Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Her membership of Opus Dei would increase the likelihood that she does think its a sin.
Hell, putting her in charge of something like this is like putting Russ in charge of the dept of fossils at some university...(no offence Russ)
|
If I might answer on Russ' behalf ... we don't believe fossils are wrong, we just believe the generally accepted chronology that surrounds them is wrong. It would be more akin to putting Russ (or me) in charge of using the fossils to compile an exhibition about evolution.
Nevertheless, I hope that either of us would be able to do that. After all, while it may be the general consensus, it is still only a theory. I would be happy to curate such a display and to ensure it is described accurately (and by that I don't mean I would insist on mentioning the alternative as well, just that I would not present as fact what is merely theory).
I think this illustrates Ruth Kelly's position nicely. You simply cannot go around vetting people on all their personal opinions before giving them jobs. Otherwise where would it end? There are committed members of various religions in the Commons. Should they be barred as MPs, for fear they might be unable to represent constituents of a different religion?
And if Kelly does consider homosexuality to be a sin - and let's face it, she probably does, as Opus Dei is a fundamentalist expression of Christianity - that does not mean she is incapable of distinguishing between what she thinks of what someone does, and whether she thinks they have the right to do it.