Comments on: It shouldn’t take a Pope

By: Ant

Ant — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:59:41 +0000

Jesus replied: Mine is not a kingdom of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my men would have fought to prevent my being surrendered to the Jews. As it is, my kingdom does not belong here’. Pilate said, ‘So, then you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘It is you who say that I am a king, I was born for this, I came into the world for this, to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.’ “Truth?” said Pilate, “What is that?” And so saying he went out again to the Jews and said, ‘I find no case against him’ (John 18:35-39)

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:39:19 +0000

neither article was brilliant to be honest. O’Neill’s is probably slightly better because Phillips suffers from her Humanist bias.

By: CUs and the freedom of association and assembly « Confessions of an Undercover Theologian

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:16:46 +0000

[...] the related issue of Pope Benedict’s remarks about the Equality Bill Brendan O’Neil argues: …freedom of association, freedom of religion and the right to organise politically are, by [...]

By: FrankFisher

FrankFisher — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:41:41 +0000

Society needs anti-discrimination laws.

Why?

Inevitably, these will come into conflict at some points with specific viewpoints and beliefs. But the anti-discrimination laws are general, pertaining to all. O’Neill is arguing for widespread special pleading for minority beliefs, which is absurd.

It is absurd – which is why the way to deal with this is not to provide religious exemptions, but to remove the bad laws altogether. The State shouldn’t be telling anyone who they should employ, respect, agree with… It’s nothing to do with government. We’ve got caught up in this ugly farce of equality enforced by the threat of jail, and we call this liberal? Eh?

I wrote about this here: http://www.frankfisher.org/?p=167

By: The state cannot dictate people’s beliefs « Orwell's Dreams

The state cannot dictate people’s beliefs « Orwell's Dreams — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:29:33 +0000

[...] Source: Index On Censorship [...]

By: Dick Kennedy

Dick Kennedy — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:56:31 +0000

Brendan O’Neill makes a nice case – that is totally disconnected from reality. Just how far should someone’s beliefs allow them to go in pursuing their prejudices? By O’Neill’s reasoning, it would be okay for a fundamentalist to murder abortion doctors.

Of course, it’s not okay. So, is it okay for, say, a religious organisation to fire a clerk or cleaner who admits to being homosexual?

Society needs anti-discrimination laws. Inevitably, these will come into conflict at some points with specific viewpoints and beliefs. But the anti-discrimination laws are general, pertaining to all. O’Neill is arguing for widespread special pleading for minority beliefs, which is absurd.

By: El Guerrero del Interfaz

El Guerrero del Interfaz — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:01:29 +0000

So defending the “right” to discriminate against other people is the same as defending freedom and liberty?

Typical religious “reasoning”…

Sorry but the Pope wants to be able to discriminate gays due to his religious prejudices. That’s fighting *against* the rights of gays and thus *against* freedom and liberty. You got it all upside-down Brendan.

By: The right to believe is not the same as the right to do | HumanistLife

The right to believe is not the same as the right to do | HumanistLife — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:09:04 +0000

[...] article is also published at Index or Censorship in a head-to-head with Brendan O’Neil. VN:F [1.8.0_1031]adding your feedback…Rating: 0.0/10 [...]

By: Today’s Catholic must-reads « Editor's Briefing

Today’s Catholic must-reads « Editor's Briefing — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:03:01 +0000

[...] Britain’s equality laws have inspired a deluge of comment from Jonathan Sacks, Andrew Pierce, Brendan O’Neill, Christopher Howse, the Guardian, Catherine Pepinster, Martin Salter and Simon [...]

By: Peter Brown

Peter Brown — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:44:46 +0000

“Free expression”? you don’t know the meaning of the concept. your arrogance towards the Pope is typical secular ignorance and therefore short sited. God forbid that agressive secularism should ever influence politices in our Christian nation. That would be worth a revolution for freedom.