproduction and conducting high level research into finding cures for various diseases. The DoH also stresses that the bill is necessary to maintain the UK's position as a world leader in the science of embryology. It would not help our economy if we were to lose out in the same way as the US under George Bush, where embryonic stem cell research was denied federal funding nearly eight years ago.
Brown's about-turn has led many to conclude that the government's front benches are becoming increasingly religion-led. One Times reader this week pointed out that he had never before thought about "the religion of candidates for public office" but in future may not take such an "enlightened" approach if faith is given such sway in parliamentary votes. The idea that British voters may look closely at candidates' religious affiliations when choosing their MP raises fears that the more conservative style of religious voting seen in parts of Europe may come to Britain.
The vice-like grip of Catholicism holds fast across large parts of the continent. Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland are just some of the countries in Europe that have been subjected to interference by meddling cardinals. Abortion is still outlawed in Ireland and was only recently legalised in Portugal. Anti-abortion campaigns have, almost without exception, been led from the pulpit.
Catholicism has never taken a back seat; it has always actively interfered in democratic politics. In 2006 Pope Benedict castigated Catholic politicians in Canada for voting for gay rights and Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of Scotland's Catholics, is alleged to have compared same-sex relationships to paedophilia. The same Cardinal O'Brien is now accusing the human fertilisation and embryology bill of challenging "standards by which we have lived throughout our lives and by which Christians have lived for the past 2,000 years".
The European parliament has, fortunately, made a stand against some of this Christian fundamentalism. In a dramatic exercise of power in 2004, MEPs opposed the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione, nominated as a European commissioner by Silvio Berlusconi. Set to take up the justice, freedom and security portfolio, Buttiglione enraged the European parliament justice committee with his views on the role of women and his belief that homosexuality is a sin put forward during his confirmation hearings. The Italian government eventually withdrew his nomination as commissioner, due in large part to pressure from MEPs.
Given a similar opportunity, I wonder whether the Commons would have stood in the way of Ruth Kelly's appointment as minister for equality. Her strong religious beliefs obviously made her an inappropriate choice for this job, which involved standing up for the rights of homosexuals. Kelly famously refused to deny or confirm whether she thought homosexuality was a sin on Five Live in 2006.
Ruth Kelly's contention, supported by other religious politicians, that she can separate her private morals from public policy does not stand up to scrutiny. During the passage of the legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services in 2007, she is reputed to have fought hard for Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of the requirement to place children with same sex couples. When it came to the crunch, her Catholic faith won the day. Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?
Politicians are voted in to represent their electorates. People who vote for me and my colleagues expect us to further the interests of the public at large, not those of any particular religion, church, mosque, synagogue, temple or indeed any other interest group. We go against the democratic foundations of our country at our peril.
30 May
The Times Online
Faith News
NIB reporting that the vice-chair of Young Labour has resigned after particularly objecting to Mary’s language in comment is free piece.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4035217.ece
The Catholic Herald
“Labour activist quits post over anti-Catholicism”
Quotes Conor McGinn heavily including about Mary Honeyball “This type of sectarian diatribe makes me wonder whether a prejudice we all thought was long consigned to the past is slowly re-emerging.”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000291.shtml
6 June
Tribune
John Street’s Diary
Connor (sic) McGinn…has quit his post in disgust over what he perceives as the party’s anti-Catholic stance. He was particularly upset at the suggestion from Mary Honeyball MEP that Ruth Kelly’s strong religious beliefs “…obviously made her an inappropriate choice” for the job of Communities Secretary.
13 June
Total Catholic
“Labour’s anti-Catholicism raised with PM”
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:brown-faces-anti-catholic-concern&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
16 June
New Statesman
“Whiff of anti-popery”
Written by Paul Donovan who also writes weekly columns for the Irish Post and Catholic weekly the Universe. He also contributes to the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, Tribune and the Morning Star.
Again article heavily quotes Conor McGinn and no response from Mary Honeyball was sought.
McGinn describes Honeyball's language as harking back to the days of Guy Fawkes. "Imagine substituting the words Jew or Muslim for Catholic in Mary Honeyball's comments - there would have been a furious reaction," says McGinn, whose stance resonates with several Catholic Labour MP.
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/06/anti-catholic-labour-party
Labour Home (blog)
“Is the Labour party anti-catholic?”
Is the Labour Party anti-Catholic? Conor McGinn, the vice chairman of Young Labour has resigned his post in protest at the party's alleged anti-Catholic prejudice and its hostility towards the pro-life movement.
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274
18 June
BBC Radio Ulster
Talk Back
Debate with Conor McGinn and Mary Honeyball on the separation of religion and politics and the influence of the Catholic Church. We were contacted by the show. The researcher asked us to defend our case and we were told Conor McGinn was going to speak on the show about the reasons for his resignation whether we appeared or not.
