I fully accept that there are different opinions on the issue of whether active homosexuals should be Ministers of religion. So the current debate happening in the Church of Scotland merits consideration from both sides. I was disappointed but not surprised to listen to this item on BBC Today this morning which is plainly only offering a PRO-gay lifestyle perspective. Surely the BBC should have provided a debate on the issue rather than a cosy liberal consensus?
WHAT A GAY DAY
Bookmark the permalink.
Can I just point out that being gay is no more “a lifestyle” than being straight.
Anon
Gay is a choice – to place your penis into another mans anus is a choice.
Stop trolling you twat.
“Gay is a choice – to place your penis into another mans anus is a choice.
Stop trolling you twat.”
By that logic (and I use the term advisedly), being straight is also a choice.
Anon – eh? Just because you're gay doesn't mean you get any action. What a peculiar person you are.
On the religion front – I guess it's like anything else – rules is rules (unless you're an MP then they're not, at all, ever – obviously).
David may not like this but I've got bucket loads of time for the two top clerics in the CoE and my respect for them is heightened by their considerations of theological & ecumenical grounds of homosexuality in the church – it's a chasm where no-one wants to be but such is the times. What Toady have to do with forming an opinion is just amateur night.
Scott
No I disagree. Dare I say that
Homosexuality is wrong and immoral?
Being straight isn’t a choice – hence that’s how we procreate ?
“Dare I say that
Homosexuality is wrong and immoral?”
Well, quite clearly you dare. But saying it doesn’t make it so.
“Being straight isn’t a choice”
Exactly. Neither is being gay.
Scott
Within the context of the argument, ie the church, the bible (heard of that?) then homosexuality is wrong – so gay people should not have anythingto do with Christianity .
You are more than welcome everywhere else as a gay person but why shouldn’t Christians be allowed to defend there faith?
Gay imams anyone?
Shouldn’t this debate be about BBC bias ?
grant
Scott is defending the BBC position. I am opposing it.
That’s why we have the forum I presume.
I just don’t get the gay community. So what if the Christian Church doesn’t want them (or women for that matter)
Why not just start your own Church and be done with it?
“…so gay people should not have anything to do with Christianity” – Anon 12:53
Don’t want to turn this into a theological thread but exactly the opposite is true actually. Didn’t Jesus say words to the effect of, “It’s the sick who need a doctor, not the well”. Adulterers, homosexuals, paedophiles, pornographers, rapists, murderers … they all should have something to do with the church … that’s where they should be finding forgiveness and restoration. The problem with the homosexual lobby is that they say, “**** off, we don’t want/need forgiveness or restoration”. So sadly they heap even more judgement on themselves.
On the issue of the BBC treatment of the “debate”, isn’t BBC news now just the media wing of Stonewall?
Martin said…
I just don’t get the gay community. So what if the Christian Church doesn’t want them (or women for that matter)
Why not just start your own Church and be done with it?
2:31 PM, May 26, 2009
===================================
Heh heh, I’m thinking of starting my own country.
Could we start our own BBC?
Gay ministers in the Church of Scotland must be one of those topics, like ‘climate change’, which the BBC has decided are not subject to the normal rules on BBC impartiality because of a consensus of correct opinion on the matter.
I expect someone somewhere at the BBC has learned of computer models which show conclusively that gay Church of Scotland ministers are a good thing.
Rebel saint
If you want to turn this into a theological argument, no problem. In that case. Argue with the old testament and the nephilim etc, the bible says it’s wrong, as such the ministry should reflect this ‘view?’
If not we are all looking back and turning to salt???
Naughtie displays the standard BBC bias when he talks about people “quoting Scripture bitterly”. Oh, those fools, always quoting their religious texts when trying to explain their beliefs, which are based on those texts.
NB ignorant Beeboids, and others ignorant of religion: People believe their religious texts because that’s how religions work. If you don’t like the text, start a different one. Don’t call people “bitter” if they believe in their holy books.
If you call somebody wrong for believing in the bit in the Old Testament which condemns buggery, then you call them wrong for believing any of it, full stop. There’s no way to separate one from the other.
Of course, saying it’s stupid to believe in any of it is a valid opinion. But it’s not the BBC’s place to criticize a religious belief, which is what Naughtie does here.
Naughtie and Colin Blane are clearly taking the position that Christians must change one of their beliefs. Calling the acceptance of gay priests “liberal” doesn’t change the fact that they’re condemning a particular, Scripture-based, belief. Bias.
Why don’t they ask the same questions of beloved Islam ?
“People believe their religious texts because that’s how religions work. If you don’t like the text, start a different one.”
Which is, of course, how the Church got itself into this mess – fiddling around with the translations and interpretations of the Bible to reinforce the views of its own, very human and highly fallible, leaders.
And there are plenty of elements of the Bible which no sensible Christian these days practises as gospel, if you’ll pardon the pun. Why, even Paul directly contradicts segments of Leviticus in his epistles.
Scott m
Again to argue you are relating to the base argument of most people who crticise Christianity . Translation. If you look at pauls epistles to the apostles (see the nod to withnail there ;-)) ) the Aramaic translation is regarded as true and correct, only the Latin blurs the translation.
Not a bad retort from a catholic…. Bet you guessed that already.
Coming back to the purpose of this blogsite: the BBC has taken a position on homosexuality and Christianity as it has (as pete comments) on climate change. It’s immaterial whether or not I agree or disagree with the BBC line.
The point is that it’s no part of the BBC’s remit to decide what line is acceptable (or otherwise) and to edit its choice of interviewees of commentators to reflect that line and, what’s worse, make me pay for it. I would like to hear a reasoned argument broadcast by the BBC from those defending traditionalist Christianity, MMGW scepticism and, while we’re about it, BNP policy (economic as well as social). That way we’ll be able to decide for ourselves whether or not gay clergy are compatible with Christianity, MMGW is happening and/or “something” can or needs to be done about it and the BNP’s policies are sensible or lunatic. I don’t need some dildo (male or female – I’m not prejudiced) in the hierarchy at Broadcasting House to decide for me what I should hear or see or believe.
“The BBC has taken a position on homosexuality and Christianity”
Only if you believe David Vance – even listening to the audio David links to, it doesn’t really confirm the tenor of his posting.
But then, Vance is a man who clearly has no trouble ignoring the Ninth Commandment, so maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised.
Umbongo 5:34
Well said, exactly. I don’t need the dickheads at the BBC to tell me what to think.
Scott M @
5:12 PM, May 26, 2009
And there are plenty of elements of the Bible which no sensible Christian these days practises as gospel, if you’ll pardon the pun. Why, even Paul directly contradicts segments of Leviticus in his epistles.You’re coming from the same biased position as Naughtie and Blane. Do you define “sensible” as someone who picks and chooses which bits to believe? That’s fine, but it’s a biased viewpoint, and one which is a de facto condemnation of anyone who believes in any of the bits you (or one of your “sensible” Christians) choose not to. Again, you’re entitled to your opinion of what to believe and what not to. The BBC isn’t entitled to encourage or discourage belief.
As for your translation dodge, I can read the original Hebrew of Leviticus 20:13. Can you? Ain’t no mistake. The wording is very clear and simple, and there isn’t any other way to interpret the line.
In any case, there’s no reason at all to bring up Paul’s motives for changing the rules once he started proselytizing to non-Jews. The official Church position isn’t in question, and the BBC has no right to condemn it. That’s bias, whether one agrees with them or not.
David p
Couldn’t have put it better myself ‘translation dodge’
Great post
” I can read the original Hebrew of Leviticus 20:13. Can you? Ain’t no mistake. The wording is very clear and simple, and there isn’t any other way to interpret the line.”
So do you believe that gay people should be put to death? Or do you pick and choose which part of that verse to take notice of?
“In any case, there’s no reason at all to bring up Paul’s motives for changing the rules”
If you can’t see it, then more fool you.
“The official Church position isn’t in question”
No? It seems that the Church of Scotland is questioning it. The congregation of Queens Cross want Scott Rennie to be their minister, and the CoS has voted to support their decision.
“the BBC has no right to condemn it.”
That’s alright then, because it hasn’t. It takes more than you backing him up for David Vance to be right about something.
Scott m
Considering you lost the translation attempt the old ad hominem on sir vance?
Try substance sir- or maybe learning Aramaic /Hebrew / Latin / english ?
X x
” attempt the old ad hominem on sir vance?”
I’ll keep on calling David Vance a liar until he stops lying, “Anonymous”.
Scott
Ahava
X
Scott M,
Once again, my personal beliefs and your personal opinions on belief are totally irrelevant. This is about BBC bias, and the angle from which Naugthie approached the issue. It doesn’t matter whether either one of us agrees with him or not. Why can’t you understand this basic concept? You’re letting your own bias muddle your thinking.
The Church position is what it is. The BBC should not be condemning a specific belief, or insulting people who believe it.
Naughtie and Blane are very clearly saying that those who believe in that bit of Leviticus are wrong. If you dispute this, you’ll have to explain how I’m wrong instead.
And your personal vendetta against David Vance is irrelevant as well.
“The BBC should not be condemning a specific belief”
It is not. Your putting that spin on it does not make it so.
Scott M comments in a supremely facile rejoinder that we can believe that “the BBC has taken a position on homosexuality and Christianity” only if “if [we] believe David Vance . .”.
When was the last time on “Thought for the Day” we heard a Christian who could be considered a “traditionalist”? We hear John Bell, we hear the ex-Bishop of Oxford etc etc. whose beliefs are apparently considered “sound” by the BBC. I have never heard the anti-gay position on priesthood argued by a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) on TFTD or even allowed to be mentioned on Today without howls of indignation from the interviewer.
Scott M,
Colin Blane betrayed exasperation in his voice and breathing when he said that the Church’s moratorium on appointing more gays was “controversial”. He mentioned that there was enough of an outcry against the gay minister to have a petition and public debate, but then later on Naughtie leads Rev. Ewen Gilchrist to say that everybody’s fully behind the gay minister. A majority must be in order to appoint the guy, yes. But they’re trying to create an impression that everybody wants gay ministers, and only a small, wrong-minded minority are against it. This is clearly not true, or there wouldn’t have been a hearing by the Church leaders. And even then it’s clear that the leaders had no choice because the congregation makes the decision, and rules are rules. The moratorium and debate exist because the Church leaders think it’s a valid theological issue. If they were as liberal as everybody kept saying, there would be no moratorium and no gag order against ministers. So Naughtie and Blane are misrepresenting the situation in favor of gay minister rights.
Naughtie referred to people who were against gay ministers as “people who quote Scripture bitterly”. You see no editorializing there? He gives away his bias with the next line: “How many of the ministers, do you think, take that view?” This question can only come from the position that the ministers are pro-gay which means the bitter believers are wrong. Rev. Gilchrist had the good sense to dance away from that.
Naughtie, Blane, and Gilchrist were using the word “liberal” to mean that anyone who was still against gay ministers is wrong and behind the times. The Church guy can say that, but not Naughtie, and not Blane. Even Gilchrist said that this shouldn’t be a theological debate but rather one about anti-gay prejudice. That by default means that the anti-gay religious belief is invalid.
Naughtie says it’s “absurd” that people will talk about this for two years. Why? Because it’s a non-issue to him. But it shouldn’t be about his opinion. Nowhere in the entire segment did either Beeboid have even the slightest sympathy for the other side, or even any time for it other than to point out that they were bitter or behind the times, or not in step with the liberal church or whatever. The actual theology is dismissed by both Naughtie and his guest.
I’m sure you’re not holding your breath for the BBC to have on one of those bitter Scripture quoters.
"California backs gay marriage ban" (BBC News website, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8068019.stm).
In this new BBC web article, only the legal counsel for the gay-rights activists who oppose last year's ban on same-sex marriages is quoted – and quoted at length. Supporters of the ban do not get the same courtesy.
Whatever your view of the issue Scott, this surely slants the argument in a way that can only be called bias. Check it out & see for yourself.
I think you’re confusing Scott with the word bias. It has a derogatory connotation that he, as a liberal, cannot associate with a viewpoint that he espouses.
“Colin Blane betrayed exasperation in his voice and breathing when he said that the Church’s moratorium on appointing more gays was “controversial”. “
Ah, I see. It wasn’t, as you previously asserted, what he said — just your interpretation of how he said it.
“later on Naughtie leads Rev. Ewen Gilchrist to say that everybody’s fully behind the gay minister. A majority must be in order to appoint the guy, yes. But they’re trying to create an impression that everybody wants gay ministers, and only a small, wrong-minded minority are against it.”
What he actually did was introduce a fact — and you’ve taken that to mean that he’s leading the conversation in a particular, prejudicial, direction. Again, your own interpretation is being presented as out and out fact. Again, it’s anything but.
Mind you, if you’re so against facts being introduced, then I can understand why you and Vance get on so well.
I cannot see how anyone who listens a good deal to the BBC could be in any doubt that it fails to carry proper representation from Christians who regard homosexuality as incompatible with ordainment.
