Anger after pope condemns gay-friendly laws

http://www.france24.com ^ | 02 February 2010 | www.france24.com

[Maelstorm]

Gay-rights campaigners and secularists called on Tuesday for protests during a visit to Britain by Pope Benedict XVI this year, after he condemned equality legislation seen as friendly to gays.

The 82-year-old pontiff, who made his comments in a letter to the bishops of England and Wales on Monday, is reportedly set to visit Britain in September, the first such trip in 28 years.

Human rights campaigner and gay activist Peter Tatchell said he saw the pope's letter as an attack on the legal rights granted to gay people and women.

"His ill-informed claim that our equality laws undermine religious freedom suggests that he supports the right of churches to discriminate in accordance with their religious ethos.

"He seems to be defending discrimination by religious institutions and demanding that they should be above the law."

In his comments on Monday the pope said that Britain "is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity."

But he added "the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs," he wrote.

"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

Observers said the pontiff was referring to legislation that took effect on January 1, 2009, preventing adoption agencies -- including Catholic ones -- from discriminating against gay couples.

The National Secular Society (NSS) reacted furiously to the pope's remarks.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some 20 million pounds for the visit of the pope.

"A visit in which he has already indicated he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination."

He said he would appeal to gay groups, feminist groups, family planning organisations, pro-choice groups, victim support groups and "anyone who feels under siege from the Vatican?s current militancy" to take part in the protests.

[Petronski]

A statue of Ven. Pope John Paul the Great holding a Crucifix convinces you that Catholics aren’t Christian?

[Judith Anne]

No I don't, but it seems many cannot grasp the concept of 'free' when it doesn't fit in with their own agenda, as proven by this thread, Americans believe theirs and the Pope's opinion on British Law is more important than mine. That sounds exactly like an Obama'esque tactic.

Is someone stopping you from posting your particular brand of squawl? No. Is someone telling you that you have no freedom here? No. Are you having a problem with FReepers in their own country disagreeing with you? Yes. Perhaps you should stay home....?

[bronxville]

You were trying to prove some point or other and linked to David J Stewart therefore associated. Now you deny an association but you can’t have it both ways.

[Petronski]

If I point out fact...

Ping me if you ever do.

[Judith Anne]

Yes, in our country, OUR opinion is more important than YOURs.

Normally, I like having Brits come on FR. They are welcome, as you were welcomed. I hope you stay. But when YOU start something, expect that we will exercise OUR freedom, and speak out against you.

[bethybabes69]

Does he not have the right to express his opinion?

Yes, He should talk in Latin to all His followers and tell them how bad Britain is, if He wishes.
Should He set the tone for dissent before He comes and makes a visit? No.
If His order has issues with British Law, and how that order fits into British society, then He should address that with His associates, not raise dissent about our Laws.

The same goes for the Islamists that want to change our laws to fit in with their religious doctrine also, they should go back to their Sovereign Countries too, and tell their followers.

[Petronski]

...before getting lynched for having an opinion...

You pooooooooor thing.

[bethybabes69]

Because I posted a random link from google? That’s called paranoia, my friend.

[Petronski]

...I originally said the Pope should stay quiet on British Law...I didn't say anything about Religion...

LOL

[bethybabes69]

And look at the quote in your tagline, what irony!

[Pyro7480]

If His order has issues with British Law, and how that order fits into British society, then He should address that with His associates, not raise dissent about our Laws.

If British Law ends up persecuting the members of the Catholic flock in the UK, then he has EVERY RIGHT to speak out.

[RoadGumby]

yes of course. Homosexuality is WRONG. Are you not able to say that? Who said anyhting about hating gays? By not being able to take a stand, you are enabling those that seek to undermine all that is good.

[Petronski]

It would be ironic if I were trying to silence your speech.

What I am doing is heaping some well-deserved ridicule on your speech.

Pity you can’t understand the difference.

[bethybabes69]

God bless and keep you, poor soul.

And you, Judith, genuinely.

[bethybabes69]

Who’s good?

[Petronski]

Who’s good?

Is this a riddle? I give up.

Who is good?

[bronxville]

“...it seems FReepers had a big issue with me having a say on British Law IN MY OWN COUNTRY and it being influenced by a Foreigner not sure what that says about FR, maybe Obama is having more of an impact on here than is being admitted.”

As someone who hailed from N Ireland I can only laugh...

[ArrogantBustard]

If British Law ends up persecuting the members of the Catholic flock in the UK, then he has EVERY RIGHT to speak out.

I'd say he has a DUTY to speak out ... same as if US law, Russian law, Japanese law, Arabian law, whatever, were to end up persecuting members of the Catholic flock in those countries.

[Petronski]

A statue of Ven. Pope John Paul the Great holding a Crucifix convinces you that Catholics aren’t Christian?

[bethybabes69]

Well, where did your ancestors come from, do you have a say in the USA? What’s the cutoff point before one is assumed a citizen or subject?