Anyone catch THIS interview with Cardinal Keith O’Brien on Today this morning? John Humphrys exuded bias in my opinion but then again anyone prepared to go onto any BBC programme and criticise “gay marriage” is in for a hammering. I know, I have been there. The BBC’s defence of the militant gay agenda is one of those defining features of the Corporation and I think it feels it essential to pose as a defender of the faithless. I felt sorry for the Cardinal having to put up with the sneering tone from Humphyrs. Wondered what you think?
SLOUCHING TOWARDS GOMORRAH
Bookmark the permalink.
Yes, the poor fellow was over at Radio 5 Three-Chuckleheads-Corpsing-At-Their-Own-Jokes being interviewed by stand-in chucklehead Phil ‘Poly’ Williams, who makes Gameshow Nikk sound like Walter Cronkite.
Phil, who should really by now know the difference in meaning between ‘infer’ and ‘confer’ did the usual 5 live interview – ie he read out a list of pre-prepared questions.
I suppose tomorrow, by way of balance, Phil will read out a list of pre-prepared hostile questions to an Enricher cleric, so we can find out the ROP’s view on gays, gay marriages, women, and indeed, Britain.
To my regret I heard this whilst driving. Not an ideal situation. I discussed this matter with a Catholic long time friend yesterday. He made the point that the modern liberal thinks only within the timescale of his lifetime. The Catholic Church thinks in centuries. This is the liberal’s great weakness. Today is all that matters.
Humphrey’s attitude is quite typical of this.
Cardinal O’Brien is a very senior cardinal and would be most unlikely to have been writing and speaking in a personal capacity. I think we can assume that his is the position taken by the Vatican on this matter.
Another conflict between Church and state perhaps?
Only the most optimistic or deranged of liberals could think that the Catholic Church will ever agree with the proposed changes.
The interview was a waste of the Cardinal’s time
It’s not often you find the Today programe starting off by telling us what the PM thinks and quoting him: David Cameron says…Usually, it’s telling us what Labour said or thinks before it even bothers to mention what the the PM (usually as Cameron) or the government says or thinks or does. There must have been a reason for this morning’s departure from standard practice. Maybe it suited him for some reason. I wonder what that could that be. Because he was wasn’t being impartial, possibly?
It was all very one-sided from Humphrys and rather superficial and limited in perspective. Have a go at the Cardinal, quote back his words with a dramatised sense of disbelief, pretend at some point not to understand, throw in some extra manufactured outrage about the mere mention of slavery and never consider his actual Christian perspective or any wider perspective such as society’s interest in preserving and maintaining marriage. He got carried away with his own bombast and made himself look silly by calling slavery “the ultimate denial of a person’s human rights.” Really, Mr Humphrys? Think about it for a few seconds. I suppose he was too busy practising his dramatic posturing to actually think.
“the ultimate denial of a person’s human rights.”
Surely that would be the murder of innocents by followers of a genocidal philosophy – such as socialism?
That slimy Evan Davis went to some lengths to decribe how tweets and E Mails to the programme largely compared (and supported) Linel Blue’s thought for the day, with the cardinal’s interview.
I’m not at all religious, in fact I can’t see the point of it at all, but I do support the cardinal’s view, and find the idea of same-sex marriage abhorrent. But we’re not allowed to say why any more – political corrctness and liberalism being thrust in our faces, as they are…
I’d love to be able to stand on a soapbox, and scream out that I hate the practice of homosexuality, I hate religion, I especailly hate the Muslim “faith” and I hate the BBC. So there. Gay marriage indeed.
I’ve just listened to Thought for the Day to see what it is you are referring to and was surprised to hear Evan Davis greet the speaker by his name: Good morning, Lionel. When a Conservative or a government minister is on, he and Humphrys go out of their way not to address them by their name or title and adopt that strange form of greeting: Good morning to you. (Who else would it be to, anyway?) At least Naughtie has the courtesy to greet people politely by their name: Good morning, Mr Stuart.
So it wasn’t hard to figure out that Blue must be on the favoured guest list of Davis. I now see why.
It probably helps that Lionel is a fellow gayer, though as far as I am aware he lacks Evan’s extensive range of penile jewellery.
“But we’re not allowed to say why any more”
Doesn’t seem to be much stopping you, does there?
