alexist: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] alexist at 09:25pm on 10/05/2006 under , ,
I'm not a Ruth Kelly fan as a rule, but I think the cover of today's Independent is a bit unfair. It's one of those questions that's unanswerable. If she says homosexuality is a sin, she's seen as unfit to deal with questions of equality. If she says it isn't, no one will believe her anyway, or will accuse her of cherry-picking Catholic teachings.

Personally, I'd say that sin is a theological issue and not a political one. My faith says that eating pork is a sin, but I'm not going to vote against pig farmers. I can accept a literal reading of Leviticus on the matter of gay sex, but that doesn't justify discrimination or homophobia.

Sometimes I wonder if the openly religious can ever win when it comes to these issues. That said, Kelly hasn't made it any easier on herself by repeatedly missing votes on the issue.
There are 7 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] christhomas123.livejournal.com at 09:10pm on 10/05/2006
It's not a religious matter, so much as _which_ religious matter.

One of the key points of Opus Dei is that the followers are expected to use and promote their beliefs through their profession. If your profession happens to be deciding on what's 'morally right and proper' for a country, that's very dodgy ground.

As you say, Judaism prohibits the eating of pork, but it doesn't say you must make it your life's work to stop me eating a bacon sandwich. ;o)

 
posted by [identity profile] mooism.livejournal.com at 09:27pm on 10/05/2006
Pig farmers have not been and are not discriminated against in this country in the same way that homosexuals have been in the past and still are today. I think that homosexuals are justified in being at least worried that the Equality Minister thinks homosexuality is bad and wrong.

I vaguely remember a fuss was kicked up a few years ago when a vegetarian was appointed as a minor agriculture minister; meat farmers claimed a vegetarian could not possibly deal with them fairly. I think that died down pretty quickly.
 
posted by [identity profile] arosoff.livejournal.com at 09:36pm on 10/05/2006
True, I was just thinking of other prohibitions from Leviticus. And I don't blame people for being worried--I just think that the question as phrased was unfair and unanswerable. The issue is not whether she thinks it's a sin (a theological question) but whether or how it will affect her political actions.

New York's governor for 12 years was Mario Cuomo, who was an observant Catholic. He steadfastly refused to let his religion influence his politics. It got him into trouble with the Church because he refused to change abortion laws (New York has one of the most liberal laws in the country). He believed that his private beliefs should be separate from public policy and I've always agreed with that.
 
posted by [identity profile] mooism.livejournal.com at 09:48pm on 10/05/2006
But then plenty of religious politicians say their religious convictions inform their political beliefs.
 
posted by [identity profile] arosoff.livejournal.com at 10:11pm on 10/05/2006
yes, but that's the question: Not what her theology is, but how far she lets it inform her poltitical beliefs. The question was theologically based. If I do accept a literal reading of Leviticus, I can still justifiably oppose a return to banning sodomy. For me, the important question is not "Is homosexuality a sin?" (though it makes a good headline) but "Do you support equal rights for gays and lesbians?"
 
posted by [identity profile] mooism.livejournal.com at 09:37pm on 10/05/2006
If she says homosexuality is a sin, she's seen as unfit to deal with questions of equality. If she says it isn't, no one will believe her anyway, or will accuse her of cherry-picking Catholic teachings.

My feeling is that most of the people who would see her as unfit in the first case would be mostly satisfied by her saying it isn’t a sin — they’d still be sensitive and vigilant about it, but they’d stop banging on about it so much. Mostly other people would accuse her of cherry-picking her beliefs. (Not saying it’s not a problem for her — just that most people out there aren’t being hypocritical about this.)
 
posted by [identity profile] arosoff.livejournal.com at 10:16pm on 10/05/2006
Would they actually believe her, though? I know I wouldn't be particularly convinced by an Opus Dei member claiming they rejected a core Church teaching.

As I said, the whole issue would be simpler if she'd been asked about her political beliefs instead of her personal religious ones--but that's British suspicion of overt religion for you. (Not that American evangelical conservatives are the best example out there, but there are plenty of Democrat church/synagogue-goers too.)

June

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
2 3 4 5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9 10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16 17
 
18
 
19 20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30