|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Lord" Carey and the Jews and the Nazis
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
A so-called "Lord" of the Realm has come out with the idea that being anti-gay marriage puts one in the same place as the Jews were in Nazi Germany. Having people loudly disagree with one's homophobic ranting is apparently as dangerous as having a yellow star put on your shirt so that people could beat you up and steal your possessions before they send you to die in a concentration camp
Has this so-called "Lord" been taking the Kool-Aid of the American right wing? His mind seems to be somewhat messed up.
I can't imagine that he is helping the cause he claims to espouse.
I wonder if he has ever actually spoken to someone he recognises as being gay.
I'll leave the further description to Martin Robbins in today's Grauniad.
Edited to add that this may take a distinctly Hellish turn, so it may end up going there. I just wanted to see if there is ANY defense of this person whose attitudes I take to be indefensible.
[ 10. October 2012, 00:50: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
For some reason it's become a popular idea that it's worse to accurately describe someone as a bigot than it is to actually be a bigot. I would have thought it was the other way around, but YMMV.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Sadly the CofE has people who'd like the next Archbishop of Canterbury to take a stand on biblical matters, just like Lord Carey did when he was ABC. Personally, I do not want to be a member of that sort of church, but I wasn't a member of the CofE when Carey was ABC.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
To be fair to the man, I don't recall him being such a complete twit when he was Archbishop. There was even a point at which he annoyed the Tory right by comparing the Holy Family in a Christmas sermon to asylum seekers.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I found one of his letters to the church / communion when I wandered into a church in the 90s, read it and wandered straight back out again for several more years. From memory, the message was about marriage, but I can't find what and why on-line. It was couched in such terms that I remember thinking if this church was that uncharitable I didn't want to be a part of it.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Edited to add that this may take a distinctly Hellish turn, so it may end up going there. I just wanted to see if there is ANY defense of this person whose attitudes I take to be indefensible.
The most charitable explanation I can think of is this:
Lord Carey is not a hateful or malicious man. He is a member of a tribe of Christian evangelicals, and feels a strong loyalty to the values of that tribe. Two of the things that define those values, and thus represent an important part of his self-identity, are a commitment to the authority of scripture traditionally interpreted, and conservative sexual ethics (AKA ‘family values'). A large part of the increasing acceptance of homosexuality is a result of the erosion of those values. Being against gay marriage is, in the minds of people like Lord Carey, inextricably bound up with being "for" a traditional view of marriage, commitment and family life, "for" a stable society in which Christian belief is respected, "for" an orthodox and obedient approach to the Bible, "against" an attitude to sex and relationships which has no moral grounding, "against" sexual abuse, teenage pregnancies, abortions and STDs, "against" a society in which faith is mocked and marginalised.
He isn't thinking just about gay marriage. I doubt he gives a moment's thought to the scandalous fact that Canadians, and Argentines, and Icelanders can marry members of their own sex. If the same thing were to happen in the UK, after the first month, I doubt he'd lose any sleep over it at all. What he is doing is ‘making a stand for Christian values'. He cares deeply that Christian values aren't being given the weight that they used to be in legislation, and genuinely fears what might happen to society without that traditional source of morality.
And therefore he isn't conscious of having any personally hostile animus against gay people. He doesn't hate them. He doesn't want to hurt them. It has not occurred to him what an incredibly mean and shitty thing it is to campaign against a minority group's right to get married, because he knows that he isn't a mean and shitty person. He probably is genuinely hurt when people call him a bigot. He hears that as an accusation of acting out of motives of hate, and that isn't at all how he sees what he is doing. The bollocks that he is talking about Nazis is a reaction both to that hurt and to the fear that the tribe from which he takes his identity is being criticised in terms that would exclude them from the debate and (if the trend continues) from participation in the polite, traditional, stable social establishment which he thinks he is fighting for.
