David Cameron thinks that faith schools should not be allowed to teach that homosexuality is a sin, according to a quote unearthed by the Daily Mail.
The would-be Prime Minister made the inflammatory remark during an interview with a gay lifestyle magazine ahead of the last general election.
According to the Daily Mail’s Andrew Pierce, when Mr Cameron was asked if faith schools should stop teaching that homosexuality is a sin, he said: “Basically, yes, that’s the short answer to that, without getting into a long religious exegesis.
15 Comments
If the Conservative Party was smart, they'd replace this guy with a REAL conservative.
Now hold on. Cameron merely said he didn't think they should do it. That's very different from saying they shouldn't be ALLOWED to do it.
This is the sort of dishonest scare-mongering that makes it hard to take claims of religious persecution seriously. You can only cry wolf so many times.
There is no ambiguity here.
Cameron is an explicit and public advocate of the suppression of the Christian religion.
What are the Catholic bishops in the UK prepared to do about this?
No ambiguity, Rick? The article appears to twist a statement that schools should not do something into a statement that schools should no be allowed to do it. The later would be suppression; the former is not.
Yes hear this Rick, you are quite correct in this matter.
@Hear This,
You are being blatantly disingenuous. Cameron so much as stated that he did not believe a Christian based institution should be professing its beliefs to its congregation. People choose to send their children to Christian schools in order to ensure their children - their children; not the States - are taught in accordance with their faith.
And let’s not get into the fact that Christian beliefs are consistent with the laws of nature; as opposed to the pseudo science you are pimping as the truth according to you so help you you.
Yet another reason for mothers & fathers to teach their children to read & understand the content of the scriptures. Can't leave that responsibility to others. But religious schools have the right to teach from their holy writ.
Randy, nothing in your reply to me establishes that Cameron doesn't think schools schools be ALLOWED to teach that homosexuality is a sin. He does think it's wrong for then to do so, but that's not the same thing at all.
Meanwhile, I'm curious about this "pseudo science" you claim I'm "pimping." Can you provide a quote of me doing such a thing?
I had 12 years of Catholic education - 8 years under the dedicated Dominican Sisters and 4 under the great Jesuit Fathers. I was never taught homosexuality was a sin. Most religious teachers understand that people are born homosexual. We live in a diverse world. Our diversity is a reflection on the Lord's face.
@Hear This
"Cameron merely said he didn't think they should do it. That's very different from saying they shouldn't be ALLOWED to do it. "
That's all it starts with. First it's a suggestion then they decide to push for it.
"...to ensure their children - their children; not the States - are taught in accordance..."
That about says it all King.
And ironic when you think that the only children same-sex couples would ever be able to parent would be "State children". Conceived into that same-sex couple by the State; and never by the independent and natural state - of making-love.
@Hear this,
You have to be basing your opinions on something other than the actuals because the actuals do not substantiate your rediculous assertions to the contrary.
Randy and Zack you both are so right and Hear This is full of it. What this Prime Minister wants is to ban Christian religious freedom and take away your freedom of private property.
The PM is a politician. He said his answer is, no, religious schools should be silent on the religion's teachings on human sexuality.
He wualified that with his not getting into religious exegesis.
Did I mention that Cameron is the PM?He is a politician with governing authority. If he merely thinks that religious schools should not teach religious teachings and he said this as a private citizenwould his answer be any more defensible?
Well, the short answer, without a long political exegisis, is no.
He made a blanket statement about relligious schools. He is not believable in trying to hide behind a supposed religious exegisis for all these religions. That was a phony stance.
He spoke as PM. He spoke as the PM in favor of pro-gay bigoted government policies. His own cabinet members have proposed policy changes along the lines of the PM's answer.
So the "Hear this" commenter is making a distinction that does not rescue Cameron's statist and bigoted answer.
Note that Cameron's answer was volunteered. He could have deferred as any successful politician knows how to do. E was making a political point as a governmental authority. Not so cryptically.
Hear This, please plainly state if you agree with the PM in either case:. Allowed? Should?
Note that the question is not either/or. The question is twofold. If you can't justify the distinction between allowed and should, then, your remarks here don't merit the attention you thought.
If you don't bother to answer this query, fine, you'd abandon your attempted distraction.
Do you hear that?