[url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-cardinal-sin.htmlIf anyone's interested, my thoughts on this.[/url

I am aware of that, and I set out to at least attempt to be as even-handed as possible in this.

Personally, I actually let a lot of things go, but this has been raised with me – hence my acting.

Well done Minty.
Some of them think they can get away with murder on here.

Test.

Tube.

We need more calm here.

It's never constructive to post when angry, which is what I suspect quite a few people on here do. I know that we often disagree on issues which are emotional, but I always find that it is better to walk away from the PC and make a cup of tea before posting a response. Once you've literally let off some steam, reason takes over and you can make a positive contribution to the debate.

My two cents.

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, I also disagree with what you say (to an extent).

I disagree in that I think that, within this context, one of the major things that makes many people angry is attempting to debate rationally with others whose very basis for their intolerance is something for which there is not a shred of evidence.

And here we hit the impasse – and the wider problem of how we treat religion in a society that, by and large, does not actually appreciate fundamentalist religious adherence and most certainly not the proselytising of such.

That, of course, becomes in itself a problem for anyone who believes in the right of free speech. And generally I suspect that a lot of the more impolite language about it has been a response to that conundrum: no – we do not ban; we do not censor. But we do, therefore, expect to be able to voice strongly and in unequivocal terms our responses to nonsense arguments.

Some religious appear to want to have their cake and eat it: they want to have, for themselves, the right to say whatever they want about certain groups and issues. But when people respond, they whine about how badly they're treated.

It's rank hypocrisy.

You were very angry when you started that Paul Wood's thread about his sexual indiscretions though weren't you Kirky?
I'd go as far as to say you'd lost all rationale.
You were veritably seething.
It's nice to see the new, calmer you.

I'm struggling to comprehend why you quoted Denning in relation to this thread.

Read it again and acknowledge the time it was made. In 1954 sexual acts between men were illegal, they were seen as acts of gross indecency and yet there were many men who viewed the law as unfair and were willing to risk imprisonment and social castigation, for no other reason than they were "different" to the "legal norm".

Thankfully, in time, the law recognised that homosexuality wasn't "grossly indecent" and legalised sexual acts between "consenting adults" in private. Over further time, it was recognised that the age of consent could be reduced to 18 years and then 16 years, to reflect the age of consent for heterosexual couples. The law then went further to make discrimination against someone purely on the basis of his/her sexuality illegal. Then further still to mitigate against an incitement to cause offence, based on someone's sexuality.

Rather than Denning backing up your argument, it blows it out of the water

I felt the words "Christian" and "unrighteous" were relevant in the context of some people having strong opinions against gay marriage. The fact that some feel their views "wrong" does not negate their strongly held views or even "beliefs." They are perfectly entitled to hold their views.

The further point I am trying to make is that the law and rule of law has been and continues to be eroded by so many instances of morality shifting to accomodate vociferous minorities (of all types) claiming rights off society as a whole.

I hate to break it to you but that's just what happens in a civilised society

Civilised hey?

yes

That a belief is 'strong' does not make it logical, reasonable, or supported by evidence.

And no one has argued that bigots aren't 'entitled' to hold their bigoted views, but what they must not be allowed to do is to deny rights to other people based on their bigotry.

Please name those minorities.

You knows the one's, those of a different skin colour, belief system, sexual preference, those abnormal lot that don't fit into Dallys ignorant bigoted world view.

Unfortunate picture of the Cardinal: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... avile.html

Unfortunate picture of the Cardinal: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... avile.html

I'm sure Dally will be along presently to give us some examples of how [i'the law and rule of law has been and continues to be eroded by so many instances of morality shifting to accomodate (sic) vociferous minorities (of all types) claiming rights off society as a whole.'[/i

Unless all the information is in his 'off-site' book...

Quote ="Dally"Unfortunate picture of the Cardinal: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... avile.html'" Thought it was fellow priests he was meddling with, not kids. Maybe thats why they got shut, not following centuries old doctrine and going off at a tangent.

Quote ="Dally"Unfortunate picture of the Cardinal: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... avile.html'" Thought it was fellow priests he was meddling with, not kids. Maybe thats why they got shut, not following centuries old doctrine and going off at a tangent.

Can you imagine if [ithat[/i book ever makes a reappearance?

He'll have bibliophile's the world over, urgently trying to contact him, offering him wealth beyond his wildest dreams to gain ownership of such a prophetic manuscript.

What counts as 'morality' has been moving 'shifting' the beginning of time.

Even if one assumes Biblical truth etc, it has been shifting: we no longer, for instance, regard it as a good thing for a man to rape/force into marriage his dead brother's widow.

We no longer, in what we like to imagine is civilised society, believe that a victim of rape be killed. We are appalled at the idea of child sacrifice – unless it's Abraham agreeing to sacrifice Isaac or Jehovah sacrificing his son.

Which, of course, is the odd thing. While in real life we would be horrified at such things, many people still consider them acceptable – indeed essential – parts of their religious beliefs. And that's an almost perfect illustration of the clash between religion and modern, Western, liberal society, that effectively renders a believer in some state of having dual personalities (beliefs).

Do you think that's what happened in other cases too?

She bred a criminal so wouldn't have any qualms about palling up to one!

Again I ask, which minorities?