That hurt is really all he has to express. There is no good argument on his side. There isn't the ghost of a reason, in a liberal democracy whose laws expressly forbid discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, for denying to gays the rights and recognitions that are granted to straights. The only argument he might advance is the explicitly theocratic one that the law should embody revealed Christian ethics, and he knows that in the UK that's a lost cause. If the Church were to fight on that ground, it would lose, and only increase the erosion of the tribal values which Lord Carey desperately wants to protect. What he wants is for society to privilege heterosexual married relationships because his faith tells him that they are special, but he can't actually come out and say that because he knows that's not a good enough reason any more. So all he has is a desperate sort of whining about his Church's right to be heard, and a pathetic plea that he not be dismissed as a bigot.
I said that's the most charitable view I could think of. It is. I still think it's contemptible.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
A so-called "Lord" of the Realm has come out with the idea that being anti-gay marriage puts one in the same place as the Jews were in Nazi Germany. Having people loudly disagree with one's homophobic ranting is apparently as dangerous as having a yellow star put on your shirt so that people could beat you up and steal your possessions before they send you to die in a concentration camp
Give the man some credit. It takes skill and talent to actually start a debate with Godwin's Law.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
His positioning rings familiar bells this side of the Pond. When various self-described Christian folks want to post, say, the 10 commandments in a courthouse and get shot down for violating the establishment clause, they tend to claim they're being discriminated against.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Give the man some credit. It takes skill and talent to actually start a debate with Godwin's Law.
And just to be completely fair, let's also consider that he might be quoted out of context.
In one report;
quote:
However, he rejected suggestions that the true “bigots” were those who advocated gay marriage and would not listen to legitimate concerns of religious groups who disagreed.
“Let’s have a sensible debate about this, not call people names,” he said. “Let’s remember that the Jews in Nazi Germany, what started it all against them was when they started being called names. That was the first stage towards that totalitarian state.”
In other words he could be read as either saying that his own side ought not to call the others bigots, or at least that neither side ought to be calling each other bigots. But not necessarily that either side is in the position of the Jews or the position of Nazi Germany.
Of course the recourse to the comparison is crass and he'd have been better off simply saying "let's not call each other bigots" if that was what he meant.
And of course he's wrong, but that's another point.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Eliab, I think your analysis is absolutely right. In fact, up and down the country the evangelical churches are filled with people who put tribal loyalty (surely the besetting sin of many a religious grouping, but especially of evos) above charity, common sense and, very often, the Bible itself. That is a tragedy, but there lies within it the seeds of hope, because these people genuinely are decent people, who just have never considered what it would be like to walk in the shoes of GLBT people, often people of faith themselves. I say a seed of hope, because, by God's grace, one day the penny will drop, and they will see the "other" as being really just like themselves, trying to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Sadly the CofE has people who'd like the next Archbishop of Canterbury to take a stand on biblical matters, just like Lord Carey did when he was ABC. Personally, I do not want to be a member of that sort of church, but I wasn't a member of the CofE when Carey was ABC.
I wouldn't mind Carey or others taking a stand on biblical matters or on a biblical basis, if they weren't so narrowly selective about the issues they are concerned about and the scripture they quote.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
In other words he could be read as either saying that his own side ought not to call the others bigots, or at least that neither side ought to be calling each other bigots. But not necessarily that either side is in the position of the Jews or the position of Nazi Germany.
Hmm, but there's no quoted speech in that Torygraph report that contradicts the plain and obvious meaning of his words as condemning anyone who dares to call him a bigot for being bigoted. All we have is the Torygraph's own description (or spin, if you prefer) of what he was talking about at the time. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the first paragraph has a tenuous basis in fact, or if the context of the two quoted paragraphs was very different, but they've been stuck together to imply some sort of connection that wasn't there.
I'm a little cautious of jumping off the deep end about this, because the reported comments that I've heard aren't entirely clear, but I'm not sure how far I'd trust the Torygraph report as a balanced and impartial treatment.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I agree with Eliab's analysis of Cary and his tribe. The thing is, he could take the position instead that there are all kinds of state-sanctioned "marriage" that do not constitute what the Church (in his view of it) views as true marriage by the Christian standard. He could more legitimately, if he were so inclined, take a stance against the Church recognising or solemnising such state-sanctioned unions, whilst himself keeping out of the matter in the purely civil sphere. If he exercises a vote in the Lords, he might legitimately simply abstain from voting on the civil law in this instance.
