« Cameron to address Islamic extremism in speech today | Main | The five barriers to community cohesion »


This isn't a matter of conscience. It's about the Catholic Church attempting to call the shots, excluding itself from national law, despite providing public services.

"Martin Smith, I rather doubt whether you would be making those arguments if a Muslim adoption agency were refusing to place children with gay couples"

No actually I would, if that ever came up. Though I doubt it will. If all you can do is make things up and start blathering "political correctness" without addressing the issues then it's a sign of being short of an argument.

It's all about rights vs responsibilities. It is actually very Conservative to believe that rights should be balanced by responsibilities. If the Catholic Church wish the right to be treated equally and in a non-discriminatory manner, they have the responsibility to grant that right to others. If one particular detail of this causes problems but both sides are willing, ways can be found to make the process easier, without diluting rights or responsibilities. Twinning with non-Catholic agencies to refer gay peoples on is one such solution. Time may be needed to come to such an arrangement. That is exactly what David Cameron has asked for.

Why is that people only scream 'freedom of councience' when the issue of gay rights arises as opposed to the rights of others? The Church is already willing and without protestation accepting of the law and allows single parents, divorcees, the unmarried and many other individuals and couples with lifestyles that the Church does not condone to be chosen as parents through their adoption system (and accepting state money for the privelege)

To suddenly protest that people have a freedom of conscience to allow them to discriminate when it comes to gay people but not to divorcees or the unmarried and so forth is actually subtle discrimination in itself.

Martin, you are a voice of reason.

Michael, you should know better than to bleat "bias" as a defence. It’s certainly not true of me, and I doubt it’s true of the others either.

I’m going to stop posting on any more Catholic adoption debates - they create nothing but heat and noise. I can’t really see how this one has added to what was said last week.

Jack Stone says: "You are either for discrimanation or you are against it" He is clearly against it when it comes to discriminating between correct and incorrect spelling (a dangerous thing for me to say, I know, as I've probably made a spelling mistake myself in this post already!). But he also clearly hasn't read or understood the argument and is just repeating the nonsense slogans that I heard from Labour MPs last night on the radio.

I intend to keep discriminating in all the judgements I make today, tomorrow and every day, thank you; and I expect even Jack Stone will in many respects, even if he evidently does not agree that a presumption in favour of a child having two parents of opposite sexes is justifiable.

Re CDM - he is not liberal in any sense and indeed has already asked me why if I am liberal I am a member of the Conservative Party. I presume he also sees incompatibility between his version of the Party and liberal democracy, a liberal economy, liberal values, the liberal arts and, for all I know, liberal hospitality. However, I have caught him out being liberal in one respect: in the amount of nonsense he spouts. He is STILL asserting that this is about the Catholic Church seeking special favours despite many and various posts arguing on many different grounds why this is not so.

If the Catholic Church wish the right to be treated equally and in a non-discriminatory manner

Pack of anti-freedom posers on this thread.

Questions for the reds.

1) How long has the RC Church been on the scene?

2) How long have gays been permitted to adopt?

I was always taught that Conservatives favoured tradition. Now doubt we'll now learn that Churchill and Disraeli supported gay adoption.

UKIP supports the right of the Church to opt out. Remember that you Tories who still cling to the increasingly discredited corpse of Toryboy Dave

Jack Stone urges people to join the BNP with such gusto that I suspect he may be on commission.

from laws debated and then enacted by Parliament.

Sorry there is no Debate. This is an EU Directive it will be passed as Secondary Legislation which means there will be NO debate. The blanks in the Enabling Act will be filled in by Ministers using Royal Prerogative.

Martin, I will believe it when I see it. The reference to "political correctness" was made in the context of discussing the issues. I can't help it that that is beyond your comprehension.

Presumably if "providing public services" is the moral trump card, then that means no more exemptions for doctors who refuse on conscientious grounds to perform abortions? After all, they are paid to provide public services and abortions are a public service. Ditto teachers in publicly-funded state schools must teach the morality that our legislators tell them to teach, even if they disagree with it, because they are providing a public service. I look forward to the dictatorship of the moral majority.

Zorro, please do stop being such a bore old chap and buzz off back to UKIP Home or Mexico or wherever.

It's interesting to note that almost this entire 'debate' is devoted to arguing the "rights" of one interest group to have those rights respected. Or, the various inconsistencies in one contributor's stated views when compared with earlier stated opinions. Or the need to establish -- or deny -- a moral equivalence between the rights of one minority group or another, citing selective examples going back decades or in some whimsical cases, centuries.

What about the rights of the child? Surely, history, experience and common sense show that the male + female parental unit is the safest, most effective and natural environment for the nurture and development of children? The state seems to be enshrining in law the principle that these are secondary to the legally-endorse rights of a politically-supported group?

The decisions are made by the state, which accepts full responsibility for the child's welfare before: it's last act while fully responsible is to hand over that child to someone else. Permanently.As I asked earlier -- what's wrong with positive discrimination in favour of those children?

Jack Stone urges people to join the BNP with such gusto that I suspect he may be on commission.

I just checked out that guy. Is he supposed to be a Tory? Next thing somebody will be screaming "UKIP troll"

His spelling screams BNP.

Well, that's it then. There have been three moments over the past year which have been pivotal in my decision to withdraw my support from the Conservative party.

1. Cameron's u-turn over withdrawal from the EPP
2. My local MP sent me an e-mail assuring me that Cameron would vote against ID cards - Howard's support for them was the reason why had not renewed my membership. In the event Cameron voted for ID cards.
3. The decision by Cameron to vote against allowing Catholic adoption agencies to function according to their beliefs.

The last of these was the final nail in the coffin. As a practising Catholic I can no longer in good conscience vote Conservative. This was an opportunity for Cameron to pick a side in the culture war. He picked the wrong one. Doubtless as an English Tory Catholic I represent a very small niche in the view of the unblinking eye of Cameron's electoral computer.

It was an also an opportunity for Cameron to stand up for the freedom of the individual. He chose not to take it.

I'd like to think that I'm not outraged for purely parochial reasons - i.e. because I'm Catholic. I would, I hope, also be outraged if Cameron had backed the curtailing of the religious freedom of members of another religion.

The only genuinely deeply held belief which Cameron appears to have is that if he offends no-one (with the obvious exception of reactionary bigots such as myself) then he will win power. That may be true. But what does that say about the current state of the party of Thatcher and Churchill?

The public is finally waking up to the con job which Labour has perpetrated upon them. They were not willing to listen to Cameron's predecessors. I believe that they are now more receptive to conservative policies. However, Cameron has abandoned the worldview which supports such policies.

I joined UKIP today. I hope that at some point in the future the Conservative party becomes, once again, a conservative party. At that point I will rejoin.


Sorry but Dave C has shown he will give away the traditional liberties of this country on a modish whim. The guy is a total liability and will have to go.

I'm pleased that people are jumping ship to th UKIP. After a year or two of nothing happening, election failures and an expoure to the under the surfce xenophobia that persists within the UKIP you'll want to come back but by that time we'll have moved on.

I also wonder how many of the 'im leaving for UKIP' brigade are actually party members or alternatively how many months or years, in reality, they have been members of UKIP

Zorro, the cold virus has also been around for a long time. Temporal length doesn't (as far as I can see) imply any epistemic force either for or against a proposition. I think David Hume called this the problem of induction. Previous existence doesn't imply anything about future behaviour, without the application of belief (which is probably where the church comes in, on the one hand, and why scientists find it hard to integrate religion into their thought systems on the other).

I feel like the worst sort of bar-room bore. The odd thing is, I almost never mention the h-word anywhere other than Conservative Home. Am going to enact a resolution to talk about anything, absolutely anything to do with Tory politics that has nothing to do with sexuality! For a month. Or a week. Well I'll try.

Is anyone planning on attending the Times debate tomorrow night, about universities? I think the debate is called "Too many people are going to universities" and it's at the Royal Geographical Society (opposite the Albert Memorial) from 6pm. The website is www.intelligencesquared.com - I went to the Tory party one last year, it was excellent. I have a growing desire to actually meet some of the people who post here!

Zorro, please do stop being such a bore old chap and buzz off back to UKIP Home or Mexico or wherever.

That's all right Gareth. I'm enjoying reading the posts of the majority of Tories here who are clearly unreconstructed "Nasty Party" aficionados.

All that stuff about modernisation was clearly hot air.

Maybe your gay members should defect UKIP, as our policies do not include the homophobia clearly favoured by many Tories.

Apparently a leading gay website has today commented on Tory homophobia.

Oh dear! That's not what Boy Wonder wants to hear.

What's a "leading gay website"? Is it a website which is only attracted to other websites of the same gender? Does it want to adopt?

Afleitch, perhaps you can tell me what the Conservative Party is going to do about the glaring democratic deficit in the EU, which is now worrying the Germans? Oh silly me: with Cameron being advised by Clarke, Heseltine, Patten and Hurd, the answer is of course nothing at all....other than vilify voters who raise these concerns as bigots and xenophobes.

Graeme :-)

Anyone with half a brain will see that I was quoting Mitzi on Tory T. Therefore an apology from Tory T and Graeme would be in order. Sean, I did not accuse Mitzi of anything - I merely asked him a question hence the question mark.

How can anyone think it right for children to be raised with two fathers or two mothers? What kind of damage will be done to that child's school-life and capability at forming heterosexual relationships?

Justin I shared your concern about rampant Tory homophobia. It looks as if people like yourself are being swamped by a tidal wave of bigotry.

Why not come and join us in the tolerant and easy-going atmosphere of UKIP?

!Why not come and join us in the tolerant and easy-going atmosphere of UKIP?" - your 'aving a lauff, aintcha?

From Peter Tachell:


Take a bow, your Lordships

Last night's victory for gay rights was a setback for the zealous, authoritarian tactics of US-style Christian fundamentalism

The Guardian – Comment Is Free – 10 January 2007


The religious right was trounced last night. An attempt to neuter new laws protecting gay people against discrimination was defeated, 199 votes to 68.

This stunning three to one victory happened in the House of Lords - the traditional stomping ground of religious, conservative and homophobic parliamentarians. Only a few years ago, the Lords repeatedly blocked attempts to equalise the age consent, with cries that it was a “paedophiles charter.”

How times have changed. And so quickly. The vast majority of their lordships are now, it seems, the steadfast defenders of lesbian, gay and bisexual human rights. They backed the government’s new sexual orientation regulations, which extend to gay people the anti-discrimination laws that currently protect women, black, disabled and religious people.

It was mostly a sad, embittered posse of elderly, die-hard, anti-Cameron Tories and Ulster unionists who voted to allow religious organisations the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians. They wanted to permit religious doctors, schools, hoteliers and charities to turn away gay people – all in the name of “freedom of religion”.

The massive House of Lords vote against homophobia was, however, much more than a victory for gay rights. It was a victory for modern, liberal Britain. Tolerance vanquished intolerance. Compassion and justice triumphed over heartlessness and inequality. We are all winners, gay and straight.

The Lord’s vote was also a huge setback for attempts to import into Britain the zealous, authoritarian tactics of US Christian fundamentalism.

The leaders of Tuesday night’s protest outside parliament against the sexual orientation regulations included evangelical activists who have been to the US to study the tactics of the religious right. The mobilisation of ultra-conservative Christian voters is widely credited with helping secure electoral victory for George Bush in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

Some of our home-grown religious fundamentalists now want to use the same tactics to mobilise religious people into a voting bloc, with the aim of promoting their own moral agenda on issues like abortion, homosexuality and embryo research.

Much of the success of the religious right in the US has been based on scaremongering tactics, deliberately designed to frighten Christian voters into backing hardline Republicans. American evangelical fundamentalists routinely spin gay equality as a bid for “special rights” or “privileged status;” suggesting that ending homophobic discrimination will give gay people rights not enjoyed by the heterosexual population.

The organisers of last night’s protest in London realised their arguments are weak and off-putting. Taking a lead from their US religious counterparts, they resorted to naked untruths, as Polly Toynbee and AC Grayling pointed out in The Guardian.

The protest leaders claimed the sexual orientation regulations would “curtail freedom of religious belief and expression”; alleging that believers who condemned gay sex as a sin would face criminal charges. Rubbish. The regulations do not concern beliefs or opinions.

Another whopper put about by the fundamentalists is that the regulations would force all schools, including faith schools, to “promote homosexuality.” As Lord Rooker pointed out, this is nonsense. The regulations are not about the content of the school curriculum.

These falsehoods were typical of the many “Big Lies” on which the religious fundamentalist campaign was based. It has succeeded in scaring the pants off many Christians, who have now rallied to the ignoble cause of homophobic discrimination.

The politics behind this campaign is obvious to any one who takes a closer look. Last night’s motion in the House of Lords was sponsored by northern Irish peer, Lord Morrow, a leader of the ultra-sectarian Democratic Unionist Party and a close friend of the arch bigot, Rev Ian Paisley.

It is notable that the “rally for right to discriminate”, which was held outside parliament on Tuesday night, was not supported by the Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian or Baptist churches, nor by the Muslim Council of Britain or the Board of Deputies of British Jews. These mainstream religious organisations wanted nothing to do with this dishonourable protest in support of homophobic discrimination.

Polly Toynbee came close to implying that religion per se was the villain of this homophobic campaign. However, it is only a minority of fringe religious people who are backing these incendiary anti-gay demonstrations. To damn all believers as supporters of homophobia is misleading and unfair. After all, many of the counter-protesters on Tuesday night were people of faith, both gay and straight.

They were there for two good reasons: to register their objections to the bigotry of their co-religionists and to rescue their faith from moral tarnish.

The concern of these humanitarian religionists was the same as mine. If the zealots had overturned the new regulations church schools would be able to expel gay pupils; faith-based nursing homes would be allowed to refuse gay patients; and religious charities like night-shelters would be free to turn away homeless gay people.

Such injustices have been ended in northern Ireland, where the sexual orientation regulations recently became law. But the regulations have not, so far, been applied to England and Wales. When this happens, in a couple of months time, we can expect a re-run of the fundamentalist’s shameless, dishonest campaign.

They will, yet again, single out homosexuality from all other “sins,” and demand the right, on religious grounds, to discriminate against gay people. But they will not be campaigning for the right to discriminate against adulterers, unwed mothers, thieves, murderers or rapists – only gays.

The opponents of the sexual orientation regulations are promoting a highly selective, overtly homophobic interpretation of religious morality.

Justin, we know you are a parrot for the authoritarian prejudices of the Guardian but it is good to be reminded. No doubt you also believe, like the Guardian, that Cuba is a nice place; that Iraqis were happier under Saddam Hussein; and that America is the Great Satan.

Michael- I know we didn't quite grasp this fact in 1997, 2001 and 2005, but the voters don't care about Europe. It's the least of their problems

No,no and no! Wrong on three counts!

I noticed that you didn't answer the original question because you haven't got an answer. Interesting that you think that we should give no priority at all to protecting democratic accountability. Says a lot about modernising Conservatives but at least they are consistent. How do you know the voters don't care? Have they even been asked or indeed presented with a coherent alternative by the official opposition? Answer no.

Jules at 18:06 eloquently sums up the views of many I suspect.

Tatchell's piece is laughable seeing as almost half the country favoured the exemption. Why do authoritarian liberals always think that their policies have more support than they actually do?

Michael i'm a libertarian I don't have much faith in any government system! I don't like Europe either. But do I think the public want to hear about Europe? No, they are more concerned over their bank balance and their kids.

I disagree with DC's decision, but then I am entitled to. As he is entitled to say what he thinks. Isn't this freedom what we're all fighting for? And isn't this just what the Labour government wants to stop us doing?

[email protected] do I think the public want to hear about Europe? No

In his speech today DC said "But you can’t have a situation where a country doesn’t know - and can’t control - who is coming in and out, and who is settling here"
How does he think we can achieve that while we are in the EU.

He also said "And those who seek a sharia state, or special treatment and a separate law for British Muslims are, in many ways, the mirror image of the BNP."
What is his view on Turkey joining the EU, as they have 80 million muslims in their population who would be able to come here and vote for Sharia law at some time in the not too distant future.

Mark- did British born Muslims whom Cameron was referring to come from Euope? Does Europe have anything to do with them? Do you know anything about Turkey? If the results of this poll are correct then it's their youth that are more moderate and supportive of democratic institutions than our own, Stop shoehorning Europe into everything when it has nothing to do with it.

But do I think the public want to hear about Europe? No, they are more concerned over their bank balance and their kids.

Posted by: Afleitch | January 29, 2007 at 19:16

So Blair agreeing to pay another £2.500.000.000 a year to the EU Budget won't worry them now we can get NHS nurses to work for free and will have lots of unemployed medical staff this year



Having spent six years training and a further year as a junior house officer, I am now unemployed. I never imagined this would happen to me... Most of my colleagues in this situation are considering emigrating or leaving medicine altogether

Europe has everything to do with lack of control of our borders and Turkey's population is 99% Muslim (mostly Sunni). Therefore my points are valid as there is no point in Cameron making statements of intent without considering the EU's role in the matter.

I think Cameron was right. If we can give exemptions to Catholics will not Muslims wonder why they can't have Shia law - just to name one possibility. It is worth pointing out that the C of E supported Childrens Society have said they don't have a problem. I particularly like the Scotish Cathlic society's attitude. Given that the child's interest is always paramount they intend to carry on and fight their corner. I suspect they will keep going and the Catholic Bishops are crying wolf.

However, what I find deeply disturbing about this is that having come out on a subject he knew was deeply worring to many supporters he just made a bald cryptic statement. I thought Cameron would end the Tory party leadership approach of regarding electors and party members as peasants to be bothered with as little as possible.

Tatchell - "... new laws protecting gay people against discrimination"

It really has nothing at all to do with the welfare of the children, then.

Sean, thank you. If Hinchcliffe instead meant to imply that Larry - a Jewish man - thought gays should be burned alive in ovens then his offence adds anti-semitism and minimising the Holocaust to slander and bigotry.

"presumably he thinks it was wrong for Jews to be gassed, but not gays?" - Justin Hinchcliffe

It takes a real kind of dedicated offensiveness to suggest to a Jewish person they want people herded into ovens. For much less, Ken Livingstone was suspended from office for being unfit. It is crushingly embarassing that somebody who would minimise the Holocaust like that, to a Jew, is an officer of a Conservative association. You and John Irvine make a pretty pair between you.

I just went over all Larry's comments, Justin, and nowhere does he remotely suggest he wants gay people killed. You are a libelous, anti-semitic oaf and I have no idea why your hatred of people of any faith, which includes out and out slander, is allowed on Conservative home.

There is now very little incentive for committed moral traditionalists to support the Conservatives.

"Justin I shared your concern about rampant Tory homophobia. It looks as if people like yourself are being swamped by a tidal wave of bigotry.

Why not come and join us in the tolerant and easy-going atmosphere of UKIP?"

If that's true I certainly won't be defecting to UKIP. Sounds like "Out of the frying pan..."

For probably the first time ever I agree with Tory T and what he says about the appalling Hinchcliffe.

Quite right Denis. Read the whole page -- children are irrelevant here. As in Blair and DC's conclusions.

Jews were not the only people who were targeted by the Nazis; gay men, trade unionists, gypsies were all gassed alongside Jews. I'm sorry, but this is a matter of fact and history cannot be re-written. I find it odd how one minority, e.g. Jews, can attack another, e.g. Gays, given both have been singled-out and hated throughout history. Anti-Semitic? I don't think so!

"Europe has everything to do with lack of control of our borders and Turkey's population is 99% Muslim (mostly Sunni). "

Yet Turkey itself has a more explicitly secular constitution than Britain - same as most of the Muslim world in fact.

Word is buzzing around the RC establishment tonight, even after Blairs compromise of this evening on this subject, and the Conservatives look at being the loser more than Labour.

I've said it before but I'll say it again; Justin posts mainly, although not entirely, for effect. He likes to appear to be controversial and enjoys the subsequent attention. Don't let him wind you up so, that's exactly what he wants to do.

"If we can give exemptions to Catholics will not Muslims wonder why they can't have Shia law - just to name one possibility."

Because like it or not, some exemptions are more socially acceptable and politically possible than others.

Incidently, can people please stop rising to Justin Hinchcliffe's deliberately OTT hyperbole? Most arguments on both sides have been put forward rationally and without any attempt to wind people up.

What's most depressing is the delayed reaction. Cameron is now not only no better than Tony Blair but in many ways quite possibly worse.

Can anybody here now give me any credible reason why I should vote Tory at the next election rather than for the British National Party or Respect?

Even by your standards a remarkably dumb question Oliver.

This was put on a free vote for a reason – there are going to be differences of opinion on this point, many deeply held, and some of the comments I’ve read elsewhere this evening about “rebel” MPs are ridiculous. You can’t have a rebellion if you don’t have a whip!

I have discussed some of my views of the wider arguments on this a couple of times in the last couple of days (here and here), so I’ll try to avoid repeating myself too much here. I think some of the hysterical responses to Cameron’s proposed vote on this are over the top. Whichever way you vote on this issue, there are going to be unintended consequences. Vote against the exemption, and Catholic adoption agencies may carry out their threat to close, depriving vulnerable children of an undoubtedly good service that the do provide. Vote for the exemption, and I wonder if you set and expand various legal precedents for any group to claim that there are grounds on which they should be able to continue to practice conduct which the law has declared prejudicial and discriminatory.

Assuming that the SOR now pass Parliament, I genuinely hope that we can find a way for those 13 Catholic agencies to continue to do their good works. Perhaps we can construct within the next couple of years a route by which their Christian charity can find a way through the conflict between their church’s teachings on this area and the law. I am also forced to note, as I haven’t done so in my previous posts about the general arguments, that this debate in my understanding is only about secondary legislation which puts into force an existing Act of Parliament.

I have to preface my final remark by saying that I am in no way trying to use the issue for political ends, and that decisions on it are always to be taken first and foremost into the interests of the children. I don’t doubt that that is uppermost in the minds of our parliamentarians on this occasion too. However, given the unpleasant prejudice displayed by a minority on each of the threads on this issue in the last week, I have to say that I was pleased that Cameron’s proposed vote as a side effect also sent a very strong signal. Discrimination and intolerance on grounds of sexuality have no place in modern British society, and Conservatives will have no truck with any of it.

I refer to the post at 1253 (from Dave C), assuming it really is from DC. I voted for Mr Cameron to become leader, and so did some others on this thread, but like them regret it now after today. So the impression shouldn’t be created that this thread is made up of discontents who didn’t want him to be leader. Rather it’s people who are concerned about the attack on our traditional freedom of religion and conscience that the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR) represent, and who find it astonishing that DC, a Conservative, yes, a Conservative, leader failed to stand for freedom, choosing instead the leftist metropolitan obsession with gay rights and the imposition by the Big State through legislation of a certain view of morality. No wonder we’re not making headway in the north.

As for Peter Tatchell/Justin Hinchcliffe’s post of 1837, neither is it just a few right-wing religionists who are opposed to the SOR. I have seen posts on threads on this issue from atheists and ‘pro-gay’ liberals who are uneasy about the implications for freedom.

On another thread on this subject, I gave the impression that the EU is responsible. However I have seen other posts saying the EU Directive provided for exemption for religious societies, and it is NuLab, supported by Mr Cameron, who have gold-plated the Directive. Whatever the truth on the extent of the EU role in the SOR , better-off out…

I support much of what Mr Cameron is trying to do to develop a concern for the environment and show Conservatives have a social conscience. But today, I visited the UKIP website for the first time for a couple of years.

Those of us who seek to adhere to the teachings of the undivided Church are quite used to the railings of the World. David Cameron shows a lamentable understanding of Catholic social teaching. The Church teaches for very positive reasons that the way of life for human beings is Matrimony or Celibacy. The fact that many fall short is no reason to change that part of the Faith.

I think he is also woefully ill-advised to be likening "extreme" Muslims to the BNP. One of the things climate change is doing is creating severe droughts in parts of the world. They become tinder dry. He needs to keep his matches in his pockets. The "Political Climate" may be changing, but we should be on the lookout for zealots and illiberal liberals!

I am so deeply disapointed that David Cameron is supporting this sexual orientation bill.
Let me tell you this, as a lifeling practising Christian who is marrying a Catholic, I am not a bigot, a homophobe or any other of these words that new labour have invented.
I believe in the Bible and try to live accordingly. It is very clear on its position on sexual sin and it singles out no one group, a sexual sin is NOT just about same sex relationships but about all sexual sin including sex out of marriage and lustful behaviour. Lets not forget this.
To label the Church as homophobic shows an incredible misunderstanding and even ignorance.
We did not write the Bible, it was written many many years ago and has stood the test of time.
It doesnt matter if you give Catholic adoption agencies a year or 50 years to adapt we CAN NOT and WILL NOT change our fundamental and core beliefs.
I am not a heretic or an extremist, I am a regular Christian, but I am so deeply concerned about this incredible infringement of our rights to live by the moral conscience that we always have.
I speak as a Christian but we stand united with other religious groups, and we are a force to be reconed with.
I just came from hearing David Cameron talk about the importance of the voluntary sector when asked the question. So much is expected of the voluntary and faith based community and what do we get in return? dropped on from a great height for believing in what we have for thousands of years.
The Churches are joining together and will fight this, we will not be moved and made to violate the principals by which we live.
If policians want a fight then bring it on. The Church will win, there is no question of this.
Call me what you want, that is of no consequence to me. It's time to stand up and be counted for our beliefs and I am first in the queue.

"The public are not bothered about Europe"? And there was me thinking that Post Office closures and having to prepare home info. packs before selling was concerning people...

You lot must have been out of what was left of your minds when you let The Guardian steam-roller you into electing Cameron in place of the conservative candidate, David Davis. But it's over now: people such as I won't be voting for your party and neither will too many of you. You 'conservatives'(?) owe the British people an apology for depriving us of a mainstream choice.

Golly! So gays were put in the gas-chambers as well were they? I wonder which ones? Perhaps Mr Hinchcliffe would like to enlighten us on this previously overlooked detail of the Second World War! Perhaps he'd like to tell us which gas-chambers were used to kill homosexuals! Perhaps he even knows the names of some homosexuals who died in the gas-chambers!

The supposed Nazi persecution of homosexuals, the so-called "Gay Holocaust", is one of the most disgusting fantasies of the homosexualist Left. The historical reality is that homosexuality was illegal in Germany (and Britain and America) before the Nazis came to power, it continued to be illegal in Germany (and Britain and America) whilst the Nazis were in power, and then it was still illegal in Germany (and Britain and America) after Germany had been "liberated" with the help of the Communists, up until the 1960s.

Human beings are rational animals. They have free will. They have control over how they behave. Homosexuality is a matter of personal choice, pure and simple. It's not like being Jewish and it's not like being black.

And I see no reason why the rights of homosexuals should be more important than mine.

I am also forced to note, as I haven’t done so in my previous posts about the general arguments, that this debate in my understanding is only about secondary legislation which puts into force an existing Act of Parliament.

ONLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Adolf Hitler ran Germany 1933-1945 using ONLY Secondary Legislation

Anybody who has studied the rise of the Nazi Party will know that it was absolutely riddled with these people.

Many people think there's reason to believe that Hitler was one too. Apparently during the First War he was known to have a male lover. If he did murder some of them it may have been to effect a "coverup"

Of course Germany has always been an absolute centre for it. Even in the days of the Kaiser. Apparently the Kaiser used to attend "drag" parties and there was some very disreputable court case which exposed what was going on in his circles. I can't remember the details but some of them were jailed.

I lost relatives serving in both wars to the Germans and can well understand the feelings of the Jewish gentleman. It therefore comes as no surprise to discover the involvement of the EU (German Fourth Reich)in this seedy business.

Yet Turkey itself has a more explicitly secular constitution than Britain - same as most of the Muslim world in fact.

one which does not recognise Christian Churches and where the State expropriates Christian property. Where Church meetings are broken up by police.

Turkish Constitution

The fifth constitution was established in 1982 by the last military regime after its seizing power in 1980. The 1995 amendments abolished about 20 articles and the preamble that stated the people's will to accept military rule.

The 1982 Constitution provides for a system of State Security Courts to deal with offenses against the integrity of the state

Along with the abolition of the Caliphate on 3 March 1924, on the same date, the "Chairmanship of Religious Affairs" responsible for the administration of religious affairs was formed, within the state structure, as an organization connected to the Prime Ministry. The function of this organization is to carry out activities related to the beliefs of the Islamic religion, the principles of worship and morality, and to enlighten society on the subject of religious issues and to manage the places of worship. The organization of the Chairmanship of Religious Affairs with its present functional structure is composed of the central and rural organizations and the organizations abroad. The Chairmanship of Religious Affairs is represented by Muftis in the provinces and counties. It is organized to assist Moslem Turkish citizens in Turkey, and those working abroad, to fulfill their religious services, with its staff of more than 80 thousand persons. The Chairmanship of Religious Affairs tries to instill the principles of Islam, such as unity, cooperation and helping one another, among the Turkish people according to the principles specified in the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, by aiming at national solidarity and unity and remaining above all kinds of political views and thoughts. Islam...

Peter Kilfoyle, MP made an intersting comment on The World Tonight (Radio 4) on this matter.

He said the original EU Directive had an exemption for religious associations which the British Govt had chosen to ignore when gold-plating.

Hi! I thought you and your readers might be interested in some post-Easter news about Pope Benedict XVI...
The Pope's car is being auctioned off to raise money for Habitat for Humanity:
The bidding is already more than $200,000! Personally, I think this is a really fun and creative way to raise
money. The auction goes until April 14th if you and your readers want to check it out.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker