Sin and the law

[alexist]

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.

Comments

[mooism.livejournal.com]

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.)

[arosoff.livejournal.com]

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.)