What I detest about the con-evos on this issue and in general is their insistence on inserting their religious views into the civil domain in an effort to legislate for the population as a whole.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
Eliab's view makes a lot of sense to me. A lot of the evangelicals I know who would take the same line as him seem to me to be kind, caring individuals, not hateful bigots. They have a genuine blind spot in that they cannot see beyond the traditional biblical interpretation that they have been taught in regards to homosexuality and they want to uphold it out of faithfulness to God and his word (as they perceive it) not out of hatred. Granted there may be conservative evangelicals out there who actively hate homosexuals but I have never knowingly met one in the UK context that I am most familiar with. Perhaps I just know a lot of nice people...
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Not hating is not good enough. Only the foolish think all those opposed to gay marriage hate gay people. And only the foolish think in so starkly black and white terms. There is an infinite gradation between real hate and loving acceptance.
Btw, Cary's cry of "help, help! I'm being repressed" is ludicrous. And, regardless of intent, smacks of typical tactics of shutting down opposition rather than addressing the issues. Not feeling the love, misguided or otherwise.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Eliab's view makes a lot of sense to me. A lot of the evangelicals I know who would take the same line as him seem to me to be kind, caring individuals, not hateful bigots.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. There was a post over at Slacktivist dealing with pretty much this exact point titled "You can’t deny people their rights and be nice about it". The title pretty much sums it up, but here's a longer excerpt.
quote:
I thought of Ruehl’s performance, and of Dianna’s post, when I read this self-serving attempt to be the “nice” bigot by Halee Gray Scott at Christianity Today’s her•meneutics blog, “I Am Not Charles Worley: The Plea of a Christian Who Opposes Gay Marriage.”
Scott wants you to understand that she’s not at all like the infamous homophobic preacher Worley. She’s totally different.
Worley wants to deny LGBT people their basic civil rights and legal equality because he hates them. Scott wants to deny LGBT people their basic civil rights and legal equality for other reasons.
See? See how very different they are? Same result. Same vote. Same fundamental discrimination enshrined in law. But Worley is mean. Scott is nice.
And Scott has had it up to here with people not recognizing the extreme importance of that distinction:
quote:
I am not Charles Worley, and I’m tired of others, especially fellow Christians, assuming that because I’m opposed to gay marriage that I’m hateful like him. It’s time to extend a hermeneutic of grace to each other — especially to fellow Christians who still do not favor gay marriage and believe that homosexuality is not God’s intent for human sexuality. …
Scott shares Worley’s hateful goals, but not his hateful sentiments, so how dare anyone compare them?
I think this is an important distinction. While I'm sure those opposed to equality under the law prefer to think of themselves as "nice" and invest a lot of time and effort into getting others to perceive them as "kind, caring individuals", supporting legal discrimination is not "nice", "kind", or "caring". At best it can be described as a studied indifference to the problems of other people.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
Although I agree that for those on the receiving end it makes no material difference, I think motivation is relevant when assessing people's actions.
Someone who opposes equality under the law because it is their firm conviction that sex outside male/female marriage is wrong in God's eyes may well be misguided and wrong but their motivation could be perceived as good. Their actions spring from a desire to be faithful to God and a genuine conviction that what is best for people is for society to be organized along the lines of what they perceive to be God's Laws.
(Please do not jump to assume I agree with this. I am living in a society where I am very much a minority and would not want to see the majority's religious laws imposed. And this experience has made me much more wary of Christians trying to impose 'religious laws' on a society that doesn't generally hold to the same view.)
I think some of these people are actually quite conflicted over this. They don't want to be unkind to people but they feel that they will have failed God in some way by compromising with the pressure of the prevailing culture if they don't keep to this view. I don't think name calling will change people's views. I don't know what the answer is, all I know is that for myself the change of view has come through a combination of hearing different view points, particularly of interpretations of scripture, interacting with and listening to the views of GLBT Christians and a general midlife crisis type rethinking of a whole load of my faith/theology.
