A Pakistani bishop defends a shrinking Christianity in the UK. What I found ironic was this:
His outspokenness has put him in the vanguard of opposition to hardline Islamism and made him one of the highest-placed enemies of the gay rights movement.
And what loathsome thing has he done to become an enemy of the gay rights movement?
He has criticised civil partnerships and opposed the extension of IVF treatment to single women and lesbians.
I don't know the nature of the criticism, but is it really outrageous to think that the state should not be assisting women in the deliberate (and expensive) creation of fatherless children? I guess to the gay rights movement it is. But if I were gay, I'd be a lot more concerned about the continuing growth of a religion that would stone me for being gay, than about a bishop who criticizes my lifestyle and objects to a state subsidization of it.
Daily Mail eh? Figures.
So Daveon, are you suggesting dubious reporting by the Daily Mail? If so, do you think the gay rights movement have less opposition to the Bishop, or do you think the Bishop has been less critical of gay partnerships? Maybe you think the issue is unimportant? Just curious, because otherwise your comment seems completely useless.
Oh wait, Daveon eh? figures.
are you suggesting dubious reporting by the Daily Mail?
Absolutely. I wouldn't wrap my chips in that particular rag.
But I think the article neatly disqualifies itself on account of opening thus: The collapse of Christianity has wrecked British society...
Has it? Gosh. I was there last week and didn't notice myself.
However, the real question, to get back to the kind of dubious reporting that the Mail excels in. Did the Bishop actually say that? It's not in quotes, its reported.
I know some journos and they excel at this stuff.
"So Bisphop would you say that Christianity was collapsing in Britain?"
"Well, given [...] you could say that."
"Right. Bishop says Christianity... blah blah"
It's a very old trick and very frequent.
The Mail also used to run articles about Dungeon's and Dragons and make out it turned kids into satanists and led them to kill themselves.
They also have Melanie Phillips as a correspondent, Rand often links to her screeds.
All in all not a source to be taken all that seriously.
But if I were gay, I'd be a lot more concerned about the continuing growth of a religion that would stone me for being gay, than about a bishop who criticizes my lifestyle and objects to a state subsidization of it.
That depends.
A reasonable analogy would be one group merely wanting to repeal the Bill of Rights, and the other wanting to Nuke a city.
Which is the greater threat?
So Zoe, you think the Bishop shouldn't have the right to criticize? Do you have any respect for freedom of speech? If confronted with this Bishop and a man with a nuclear weapon ready to blow up the city you are in, you would hold the greatest animosity for the Bishop? Interesting.
Daveon, well, you have an interesting argument, but it really doesn't have much to do with the gist of Rand's post. Perhaps you should have left your comment on the Daily Mail's website instead of here.
I think it's a kind of locality effect. People look at what's going on directly around them and what affects them most directly and most immediately, and then they act and react based on that. People usually fail to look at the bigger picture and think longer term. Thus a homosexual in the UK wants an IVF and sees an immediate challenge from someone who objects, and responds to that challenge. The religion that would stone or hang the homosexual does not immediately and directly affect them (yet), and so she or he does not see this as a big issue (yet).
I sort of see the same thing with the left-wing Hollywood type of people. They castigate our government and sometimes castigate non-Islamic religions, things which affect them directly. However, they don't think about the long term consequences of the fact that the movies they create and the lifestyle they portray are things Islamic religion despises and would like to destroy. They don't think about this issue because those beliefs don't directly affect them (yet).
Just a theory.
I also think that by and large most people would prefer mostly to be left alone to do what they want to do, and want to think about the bigger picture and the little picture as little as possible. I for one want to practice my religion (which teaches me to live at peace with everyone as far as it is up to me), coach my kid's soccer team, work (hopefully) a reasonably interesting job, and take care of my family.
Daveon, well, you have an interesting argument, but it really doesn't have much to do with the gist of Rand's post.
No but if Rand uses dubious sources to make posts about things then the sources need to be questioned.
I wouldn't dream of complaining to the Daily Mail though, they're entirely within their rights to print nonsense. Repeating the nonsense though, well, that's different.