The text of Lord Harrison’s speech to, and the following debate in, the House of Lords that I mentioned the other day is now available on the Parliament’s publication web site (direct link).

The televised video of Lord Harrison’s speech, and the debate, is also available online (direct link).

I read a part of the debate, from the archbishop of York, and I can’t disagree strongly enough (my emphasis):

Twenty-seven years ago I was chaplain to a young offenders remand centre, Latchmere House. Every inmate was asked to declare his religious affiliation, and four young men were registered as having no religion. One Sunday, all the inmates were offered the chance to go to worship. The four young men with no religion declined the offer, while their fellow inmates on the A wing took up the offer. The prison officer, not wanting the four men to remain locked up in their cells, asked them to clean the toilets on the wing. The following Sunday, our four non-religious young men took up the offer to go to worship. The prison officer was puzzled why they had opted in this week. “Why are you going to chapel?” he asked. The four replied, “Sir, we didn’t like the ‘No Religion’ place of worship”. Crudely as they put it, those four young men were saying in their naivety that we are all essentially religious. The question is not whether we worship, but rather one of who or what do we worship.
John Sentamu, archbishop of York

I think that the archbishop would find that, instead of worshipping the toilet, they were cleaning it as asked, and were exposed to the unpleasant odours and environment that those comfortably sat in a chapel were not. I expect that, given the choice of kneeling on tiles scrubbing porcelain or quietly sitting in a cosy chapel for a couple of hours, I should choose the latter.

Crudely as they put it, they were saying that they would rather not be relegated to the toilets if they have a choice of venue, even if they don’t have a belief in a magical sky man to grovel and supplicate themselves to. This doesn’t make them religious, you scarlet-clad buffoon, it makes them sensible.

Sentamu’s had twenty-seven years to think about this, and he still doesn’t get it? I read this ten minutes ago, and I can see it! And this guy is helping make laws? Un-fucking-believable.

He also said:

“We can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common line is that we all inhabit this small planet. We breathe the same air; we all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal”.

So said J.F. Kennedy in his commencement address at American University on 10 June 1963, and I agree with him.

Call be paranoid, but for some reason, I don’t think he does. Sentamu was one of the most high-profile vocal proponents of allowing the catholics to discriminate against homosexuals, as recently discussed in Parliament. This is most certainly not help[ing] make the world safe for diversity. On the contrary, he considers the kind of ‘diversity’ as exemplified by homosexuals as something to be expunged, not embraced.

Sentanu closes with what appears to be a quote from Lord Denning, repeating that overly worn fiction that there’s no morality without religion:

The severance of law from morality and of religion from law has, “gone much too far. Although religion, law and morals can be separated, they are nevertheless still very much dependent on one another. Without religion, there can be no morality, there can be no law”. So said Lord Denning.

I guess there’s nothing like purple robes and matching tinted glasses to allow one to see what one wants to see, while completely ignoring reality, sense and reason.

This entry was posted Saturday, April 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm and is filed under . You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.