I think people who are generally kind and caring but have simply not thought through the real life implications of their views on this issue are more likely to be amenable to a change of viewpoint through discussion and interaction than those who hold a deep seated hatred. For those who's underlying motivation is good, they may be able to find a way forward which continues to honor that good motivation even as the content of their views changes.
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
What completely mystifies me is that so many conservatives can't see that gays asking for marriage IS a conservative position.
LIBERAL gays just say "Marriage? Pfft. Who wants that stupid outmoded heterosexual institution?"
Some conservatives do get it, I have to say. On several occasions I've seen conservative supporters of gay marriage who understand precisely this point. I recall there was a prominent Republican lawyer involved in the Proposition 8 case in California. And the best expression I've seen here in Australia is from former Senator Amanda Vanstone earlier this year:
quote:
The next point I would make to conservatives – if you believe as I do you should try and look after yourself, be independent and be an individual, then you are going to have to do that with others. You’re going to have to have relationships and admit dependence on other people. That’s what people do when they get married. They say ‘We are going to be dependent on each other’. I think conservatives should welcome more people openly saying ‘I’m going to have a life relationship with this person, we will be dependent on each other, we are going to ask things of each other instead of asking from the State’. I think conservatives should welcome more recognition of interdependence. That’s what society is, otherwise it’s just individuals. I believe in individualism but society has to be more than a bunch of separate individuals and we need to encourage people to build these interdependences and recognise them.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Although I agree that for those on the receiving end it makes no material difference, I think motivation is relevant when assessing people's actions.
Someone who opposes equality under the law because it is their firm conviction that sex outside male/female marriage is wrong in God's eyes may well be misguided and wrong but their motivation could be perceived as good.
I've never regarded " . . . but it's my religion!" as a sufficient justification for discriminatory laws. An additional problem is that accepting this dodge implicitly lumps together people like Lord Carey and Halee Gray Scott with folks like Charles Worley and Fred Phelps, who are also motivated by their religious beliefs. And isn't that conflation exactly what Carey and Scott find so objectionable?
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think some of these people are actually quite conflicted over this. They don't want to be unkind to people but they feel that they will have failed God in some way by compromising with the pressure of the prevailing culture if they don't keep to this view. I don't think name calling will change people's views.
As you pointed out, for those on the receiving end it's not the "views" that are problematic, it's the actions. Most unpopular minorities tend to prefer a situation where they have the full protection of the law even if they're disliked over a situation where they're generally liked but live as second-class citizens. In pragmatic terms gaining legal equality is often a lot more achievable than shifting the views of religious zealots.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
The Daily Mash has a good take on this.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Leo, I think it's a pisstake. (The Daily Mash, that is. Carey, unfortunately, wasn't taking the piss.)
[ 10. October 2012, 16:39: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
The Daily Mash is indeed a piss take, showing what an idiot Carey is being. Leo, I think your link was included in the OP, although I could be wrong.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The Daily Mash is indeed a piss take, showing what an idiot Carey is being.
Very effectively, I thought.
I have to admit the Torygraph doesn't really exonerate Carey for the reasons given. Whatever the details of what he said (and perhaps there is no accurate record) it seems a most unfortunate comparison.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What completely mystifies me is that so many conservatives can't see that gays asking for marriage IS a conservative position.
LIBERAL gays just say "Marriage? Pfft. Who wants that stupid outmoded heterosexual institution?"
Some conservatives do get it, I have to say. On several occasions I've seen conservative supporters of gay marriage who understand precisely this point. I recall there was a prominent Republican lawyer involved in the Proposition 8 case in California. And the best expression I've seen here in Australia is from former Senator Amanda Vanstone earlier this year:
quote:
The next point I would make to conservatives – if you believe as I do you should try and look after yourself, be independent and be an individual, then you are going to have to do that with others. You’re going to have to have relationships and admit dependence on other people. That’s what people do when they get married. They say ‘We are going to be dependent on each other’. I think conservatives should welcome more people openly saying ‘I’m going to have a life relationship with this person, we will be dependent on each other, we are going to ask things of each other instead of asking from the State’. I think conservatives should welcome more recognition of interdependence. That’s what society is, otherwise it’s just individuals. I believe in individualism but society has to be more than a bunch of separate individuals and we need to encourage people to build these interdependences and recognise them.
Interestingly, that parallels a speech made by David Cameron, our Conservative Prime Minister, a couple of years back: "I support gay marriage not in spite of the fact that I'm a Conservative, but because I'm a Conservative."
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I've long thought that anyone who wants to reduce spending and the size of government ought to be interested in promoting long-term committed relationships between anyone who freely chooses them. Particularly political and religious conservatives.
Just saying that you don't want someone else to have rights because by doing so would degrade the right that you have just sounds like ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Nobody said you have to like it, Lord Carey et al., but stop moaning about it. Who really cares what you think about the rights of people you-don't-agree-with anyway?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I just don't get it.
"My religion says I shouldn't do X. Therefore no-one should be allowed to do it because it's a Bad Thing."
Thank fuck we don't use that reasoning most of the time - I'm quite keen on pork.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Lord Carey is a bitter old man who wishes he had even half the balls he's apparently discovered now, when he was once in office. He broods over the fact that other people are doing the job now and they aren't doing what he wants, so every now and then he throws all his toys out of his pram like a toddler on a bad acid trip with severe paranoia and self-confidence issues. It's pathetic. He should learn again what the word 'professionalism' means because he has clearly forgotten. He had his day, and now he has to learn what every other blessed human already knows - life moves on; sometimes without you, and sometimes without even caring who you once were. Get the fuck over it.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I have to admit the Torygraph doesn't really exonerate Carey for the reasons given. Whatever the details of what he said (and perhaps there is no accurate record) it seems a most unfortunate comparison.
I was involved in an exchange in Twitter yesterday on this subject. Tom Chivers, normally very sensible, wrote a blog for the Torygraph saying much what you did above, quoting from the Torygraph report. But as I said here, the quote doesn't support their interpretation (although it doesn't refute it either), Chivers has no additional information, and no other source has reported his comments in this way.
Carey usually publishes transcripts of his speeches on his official website, but this one's yet to appear. Until it does, the Torygraph account seems odd and incongruous.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
And that's on top of the obvious incongruity of "anyone who engaged in namecalling is a murderous Nazi".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The most charitable explanation I can think of is this:
Lord Carey is not a hateful or malicious man. He is a member of a tribe of Christian evangelicals, and feels a strong loyalty to the values of that tribe. Two of the things that define those values, and thus represent an important part of his self-identity, are a commitment to the authority of scripture traditionally interpreted, and conservative sexual ethics (AKA ‘family values'). A large part of the increasing acceptance of homosexuality is a result of the erosion of those values. Being against gay marriage is, in the minds of people like Lord Carey, inextricably bound up with being "for" a traditional view of marriage, commitment and family life, "for" a stable society in which Christian belief is respected, "for" an orthodox and obedient approach to the Bible,
That is charitable.
Having said that I am from this evangelical tribe with a commitment to the authority of scriptures and family values, I am for all these things mentioned.
However as far as family values are concerned I see promiscuity as the biggest problem. Marriage is a great thing, I believe that family values will be strengthened if it is available to all, whatever their orientation.
Going back a year or two,
Carey ordained two gay bishops. He was in favour of Jeffrey John becoming a bishop. George Carey is not against Gay people, provided they are celibate.
He is not a bigot, he is a traditionalist.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Going back a year or two, Carey ordained two gay bishops. He was in favour of Jeffrey John becoming a bishop. George Carey is not against Gay people, provided they are celibate.
He is not a bigot, he is a traditionalist.
So he likes gay people who follow orders and know their place? What a mensch! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Have you considered that the bigot/traditionalist thing isn't so much an either/or divide, but rather a both/and combo set?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Going back a year or two,
Carey ordained two gay bishops. He was in favour of Jeffrey John becoming a bishop. George Carey is not against Gay people, provided they are celibate.
He is not a bigot, he is a traditionalist.