Of course, the same freedom that you enjoy to express your opinion is also available to the majority of people, who believe that allowing same-sex couples to experience the value and responsibilities of civil marriage will be of benefit to the couples concerned and of no detriment to anyone else.
Speaking from experience are we ?
Come on Scott you know that anyone who opposes the views of the liberal left that run the media are seen as ‘extremist’
Whilst I don’t see anything wrong in gay people wanting the same rights in terms of pensions, benefits etc, the idea that this can only be done via ‘marriage’ is nonsense.
Straight people who don’t marry can be at the same disadvantage but the BBC don’t seem to be interested in that much do they?
I’m not religious so I’m not that bothered but it clearly is getting at a lot of people who hold a certain view.
Seems to me Scott the fairest thing to do would be to have a national referendum on the whole thing, are you all for that?
The certainty the liberal has that his view is the only possible one makes it unnecessary to have anything so messy as a referendum .
The masses are there to be told not consulted.
Marriage is a word with a precise meaning . Precise meanings are out of fashion. Everything is relative. This quite strange delusion will pass as all unrealities do in the end.
“Marriage is a word with a precise meaning”
…if by precise, you mean, ‘changing according to the prevailing custom and mores of the era”.
Unless marriages these days are all based upon financial transactions and/or political alliances between families, as they have been in times past…
Scott- “if by precise etc.”
No I don’t.
“Whilst I don’t see anything wrong in gay people wanting the same rights in terms of pensions, benefits etc, the idea that this can only be done via ‘marriage’ is nonsense.”
True, the Civil Partnerships Act went a long way to rectifying the long-standing inequalities that existed between straight couples who had the opprotunity to marry and gay couples who had no legal recognition at all.
But there’s no reason on earth why civil marriage can’t apply to both mixed sex and straight sex couples. There’s not been any rational refutation of that, other than “I don’t believe it should happen”.
Yes Scott you’re right many straight couples who don’t marry don’t have the same rights as a married couple, but that’s been like that for years and I’ve never ever heard the BBC or the left get upset about that.
“straight couples” Please Martin this is homosexual slang. “Normal couples” is the term I use and I don’t give a monkeys if it upsets people like Scott. As far as I am concerned marriage is for hetrosexuals and not devients. I will stay loyal to thousands of years of tradition against a handful of militant homosexuals and a PM who would sell his mother if there were a few votes in it.
And the Beeboid Corporation uses that slang – gay – in its news and current affairs programmes such as Today.
A new one I’ve noticed is that they have started calling marriage “mixed marriage” and what they are campaigning for, they call “straight marriage”.
Lionel Blue used the “mixed” term in his talk. It’s easy to see why Evan Davis greeted him in such a welcoming way and why Davis was crowing half an hour later about the tweets and e-mails supporting Blue as opposed to the Catholic bishop.
….and have kids too? As in, which one’s my mum?
Scez, the normalisation of perversion can only result in a society consumed with depravity and barbarism. DV has chosen a great headline for this piece to illustrate it.
I’m sure you’re aware that what Natsman was referring to is the homo-activist lobby doesn’t get the hostile treatment Humphrys and so many BBC interviewers meet out to the family values lobby. You’ll never hear Humphrys going into one over homo-activists referring to their opponents as ‘bigots’ or homophobes for disagreeing with them the way he launched a semantic inquisition on the Cardinal.
According to the Christian Institute Home Office research shows that while the majority of homosexuals are not paedophiles a hugely disproportionate amount are, yet we deny Christian couples the right to foster and adopt if they refuse to accept homosexuality as normal and allow any homosexual to adopt heedless of the dangers.
Sloughing towards Gomorrah indeed.
That’s true. Humphrys would never round on the homosexual militant bigots. Bigotry only goes one way, in his Beeboid eyes. The charge of bigotry and mental affliction is thrown in and that is why the subject is never discussed from the wider society’s perspective such as the interests of the family and children, rather than from the perspective of the militant fringe and its spurious demand for “equality”. In his ranting at the bishop, he even brought out a strawman about wanting to lock up homosexuals.
I find it inexplicable that the Cardinal vigorously defended his comparison to slavery but was unwilling to make the point explicitly; namely that if marriage ceases to be defined as between a man and a woman then the next logical step is that it can be between any number of men or women, which, of course, certain ‘communities’ are rubbing their hands in anticipation of.
