If you ever want to get seriously pissed off at the editors of the Op/Ed page of your local paper, make sure they subscribe to the editorial nonsense spouted by Cal Thomas. If I see his column in the paper, I read it when I’m feeling depressed, or tired, or just plain lackadaisical, because I know, for certain, that whatever blatherskite nonsense he is spewing, it’s guaranteed to boil my blood, make my head spin, or otherwise elevate my consciousness into outer space. He’s really just that plain stupid.
His column today is no exception. He focuses on England in the column, apparently feeling it is his Christian duty to further the libel that Christians are an oppressed people.
Nowhere does Britain’s breakdown and loss of direction appear with greater clarity than in the inconsistent ways the courts are treating faith. A nation that has had its ups and down with religion throughout its long history — and is now challenged over how to accommodate its growing Muslim population — appears openly hostile to anything that resembles Christianity and the dwindling number of church-goers who still practice that faith.
As proof, he cites three cases.
The first involves an employment tribunal ruling that held that a bishop of the Church of England discriminated against a homosexual man for asking about his sexual practices in the course of his employment interview seeking a job as a “youth worker”, whatever that might be in England. Mr. T’s problem?
The British media are full of stories about pedophiles, as they have been about Catholic priests, who have preyed upon young boys. In rational times, the sexual behavior of one applying for a youth worker position might seem a plausible line of questioning, but these are not rational times.
Hmmm. Homosexuals=pedophiles. Who is perpetuating stereotypes here? I’ll give you a hint: It’s not the employment tribunal. This gives incredible insight into the mind of the religious, and their pervasive, single-minded, simple-minded focus on gays, gay rights, gay marriage, or anything smacking of boy/boy or girl/girl relationships. Let’s get this straight right now. GAYS ARE NOT PEDOPHILES! They prefer to have sex with someone who shares the same genitalia, not with children. What an ignoramus.
I would bet that the bishop does not habitually grill heterosexual applicants for two hours about their sexual practices or previous sexual relationships. And if he doesn’t the tribunal was justified in finding discrimination, because the definition of discrimination is treating one group different than another, based on nothing other than race, creed, color, gender or sexual preferences.
By the way. The applicant didn’t get the job.
Bishop Priddis told the Daily Mail that it was not a case of discrimination, but that he “vetoed the appointment because Mr. Reaney was having sex outside marriage.” Priddis said he was simply following the teachings of the Church.
Nothing like a good old religious dogma to circumvent a discrimination charge.
The next example cited by good ol’ Cal is that of 16 year old Lydia Playfoot, who was prohibited by her school from wearing a chastity ring, also known as a purity ring. If you’re wondering what that is, it is a symbol concocted by the Silver Ring Thing here in the states to show the world that the wearer is a virgin, and intends to stay that way until she meets Mr. Right(‘s penis), so help her God. The school, however, has rules about what may be worn in school, and makes exceptions for legitimate expressions of one’s faith, but apparently this was not one of them. The Court agreed, and ordered the Playfoot family to reimburse the school for £12,000 worth of attorneys fees.
So Cal conveniently forgets to mention the little bit about the ring contravening school policy, instead focusing on how this poor downtrodden Christian was unable to express her faith. And as a result, Britain is going down the hopper.
The Court saved a diseased bull from slaughter, because it was worshiped by the local Hindu population. It was infected with Bovine Tuberculosis, and according to health regulations, it should be destroyed, but the big bad court saved it on religious grounds. Of course, an appellate court later reversed, and the bull was destroyed, but that should not get in the way of Christian denticle gnashing and breast beating.
What? You ask why this was cited as an example of oppression of the Christian faith? Well, it’s obvious isn’t it? I mean anyone can see that Christians should be offended because…ummm… well, err….well, just because. Clearly, if it had been a Christian lamb being led to slaughter, we’d be having lamb chops before you finished reading this, right? So there!
OK. So it has nothing to do with Christianity. Shoot me. When you look at it closely, neither does Cal’s column. Mr. Thomas says, “Britain is broken”. I think it’s his thinking that’s broken. It’s just one more long defense of something that needs no defense.
Britain may be having problems, but oppression of Christians isn’t one of them.