[BITList] racism hale and hearty in louisiana

[HUGH]

Colin,

I was going to say such a clown wouldn't get the time of day over here, then I thought for a bit - and it came to me that the same mind set can be seen over here in a different context. I preface the following by saying my attitude to homosexuality is that I'll start worrying about it if it ever becomes compulsory.  But I don't like Elton John.

Persons in Scotland paid to perform civil marriages became obligated to perform civil "unions" (I can't recall what they're called) between same-sex individuals when a law was passed recognising such arrangements, and the same thing happened - one or two reckoned their personal views wouldn't allow them to carry out such.  I don't recall their views prevailing.  In a slightly different way the notion that personal views take precedence over obligations can be seen in other spheres, and succeeding.  A teetotal Muslim (I know some who are not) was excused handling alcohol in a supermarket because he didn't want to handle it. His excuse was that his religion made it impossible for him to handle it, but I disallow bullshit about religious views, the bottom line is what he, being a free agent, chose to believe should be his personal attitude to coming near alcohol in bottles and cans.  He didn't want to do the job he was paid to do, ie, he wanted special treatment, and he got it.  This is thin-end-of -the-wedge stuff.  A current and related issue in Scotland centres on the sexual orientation of ministers of the Church of Scotland.  A few months back, a congregation issued a call to a male minister whom they knew to be in a live-in relationship with a man, and le ordure hit the fan and no mistake.  Those opposed to the idea made loud noises, and the matter went to the General Assembly where a decision was shelved pending a 2 year moratorium on its discussion.  The congregation went ahead with their end of things, and the minister was duly inducted into the charge by Presbytery.  There followed a small number of resignations of ministers and much publicity about a group calling themselves The Fellowship of Confessing Churches.  This group are agin many things, including the idea of homosexual ministers, and to date 46 churches of the C of S have joined it in protest against the above. A schism threatens. They all agree that no homosexual minister will darken their door and, like the Muslim shopworker, they say their holy book enjoins them to adopt that stance.  So what next, now that the wedge is in place?  How long before they exclude or disbar known or suspected homosexual members?  Divorced members? Members suspected of heresy? Members who have read The Origin of Species? It's only 300 years since their similarly bigoted predecessors hanged a young lad in public for alleged heresy, so maybe I should watch my back on Sunday.

The only time my personal views ever got in the way of what someone else saw as my duty was when I declined to go into a crankcase at sea with the turning gear out, on the grounds that such a move might be my last. The Chief (not BI), whose idea it was that I should go in and hammer test nuts, went in and did the job himself with much huffing and puffing.  At the time I wondered why only the Chief and 2nd were involved in such a mundane task, but such questions are never answered.  At least I didn't quote the Bible at him.

Hugh.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/pipermail/bitlist/attachments/20091017/a335027c/attachment.shtml