I don’t understand why he doesn’t/didn’t say this. Any ideas?
“which, of course, certain ‘communities’ are rubbing their hands in anticipation of.”
And which ‘communities’ would these be, pray tell?
Scott – communities that don’t have a cultural objection to polygamy. You can use google just like the rest of us, so have a look.
I do love the way Vance trots out his line about a “militant gay agenda”. It’s so damned militant that David Cameron is leading the calls for equality.
I fully expect Cameron to be described by Vance as a “Conservative in name only” wrt this. That’s his usual shorthand for “doesn’t agree with my views”.
Scotty. I tend to be more sympathetic to gay equality issues than many, I suspect, on here. But for you to try to dismiss a “militant gay agenda” is quite risible to be honest – just think of those militants who deliberately targetted a Christian couple who owned a B&B. They decided that their “rights” trumped those of committed Christians.
As far as quoting David Cameron leading calls for “equality” I think his PC posturings are not worthy of consideration, after all he is a member of the Neo-Nazi UAF too. And to satisfy you, and save the time of David Vance, I will say it myself – Cameron is a “Conservative in Name Only”. Still marginally preferable to Milliband but still not worthy of a vote.
Ah, bless. Two people wanting to go on holiday in Cornwall who stand up for their rights are “militants”?
Any evidence that they deliberately targeted that particular B&B, or have you just fallen for the line that the Christian Institute peddled as part of its desperate defence?
If all they wanted to do was go on holiday to Cornwall, I can assure you there are plenty of other places they could have stayed. So by deliberately targetting Christians is clear proof of militancy. By trampling over other people’s rights whilst theres were not genuinely affected is pure militancy and just plain nastiness.
The fact that they didn’t choose to go elsewhere is clearly proof that the one selected was deliberately targetted. Who cares what the Christian Institute says, I don’t read it, do you? The facts (and militant’s lies) were available to read many other places.
When are the Gay Militants intending to target a Muslim run boarding house, so they can take them to court? You know, just to show equality.
I don’t get how you think they deliberately targeted their B&B because they were Christians. From their testimony, they were more concerned with finding a B&B that would accept their dog. Unless that was a case of them deliberately targetting animal lovers?
The couple advertised their B&B as being for married people only…excluding unmarried couples of whatever ‘gender’ combination.
As you know, as the law stands, there is only one definition of marriage in the UK, until the law is changed…hence the kerfuffle.
‘Unmarried’ couples are offered seperate rooms.
The chaps did nor randomly stumble upon the B&B. They went for it to make a point.
“The couple advertised their B&B as being for married people only”
No, they didn’t.
The important point about Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the couple who owned the Cornish hotel in question, was that they really believed that their policy did not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. Their line was that no unmarried couples, whether straight or gay, could share a double-bedded room, and evidence was presented to show that they had previously been in trouble with heterosexual couples who had been turned away for this reason, as far back as 1996.
They did not, by the way, object to letting such immoral couples use twin-bedded rooms; as Judge Rutherford observed: “Two persons of the same sex … who have come to Cornwall intent on a sexually fulfilling weekend may enjoy that weekend to the full in a twin-bedded room. Putting it bluntly, the hotel policy allows them to do so albeit in the confines of a smaller bed.”
So it really does appear that the Bulls were attempting to run a policy that did not discriminate against gay unmarried couples any more than it did against straight ones. The judge is quite clear that this is a clash of genuine rights and sincere principles on both sides. His job is to balance them, or rather to discover how the law balances the two rights – to the free exercise of religious belief; and to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The crucial factor turned out to be the fact that the gay couple, Martin Hall and Steven Preddy, had entered into a civil partnership. The law says that civil partners are to be treated as married ones and in that sense the Bulls’ policy was direct discrimination, since there was no possibility of marriage, still less Christian marriage for any gay couple. That is why they won their case.
Scott, I’ve known quite a few gay couples over the years and whenever conversation has turned to Gay issues, EVERY COUPLE have had no time for the militant gay lobby. You see, the couples I’ve known just want to be able to get on with their lives and for people to respect each other.
They see the militant gay lobby as political agitators who are never satisfied with just having their rights expanded and secured. Pushing the establishment for ever more “rights” over and above those of others. They see organisations like Stonewall as divisive with their constant demands and activism. I don’t think Scott would be welcome in any of their homes, but then he would probably think they are traitors to the cause.
