God! I thought I had got over this fellow's witterings.
Yesterday he wades into the debate about a gay Church of Scotland minister who is suffering some opposition to him taking up his new appointment in Aberdeen and comes up with this nonsense:
"As far as I am aware, within most religious circles it is (to put it mildly) frowned upon to be gay. A dead homosexual approaching St Peter at the gates of heaven will have his or her angel wings on a very shoogly peg, or so the apparent religious teachings would have us believe, Church of Scotland included.
"So if religion is inflexible in its intolerance of homosexuality, why should it be any more flexible in its intolerance of homosexual clergymen?
"Centuries old religion isn't the kind of thing you get involved with to try to change from within like your local Rotary Society. If you don't like the rules, join a different club.
"I'm with the conservative religious zealots on this one, and that's saying something!"
- actually, it's not saying anything we didn't already know - that he's highly prejudiced on this topic. As for the sentence "If you don't like the rules, join a different club.", if this idiotic statement was to be taken seriously, and applied, then folks like him wouldn't be supporting a fundamental change in our 'club' (aka 'The United Kingdom') by supporting the SNP aim of independence, they'd be going somewhere else and setting up their own 'club', just like the Pilgrim Fathers (also religious obsessives, of course) did some centuries ago. Again by this idiotic argument we'd still have slavery today - it's like something out of the script of Pleasantville where the burghers of that fine town believed in the 'non-changeist view of society'. Now I don't share the views of SNP supporters, that's no secret, but I don't dismiss their [to me 'crackpot'] ideas by telling them to cease and desist and go someplace else, just because I happen to disagree with them.
He told us last year he's a teensy-weensy bit 'homophobic' - I'd say it's rather [a lot] more than that. See the follow-up post to that one, too. And as usual with this person, when challenged by a commenter, he quickly admits how half-baked are his arguments (and not just on 'gay issues', but a whole lot more besides) and how IGNORANT he is - and he sure is! It truly astonishes me how much he is respected as a blogger. He tells us he is an accountant and prides himself on his statistical prowess, which he uses to try and forecast electoral outcomes - fair enough, good show ol' bean. However on a lot of matters where opinions and half-decently thought-through ideas are concerned, well I'm afraid he's basically a modern-day version of Alf Garnett, but this time with tartan trews. I hadn't been aware of his religion until recently, but he revealed here that he is in fact a Roman Catholic - this may help to explain some of his core beliefs, I suppose. Granted he is open about some of his prejudices and for that I applaud him [no, really], but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore his basic prejudices when evaluating his seemingly oh-so-rational arguments.
I was brought up in the Church of Scotland, as it so happens, although I have a pretty mixed family background in religious terms, but I realised I did not believe in 'sky fairies' a long time ago. Quite apart from the fact I'm a gay man, I also sometimes wear clothing made of two different types of thread and do love a plate of oysters - watch this if you wonder why all this is relevant. If a religious organisation wants to proselytise any sort of weird idea, fair enough, provided they keep out of matters affecting an individual's rights in civil society, such as in this case employment matters or other fundamental rights; the Church of Scotland is very anxious to retain its charitable status (which inevitably affects me as a tax-payer) so I think, quite frankly, they should consider very carefully how they deal with employment matters. Why should it get a free ride if it allows prejudiced employment practices in its own organisation?
Now, should I press the 'publish' button on this ad hominem diatribe I've just written? Probably not, but I've had just about enough of pig-ignorance masquerading as sweet reason from this guy, so I'm letting my baser instincts have the say on this. No doubt I'll be back for more in due course, unfortunately, the next time something he writes causes a 'jaw-drop' reaction on the part of this particular reader.
PS/ (added 7 June 2009) As a belated postscript, a commenter has said this about me:
- I don't deny it, and frankly in the case of not-so-subtle homophobes such as the subject of this article, and his apologists, being 'awkward' and 'hard work' is a positive necessity! To be clear, I regret not one word of what I have written here and I think my interpretation of the comments is absolutely 'spot on'. And this is my blog so I am totally unapologetic about having the last word here on this matter as the comments are now beyond the period when all require my prior approval before appearing.