The movement of emancipation

January 29, 2014 at 11:17 am (religion, Rosie B)

Further to Jim’s piece taking apart Christina Odone’s lament about religious beliefs not being given their due weight in public life, I’d like to draw attention to this in the SkepticLawyer:-

Christina Odone, former deputy editor of The New Statesman, in the course of arguing that religious believers are being pushed out of public life by a new intolerance, drew attention to the Law Society revoking permission for a conference on traditional marriage to be held on its premises.

Suppose it had been a conference on the need to reinstate traditional legal prohibitions on Jews. Or Catholics. Would it then have been unreasonable for the Law Society to say that you can not hold such a conference on our premises?

Suppose it was a conference on the need to revoke voting rights for women? Or re-impose coverture marriage? (Which was, after all, for centuries the “traditional” form of marriage under English law.) For what group does opposition to equal protection of the law become an acceptable conference subject matter for the Law Society to provide a venue for? Would Ms Odone care to specify?

….

Almost certainly, it does not occur to Ms Odone that there is any parallel with coverture marriage, or the controversy over Jewish emancipation, etc. But, of course, that is precisely what is going on. Indeed, the fight over queer emancipation is almost completely a re-run of the fight over Jewish emancipation, with exactly the same arguments being run — they are offensive to God, giving them legal equality goes against the authority of Scripture and Western tradition, they will corrupt any institution they are allowed into, they prey on minors, they are predatory recruiters, they spread disease — and almost exactly the same fault lines showing up in social debate.

Do read the whole thing.

4 Comments

  1. The movement of emancipation | OzHouse said,

    […] Jan 29 2014 by admin […]

  2. Mike Killingworth said,

    Are you saying that the rights of group X (or perhaps the rights of the individuals in group X) should always have precedence over those who deny those rights?

    If so, let X be those Muslims who believe that they can only practice their religion fully in a country in which Islamic Law holds sway. Does that change your answer?

    If so, will you admit that your view on the rights of group X depends on your view of group X, and more particularly on the extent to which the beliefs of group X interfere with what lawyers call your “quiet enjoyment”?

  3. apache2 said,

    Religion is the opium of the people 2 once missionaries get to Africa the people had the land and the pilgrims had the biles yr later the “Settlers owned Most of the Land and the Mandingoes Had the Bible james Baldwin the Fire Next time – 3 Marism is a Useful Tool ‘ mao ze dong James L Vietnam veterean 66-67 washn dc Cooks Can Govern” C.L R. James

  4. R F McCarthy (@RF_McCarthy) said,

    Odone’s whole career has been one long troll and we’d be better off not feeding her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 504 other followers

%d bloggers like this: