Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
accuses Labour of 'legislating for intolerance'
Posted on 03/28/2007 7:43:06 PM PDT by GMMAC
It's gay rights laws that are intolerant, says Cardinal
by STEVE DOUGHTY, The Daily Mail (UK)
Last updated at 23:46pm on 28th March 2007
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor accused Labour of "legislating for intolerance" in his most outspoken attack yet on the imposition of gay rights laws on church bodies.
The leader of England and Wales's four million Roman Catholics also questioned "whether the threads holding together democracy have begun to unravel".
The lecture delivered in Westminster made him the first Catholic leader in nearly 180 years to place a question mark over the allegiance of his church to the British state.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
accuses Labour of 'legislating for intolerance'
He has already threatened to close nine Catholic adoption agencies if they are forced by the Sexual Orientation Regulations to place children with homosexual couples.
He declared: "For my own part, I have no difficulty in being a proud British Catholic citizen.
"But now it seems to me we are being asked to accept a different version of our democracy, one in which diversity and equality are held to be at odds with religion.
"We Catholics - and here I am sure I speak too for other Christians and all people of faith - do not demand special privileges, but we do demand our rights."
The Sexual Orientation Regulations come into force next month after minimal debate in the House of Commons.
They are aimed at stopping businesses discriminating against gays, but Christian leaders say they will force those of faith to act against their conscience.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said last night: "My fear is that, under the guise of legislating for what is said to be tolerance, we are legislating for intolerance. Once this begins, it is hard to see where it ends.
"My fear is that in an attempt to clear the public square of what are seen as unacceptable intrusions, we weaken the pillars on which that public square is erected, and we will discover that the pillars of pluralism may not survive.
"The question," the Cardinal added, "is whether the threads holding together pluralist democracy have begun to unravel. That is why I have sounded this note of alarm.
"I am conscious that when an essential core of our democratic freedom risks being undermined, subsequent generations will hold to account those who were able to raise their voices yet stayed silent."
He also fueled speculation that Catholics may order their adoption agencies to break away from links with the state - and forgo their £10 million a year of taxpayers' funds in favour of relying on donations.
The Cardinal said: "I wonder how far we can still claim as British the assumption that if a religious organisation serves the public interest according to its own rights, it has a legitimate claim on public resources.
"I begin to wonder whether Britain will continue to be a place which protects and welcomes the works of people shaped and inspired by the church." The Cardinal said he feared intolerance of Christianity "so when Christians stand by their beliefs, they are intolerant dogmatists. When they sin, they are hypocrites.
"When they take the side of the poor, they are soft-headed liberals. When they seek to defend the family, they are Rightwing reactionaries."
He added: "What looks like liberality is in reality a radical exclusion of religion from the public sphere."
Catholic leaders have made a powerful point of their loyalty to the British state since full civil rights were granted to Roman Catholics by the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829.
The Cardinal described the Act as a historic turning point.
The speech is likely to make uncomfortable reading for Tony Blair - he is expected to convert to Roman Catholicism after he leaves Downing Street later this year - and for Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a staunch Catholic responsible for pushing through the Sexual Orientation Regulations.
PING!
How can Ruth Kelly be a staunch Catholic if she is responsible for pushing through the Sexual Orientation Regulations?
Their rights are to agitate in the public square for their point of view. They have no right to thwart a democracy making its own choices about public policy, to the extent they fail to persuade. That would deprive those that disagree of their rights. This guy wants to truncate the democratic process. Good luck with that, not.
Good point.
Public policy, which was made by a handful of elites with almost no public debate. This is not democracy. This is the overlordship of the the few. Policy which will enforce a major moral decision on a person regardless of their choice. A moral decision, not a public safety or health or general welfare issue, which is all a government should be concerned about.
Anybody want to make a wager that this law will not be enforced against Muslim organizations?
You think Parliament is just a handful of elites, not reflective of the public will I take it. That is rather cyncial. Maybe you have a British poll or something to demonstrate Parliament is out of touch.
Rhetorical, I'm sure, but the same way Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry claim to be.
They insist on their right to conduct THEIR business according to their well established, not to say hoary, principles. It's an Orwellian turn of phrase to call this "thwarting a democracy". Well, we're two steps away from the moment when we can thwart democracy by screwing in a light bulb.
"How many planet-hating reactionaries does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
"None. We killed them all."
Adoption is the public's business. But as I said, it is a policy decision. If folks don't like it, vote the perps out. But in Britain, I don't see the votes being there, but I have not seen a poll.
I will certainly agree with the Cardinal. Most agenda groups have the same problem.
It's what the liberal / left do.
Actually, a public poll on who wants to stay in the EU would be a good example.
The "elites" (MPs of both parties) want in... the population would rather be out...
Thus the reason the United States is NOT a democracy.
An institution can survive outside threats, but it cannot withstand traitors, thus she is a "staunch Catholic"
Someone else said the above very eloquently. I forget who.
She lies.
Economics is complex. Free trade is more popular with the elites than the masses, but on that one, the elites have a better grasp of the economics. Still I doubt the majority in Britain want to bag the EU, at this juncture. Do you have a relatively recent poll on that? They do want to keep the pound sterling, and it has been kept.
Education is the public's business too.
Alexander Pope was "... a Roman Catholic when Catholics could neither attend universities nor hold public office..." ( Untermeyer )
I guess public offices are the public's business too!
I see us racing pell mell towards the same state of affairs, but now there is a Joker in the deck.
Actually, both nations have the same system more or less. Folks vote for politicians, and the politicians make the laws. Britain is different regarding checks and balances, and branches of government, and all that (e.g., the courts are far less powerful, but growing more so), but it is moving a bit towards the US model in that regard.
There is some merit, in fact, a lot of merit, in a Bill of Rights embodied in a Constitution. It tends to slow down mob bigotry, when the mob is in the mood to do that. The EU has such now, but granted that is a multinational enterpise. Oh the horror!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.