Wikipedia, a reasonable enough source, defines bigotry as
Stonewall, the 'charity' that promotes homosexual causes has awarded Cardinal Kieth O'Brien, the head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, the title of 'Bigot of the year'.
This is presumably because Cardinal O'Brien openly and strongly opposes the UK government and Scottish parliament changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
Among the senior public figure opponents of these proposals, Cardinal O'Brien is probably a safe bet. He isn't going to be issuing any fatwas, after all, as some other opponents might. Plus, by displaying their own intolerance of any opinion that differs from their own, Stonewall still manage to keep the issue on the 'front page'.
One has to wonder at what point Stonewall will consider they have achieved their aims? When everyone is homosexual - surely not - don't they proclaim it is all about choice? So someone can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual - right? However, to pass any comment about homosexuality is somehow bigotry?
Read the definition again. Where or when has Cardinal O'Brien ever spoken hatred against homosexuals? Yes, Catholics consider homosexuality a sin and yes Cardinal O'Brien can be expected to speak out against it, just like he does against poverty etc.. However, in my experience Catholic teaching condemns the sin and not the sinner - so, I would suggest that it is the act of of homosexuality which is against Church teaching and that the homosexual person is not the target.
I would go further, when reading the definition and consider that the actions of Stonewall constitute bigotry since they are;
Ruth Davidson, the homosexual leader of Scotland's Conservatives won Stonewalls Politician of the year award at the same time. If she has a shred of decency, she should immediately decline this in the strongest possible terms. Being associated with bigots cannot ever be right.
Barclays Bank are considering their sponsorship of Stonewall. Considering? What's to consider? Surely they can see that their donations are being used to fund bigotry?
Coutts Bank are also considering their position- last time I looked, Coutts were owned by the majority sate-owned bank RBS - yet another example of the elite using taxpayers money to promote their agendas.
Incidentally, aren't charities supposed to refrain from politics? Don't expect too much of a backlash though, minorities somehow have a completely dis-proportionate grip on the levers of power and the political agenda in the UK.
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.
Stonewall, the 'charity' that promotes homosexual causes has awarded Cardinal Kieth O'Brien, the head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, the title of 'Bigot of the year'.
This is presumably because Cardinal O'Brien openly and strongly opposes the UK government and Scottish parliament changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
Among the senior public figure opponents of these proposals, Cardinal O'Brien is probably a safe bet. He isn't going to be issuing any fatwas, after all, as some other opponents might. Plus, by displaying their own intolerance of any opinion that differs from their own, Stonewall still manage to keep the issue on the 'front page'.
One has to wonder at what point Stonewall will consider they have achieved their aims? When everyone is homosexual - surely not - don't they proclaim it is all about choice? So someone can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual - right? However, to pass any comment about homosexuality is somehow bigotry?
Read the definition again. Where or when has Cardinal O'Brien ever spoken hatred against homosexuals? Yes, Catholics consider homosexuality a sin and yes Cardinal O'Brien can be expected to speak out against it, just like he does against poverty etc.. However, in my experience Catholic teaching condemns the sin and not the sinner - so, I would suggest that it is the act of of homosexuality which is against Church teaching and that the homosexual person is not the target.
I would go further, when reading the definition and consider that the actions of Stonewall constitute bigotry since they are;
obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;and, in Stonewall's case are religiously motivated. Or perhaps that is anti-religiously motivated.
Ruth Davidson, the homosexual leader of Scotland's Conservatives won Stonewalls Politician of the year award at the same time. If she has a shred of decency, she should immediately decline this in the strongest possible terms. Being associated with bigots cannot ever be right.
Barclays Bank are considering their sponsorship of Stonewall. Considering? What's to consider? Surely they can see that their donations are being used to fund bigotry?
Coutts Bank are also considering their position- last time I looked, Coutts were owned by the majority sate-owned bank RBS - yet another example of the elite using taxpayers money to promote their agendas.
Incidentally, aren't charities supposed to refrain from politics? Don't expect too much of a backlash though, minorities somehow have a completely dis-proportionate grip on the levers of power and the political agenda in the UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment