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]

But then plenty of religious politicians say their religious convictions inform their political beliefs.

[arosoff.livejournal.com]

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?"