19 June
Labour Home (blog)
“Labour MP decries Labour anti Catholicism”
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/18/1919/41752
20 June
Tribune
“Religious persecution may drive us out of the Labour Party”
Comment piece by Conor McGinn
Cites Mary Honeyball’s comment piece as “the most vicious of recent attacks on Catholics in the Labour party”
23 June
New Statesman
“Faith and reason”
Mary Honeyball responds in a letter accusing Paul Donovan’s piece of “…misconstruing the pro-democracy message of my article…I am not anti-Catholic but anti any religion that attempts to coerce or control parliament by exploiting the religious convictions of MPs.”
Total Catholic
“Labour’s ‘anti-Catholicism’ raised with PM”
“Church’s social welfare work threatened”
Conor McGinn quoted discussing emails requesting his phone number from Mary Honeyball.
http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:churchs-social-welfare-work-threatened&catid=14:uk-and-ireland&Itemid=34
Theo’s Blog
Posting starts: “Shocked to see local MEP Mary Honeyball’s statements in her article…”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/06/shocked-to-see-local-mep-mary.html
26 June
Dolphinarium (blog)
“Venomballs”
Leaked email to Prospect/Fabian Review posted on blogsite
http://dolphinarium.blogspot.com/2008/06/venomballs.html
27 June
Islington Tribune
“Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias”
In the piece Conor McGinn says“..an article written by Mary Honeyball MEP made his position “untenable”.”.
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/062708/news062708_09.html
2 July
Political Betting online (comment)
“What Price the Gordon Comeback?”
Extract from 171st comment in response to posting: With that Catholic youth leader resigning over anto-Catholic bias ( http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/6/16/85046/5274 ) and Mary Honeyball MEP writing her piece in the Guardian ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins ) I think any deliberate mention of a policy issue such as the HF&E bill by Cardinal O’Brian will be a massive psychic wink to the Catholic vote that Labour is no longer their party. by Morus July 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/01/what-price-the-gordon-come-back/#comment-712304
4 July
Tribune
“Condemn these Catholic tastes for intimidating those who disagree”
Letter from Mary Honeyball in response to Conor McGinn’s previous comment piece.
Islington Tribune/Camden News Journal/Camden Gazette
Mary Honeyball responds with letter to “Activist claims Labour has anti-Catholic bias” article.
Theo’s Blog
“No to Da Vinci Code politics”
Article starts: “Mary Honeyball’s bizarre and illadvised crusade against Catholics in the cabinet continues apace in today’s Tribune….”
http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-to-da-vinci-code-politics.html
5 July
Political Betting.com (article)
“Will the Catholics abandon Labour?”
“…with the resignation letter of Conor McGinn (vice-chairman of Young Labour) claiming an ‘anti-catholic’ hostility in the party, and a recent article by Labour MEP Mary Honeyball that asked whether Catholics should be allowed to hold governmental office, there is much discussion amongst Catholics as to whether this natural loyalty to Labour is something that should be perpetuated.”
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/05/will-catholics-abandon-labour/
8 July
Daily Telegraph (comment piece)
Article by James MacMillan "Why Gordon Brown will lose Glasgow East". Mary Honeyball's "Cardinal Sins" article quoted out of context - "should devout Catholics such as Ruth Kelly, Des Browne, and Paul Murphy be allowed on the front bench?" The writer then infers - "we have to assume that there is no place any more for Catholics in New Labour."
The "Cardinal Sins" piece about the Embryology Bill and previous government legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services actually said, "Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?"
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
RUTH KELLY TRIUMPHS IN TRIAL OF STRENGTH
Ruth Kelly has again put her religion before her allegiance to the Government.
Please see the link below to an article in the "Times" on 1 July.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4245099.ece
Please see the link below to an article in the "Times" on 1 July.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4245099.ece
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
ON THE RADIO
Today I was interviewed on Radio Ulster about the separation of religion and politics as well as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. You can listen to the interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/ulster/aod.shtml?ulster/tb_wed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/ulster/aod.shtml?ulster/tb_wed
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
SCIENCE V RELIGION
This appeared yesterday in Guardian G2 from the Hay Festival, I found it very interesting and would like to share it with you....
Raj Persaud, psychiatrist and broadcaster asks Professor John Barrow, mathematician, physicist and cosmologist
Q Would the universe exist if there was no consciousness available to become conscious of it? In other words, do all universes have embedded within their very existence the notion of eventual evolution of intelligent consciousness?
A We have direct evidence that the expanding universe was once so hot and dense that there was a time before which there were no minds in the visible universe. We can also easily imagine how life on planet Earth could extinguish itself and the whole evolutionary process would have to begin again. Planets are common; we expect simple forms of life on planetary surfaces to be common; but the likelihood of complex conscious life is an open question. I suspect it is very rare. We don't understand how and why it arose on Earth, whether it was a lucky accident, and whether it is just a passing evolutionary phase. Cometary and asteroidal impacts make survival difficult over millions of years. Advanced technological civilisations such as ours exhaust their resources, poison their environments and threaten their own stability. Eventually, all forms of information processing and life look set to die out in the universe as its expansion accelerates into the far future. So, although the laws of physics are such as to allow consciousness to evolve in the universe, they do not seem to require its indefinite survival.
