tomroyal.com

I don't often find myself swearing at the TV news - no, actually that's a lie, and I very often find myself swearing at the TV news, for various reasons - but this story pisses me off even more than usual. Quotes from the employment tribunal who decided that a registrar was unduly discriminated against after she refused to preside over civil partnerships:

The panel said: "Islington Council rightly considered the importance of the right of the gay community not to be discriminated against but did not consider the right of Miss Ladele as a member of a religious group.

"It decided that the service it provided was secular and that the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community must be protected.

"In so acting, Islington Council took no notice of the rights of Miss Ladele by virtue of her orthodox Christian beliefs."

So, by virtue of this, should I have the right to refuse to interview white/black/Asian/female/male/gay/straight/whatever people for my reporting because an invisible yet all powerful figure whose existence is very far from proven - let's say I believe in a kind of omnipotent yet strangely prejudiced Care Bear, perhaps - tells me that I should behave that way? Should I bollocks.

It's another example of the idiotic idea that having faith is in some way virtuous, regardless of what it is you have faith in. What if I had faith that apartheid was a good thing? Or faith in Satan, maybe - should I be allowed to wreak havoc at work in the name of doing his evil deeds? The whole outcome of this case is imbecilic.

Currently reading this. It's an interesting idea and engagingly written, with the possible exception of one chapter in which the author suffers from a minor bout of Gonzo and attempts to stop the crucifiction from taking place in a passion play. In any case, a later chapter mentions this review (currently offline at TNR's site, so sorry for the odd link). Quote:

"Unlike people from religious traditions with long histories of involvement with politics, evangelicals have no firm foundation in history, theology, or experience against which they can judge the words that so easily come out of the mouths of politicians. Sincerity, for them, is everything, which is another way of saying that facts are nothing."

I think this is the one of the more convincing theories I've read to address the seeming concern of many American voters with good intentions rather than good actions; the impulse that drives people to judge leaders based on the idea that they seem to have meant well, rather than the manifest evidence that, however well intentioned they may be, they're leading us into mayhem.