Kelly's Opus Dei beliefs 'incompatible' with gay rights, say Lib Dems

  • Thread starter Thread starter jdnation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jdnation said:
The Liberal Democrats have launched a fierce attack on Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly - insisting her ‘personal beliefs’ were incompatible with defending gay rights.
Equality spokeswoman Lorely Burt called on Ms Kelly - a practising member of the Opus Dei branch of the Catholic church - to stand down immediately.

dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410521&in_page_id=1770
Click to expand...
I gotta ask…

Are u saying that Christians have no right to an opinion in this day and age?

Are u saying there’s no place in govt for Christians unless they express only liberal views, even if these disagree with their faith?

Do we live in a democracy or have I got my head in a paper bag all these years?

BTW - i’m an atheist eek: 😃
 
jdnation said:
The Liberal Democrats have launched a fierce attack on Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly - insisting her ‘personal beliefs’ were incompatible with defending gay rights.
Equality spokeswoman Lorely Burt called on Ms Kelly - a practising member of the Opus Dei branch of the Catholic church - to stand down immediately.

dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410521&in_page_id=1770
Click to expand...
Sounds like more political arm twisting if you ask me.
 
Sounds like a case of

“My religion (hedonism) deserves special preference over yours (Catholicism).”

I wish people would recognize hedonism as a religion and stop giving it preferential treatment in government institutions in violation of the First Amendment.
 
The English have been anti-Catholic for a long time, and these liberals are capitalizing on that.

Thank God for the Constitution of the United States
Article VI, Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Click to expand...
Of course, liberals would like to change that.
 
vern_humphrey said:
The English have been anti-Catholic for a long time, and these liberals are capitalizing on that.

Thank God for the Constitution of the United States

Of course, liberals would like to change that.
Click to expand...
I hope the USA doesn’t become a dictatorship.
 
i say good on ruth kelly for standing up for her beliefs. why shouldn’t she?! i’m not a big fan of the labour party but i AM in favour of free speech.

oh and i’m protestant and certainly NOT anti catholic.
 
tigerlily said:
i say good on ruth kelly for standing up for her beliefs. why shouldn’t she?! i’m not a big fan of the labour party but i AM in favour of free speech.

oh and i’m protestant and certainly NOT anti catholic.
Click to expand...
Let’s pray for her.
 
bones_IV said:
Let’s pray for her.
Click to expand...
absolutely and let’s pray that the liberal democrats recognise freedom of speech applies to everything INCLUDING religion.

if ruth kelly was a liberal democrat, it would be the same with the others whether they’re conservative or labour.

here in the uk, anyone and everyone is attacked if they’re in a differently political party. politics here has become so childish, you just wouldn’t believe it.:rolleyes:
 
See Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street JOurnal from 10/13/2006 to get the full info on just how “free speech” is interpreted by the radical left.
 
jdnation said:
The Liberal Democrats have launched a fierce attack on Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly - insisting her ‘personal beliefs’ were incompatible with defending gay rights.
Equality spokeswoman Lorely Burt called on Ms Kelly - a practising member of the Opus Dei branch of the Catholic church - to stand down immediately.

dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410521&in_page_id=1770
Click to expand...
The question is not so much whether her beliefs are getting in the way of gay rights. The question is whether her beliefs are obstructing her from performing government policy[1]. We have cabinet government in the UK, and whatever her personal beliefs, as a member of the cabinet she has to go along with what has been agreed to be done.

You may argue about whether cabinet government is a good thing - I certainly wonder from time to time - but that’s the way it is. If her personal beliefs are getting in the way of doing her job, she needs to either put her beliefs aside or get out of the government. Our government has worked this way for centuries.

Mike

[1] And current government policy is generally in favour of ‘gay rights’. Civil partnerships for example, something Tony Blair boasts about as one of the achievements of his time in office.
 
MikeWM said:
The question is not so much whether her beliefs are getting in the way of gay rights. The question is whether her beliefs are obstructing her from performing government policy[1]. We have cabinet government in the UK, and whatever her personal beliefs, as a member of the cabinet she has to go along with what has been agreed to be done.

You may argue about whether cabinet government is a good thing - I certainly wonder from time to time - but that’s the way it is. If her personal beliefs are getting in the way of doing her job, she needs to either put her beliefs aside or get out of the government. Our government has worked this way for centuries.

Mike

[1] And current government policy is generally in favour of ‘gay rights’. Civil partnerships for example, something Tony Blair boasts about as one of the achievements of his time in office.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting a dictatorship? Your definately no expert in religious freedom so don’t pretend to be.
 
bones_IV said:
Are you suggesting a dictatorship?
Click to expand...
No, I’m suggesting that Britain has a cabinet government. Because it does.
Your definately no expert in religious freedom so don’t pretend to be.
Click to expand...
I see. How would I become ‘an expert in religious freedom’, in your opinion?

Mike
 
bones_IV said:
I hope the USA doesn’t become a dictatorship.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you’re too late. We already labor under the tyranny of political correctness. The need to keep Christianity, alone among all other religions, invisible and out of public discourse has been driven by a vanishingly small minority of anti-Christian zealots.

These zealots are the dictators. We are the subjects and the judges and courts are their lackeys.
 
rpp said:
Sorry, you’re too late. We already labor under the tyranny of political correctness. The need to keep Christianity, alone among all other religions, invisible and out of public discourse has been driven by a vanishingly small minority of anti-Christian zealots.

These zealots are the dictators. We are the subjects and the judges and courts are their lackeys.
Click to expand...
sounds like the uk too!!!

(apart from ruth kelly obviously…)
 
rpp said:
Sorry, you’re too late. We already labor under the tyranny of political correctness. The need to keep Christianity, alone among all other religions, invisible and out of public discourse has been driven by a vanishingly small minority of anti-Christian zealots.

These zealots are the dictators. We are the subjects and the judges and courts are their lackeys.
Click to expand...
We have makings of a dictatorship, but Bush just simply isn’t pro-life. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top