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:
Post a Comment