S onewall and the great bigot debate

I've posted before about the use of the word bigot. I've always said that while people may agree with your point of view that doesn't make them a bigot, what does lead to bigotry is the way that you over expound the difference using non-factual, inaccurate arguments or even over-egg the debate.

Yesterday was the Stonewall awards and as is traditional there is the bigot of the year award. Hardly surprisingly Cardinal Keith O'Brien who won it spoke out against the award, but so too the recipient of the politician of the year, the Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson. Now the Cardinal had compared equal marriage to slavery (though not in the correct historical context), called it a grotesque subversion of a universally [huh? hardly universal] accepted human right and declared a war on gay [sic] marriage. All of which I personally think fit into the dictionary definition of bigot:

big·ot  (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Definition from The Free Dictionary 

Even if the Scottish First Minister and Miss Davidson disagree with me on the issue of whether LGBT organisations should be pointing out bigotry, or whether the Cardinal met those criteria. Sadly many of us in the LGBT community face bigotry everywhere we go. Here in Northern Ireland we can face if from our elected and elevated politicians (one of whom was shortlisted for the award the Cardinal won)

Personally I'd love there to be no need for Stonewall to award a Bigot of the Year award. As I said before I don't mind a debate on LGBT rights, I don't mind people having a reasoned debate to oppose things. But when I hear that being in love with a human being of the same sex is equivalent to beastiality. Or that what two consenting adults get up to is the same as pedophiles. Or that LGBT people seeking equality is just like the Nazis denying it to groups (including the LGBT one), then there clearly are bigots out there.

However, one nominee I want to see for next year's Stonewall awars is the audience at last night's awards who booed Miss Davidson. They are bigots and we should not shy away from calling them thus.

How does the UN universally declare marriage rights? #factcheck

Cardinal Keith O'Brien in his Sunday Telegraph article said:

"In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women."

and

"The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: marriage is a right which applies to men and women, 'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State'."

So let's take at look at how crystal clear that is. Article 16 which applies to marriage states:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

So that doesn't as the Cardinal stated say that it is between one man and one one woman, merely that men and women of full age are entitled to the right to marry without limitation, providing there is free and full consent. It is not as crystal clear as he had made out, it doesn't define who the spouses in each marriage should be, indeed the language is rather neutral in what it actually says on the make up of the spouses, for the record it doesn't even specify monogamy.

The thrust of the Cardinal's message was the impact that equal marriage would have on children but other articles also mention family:

Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Therefore surely calling families that don't have mixed sex parents a grotesque subversion is surely attacking the honour and reputation of those family members.

Article 25:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Hang on the Cardinal said:

"All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father;"

and

"Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."

So the Cardinal appears to be picking which parts of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights he wants to adhere to. All children are entitled to the same social protection.

If the Cardinal should not pick and choose Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to make a point, just a Christians shouldn't pick and choose verses to prove their point. Now should he try and interpret them by adding words that aren't there into them.

Cardinal may have a point about slavery and equal marriage

Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme Cardinal O'Brien when asked wan't equating equal marriage with slavery a bit too far said:

"it is a very, very, very good example as the what might happen in our own country at this time"

So let us look at what happened in the lead up to the abolition of slavery. As you may know the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 brought and end to Slavery in the UK. What you may not be aware of is that they could have been a abolition some 26 years earlier when there was the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807, however the Lords were rebellious including some of those who were Lord's Spiritual who spoke against the end of slavery. Some of those Bishops are recorded as saying slavery was indeed biblical and had provisions laid out and nothing in the Bible calling for its end.

The abolitionists started out with the non-conformist Christian people like William Wilberforce, a Quaker, like nine of the original committee of twelve for the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Mehtodists like John Wesley joined their cause, along with Baptists and other denominations who joined behind the call to end slavery.

