Friday, 18 January 2013


I'm listening to Any Questions and the nonsense objections to “gay marriage”.
Someone just accused the government of picking a fight “with people of faith”.
That's an interesting phrase: people of faith. What does that mean?
I can't make my argument based just on what I have heard here on this programme because I have heard relatively little of it.
What I am doing here is slightly dodgy in that I am referring to what I have heard here and there; but maybe I can deal with that after.
It seems to me that the phrase can bring together quite different belief sets. It would link those of believe in transubstantiation and those who do not, for instance. I pick that because it is such a wide difference. I was brought up to believe in transubstantiation... It was taught at my school, a roman catholic school later closed because it was such a shambles (I simplify)
Why, I wonder, did they not teach that the world is flat? or that there are four elements: earth, air, fire and water?
But, I believe the (ad hoc) argument runs, that we should take notice of people who believe in, for instance, transubstantiation because those who believe in transubstantiation and those who do not believe in it but do believe similarly unprovable things are in agreement on something else.
Quakers, I think, would have no problem with gay marriage. Are they not people who have faith? I know many Quakers and doubt they would miss a breath at the idea.
And also I believe it is NOT all people of faith.
For instance, I have been accused of being a person of faith though my faith would be in the unbelievability of most of the others. Recently I heard on the radio someone or other dismissed the idea of faiths that are not well-established being considered as faiths in this context. Whatever that context is. It's all a bit vague.
I think a person of faith has to be seen as powerful to be treated in this special way, along with those of us who refer to logic and evidence. That's how the dungheads think, I believe!

No comments: