´óÏó´«Ã½

McKay is no stranger to controversy. Last year he headed a high-profile campaign by Christian proselytisers to dump copies of the Bible on every court in Scotland. Each Bible was accompanied by a booklet entitled "The Bible in Scots Law" which features an introduction from McKay.



McKay is a hard-line Christian opposed to equal rights for gays.

So, does Lord Mackay recognise the rights of racists "not (to) be forced to act against their beliefs by equality laws"? Or how about sexists?

Where, in fact, does he draw the line when balancing beliefs against the law? How (or who) do we determine what is classed as belief and what is classed as discrimination?

These are the poorly thought out words of someone who should know better. There's a million different beliefs out there, all of them holding matters of faith that are directly incompatible with both other belief systems and the law. Once we start allowing one belief system exceptions to discriminate, we have to allow them all and then you may as well not have anti-discrimination laws at all.

He seems (to me) to be living in a world where religion, and christianity especially, should be given special treatment, to allow people to do what they like, all in the name of their belief. He needs to get out more and realise that this is a secular, tolerant and (ideally) non-discriminatory country where christianity and all the other religions have to accept that other people (the majority in fact) have different views to them.

What's an interesting dynamic here is what the "Christian" side of this argument appears to be proposing. The following comment in the article you quoted, Will, struck me as telling:

"Other religious groups are exempted from some laws - Sikhs don't have to wear crash helmets, for instance, and those producing Halal meat are allowed to butcher animals in ways not open to the rest of the population. Why are Christians not allowed to be treated similarly?"

Spot the presumption?

Sikhs and Muslims have particular foundations that require that its adherents do things somewhat differently. The law allows exceptions where it must in order to not create conflict with these foundations. To make the same argument of Christianity and the non-provision of service to homosexuals is to insist that Christianity's foundations have that as a consequence, rather than this being something that Christian people often think.

Is this right? Is it a necessary consequence of Christianity that one ought turn homosexuals away? If not, what is the case being made?

PaulR,

It's the "All my friends are doing it, why can't I?" methodology of arguments.

I don't care if certain religious groups think their animals have to be killed in a certain way to make the meat 'clean', it's cruel and they can always go vegetarian.

I'm tempted to start a religion where, unless the government gives all adherants 50k a year, tax free, we'll be mortally offended and won't get into heaven. Then sue when it doesn't happen, claiming my human rights are being denied.

Natman,

Don't worry, I bear no illusions about what you think about the internal politics of religion. Given that you're fairly eliminitivist about religion, that's fair enough. If we're trying to explain the root foundations religious people have, though, this is a really interesting issue, because it suggests a commitment to a fact within the fundamental structure of whatever it is that constitutes "Christianity" (whatever it is that's the thing they want protected).

If this fact is something that actively mandates against the provision of services to homosexuals, if we can pinpoint it and if it turns out to be crucial to the central identity of "Christianity", there is a serious, logical and probably uncontroversial argument to be made that no specific aspect of Christianity should be given any legal sanction whatsoever.

Whilst the organised religion called CHristianity feels it can judge and discriminate against people at will this has in fact nothing whatsoever to do with the Christ - the embodiment of the love and light of God that recognises all people are equal and that to discriminate on such terms as sexuality, gender, race etc is a form of evil. There are no grounds for discrimination based on the CHRist. It is man's misinterpretation, misunderstanding, ignorance and lack of awareness that lead to such behaviour - nothing to do with CHrist or God.

I rather think I'm with Natman - Muslims will not starve without Halal meat, Sikhs are not compelled to ride motorbikes, Christians are not coerced into running B&B's. I can see no reason why any of these groups should enjoy exemption from the law.

Even, however, if some issue were crucial to the central identity of a religion I do not see why exemption from the standards society sets should be granted to adherents of the belief - suffering for one's faith is the alternative, stick to your guns chaps, embrace the penalties, offer them up...

Parrhasios, the argument is more of a pragmatic cost-benefit analysis than any ideological unity. If we're feeling particularly cruel, we might also think there're Diminished Responsibility issues going on here. Religious people just have a condition whereby the significance of their actions is distorted, and hence it's not reasonable to think of them as being equally accountable under the law.

The point is that even they can still be persuaded into being willing tax-paying citizens. Fine-graining the rules surrounding wearing of hats and the techniques of butchery one employs is a fairly minor expense to make as a society if it means keeping certain portions of it engaged and contributing. By Utilitarian lines, it makes sense to pay the relatively minor cost of the universality of certain laws in order to reap the rewards of having Religious people working alongside us.

It is a contingent fact that it is actually beneficial, though, and if Religious people kick up too much of a fuss, we could simply withdraw this concession. I don't think we've reached that state yet. Though if Christianity is demanding the right to exclude some other social group from all dealings, then perhaps that's one expense too far.

PaulR (@ 8) -

"...if Religious people kick up too much of a fuss, we could simply withdraw this concession."

Who are 'we', in this context?

LSV, perhaps a nation? A body of learned lawmakers? A populace? A tyrannous dictatorship? A coalition government? Whoever's responsible for deciding the law, really.

Yes, I'm well aware the same could be said of a religious nation of the non-religious. Or of pretty much any power over any other. That's how fickle a thing political identity is, as well we know here in Northern Ireland/The Contested Six Counties.

Lord Mackay looks like he's been at the whisky again

Paul - # 8

We might indeed be cruel were we to cite Diminished Responsibility but scarcely accurate! Diminished Responsibility only comes into play in determining the appropriateness of a charge of murder - even then it is very precisely and narrowly defined and most of the religiously observant people we are likely to meet, including I venture to suggest, the guest-house owners, fall nowhere within the scope of that definition.

Pathological adherence to religious command sets is, thankfully, extremely rare - Christians who could not countenance adulterers sleeping under their roof may well be less than absolutely scrupulous in ensuring that their tax affairs are quite in order. I have, likewise, clear memories of 'enjoying' the delights of curried quorn mince (in the absence of readily available halal meat) with a friend who is a Muslim doctor and for whose sexual activities the term promiscuous is grossly inadequate.

I am afraid, too, I cannot agree with your cost benefit approach on either a theoretical or a practical level. I do not think anything should cause us to dispense with the principle of the universal application of laws (mitigating factors should, of-course, be considered in sentencing). If society determines that a matter requires regulation by legislation carrying sanctions for non-compliance then it is an absolute requirement for fairness that it apply to all. In the absence of such a requirement we risk fracturing society and diminishing respect for both the law itself and the institutions that enforce it.

We may engage one minority and simultaneously alienate another - I would argue indeed that this is precisely what we see happening as Christians come to perceive that their cultural sensitivities are not afforded the dispensations enjoyed by those of other religions. We see it in the growth of white proletarian alienation in mixed race areas of urban deprivation. Dispensation from the law, far from integrating a minority, separates it and encourages socially undesirable resentment.

Parrhasios,

You are close to agreeing with David Cameron on Multiculturalism, I would tend to agree, the law is for everyone and religious/cultural exemptions should not be entertained (unless they harm no one) as they tend to ghettoize.

"Christians should not be forced to act against their beliefs by equality laws."

Well of course we shouldn't but that sadly is the reality of life in post-christian Britain. With the full support of the media and the secularist mob, Christians can expect the law to be increasingly used against them.

This is the only the beginning of sorrows.

Ian Hall

Here is something written by Lord Justice Laws in a recent judgement.

"The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves."

Lord Justice Laws is a Christian who understands that Christians should not be given special treatment in the courts simply because they are Christians; many Christians unfortunately continue to demand privileged treatment.

Ian - they are not being forced to act against their beliefs. They can opt out of business if they cannot trade within the constraints of the law. They can, as a last resort, break a law which violates conscience - the noble army of martyrs bears witness to the total commitment of countless thousands of Christians down the ages.

Dave - much as it pains me to the very core to agree with David Cameron on anything I am happy to make it clear that I have no time for multi-culturalism whatsoever. If Sikhs want to ride motorbikes they should wear helmets like anyone else, there should be no place whatsoever for Sharia in the judicial system, the burqua should be banned - it is an offence and and insult to me every time I see one, cattle infected with TB should be put down, gay people should be afforded all the rights and dignities enjoyed by heterosexuals, there is no excuse whatever for permitting the unnecessary genital mutilation of children of either gender. It is utterly shameful that some police forces still drag their feet on issues related to forced marriage.

Ian

We (Christians) are not being forced to act against our beliefs, Parrhasios is right. And if this is 'only the beginning of the sorrows', perhaps it is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate grace.

Put it another way, there's no point in us preaching from Hebrews 11 or extolling the virtues of Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, if we're going to complain about loosing our 'rights'.

There are so many sets of beliefs,(not all religious),in society today that it is almost impossible that some group will not get offended by another.

We have a scenario where homosexuals feel descriminated against by Christians and equally it is the same in reverse...that Christians feel that their beliefs are not being respected.


So on what side is the law meant to fall?...well, I think it has fallen already on the side of those who, for a long time, have felt that they have needed to hide behind close doors.


It's all about their need to be accepted and respected in society and British law has provided that opportunity.



On that basis it makes it extremely difficult for Christians to respond because it is seen as bigotry.



As was mentioned in another posting....a lot of 'grace' is needed.

The options so far for Christian hoteliers (as suggested by the esteemed Will & Testament blog commentators)

a) Act contrary to your beliefs.
b) Get out of the hotel business.
c) Break the law.
d) Demonstrate grace ( be nice to your fellow prisoners).

Yes, what a great place post-christian Britain is.

Ian

As I am at fault for suggesting (4) perhaps I might reply.

On another thread, one on which I am still waiting for an answer, it was suggested that I jumped the gun with my reference to the gospel.

Can you explain to me, in direct reference to the Good News of Jesus Christ risen and ascended, how 'demonstrating grace' can, for the Christian, be, in any way, negative?

You might also wish to refer to the words of Paul in Hebrews 11: 13-16

Or the words of Jesus in Matthew 5: 43 - 48

Or 1 Peter 2: 11 - 25

Or Matthew 5: 38 - 42

Or Daniel 3: 16 - 18


Quite frankly, I'm staggered.

I don't wish to sound negative Ian, but I doubt many people are satisfied with society or ever have been. It doesn't seem to make much difference whether society is mono-cultural or multi-cultural either- People will find fault with it.The issues might be different, but the same feelings of disatisfaction remain- which is unfortunately part of being human. Some of us are lucky to create our own little comfort zones at home/ work or church but find it picked to shreds outside of those comfort zones. However dispiriting that might be, we must at least be grateful for experiencing our comfort zones. Some people don't even get that

And sorry to go on about this, but, Ian, are you defining 'grace' as 'being nice'?

Ian,

Or...

e) Realise your opinions are not based on a religous conviction but on a personal preference, get over it and realise that 'zomg! people are gay! but wait, it's nothing to do with me!'

Ian,

What's with breaking the law? It's certainly disadvantageous, and the law is generally there as an indication of how the general public would value your actions, but civil disobedience is not an inherently immoral act.

I would, of course, add options (e) influence the British parliament/legal system through lobbying and campaigning, (f) establish a separate and distinct nation where the particular values being challenged are the explicit social standard, and (g) convince everyone that this particular form of Christianity is what they should be thinking.

These are typically dismissed as the Theocratic options. I'm not convinced that they're not the best way forward for people who refuse to "act contrary to their beliefs". If you're simply unwilling to countenance compromise or re-evaluation, then it's a question of power rather than one of discussion and debate.


Parrhasios, re: "If society determines that a matter requires regulation by legislation carrying sanctions for non-compliance then it is an absolute requirement for fairness that it apply to all."

I definitely see where you're coming from, but if you've been watching the recent (and highly recommended) Justice series here on the Beeb with Prof. Michael Sandel, you'll note that "Fairness" is a pretty plastic concept.

You've presented universality of Law as fair. Here's a counterexample: Disabled Parking Spaces. Why should people with difficulty walking get parking spaces right beside the door, when everyone else has to walk the full distance? Well, there's a perfectly good reason why: because they have a particular need that it is worth our effort to satisfy.

I think this point generalises. We create special cases to deal with those outside the norm because it's to our collective benefit to do so.

Newthornley.

We have a scenario where homosexuals feel descriminated against by Christians and equally it is the same in reverse...that Christians feel that their beliefs are not being respected

These two things are not the same, you do not have a right to have your belief respected, what you have a right to is to freely hold beliefs but not the right to use those beliefs to discriminate.

...have felt that they have needed to hide behind close doors.

I am sure that you would agree that no member of society should have to hide behind closed doors for fear of the response of certain people in society. How would you describe those people responsible for ceating such fear.

It's all about their need to be accepted and respected in society and British law has provided that opportunity.

