Gordon Wilson clearly thinks some things are more important than Scotland's independence. So do I, but in my case it's the right of democratically elected politicians not to be intimidated by doctrinaire holders of archaic beliefs trying to blur the vital separation between Church and State.
And having been married in a kirk almost 52 years ago, I feel in no danger of having my marriage vows 'tainted' by two people of the same sex in love wishing to have a civil ceremony legally recognised as marriage to unite them, and to have it solemnised as such by churches and ministers of religion who are willing - not compelled - to do so.
There is a ‘taint’ here – it is the taint to democratic politics of a minority holding dogmatic religious beliefs attempting to impose their own narrow views on individuals and, in the main, a society that does not share them. It is an unwelcome echo of the 17th century Kirk and even more ancient world intolerances that society in the 21st century has long since left behind – almost …
Very, very disappointed with Gordon Wilson.
ReplyDeleteI hope our government give these people short shrift - for the first time in my life I agree with Katie Grant who points out that the wild language of Wilson & the Catholic church can only alienate ordinary church goers.
Gordon Wilson is simply making his contribution to the debate, not imposing his views on others. You don't like his contributions -fine. I don't expect he likes yours. But to pretend that any interpretation of the 'vital separation of church and state' would ban a former leader of the SNP from having his say is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGordon Wilson, like everyone else in a democracy, has an individual vote, and may choose to run for elected office if he chooses. He may express his personal views fully through these mediums, as may other religious leaders.
ReplyDeleteThat is not what he and Cardinal O'Brien - and the Kirk - are doing: they are demanding that their personal religious beliefs are reflected in the law of the land and applied to those who do not share their beliefs to restrict their legal rights, and they are doing this by a piece of special interest group pressure, and thinly veiled threats.
There is no democracy in the Catholic Church, nor the Muslim faith - they do not consult or vote - and only a pale shadow of any such process exists in the Kirk. All the evidence of opinion polls suggest that these church leaders are not even representative of a majority of their own believers, never mind those of no religious faith.
Scotland, in common with other Western countries, has been moving steadily for centuries away from the insidious influence of established religion and narrow, pernicious doctrines on the secular state, the appalling results of which are a matter of historical record.
For those who claim unelected moral leadership, to be obsessed with their own doctrinaire sexual hangups, at a time when the country faces enormous challenges to the welfare of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society is a strange sense of moral priorities.
But there is a democratic process at work, one in which they can participate in a less strident, confrontational manner - a process of consultation on whether a bill to change this regressive legal relic of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be submitted to the Scottish Parliament, followed by a free vote in the Scottish Parliament.
Thanks, TartanSeer!
ReplyDeletePeter
I could only bring myself to listen to about half the interview with Wilson.
ReplyDeleteI am disappointed that he chooses to lead some sort of religious coalition, thus making the inevitable bill that will be supported (as far as I understand it by all parties unless Labour manifest their gutless character that fears losing votes by doing the right thing) an SNP attack.
If this put the Scots of independence then they don't deserve it.
The SNP will make the right decision which most people agree with - just as long as they don't force religious organisations to perform ceremonies as that would btaking their freedom away.
That explicit assurance has already been given, Stevie, and it is a ludcirous red herring by religious groups to suggest that it was ever remotely a possibility.
ReplyDeletePeter - why give it space on your blog?
ReplyDeleteI believe such things need to be challenged at an early stage, Barontorc, and that silence is not an option.
ReplyDelete