The established Church dragged its heels on this issue and indeed even spoke out against the changes. Does that sound rather familiar to the cause that Cardinal O'Brien wishes to draw our attention to now? The Church of England much later in 2009 apologised for its implication in the slave trade. This was both through its ownership of slaves as part of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and through Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter who received compensation for the 665 slaves he owned in 1834. That compensation equates to almost £1million pounds worth in today's money for the Bishop and around £500,000 for the Church itself.

So if the Cardinal's analogy truly is a reflection of where our society is heading where are the Quakers who were at the forefront of ending slavery on equal marriage?

The answer is simple, they are at the forefront of wanting to offer equal marriage, not merely civil marriage but the same religious celebration they offer to any Quaker.

So before we get to harsh on condemning the Cardinal for linking the case of slavery with equal marriage. Let us consider whose stance we in the UK followed on slavery. Maybe what might happen in this country at this time is once again to follow the path of those who worship by waiting on God, rather than hearing the sounds of their own voices repeating liturgy.

Bannside to Morningside*

Lord Bannside, who until recently was just plain old the Right Honourable, Rev. Dr. Ian K. Paisley P.C., M.L.A., as well as former M.P. and M.E.P. has announced he is visiting Edinburgh this week.

Far be it for me to point out that the Festival has finished for another year he has another reason for visiting the city I've worked in for the past nine years. Yeah, anyone who know the history of Paisley and the Popes (video link) will hardly be surprised that he is heading the protest against the Pope in Edinburgh.

Regular readers will know that I don't always see eye to eye with Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Andrew's and Edinburgh, but I had to admire him in the press conference yesterday. He mentioned that as a man born in the former MP's constituency he would have been surprised if Paisley had not made the journey to make his protest.

If what Lord Bannside has said is the reason he will be protesting, in light of the recent revelations he has a justified reason** to protest against a State Visit, when he said :

"What we're doing, we're making a legitimate protest about something that is entirely wrong, and I am looking at myself as a person who is prepared to champion those who have been very, very badly treated by these priests of Rome."

The problem I have with the Protest the Pope idea is that there are elements of this visit which are State Ceremonial, there are other elements which are Pastoral to the Catholic pilgrims who will also be visiting these cities along with the protesters. Therefore protests at the civic elements of the Pope's visit are to be expected, however they should leave the religious elements to those of the faith to have their time with their spiritual leader.

Personally I'll not be making a physical protest. However, I will continue stand up against what I feel are wrong statements and falsehoods on this blog as time goes on (and yes that will mean the odd spat with a good friend). That goes for any church not just the Roman one.

* He may not actually visit Morningside, I'm aware of that, but the Southern Edinburgh works for the wordplay. It is also more widely known than Hillside which is right next to the Catholic Cathedral, so give me artistic license.

** Yeah me having good things to say about Cardinal O'Brien and Ian Paisley in the same blog post mark that in your diary.

Quote of the Day: Cardinal Keith O'Brien

I'll wait while regular readers are picking their jaws up off their keyboards as have in fact just awarded the irregularly presented Quote of the Day on this blog to the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. For this:

"In many states - more than half - they kill the perpetrators of horrible crimes, by lethal injection or even firing squad - I say that is a culture of vengeance.

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - that is not our culture in Scotland and I would like to think that the US government, and these states that do still have capital punishment, would learn something from us."

It is in response to the USA attitude to the release of the Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. It is quite a courageous stance for a Church leader to remind the nation that has "In God We Trust" on its currency to remember the teaching of the Sermon of the Mount and pull them out of the Old Testament vengeful tendency. So his is to applauded for his stance and his backing of the stance not to sent Parliamentarians from the UK or Scotland to stand before a US committee he added:

"The Scottish government has made the decision and the Scottish government is answerable to the Scottish people - not the US government or US citizens.

"Everyone acted according to Scots law in releasing Megrahi on compassionate grounds, having taken medical advice.

"I still think they did the right thing, although the man is still alive.

"We shouldn't be crawling out to America, or having them come here and questioning us on our own territory."