Thursday, 22 May 2008
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS FOR ALL
On Tuesday I posted a link to a piece I wrote for the Guardian "Comment is Free" online section.
I received a number of responses, and I would just like to respond to a few things:
I have no problem with what people believe as long as they do not harm others. We should all respect each other, women and men, old and young, gay and straight, those with disabilities and the able bodied, black and white. We are, after all, human beings living on the same planet.
I believe democracy, and therefore other people, are harmed when MPs allow their religious faith rather than the principles of the party they represent to influence their votes in Parliament.
I received a number of responses, and I would just like to respond to a few things:
I have no problem with what people believe as long as they do not harm others. We should all respect each other, women and men, old and young, gay and straight, those with disabilities and the able bodied, black and white. We are, after all, human beings living on the same planet.
I believe democracy, and therefore other people, are harmed when MPs allow their religious faith rather than the principles of the party they represent to influence their votes in Parliament.
Thursday, 8 May 2008
REQUEST FOR ACTION
The question – ‘What is your religion?’ – in the 2001 Census led to deeply flawed results. The British Humanist Association (BHA) is now working to make sure that the question or questions about religion in the 2011 Census give an accurate picture of religious affiliation in the UK.
At least 15.5% of the population is non-religious according to the 2001 Census, making this the second largest ‘belief’ group in the UK, being two-and-a-half times as numerous as all the non-Christian religions put together. By any sensible reckoning this figure is far too low. The Office of National Statistics admits that the leading nature of the ‘religion’ question meant that many people, especially those with a loose (for example, merely cultural) affiliation to a religion, would have identified themselves as religious when they are not. This is particularly true of those who identified themselves as ‘Christian’. A large proportion of those people who identified themselves as affiliated in some sense to a religion in fact have no active involvement.
Apart from the inaccuracy of the data collected on religious affiliation, there are real, practical problems with the use of this data. The Census data on religion says nothing about the actual religious practice and involvement of the population. However, both central and local government use this data in resource allocation and for targeting equality initiatives.
The figure stating that 72% of the population are ‘Christian’ has been used in a variety of ways, such as to justify the continuing presence of Bishops in the House of Lords, to justify the state-funding of faith schools (and their expansion), to justify and increase religious broadcasting and to exclude the voices of humanists in Parliament and elsewhere.
The Office of National Statistics has written to the BHA claiming they have done some testing of the question and that their results show that the 2001 Census question on religion should be used again. In light of how the data has been misused, this is a highly irresponsible decision. In order to strengthen their case, the BHA needs evidence that demonstrates the difficulties created by the 2001 Census question.
Please would you look out for information in your locality, which justifies ‘faith-based’ practices by public bodies based on Census results. Examples of this may include making funding decisions using this data or changes in service delivery or justifying the allocation of resources on the basis of Census data on religion.
If you have any pertinent examples, please let the BHA know so that they can build up evidence showing the misuse of the questionable 2001 data. All information should be sent to Naomi Phillips, BHA Public Affairs Officer, naomi@humanism.org.uk. Contact Naomi for more information, by email or on 020 7079 3585.
I very much support the BHA on the matter. They need evidence, so please contact them if you have anything they may find useful.
At least 15.5% of the population is non-religious according to the 2001 Census, making this the second largest ‘belief’ group in the UK, being two-and-a-half times as numerous as all the non-Christian religions put together. By any sensible reckoning this figure is far too low. The Office of National Statistics admits that the leading nature of the ‘religion’ question meant that many people, especially those with a loose (for example, merely cultural) affiliation to a religion, would have identified themselves as religious when they are not. This is particularly true of those who identified themselves as ‘Christian’. A large proportion of those people who identified themselves as affiliated in some sense to a religion in fact have no active involvement.
Apart from the inaccuracy of the data collected on religious affiliation, there are real, practical problems with the use of this data. The Census data on religion says nothing about the actual religious practice and involvement of the population. However, both central and local government use this data in resource allocation and for targeting equality initiatives.
The figure stating that 72% of the population are ‘Christian’ has been used in a variety of ways, such as to justify the continuing presence of Bishops in the House of Lords, to justify the state-funding of faith schools (and their expansion), to justify and increase religious broadcasting and to exclude the voices of humanists in Parliament and elsewhere.
The Office of National Statistics has written to the BHA claiming they have done some testing of the question and that their results show that the 2001 Census question on religion should be used again. In light of how the data has been misused, this is a highly irresponsible decision. In order to strengthen their case, the BHA needs evidence that demonstrates the difficulties created by the 2001 Census question.
Please would you look out for information in your locality, which justifies ‘faith-based’ practices by public bodies based on Census results. Examples of this may include making funding decisions using this data or changes in service delivery or justifying the allocation of resources on the basis of Census data on religion.
If you have any pertinent examples, please let the BHA know so that they can build up evidence showing the misuse of the questionable 2001 data. All information should be sent to Naomi Phillips, BHA Public Affairs Officer, naomi@humanism.org.uk. Contact Naomi for more information, by email or on 020 7079 3585.
I very much support the BHA on the matter. They need evidence, so please contact them if you have anything they may find useful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