By George I thinks he's got it. Everyone deserves to be accepted and equal under the law and deserving of living free of bigotry and prejudice.

On that basis it makes it extremely difficult for Christians to respond because it is seen as bigotry

Only if they respond in a discriminatory way would it be seen as bigotry, which it would be but to be honest most christians seem to be able to respond in a non discriminatory way despite their beliefs and even internally held prejudices.

Ian Hall,

Lets look at your options,

a) Act contrary to your beliefs.
No one is suggesting that the Bulls should engage in homosexual activities. I fail to see how letting two adults (married or not, gay or straight) stay in a room is contrary to their beliefs. Does that mean that I as a non christian should not allow christians to stay because praying is contrary to my ethics and there is a chance they might do a bit of it. How many questions would we end up having to ask before we could make a hotel booking ?. Ludicrous argument.
b) Get out of the hotel business.
They were going bankrupt before all this started so it might have been the best option, but yes it certainly is a viable choice.
c) Break the law.
Certainly an option, it has always been a option to break laws on a matter of conscience (I have done so myself) but you have to be prepared to take whatever legal consequences if you get caught, I never was, lucky me.
d) Demonstrate grace ( be nice to your fellow prisoners).
Being nice is always an option, very underrated in my opinion.

then you have e from Natman.

You are worried about post-christian Britain, you really need to take a look at christian Britain without the rose tinted glasses, it was a pretty horrific place.

Paul,

I agree with you that breaking the law isn't necessarily an immoral act but it is hardly an attractive option. And the fact that it is an option just goes to show what a cold house post-christian Britain is for believers.

Dave, please do not misinterpret what I am trying to say.

I am not excusing homosexuality. I am merely saying that is now being deemed as acceptable under law.

My response is that of Christ and that is to love the sinner... but still it does not mean that the sin is to be condoned.


The problem, of course,is that you don't want one without the other Dave

Ian,

Does it matter whether it's attractive? Perhaps even the converse might be the case. The "attractiveness" of the Christian religion is a sign of an organisation grown too comfortable in and protective of its own power to actually do what Christ talks about.

Personally, I like the idea of scaring away everyone drawn into it through hope of reward or social comfort. As I've said here before, God shouldn't be about pacifying the middle classes into quiet subservience, but about radical selflessness and inspiring action on behalf of the excluded. God is a force explicitly opposed to politics-as-normal, and the overwhelming dominance of human Christianity has blinded us to this.

If people are Christians because they think they benefit from it, then I think they ought re-evaluate their reasons.

A man and his son were going to market. They had a donkey,on the first day the father rode the donkey while the son walked beside them.
The crowd at market exclaimed " how selfish the father is, he makes his son walk while he rides the donkey!"
Next day the father walks while the son rides the donkey to market.
The crowd exclaim how selfish the son, making his father walk.
Next day they both ride the donkey.
The crowd respond "How cruel to both ride the donkey,such a load, poor donkey."
The next day they both walk along to market with the donkey on a lead.
The crowd laugh, "how foolish, to have a beast of burden and not to ride it"
You see my son sometime it does not matter what you do,people will find fault and critisize you.It is the easiest job in the world to critisize.

If I ever stand trial I hope it is before a man such as Lord MacKay of Clashfern.

Paul

I definitely see where you're coming from, but if you've been watching the recent (and highly recommended) Justice series here on the Beeb with Prof. Michael Sandel, you'll note that "Fairness" is a pretty plastic concept.

The Sandel justice series has been excellent. I'm not sure if you've been watching his Harvard lectures on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ but you can get the full length complete set on itunes U.

Newthornley,

You completely misunderstand, I reject the concept of sin (and your religion) it has no place in my life and I see nothing wrong or unnatural in being a homosexual.

All this hate the sin love the sinner nonsense is just verbal trickery to make certain religious beliefs appear less bigoted than they are. It is an irrelevant nonsense.

All I require as an equal tax paying citizen of this country is to be treated the same as anyone else. I will not accept that some ancient books have the authority to allow someone to discriminate against me (or anyone else for that matter).

I do not require your love or for you to excuse (or not) homosexuality, I do not even require that you accept me for who I am (although I would hope that you might see the light). Human rights legislation and the law have recognised that you will not desist from discriminating without being forced to hence the current regulations. If you don't like it then maybe you should think about not discriminating. It is the presence of discrimination and prejudice which has created the need for legislation.

You have reaped what you have sown.

On a different note, glad to see #27 restored, I didn't think there was anything to break house rules in it, bit of a trigger finger about somewhere?

Dave...you're on the defensive and on the attack once again.

Trying to justify your way of life while attacking my beliefs.

If what the Bible teaches challenges your way of life then it obvious you will respond like you do.


Unless you are willing to see why it does then there is no point in conversing with you.


I have tried, before, to explain it to you but you remain determined to ignore it.

Newthornley,

I am not attacking your beliefs, I am saying they are irrelevant to me and have no authority to impact on how I am treated under the law. That is completely different to attacking them.

I have read your explanations and do not accept them, that is my right whether you like it or not, again that is not attacking your beliefs it is just not sharing them.

Is there something I have missed, am I required to live by your beliefs even if I do not share them?

If what the Bible teaches challenges your way of life then it obvious you will respond like you do.


Unless you are willing to see why it does then there is no point in conversing with you.

That would suggest that you do not see your beliefs and my lack of them as having equal validity. I believe they do but that still does not validate discriminatory action by either of us based on them. What we all have to do is separate the having of a belief and the acting against another person based on that belief in a way which infringes on their civil liberties. The first is a human right, the second is discrimination.

Read over your comments again from previous postings...so your not attacking my beliefs....short memory Dave.

Newthornley, I think this is perhaps where you're having a blind-spot in your debate with Dave

Post 29 "My response is that of Christ and that is to love the sinner... but still it does not mean that the sin is to be condoned.


The problem, of course,is that you don't want one without the other Dave"


Dave isn't a Christian. It's that simple. You would be no more expected to follow Hindu,Islamic,Buddhist belief than he is to follow Christian belief.

As a citizen, he is on here reiterating the same rights and equality as Christians expect for themselves. If a Christian was barred from a Restaurant or Hotel on religious grounds he would be supporting your right as a citizen under the law of the land to be treated as an equally valid member of society and not allow someone else beliefs to tranlate into prejudice & intolerance. In public life a certain outward neutrality has to be practiced towards each other. Multicultural societies cannot operate without that neutrality

Well put Ryan, Thanks.

Newthornley

Nowhere does Jesus make any comment about homosexuality.

He does however comment time and again on religious people who judge others. Further, he actually forcefully condems it.

So why do you do it, and still claim that you are a follower of Christ?

Please note...first and foremost...I am 'not' condemning homosexuals.

The Bible, however, clearly points out that 'homosexuality' (note the term I am using)is sin.

To understand what sin is, you need to read the first 4 chapters of Genesis and until you do then you wont understand why Jesus had to die for your sin and mine.

Just because Jesus does not refer to homosexuality in particular during his ministry does't mean that he regarded it as ok.

Jesus was dealing with the issue of mankinds rebellion towards God and it is inclusive of all such attitude and behaviour that opposses God holiness.


Ryan,

I understand perfectly that Dave is not a Christian. I am merely trying to help him understand what sin is and that it is not all just about homosexuality.

Unfortunately, the whole thing is seen as an attack on him when it is not like that at all.

It would be nice if someone would take up the offer and go and read the verses from the Bible I've mentioned, rather than continue with their barrage of opinions.

Newthornley: so if Jesus died for your sins do you believe that what you do in this world (actions, words, deeds) have no personal consequences for you??

I believe that I will still be held accountable for the sins I have committed as a Christian, but I won't be condemned for them.

Those who 'are' condemned are those who reject God's offer of salvation
through Jesus Christ.


If you follow this link it will give a fuller explanation

Newthornley

Why do I have to go and read a bible, it is an irrelevance to me? The concept of sin is a religious concept and as I am not religious I have no need to know anything about it. I understand it is important to you, that is fine and no-one is suggesting you do anything you believe you should not.

When you tell me all about Jesus and sin and all that your language is inclusive, it assumes I am included in your religion. That I find objectionable as it insidiously attempts to create an authority over me that I do not recognise. When you then try to use that to limit my civil rights I find that unacceptable. Honestly I am not having a go but why can you not just live and let live.

If you think homosexuality is wrong then don't do it but don't try to stop others. If you think gay marriage is wrong then don't do it but don't stop others.

OT on the other thread said "you may, but I cannot" that seems like a good way to look at it. It is about people making free choices about their lives.

I do realise it is not all about homosexuality, in fact all religions seem to spend an inordinate amount of time telling other religions about their heresy and everyone about all the sexual immorality. They really should just get on with their own lives and let others do the same.

I think part of the problem is that most religions, not all, seem driven to convert people and so their language is geared to be part of the sales pitch.

It's a sales technique, If I want to ruthlessly sell locks I have to create a climate of fear of being burgled so people need locks to feel safe. If I want to sell salvation I create a climate of fear of hell so people need my religion to feel that they will go to heaven. Religious sin and laws are necessary to create the divergence from the path of salvation.

Neither the burglars or the hell ever existed, but I have sold locks and god.

We are talking at cross purposes though because I am not trying to have a theological discussion about sin (which would be impossible as I do not recognise it's existence) but about treating people with equality, respect and acceptance (which includes not labelling them). This is about rights not theology.

Newthornley: it's your lucky day! Today you get to find out that no-one is condemned by God! yes - you read correctly - not one single person on planet earth has ever been or will ever be condemned by God!! Isn't that the Good News you've always been wanting to hear?? No matter what you or anyone else has done - you/they/we are all completely and totally accepted and loved by God! Isn't it great? So you no longer need to bang on about sinners being condemned - for none are - except by people like you who prefer to judge others rather than look at themselves. God is love and this love never condemns - now you may reject what I am saying of course - but then you will be rejecting the freely given love of God and isn't that what you call a sin?? So - go on - accept a bit of God's love and give it to your brother by stopping judging him.

See, this is what happens when you leave a thread and then come back to it; you miss gems like this from Michael:

"If I ever stand trial I hope it is before a man such as Lord MacKay of Clashfern."

Seriously? The man seems to be living in a rose-tinted view of the 1950's where christianity was respected and had a special place in society and these uppity minority groups knew their place. He'd most likely sentence you to hanging for not wearing a hat.

A religious belief is only a right when it's in your own head, the moment you want to air it in public is the moment you surrender your opinions to what fits with society.

Newthornley,

Jesus didn't mention computers or telephones either, are you sure they're okay?

Book of Natman, chapter 3, verse 10:

"Why, o great noodly one, do people insist that their religious book applies to me, yea, even though I think it's drivel?"

Dave...You want me to accept your point of view but you're willing for you to explain mine.

Perhaps I'm not really the bigot after all.

Eunice...go back to living in your airy fairy world were everyone is perfect...either that or your living in a cupboard.

You really haven't read what I have posted at all.

That just shows how unwillingly you are to listen.

Natman...you're just the same....'book of Natman'...what drivel

Theophane...you're just the same....'the bible'...what drivel

Newthornley,

It is not required for you to accept my point of view, just as I do not have to accept your point of view. What you do have to try to accept is that it is becoming less and less acceptable (socially and legally) for religion (christianity in particular on this discussion) to be used as a basis for prejudice and discrimination against a number of things. If you don't you will become more and more out of step with society and your beliefs will be further marginalised and you will leave yourself open to criticism and even legal action should your actions cross the civil rights of another. This of course may be acceptable to you, if so fair enough, good luck.

I have tried to explain why your religion is not pre-eminent in either the law or many peoples lives (and also why it has no basis to expect to be or to be listened to).

You have failed to understand why I or anyone else either does not have to understand your religion or engage with you in it, religion has nothing to do with rights. There are many religions and our rights are designed to ensure that we can have them all while still respecting the freedoms of others. Freedom of religion is not an unconditional right.

I did think I was quite measured and understanding in my post to you, so I am not really sure why the curt reply. I can only put it down to the fact that you are frustrated that I do not revere your religion and beliefs the way you do and refuse to engage in pointless discussions about your jesus and your sin on the basis that they do not exist for me. That would be like me saying I don't believe in Santa Clause and then discussing the merits of why being good (and what he means by being good), so as not to get ashes for christmas, should form a central plank of my behaviour. It would be hypocritical of me and would lend credence to the Santa Clause myth.

It seems everyone is not listening to you. Maybe they are and just do not accept what you are saying.

Newthornley: I never said everyone was perfect and I'm pretty sure I didn't mention fairies at all. I read what you wrote in response to my question and some more....

you said **Those who 'are' condemned are those who reject God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ.**

hence u believe people are condemned unless they comply with above statement and get salvation through JC ? Correct or have i misinterp you?

I was just pointing out to you that this is erroneous, a false belief, a misperception, a misinterpretation - why?
Because God does not condemn - never has, never will. God is love and loves all equally, all people everywhere of all religions, nationalities, beliefs, races - no-one is left out, not a single person or sinner in ur language is condemned by God.

Furthermore - I asked if your sins had consequences in this life for you and you said you were accountable but not condemned - which has not answered the question. Fact is everything we do has consequences - every thought, word and deed has consequences in this life - whilst alive and walking on earth. So Jesus cannot save you from those consequences of ur 'sins' or choices - you can only do that yourself because you are the one making the choices in your life.

Newthornley, You've made it clear you're not a bigot and that your Bible quotes are only a background to understanding where you're coming from. You still have to see this outside of the confines of Christianity,which is hard I know. I just wonder how you would feel if a Muslim said something you did broke Sharia Law and asked you to read a quote from the Koran. You're response might be the same as Daves and say why are you showing me this Im not a Muslim and the law of the land upholds my rights, not Sharia

Newthornley: I forgot to add in my post - that these were my understandings and of course you are free to reject them or whatever as you wish - sorry for not putting that part in before! I was too hurried.

Paul - #Ìý25

A couple of points.Ìý

You say "Fairness" is a pretty plastic concept. I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. It seems to me entirely reasonable in framing legislation to take into account observable physical limitations - it is not unfair to prevent partially-sighted or indeed blind people from driving, it is not unfair to take capability into account when determining how far a person need walk to the shops. In fact the parking issue is an interesting example. My brother, who would never park in a disabled space, takes every chance to park in mother-and-baby places since, he says, procreation is an irresponsible choice in an over-populated world and he sees no reason to indulge the fecklessness of the self-indulgent.

This, I think, is the important distinction. I believe in a reasoned morality and reasoned laws. Fairness requires us to consider capacity or involuntary limitations but to exclude optional or voluntary circumstance. Laws must recognise the reality of what people can and cannot do; they should not, however, then make compliance elective whatever the opt-out might be.

My second point is to query your utilitarian understanding of the reason society makes special cases for certain groups of people. I very much question whether there is indeed huge (any??) collective benefit to be derived from providing for special needs - I would suggest the reason we do so is because we have a well-developed sense of empathy which actually overrides naked self-interest. We don't always do things because they are worth the effort, we do them because we understand what it might be like to be in a different situation than our own.

"My brother, who would never park in a disabled space, takes every chance to park in mother-and-baby places since, he says, procreation is an irresponsible choice in an over-populated world and he sees no reason to indulge the fecklessness of the self-indulgent."

Sounds like a typical person who's never had kids and the horror of watching them fling open a car door into the car next to them...

I'd take special care to park my car as close to his as possible and not bother to warn the kids that some feckless self-indulgent with a superiority complex and a misguided moral viewpoint has parked right next to us.

Plus, if it wasn't for us irresponsible self-indulgents, the world would be a very quiet place in 50 or 60 years.

Natman - I trust you do not ferry them about in some gas-guzzling people-carrier.

Parrhasios,

It depends on your definition of gas-guzzling. We do have a people carrier, but it's diesel and gets reasonable mileage (unless the wife is driving at her usual breakneck speeds!) and it's one of the smallest people carriers out there.

On the flip side, I drive 80 miles a day to work and back and drive a tiny little car that gets nearly 70mpg, so it averages out ;-)

Dave, the Gubio guy was in Ireland's missal crisis thread, just in case you didn't know what I was on about :P

delete that last comment,wrong thread!

53. At 08:17am on 10 Feb 2011, Natman wrote:
"My brother, who would never park in a disabled space, takes every chance to park in mother-and-baby places since, he says, procreation is an irresponsible choice in an over-populated world and he sees no reason to indulge the fecklessness of the self-indulgent."

Sounds like a typical person who's never had kids and the horror of watching them fling open a car door into the car next to them...

I'd take special care to park my car as close to his as possible and not bother to warn the kids that some feckless self-indulgent with a superiority complex and a misguided moral viewpoint has parked right next to us.

Plus, if it wasn't for us irresponsible self-indulgents, the world would be a very quiet place in 50 or 60 years.

**
Thank you.I enjoyed reading that reply very much.A bright spot of humor for the day. :)