The same applies to other divisive issus – the BBC regards people who oppose abortion as antediluvian, likewise those who have severe worries about female ordination.
It is specious for people to suggest that the BBC does not have a “party line” on these issues – and that it fails to give fair coverage to opposing views.
And it is wrong for BBC presenters to have ANY discernible view – discernible through their harrumphing and sneers.
But on all this, as on so many issues – the BBC exhibits endemic bias.
Scott M,
It’s not a fact that everyone in the congregation and the Scottish Church is behind the gay minister. You’ve bought into the spin. There was a petition against which lead to a full hearing and the “sop” (as Naughtie described it) to those against.
So it can’t be a “fact”. It’s spin, and a misrepresentation of the actual situation. But hey, keep crying about David Vance and deny the reality that there is a significant portion of the congregation and Church who are not, in fact, behind the gay minister.
Actually there is probably a very good reason for the BBC not to interview anyone who was against the “gay” clergyman. I would suggest that no one came forward, probably because to have any view which is not “pro-gay” can lead you to the the police cells. In our so called tolerent society only one side is accepted.
The only people who can debate theology these days are biggoted liberals and human rights lawyers. 2,000 years of christian traditions are meaningless to todays vocal liberal minority. The feminists saw that the only way to bring down the church was to attack it from within and now it is the same for the “gay” activists. Martin had a good point earlier – why didn’t they just form their own church? Simple really – they couldn’t destroy the church and its teachings from the outside.
The congregation of Queens Cross want Scott Rennie to be their ministerScott M 5:56 PM, May 26, 2009
And the population of Kings Cross want _______________?
“It’s not a fact that everyone in the congregation and the Scottish Church is behind the gay minister. You’ve bought into the spin.”
I never said everyone was behind the minister. You said that Naughtie said that, and he didn’t.
let me reiterate: not buying your increasingly pathetic lies does not mean buying into some mythical BBC spin.
“let me reiterate: not buying your increasingly pathetic lies does not mean buying into some mythical BBC spin”.
hmmm rattled me thinks!
Scott M,
You are categorically calling David Vance a liar, who persists in lying.
A serious defamation if you cannot back that up.
I suggest you do that backing up immediately – very specifically and fully evidenced. Or you retract that.
Otherwise what you are doing is not only actionable but also bound to get you banned from here.
Baggie: I thought that last allegation was directed to a different David. Oh, well, that would be double defamation, then.
Scott M @ 10:09 AM, May 27, 2009
I never said everyone was behind the minister. You said that Naughtie said that, and he didn’t.
let me reiterate: not buying your increasingly pathetic lies does not mean buying into some mythical BBC spin.
Your words @ 8:35 PM, May 26, 2009
What he actually did was introduce a fact — and you’ve taken that to mean that he’s leading the conversation in a particular, prejudicial, direction. Again, your own interpretation is being presented as out and out fact. Again, it’s anything but.
Mind you, if you’re so against facts being introduced, then I can understand why you and Vance get on so well.
Which “fact” was this, then? Careful, now.
Well , I’m a member of the Church of Scotland and I am incensed that the General Assembly has turned its back on Scripture over this issue . Not only me , but everyone I have spoken to from local congregations is very much against this move .
Despite what the BBC would like to believe the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian and doesn’t have “leaders” to tell it what to do . Therefore , my Christian opposition to sodomy in the manse is worth as much as any self-important leftie minister who wishes he was a priest .
The issue over Mr.Rennie was complicated by being mixed up with another issue – the right of congregations to call their own minister . That , I believe , accounts for the large number of abstentions which allowed him to remain . He would not have been ordained , under current rules , had it been known that he revelled in sin in this way .
The true issues at stake here are the primacy of Scripture and the need for repentance of sin before forgiveness .
The BBC , many of Mr.Rennie’s supporters and the shrill homosexualists on here deny Scripture , deny that sodomy is sin which must be repented and , in doing so ,deny the whole basis of Christianity .
The Young Oligarch has said it all!
Grant: you ask,”Shouldn’t this be about BBC bias?”
You don’t have to buy ass at the BBC, there’s tons of it just hanging around – waiting to get buggered for free.
DV
” Surely the BBC should have provided a debate on the issue rather than a cosy liberal consensus?”
I’ll betcha there was mass debating after the programme in the cosy liberal green room.
“Mass debating”? Seriously? What are you twelve?