The site you linked to is that of a raving homophobe - I only know that because I quoted from it once and someone rapidly put me right.
As for not being a bigot, merely a tradionalist, he said, "Why does it feel to us that our cultural homeland and identity is being plundered?"
Wasn't that what the Nazis said about the Jews?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
For the last few years, every time a story like this comes out I think of Sophia Petrillo--a cultural reference which probably means little to Shipmates not raised on US situation comedies.
Suffice it to say she was a character on the TV series "The Golden Girls". The premise was that she had had a very mild stroke, which was not debilitating but removed every filter between her brain and her mouth.
If Lord Carey were just some old codger in a small English village, no one would pay him one bit of notice--beyond a certain pity that he seemed to be getting crankier and crankier in his declining years. Since he is a former Archbishop, though, there will always be someone wanting to put his words in print--especially if they can use him to do a little pot-stirring.
I don't think they are doing Lord Carey any favors. I don't think they are doing the CofE any favors. I don't think they are doing the current Archbishop or the next Archbishop any favors... In fact, it seems to me the only people benefitting from the publication of his rants are the people who sell manufactured news and outrage.
I wish I could make this sound more charitable and less condescending, but I suppose if I'm going to condescend, I might as well own up to it.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
every now and then he throws all his toys out of his pram like a toddler on a bad acid trip with severe paranoia and self-confidence issues.
Here is his intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the current(?) cases of Eweida, Chaplin, Macfarlane and Ladele v. UK if you want to see a good example of hysterical paranoia, e.g.:
quote:
It is, of course, but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a ‘religious bar’ to any employment by Christians.
There is nothing in the intervention about gay marriage or civil partnerships but paragraph 16 touches on bigotry. It's badly written so its meaning is rather unclear, but it seems to be saying that a bigot is not a bigot as long as they are a Christian bigot.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I think someone who says their own religious group should be organised in a particular traditional way can be described accurately as a traditionalist.
And quite honestly, I can't see why any gay person would want to force a church with a homophobic theology to marry them*
But when you are saying that your own theology means that nobody in the whole country - whether they hold your theology or not - should be able to do the thing that you disapprove of (citing, it seems, your own opinion as evidence in court), then I think that can be accurately described as bigotry.
*of course, this becomes much more complex in a denomination with a wide variety of theological views which is the single established church, I understand that.
[ 11. October 2012, 17:47: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Going back a year or two,
Carey ordained two gay bishops. He was in favour of Jeffrey John becoming a bishop. George Carey is not against Gay people, provided they are celibate.
He is not a bigot, he is a traditionalist.
The site you linked to is that of a raving homophobe - I only know that because I quoted from it once and someone rapidly put me right.
As for not being a bigot, merely a tradionalist, he said, "Why does it feel to us that our cultural homeland and identity is being plundered?"
Wasn't that what the Nazis said about the Jews?
OK. Try this site, Carey ordained two bishops he believed to be gay.
BBC
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
of course, this becomes much more complex in a denomination with a wide variety of theological views which is the single established church, I understand that.
What the church asks its congregations to believe is quite clear.
Issues in sexuality - a statement by the House of Bishops 1991.
This is the official stance. It is linked from the House of Bishops web site front page. (link on the right.) It has been there not only when George Carey was Archbishop of Canterbury, but throughout Rowan Williams primacy as well.
George Carey's public views on Homosexuality are consistent with a document produced when he was Archbishop, which he signed, and which is still recommended by the Church of England. No surprises there. So why the accusations of bigotry?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Maybe because "Issues in Sexuality" is an effectively bigoted document?
And that Lord Carey seems to feel that anyone who says so is leading UK society on the primrose path to fascism?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
George Carey's public views on Homosexuality are consistent with a document produced when he was Archbishop, which he signed, and which is still recommended by the Church of England. No surprises there. So why the accusations of bigotry?
For me that doesn't provide a get out of jail free card for Carey, it means that the official line of the Church of England should get in that jail cell with him.
Basically bigotry is bigotry is bigotry. It is a mindset or action identified as such by the end result. Carey seems to be saying that a secular homophobe and a traditional christian can have exactly the same views about gays and want to give effect to those views in the same way, but whereas the first is a bigot the second is an upstanding follower of the Lord. However, most other people would cry bullshit and say that if it walks like a bigot and quacks like a bigot ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) it almost certainly is a bigot.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Basically bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.
Nope. Try again.
All I am seeing here is people saying, "Carey is a bigot because I say he is," and answer criticism of their view with "bigotry is bigotry is bigotry."
We need a better definition of bigotry than this.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
He can be seen as a bigot when he invokes Godwin's Law.
There is nothing in the argument about how gay people can make a public statement about commitment to each other that requires dragging Nazis/Jews in. Attacking the possible expression of disagreement with you is a sign that you have no acceptable argument to present beyond "But I don't like it".
Unless you have a pretty warped idea of actual people who live near you.
[ 12. October 2012, 00:40: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
Balaam -
pointing us to "Issues in Human Sexuality" does not really help.
I know it has been used as if it were the last word on the subject, and a kind of definitive teaching of the Church of Englad on the sebject. The problem with this view is that the document itself says that it does not think that it is the last word on the subject, nor that everyone in the church will agree with what they write. They simply hope that it will help a process of Christian reflection marked by greater openness and trust on the subject.
What has happened in the last twenty-one years (yes twenty-one) since its publication is that no such process has taken place, but that certain phrases and judgements in Issues have taken on a quasi-official doctrinal status - far greater and far more fixed than their original authors ever intended.
High time to move beyond it.
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
We need a better definition of bigotry than this.
Oh, if only we had, say, a web of information, and it was world-wide... and there was some way to search, or as the kids these days say, "Google"... Then we could, perhaps, type "define bigotry" into the Google and get an answer...
big·ot·ry/ˈbigətrē/
Noun:
Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
And because I know someone's going to kick up a fuss,
tol·er·ance/ˈtälərəns/
Noun: The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with: "religious tolerance"
[ 12. October 2012, 03:55: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
A bit off-topic, but genuine question: why does the OP start,
quote:
A so-called "Lord" of the Realm ...
and why is 'Lord' in the title in inverted commas? To me it suggests that Lord Carey is not really a lord, but he is, surely?
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I suspect the intention is to suggest he is not acting in a manner befitting a Lord.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
What the church asks its congregations to believe is quite clear.
Issues in sexuality - a statement by the House of Bishops 1991.
This is the official stance. It is linked from the House of Bishops web site front page. (link on the right.) It has been there not only when George Carey was Archbishop of Canterbury, but throughout Rowan Williams primacy as well.
George Carey's public views on Homosexuality are consistent with a document produced when he was Archbishop, which he signed, and which is still recommended by the Church of England. No surprises there. So why the accusations of bigotry?
Well I don't think this document accurately describes the variety of opinion in the Anglican church, so that for a start can be seen to be something from one corner of the church imposed on the rest. The matter is clearly not settled and a variety of views and behaviours are tolerated.
Second, even if the process had been exhaustive and everyone had either agreed on a settled view or left the church, that only applies to the Anglican Church.
Bigotry implies taking a minority opinion from within the Anglican church and arguing that it should apply to the whole country.
As I said above, I don't have a particular problem with a religious body prescribing certain behaviours, but what GC seems to be arguing is that he then holds a trump card which should morally prevent the country from awarding rights to others.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Issues in Sexuality is just one of the poisoned chalices with which Carey lumbered the Church of England. The CofE has been been a little bogged down with another of his legacy issues in women priests / bishops and the phrasing in that legislation for the last few years, but the problems with church finances also started under his watch.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Basically bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.
Nope. Try again.
All I am seeing here is people saying, "Carey is a bigot because I say he is," and answer criticism of their view with "bigotry is bigotry is bigotry."
We need a better definition of bigotry than this.
No. I wasn't trying to define bigotry. What I was saying is that whatever the definition it should be applied equally. What you and Carey seem to be argiung is that whatever the definition of bigotry it should have a christianity-shaped hole in it.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