I had always thought there was some vague ‘right of refusal’ at any establishment (like pubs), based on the not unreasonable notion that you may let an absolute plonker in for money and live to regret it for the bitching and moaning and demands throughout the stay.
Certainly in my service industry I have rejected potential clients as potential pains in the neck, as it were.
Nothing to do with anything other than them having the evident capacity to spoil one’s day, and seeking to do so for no better reason than enjoying the process, like some who can drop by hearabouts. And life, really, is too short to indulge such creeps.
But it’s a shame when they feel immune by enjoying special protections to so impose such negative, malicious energy so easily.
Such rights of refusal are based on ancient principles of contract law under which you can choose freely whether to enter into a contract or not with anyone and if you don’t want their business, that’s your prerogative to refuse it. However, in the last few years, the statutory laws on equality and discrimination on grounds of sex, race, sexual orientation, transgender status and the like, have been extended and had written into them provisions prohibiting discrimination in the supply of goods, facilities and services. So in those particular cases, it is no longer a matter of two parties deciding freely to trade with each other or not. Now, if you decide not, you may face a discrimination claim in court and have to pay damages.
“The couple advertised their B&B as being for married people only”
No, they didn’t.
Yes they did
The notice read: “We have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only.”
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15897770
Scez, an abject liar as usual.
Come on Scott you know that there is a political militant gay agenda. You only have to go back to the days of Greenham Common to see that in action.
As for Cameron, he’s trying (and failing) to show the leftist media that the Tories are not the nasty party, something that only the BBC and the Guardian still believe in.
Cameron’s refusal to cut overseas aid is another example of him trying to be ‘nice’ to the left.
Perhaps if the gay lobby were a little more willing to engage in reasoned debate (unlike that twat Ben Summerskille who was ranting away on Radio 5 this morning) you might find more sympathy from people
It might ‘shock’ you Scott that I also have a lot of sympathy for gay people who live with each other and want better recognition for their relationship. But I think this obsession with sticking it to the Christian church all the time doesn’t help.
As pointed out above, you’re going to get no sympathy from the Muslim community over this, which I notice the gay lobby don’t seem to want to actually take on. Are there no gay Muslims then Scott? We know they’ve all been killed in Iran. Something that went mostly unreported by the BBC.
“It’s so damned militant that David Cameron is leading the calls for equality.”
Excellent point Scez. The cultural Marxist propaganda pogrom of the BBC has been so powerful that even the Conservative Party has been cowed by it.
Scotlands leading Catholic Archbishop says that the BBC and the legislators are “redefining reality”….and he thinks that the Liberal elite that run the country have no right to presume any authority in an area of catholic doctrine that has survived for centuries.
This elite are the same ones that want the Church neutered and made redundant unless there`s an Occupy to bless or welfare spongers to be left as they are…the Chursh and the State are two different things and the Catholics don`t have to listen to a word from Westminster when it comes to moral positions…the Cof E might have to, but not the RCs.
This therefore is not even a story to me…and only a Humphrys could be given a list of progressive countries such as Argentina to read out by way of feigned outrage.
Time to pension off the old scrote-if Hitler had won in `45, he`d be haranguing Sophie Scholl or Simon Weisenthal for being out of step with Megeles progressive eugenics movement…a mere creature of the age that pays him, like so many Beeboid ubermenschen.
The Catholic position over centuries is that there is an objective natural order…..it is rational and accessible, immutable and unchanging.
The Catholic Church has always, from the earliest days condemned slavery as against this natural order. ie disordered. as all men are created equal in terms of their potential to achieve salvation. The civil authorities in Spain and elsewhere did not necessarily agree and slavery was legally defined.
The Catholic position that human society cannot stand outside this natural order.
Marriage is a Christian invention…free and equal. The state had no interest in marriage for a thousand years. The natural order (98%) suggests that most men and most women seek certainty and structure and meaning in marriage with its high, not always attainable ideal….christian in essence.
Homosexuality is essentially outside this order ie disordered.
Civil partnership belongs to the state. Marriage belongs to the church.
This distinction is vital.
The state can legislate but catholic teaching tests it against the natural order and the general good.
It is from the natural order argument having divine authorship, that all human charity and social responsibility derives for the greater good.
That, possibly, is the Cardinal’s position., I think.
What utter rubbish! You might want to read this.. http://www.scottishmediamonitor.com/features2.cfm?ID=48
The BBC gets complaints from both sides, ergo they get it about right on this issue. Thoughts?
So if everyone at my work thinks I’m a complete cock,* does that mean I’m really popular and dead good at my job?
* Disclaimer: the writer of this post is not responsible for any damage or injury incurred to B-BBC bloggers through nocturnal avian species swooping at reduced altitude in order to smugly benefit from accessible seed-bearing vegetative growth.
The BBC doesn’t publish statistics on how many complaints it gets for left wing bias and right wing bias, QED.
It’s not just about how many complaints they get. It’s about quality as well as quantity. If the majority on one side are incoherent rants or an obivous copy & paste campaign job, then it’s a different matter. No one is allowed to know.
‘The BBC gets complaints from both sides, ergo they get it about right on this issue. Thoughts?’
I get this a lot from the ‘powers that be’ on my complaints (very few on bias as they know they are golden there as it ‘s as easy as nailing jelly to the wall from the outset – I simply use the heading and then focus on factual inaccuracy that has no counter… if the number being pondered by the ECU are any guide).
I tend to reply that if my head is in the oven and my feet in the freezer, it takes a rare kind of box-ticker to work out… and claim that I am, on average, healthy.
“The BBC doesn’t publish statistics on how many complaints it gets for left wing bias and right wing bias,”
I did not know that. Odd, as they seem to have swingometer for all else. As you say, especially in explaining if not excusing the the other points… QED.
My Site: Exactly my point. Without seeing the complaints, it’s impossible to know what the reality is. Even if they published raw figures for left vs. right, it would still be useless, and probably an innacurate description of the proceedings.
The thing is, the BBC is very poll-driven internally. We know they keep very careful track of public opinion on various things for marketing purposes, and to justify the money they spend on things like redesigning the website. So they can do it.
I can’t imagine they distill the complaints they get about bias to raw numbers without taking into consideration the quality of the complaints. Somebody there knows if, for example, the majority of complaints about the BBC being pro-Israel are valid, or just rants about the Jewish Lobby and fingers wagging at Mark Thompson’s Jewish wife.
Clearly not. How many times have a representive from the National Secular Society being given the option to interrupt the morning news on Radio 4 for their ‘Thought for the Day’? It is naked proselytising.
I only got about half way through this strident drivel and couldn’t take any more.
Cameron will absolutly anything for votes.
“I promised to tell you about David Cameron’s obdurate refusal to answer a simple question, and my long battle to squeeze the truth out of Downing Street.
My question concerned the Prime Minister’s very public withdrawal from his position as patron of the Jewish National Fund (JNF). He took this post (of course) before the last Election in time to pick up some Jewish votes. Many previous Premiers have held the same title, which involves no work but demonstrates continued high-level support in Britain for the state of Israel.”
“I simply asked which these charities were. And they would not tell me. After several months of to-ing and fro-ing, in which I had to involve the Information Commissioner, I began to wonder if they even existed. To this day, they won’t identify one of them.
But I can now name three estimable but politically unimportant charities affected, The Don’t Walk Away Campaign, United Estates Of Wythenshawe, and The Campaign For The University Of Oxford.
Downing Street wouldn’t tell me because it’s so obvious that these nice people, about whom Mr Cameron had once pretended to care, were casually thrown overboard to provide cover for a major political switch.”
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/02/our-laws-our-freedom-and-our-people-kidnapped-by-america.html?cid=6a00d8341c565553ef01630212002b970d
Cameron would ingratiate himself to anyone if he thought there were votes in it. Thats why he will stick with the BBC he wants to be one of the media luvvies.
Principles? Who needs them?
On the subject of Catholics and gay marriage I enjoyed having my HYS post removed when I mentioned that other religions disapprove of gays, but that it might be worse to be executed for being gay that to have the church refuse your wedding.
Out of interest, what House Rule was that said to have broken?
‘Out of interest, what House Rule was that said to have broken?’
I doubt it will have been specified.
They have three paras of them, covering everything from scraing the horses to inspiring a fit of the vapours, but when you ask which one they go all coy.