The clarity of his teaching makes me glad to be a Dubliner...

... and even gladder to be a Catholic. Not.

This story courtesy of Novus Ordo Catholic World News, and is Melancholicus’ first hosting of a story from that source since it was ‘renewed’ by its owners back in August:

Irish archbishop denies disagreement within hierarchy on civil partnerships

December 01, 2008

After Dublin's Archbishop Diarmuid Martin said that the Irish episcopal conference had not expressed an opinion on proposed legislation allowing civil partnerships for same-sex couples, the Irish Times saw "significant differences" between Ireland's two leading Catholic prelates on the issue. Archbishop Martin took issue with that analysis.

Cardinal Sean Brady of Armagh had earlier delivered a stern warning against legislation that could undermine traditional marriage. Archbishop Martin said that other bishops agreed with the cardinal but "may have said it in different ways." The Dublin archbishop added that while opposing same-sex marriage, Church leaders were "not against other forms of intimacy." The Irish Times saw "significant differences of emphasis" in the archbishop's statement.

In a prompt reply to the Irish Times, Archbishop Martin decried what he said was "false interpretation" of his public remarks, and emphasized that he was "supportive of the basic content of Cardinal Brady's position." The archbishop went on to say that the relevant Christian teaching begins with an emphasis on the fundamental importance of marriage, but added: "I am fully aware of the need to protect the rights of a variety of people in caring and dependent relationships, different to marriage."

The offending article by Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs correspondent for the Irish Times:

Bishops differ over emphasis on civil unions

PATSY McGARRY Religious Affairs Correspondent

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES of emphasis among Ireland's Catholic bishops on the Civil Partnership Bill have emerged.

Yesterday, the Archbishop of Dublin Most Rev Diarmuid Martin said that, while he didn't feel any of his fellow bishops were opposed to what Cardinal Seán Brady said about the Bill at the recent Céifin conference in Ennis, they might have said it differently.

"We haven't expressed an opinion as an Episcopal Conference (on the Bill)," he said. "I don't think anyone in the conference is against what Cardinal Brady said, but they may have said it in different ways."

The Archbishop also said that while the Catholic Church favoured marriage, "it is not against other forms of intimacy".

Catholic teaching "is linked to the complementarity of the sexes", he said, "and this was not something it was possible for any individual to change. It is part of the order of things since Creation." He noted that while "the Catholic Church is in favour of marriage, it is not against other forms of intimacy". He added that "consistently, all Christian churches emphasise the uniqueness of marriage based on the complementarity of the sexes", but they addressed other forms of intimacy on other bases.

Archbishop Martin was speaking at a press conference in Maynooth yesterday which was also attended by the Bishop of Down and Connor, Most Rev Noel Traenor. It took place as the three-day winter meeting of the Irish Episcopal Conference was under way. It ends today.

In his address to the Céifin conference on November 4th, Cardinal Brady indicated that the Government could face a legal challenge if the Civil Partnership Bill became law. "Those who are committed to the probity of the Constitution, to the moral integrity of the word of God and to the precious human value of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of society may have to pursue all avenues of legal and democratic challenge to the published legislation if this is the case," he said.

The Bill was "perhaps the greatest revolution in the history of the Irish family" and the Government was obliged by the Constitution to guard the institution of marriage "with special care", he said.

The Civil Partnership Bill is expected to become law next year and will give greater protection to cohabiting and same-sex couples in areas such as pensions, inheritance and tax. Cardinal Brady said a complete assessment could not be made until the legislation was published, but that it appeared the Government was prepared to grant to cohabiting and same-sex couples the status of marriage in all but name. Apart from the restrictions on adoption by same-sex couples, "it is difficult to see how anything other than the introduction of de facto marriage for cohabiting and same-sex couples is envisaged", he said.

The cardinal said he found it "remarkable" that "Ireland looks set to repeat the mistakes of societies like Britain and the US by introducing legislation which will promote cohabitation, remove most incentives to marry and grant same-sex couples the same rights as marriage in all but adoption".

He said one in four children of cohabiting parents experienced family breakdown before they started school, compared to just one in 10 children of married parents. "Other studies in Britain and the US suggest that children born outside of marriage are more likely to do worse at school, suffer poorer health and are more likely to face problems of unemployment, drugs and crime," he said.

What was it Melancholicus said yesterday about his local ordinary? If memory serves me rightly, I believe it included the words ‘equivocating’, ‘double-tongued’, ‘politicised’ and ‘careerist’ among sundry other unflattering epithets. But whatever else might be said against Melancholicus on that account, he cannot be accused of having not given all sides in this instance a fair hearing. So he invites his readers to decide. Was Mr. McGarry, or was he not, justified in drawing the inferences he did after his Grace’s ambiguous ramblings on marriage and sexual intimacy at that press conference in Maynooth? The answer to this question hinges on whether his Grace of Dublin expressed himself and expounded Catholic teaching on the subject clearly and forthrightly; my lord archbishop’s words were obviously so clear and forthright as to necessitate the sending perforce to D’Olier street of a letter exculpating himself of any pastoral negligence in an attempt to explain his position.

His Grace of Dublin’s response, in the letters section of the same newspaper:

Archbishop and civil unions

Madam, - I have received a number of calls from people who feel that my remarks, as presented in your report of November 26th, "Bishops differ over emphasis on civil unions", seem to indicate that I do not accept Catholic teaching on marriage.

I was responding to a series of questions from journalists regarding a variety of aspects of the forthcoming Civil Partnership Bill. It is possible that the manner in which my different remarks appeared may have given rise to false interpretation.

While saying that I might have addressed the theme differently, I did clearly say that I was supportive of the basic content of Cardinal Brady's position on the Bill and of his comments at the recent Céifin conference.

Above all my remarks wished to stress that the Christian teaching on marriage, rather than starting out from negative criticisms, is a positive endorsement of the unique and irreplaceable contribution to society made by the family based on marriage, that is, on the mutual and exclusive love of husband and wife.

While stressing, as I have consistently done, the Christian teaching on the mutuality of the sexes as fundamental to the understanding of marriage, I am fully aware of the need to protect the rights of a variety of people in caring and dependent relationships, different to marriage.

Unfortunately, some members of the public and some public commentators seize on such comments and concern as an opportunity to say that I advocate positions in conflict with Catholic teaching. For my part, I regret if my comments may have appeared unclear. On the other hand, the contrived polemic of such commentators does little to promote marriage and its value to society.

- Yours, etc,

Archbishop DIARMUID MARTIN, Archbishop's House, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.

His Grace’s statesmanlike composure slips in the closing sentence, his self-control having clearly been stretched to its absolute limit, enabling us to catch a quick glimpse of the fury beneath. He refers, scathingly, to ‘such commentators’, in the plural. Obviously his pique has been roused by others besides Mr. McGarry alone. Who are these others? Catholic bloggers and news agencies, both at home and abroad, most likely. At this stage this story has gone all around the world, and his Grace is clearly furious that he has been publicly exposed in an evasive and calculating dodge worthy of Rowan Williams so shamelessly misrepresented.

“For my part, I regret if my comments may have appeared unclear. On the other hand, the contrived polemic of such commentators does little to promote marriage and its value to society.”

May have appeared unclear? There’s no may about it, dear Diarmuid. Your words were unclear, period. Stop trying to cover your arrogant arse and admit your fault. Had you the humility to do that, we would hold you in a new respect. But alas, one can’t teach old dogs...

And what about the contrived polemic? You have some cheek, dear Diarmuid. You tried to straddle both sides of the fence. You tried to please both parties—your flock and your secularist enemies—simultaneously. It didn’t work, and the fault is your own. In case it may have escaped your attention, permit me to remind you that your appointment to the See of Dublin makes you one of the two most senior leaders of the Catholic Church on this island. Do the words ‘Primate of Ireland’ hold any meaning for you? You have a great power to influence others, for good or for ill, and it is disgraceful—not to say demoralising—for Christ’s faithful to behold their bishop, their archbishop, the shepherd of their Church, playing games with semantics and dodging urgent questions of doctrine and morals with the brazen aplomb of a lying politician, all simply to avoid a few days’ critique at the hands of the outraged and anti-catholic press. I don’t know why you went to the effort; surely you knew it was inevitable you would have been criticised by someone. If you had taught forthrightly, we would not have lambasted you with our ‘contrived polemic’; the other side would have. But which is better? To please your flock and enrage the enemies of Jesus Christ, or vice versa? Personally, I think you made the wrong choice. I seem to remember something in the Gospels along the lines of “woe to you when the world shall speak well of you...”, and all that. But you might disagree; well, it’s your prerogative.

Furthermore, dear Diarmuid, since when is it up to ‘such commentators’ to ‘promote marriage and its value to society’? We do so when we can, certainly. In fact we are doing it now by offering you our criticism, since you are not doing it yourself. You are the archbishop. Is it not your job vigorously to promote Catholic morals, including the unpopular teaching on marriage and sexuality?

That having been said, I guess I just bagged myself 8,000 points. Cheers, Diarmuid.

From "human rights" legislation and all its detestable enormities...

...deliver us, good Lord!

From The Telegraph:

Terror suspect Abu Qatada will not be deported

By Tom Chivers and agencies
Last Updated: 6:59pm BST 09/04/2008

The man described as Osama bin Laden's "right-hand man" will not be deported from Britain.

Abu Qatada, a radical Islamist preacher, has successfully appealed against a decision to send him back to Libya [sic].

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) found that Mr Qatada, as well as a second man, faced a threat of torture if they returned to the Middle Eastern country.

The 44-year-old is reported to have had links to the "shoe bomber", Richard Reid, as well as Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "twentieth hijacker" in the September 11th plot.

The Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke, giving the judgment of the court, said there were "grounds for believing that there was a real risk that the respondents would be tortured some time after their return to Libya."

The ruling is the first test for the "memoranda of understanding" (MOU) between the Government and Tripoli, under which Libya undertook not to mistreat deportees.

The MOU was intended to allow the deportation of suspects without breaching human rights rules.

However, the court found that, "notwithstanding the terms of the MOU," the risk of mistreatment was still substantial. Home Office minister Tony McNulty has said that he intends to appeal the decision.

Mr McNulty said: "I am pleased that the courts dismissed all but one of Abu Qatada's reasons for appeal.

"We are seeking to overturn that point, and I believe that we will be able to secure his deportation to Jordan and we will push for it as soon as possible.

"In the meantime, he remains behind bars."

On the judgment in the cases of the two Libyans, the minister said:

"The Government's top objective is to keep the public safe and I am disappointed that the courts have found that deportations to Libya can't go ahead for now.

"We will continue to push for deportations for people who pose a risk to national security. "In the meantime, we will take all necessary steps to protect the public."

Mr Qatada was arrested in 2001 by anti-terrorism officers, seven years after arriving in the country on a false United Arab Emirates passport, but released without charge.

Described by a Spanish judge as "Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe" and by the British authorities as "truly dangerous individual", he was arrested with £170,000 cash in his possession, including £805 in an envelope marked "For the mujahedin in Chechnya".

Mr Qatada, whose real name is Omar Mahmoud Mohammed Othman, was finally arrested in an armed raid on a council house in south London in October 2002 and held in Belmarsh prison in south-east London. He was freed on conditional bail in 2005 but given a control order limiting his movements and contacts with other people.

Julia Hall, of international civil rights group Human Rights Watch, said: "These cases show that the British Government should stop trying to deport people to countries whose justice systems are deeply tainted by torture and other abuses.

"In the (Qatada) case, notably, the court was right to ignore the Jordanian government's fair trial promises, and find that a trial would likely be tainted by torture.

"Until (Jordan's security service) the General Intelligence Department stops torturing, promises of humane treatment and fair trial for a national security suspect are not credible.

"Jordanian assurances are a mere legal nicety."

Melancholicus is flabbergasted. He is astounded that this dangerous man — which is putting it rather mildly — may even be freed from custody since, if he cannot be deported and there is insufficient evidence to charge him with an offence, what else can be done with him?

Human Rights organisations have raised their predictable and exasperating hue and cry over the intended deportation of Qatada. They say that to deport him to a country where he may face torture is a violation of his “human rights”. But hold on here. Although there may be insufficient evidence to charge Abu Qatada with an offence, he is not an innocent man. He is an extremist fanatic who poses a grave threat to British society and to the safety of the British people. Where his sympathies lie in the struggle between islamist barbarism and western civilisation are more than abundantly clear. This man foments terror, supports it, encourages it, sympathises with those miscreants who seek to blow themselves — and thousands of ordinary bystanders — to kingdom come, even if he is not actually a terrorist himself. He rubs shoulders with murderous fanatics, men such as Osama bin Laden and the psychopathic simpletons Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid (thanks to whom Melancholicus is invariably compelled to remove his shoes before passing through airport security). Is it not true to say that on account of this set of circumstances, in which the fellow has shown himself clearly sympathetic to the killing and maiming of innocent people, he has forfeited his “human rights”, and that whatever might possibly happen to him in some foreign country after his deportation from Britain is nothing that the British government need ever worry about?

As for Julia Hall and her fellow travellers, Melancholicus can only say this: will these people ever realise, before it is too late, that we are all in the midst of a war, a war upon the outcome of which depends the survival of western civilisation? These agencies, as well as the British judiciary, are carrying on in such a fashion as to be more concerned about the welfare of enemy combatants than about the safety of the British people, never mind actually winning the war. Consider, gentle reader, how absurd would be the picture of the courts during the Second World War being more solicitous for the comfort of top nazis than for the people of Britain, and you will have a clear idea of how preposterous are the arguments of these human rights groups today. Moreover, Qatada is far more dangerous than any German POW in World War II, since he is able to carry on the war from his prison cell and can continue inspiring his bloodthirsty cohorts in their frenzy of hate. For whatever reason, Ms. Hall is worried more about Jordanian “legal niceties” than about the threat posed by the psychopath she is so foolishly defending.

Orwellian society update: anglican bishop forced to undergo "re-education"

From Catholic World News:

Anglican bishop fined for refusing gay youth worker

London, Feb. 12, 2008 (CWNews.com) - An Anglican bishop has been ordered to pay a heavy fine and undergo “equal-opportunies training” for refusing to approve the hiring of an openly homosexual man for a post in youth ministry.

The Cardiff Employment Tribunal on February 11 settled a discrimination case against Bishop Anthony Priddis of Hereford, ordering the bishop to £47,435 (about $92,000) in compensatory damages to John Reaney, who had complained that the bishop denied him a job as a youth worker because of his sexual orientation. The tribunal ordered that officials of the Hereford diocese who are engaged in hiring employees — including the bishop — should be given training to make them more sensitive to homosexual applicants.

Bishop Priddis said that he may appeal the panel’s ruling.

Let us expose this “equal opportunities training” for what it is: nothing more or less than brainwashing. It is an indoctrination of the kind practiced by communists seeking in a less than gentle manner to wean straying souls away from dangerous counter-revolutionary ideas. Not as overtly violent or psychologically damaging, to be sure, but the principle is exactly the same.

With whom is Oceania at war? Is it Eurasia or Eastasia? Melancholicus does not know, and he doubts that bishop Priddis knows either, but after the equal-ops nazis have done their work, the good bishop will probably be ready to parrot, without a trace of irony, whatever “truths” the henchmen of Ingsoc wish him to.

While Melancholicus does not know the details of this case beyond what has been included in the CWN story quoted above, he would be interested to discover if Mr. Reaney were refused employment solely on the grounds of his sexual proclivities, or if there were other reasons.

But it makes no difference. For once a “minority” of any stripe is refused employment on any grounds whatever, the good people of the middle class, politically correct social elite will assume immediately that such refusal can only be on foot of majoritarian discrimination.

Because Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.

Mohammedan 'call to prayer' in Oxford?

Back at the beginning of Epiphanytide, Melancholicus posted on the bishop of Rochester, Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali, in support of the bishop’s argument that Mohammedans in Britain banding themselves together in separate communities distinct from the population at large is creating no-go areas for non-Muslims in certain parts of the country.

The various organs of British political correctness reacted to Dr. Nazir-Ali’s article in predictable fashion, battening down the hatches and distancing themselves as much as possible from such incorrect views. As might have been expected, the bishops of the Church of England neither supported nor defended their colleague, but recoiled in horror as though he were a particularly virulent and deadly strain of virus.

One prelate, however, the Right Rev. John Pritchard, bishop of Oxford (pictured left), has actually gone as far as to welcome and support a Mohammedan drive to issue the ‘call to prayer’ from loudspeakers in his diocese. This bishop of a Christian church has taken appeasement of these people to a whole new level. Doubtless the fellow thinks he’s being charitable, magnanimous and ecumenical; to the the Mohammedans, however, this is just one more example of the ongoing weakness and apostasy of Christians in the west, and Rev. Pritchard’s gesture will earn him not their gratitude but their contempt.

From the Oxford Mail:

Bishop backs Muslim prayer call

By Fran Bardsley

The Bishop of Oxford has rejected another senior clergyman's fears that broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer in East Oxford could create a "no-go area" for non-Muslims.

The Rt Rev John Pritchard backed plans for the call to prayer in Oxford - splitting away from controversial comments made by the Anglican Church's only Asian Bishop, the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, of Rochester.

Bishop Michael said attempts were being made to impose an "Islamic character" on communities, creating no-go areas where people of different faiths would find it hard to live and work.

But Bishop John said: "I want to distance myself from what the Bishop of Rochester has said.

"There are no no-go areas in this country that we are aware of and in all parts of the country there are good interfaith relationships developing."

Leaders at Oxford's Central Mosque, in Manzil Way, are considering asking for planning permission to issue the call to prayer from the mosque - and Bishop John said he was "very happy" with the move.

He said: "I believe we have good relationships with the Muslim community here in Oxford and I am personally very happy for the mosque to call the faithful to prayer in East Oxford.

"Faith is a very important factor in the lives of 80 per cent of the world's population and a public expression of that faith is both natural and reasonable."

Bishop John said practical issues over the number of times the call went out, the volume and whether a trial period would be required would need to be ironed out but said in principle it was "entirely reasonable".

He said: "I would say to anyone who has concerns about the call to prayer to relax and enjoy our community diversity and be as respectful to others as you would hope they would be respectful to you."

He added: "I sympathise with those who find any kind of expression of public faith intrusive, but I think part of being part of a tolerant society is saying, 'I don't agree with this but I accept it as part of my responsibility as being part of a diverse community'."

Bishop Michael told the Sunday Telegraph that non-Muslims faced a hostile relationship in places dominated by the ideology of Islamic radicals.

He used the amplification of the call to prayer as an example of how an Islamic character was being imposed on certain areas and said this resulted in alienating young non-Muslims.

An application for planning permission for the call to prayer at Oxford's Central Mosque has not yet been submitted.

Sardar Rana, a spokesman for the mosque, said he was "100 per cent sure" people would like the call to prayer when they heard it.

100% sure, eh? Would Sardar care to put any money on that? Melancholicus would be quite happy to oppose him in a wager.

The article has been online for less than a week, but has already attracted over 200 comments. From a perusal of some of them it appears that the good people of Oxford are distinctly less enthusiastic than their bishop about transforming Oxford into the city of dreaming minarets.

Come back Richard Harries, all is forgiven!

O Little Town of Birmingham

Speaking of ‘Merry Winterval’, Melancholicus is reminded of a parody Christmas carol, sung to the tune of O Little Town of Bethlehem, satirising the decision of Birmingham City Council some years back to rename Christmas as Winterval in order not to “offend” or “exclude” persons of different faiths or of no faith at all.

Sensible folk, however, were not amused by this risible piece of politically-correct lunacy.

Some wag came up with the following version of O Little Town of Bethlehem shortly after ‘winterval’ made its first appearance, and Melancholicus at once committed it to memory.

O Little Town of Birmingham,
How bright we see thee shine;
A friend in need for every creed
Except of course for mine.
For in thy decorations,
No star or crib appears;
Nothing to tell of what befell
These past two thousand years.

How Christlessly, how Christlessly,
Thy fair streets are bedecked;
For minarets and TV sets
Politically correct.
Yet in thy stores ho-hoeth
An hundred santa claus;
Without this quaint pecuniary saint
They’d have to close their doors.

O gentle mayor of Birmingham,
Remember such as us;
Not just the sheikhs and New Age freaks
And Labour councillors.
We hear the great glad tidings
From Dartmouth to Dunkeld;
O Come to us, abide with us,
Our Saviour—name withheld.

It would be screamingly funny if it wasn’t so maddeningly serious.

Sshhh! Musn't use the 'C' word!

This post, by His Grace, is both so topical and so excellently written that we just had to reproduce it on Infelix Ego.

Choir excises 'Christmas' from carol

When communicants inform Cranmer of such stories as this, they need to be more mindful of His Grace's blood pressure. Incredible as it may seem, a school choir has replaced the word Christmas in 'Silver Bells' with the more generic 'festive', so that instead of singing the line 'soon it will be Christmas day' they will say 'soon it will be a festive day'. And the reason? Unsurprisingly, in this absurd age in which we live, it is 'so as not to offend any students'; so that 'everybody feels welcome and has a sense of comfort with the celebrations'.

Christians excepted, of course.

On a scale of 1 – 10, this sort of politically-correct revisionist nonsense offends Cranmer 147. It is a Christmas carol, for goodness' sake, and intended for a Christian celebration; not for performance at a meaningless multi-faith mish-mash of politically-correct pointless pap.

Yes, it may be Canada, but the reporting of such an occurrence in the publicly-funded arena in any nation where Her Majesty the Queen plays a constitutional role is concerning indeed. Her Coronation Oath to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion ought to ensure that Christianity be maintained in the public square; not relegated to the private realm for fear of causing offence. And if that means 'Silver Bells' continue to be rung across the realm and sung about joyously, then those who take offence will just have to lump it.

Just where will all this lead? Festival trees? Merry Winterval? Seasonal diversity parties? One thing is certain: Allah will not be excised from Eid in the spirit of comfort to all, and neither will Mohammed be excised from Ramadan as an expression of goodwill.

But Cranmer is yet to find one personage of minority ethnic persuasion who has actually complained about Christmas. It appears to be a crusade of the post-Christian liberal grinches who are so obsessed with 'human rights' they invoke the spirit of the Inquisition to enforce their godless dogma. And so blinded are they in their quest to eradicate Christianity that they cannot see the uncompromising religio-political force that is moving in to fill the vacuum.

It seems we are moving towards an era when the church's silver bells will no longer be rung under dhimmi laws. And what will that leave us with?

Silver Call to Prayer?

It doesn't quite scan.

With thanks to Cranmer.

The contemptible BBC...

...has reversed its decision to censor a popular Christmas song the lyrics of which it had feared would be offensive to sodomites.

The song, Fairytale of New York, sung by Shane MacGowan and the late Kirsty MacColl, is a vulgar and somewhat trashy piece for which Melancholicus has never much cared, but he must admit to having experienced a certain malicious glee when this bastion of political correctness was compelled to withdraw its edited version of the song and play the unexpurgated version instead after being inundated with complaints from listeners.

The fact that so many people objected to this pathetic attempt at pc-inspired censorship gives us hope that there are still some in Israel who have not yet bowed the knee before Baal, and that there are those who have yet resisted brainwashing by the propaganda of Ingsoc.

From RTÉ entertainment news:

BBC backs down over Pogues classic

BBC Radio 1 has reversed its decision to censor the classic Pogues and Kirsty MacColl song 'Fairytale of New York'.

The station had decided to bleep out the word "faggot" from the song because it could be offensive to listeners.

But BBC 1 controller Andy Parfitt said last night: "After careful consideration, I have decided that the decision to edit the Pogues song Fairytale of New York was wrong."

AdvertisementParfitt said that the song did not use the word with any "negative intent".

Listen to a special programme on the story behind 'Fairytale of New York' here.

He said: "Radio 1 does not play homophobic lyrics or condone bullying of any kind. It is not always easy to get this right, mindful of our responsibility to our young audience. The unedited version will be played from now on."

He continued: "I want to stress that everyone at Radio 1 and its music team take the issue of language very seriously and enormous care is taken in ensuring that offensive language is edited from records where necessary."

"I understand absolutely, in a climate where questions about editorial standards are at the fore, the thinking behind this decision. While we would never condone prejudice of any kind, we know our audiences are smart enough to distinguish between maliciousness and creative freedom," said Parfitt.

He concluded: "In the context of this song, I do not feel that there is any negative intent behind the use of the words, hence the reversal of the decision."

“Homophobic lyrics” indeed. Despite the occurrence of the word ‘faggot’, there is no mention of sodomy at all in this song. When will these people ever relax and get a life? Are we all children, that we must be dictated to by these self-appointed arbiters of correctness as to what words we may or may not use in our discourse? This is all a pointless row over nothing. Besides, are homosexuals and other minority groups really so traumatised by the existence of certain words that they have to go running to nanny every time they perceive any slight, real or imagined, against themselves? If so, they should grow up and start living in the real world. People should not be forced to accord others an automatic respect simply on the basis of skin colour, exotic oriental religion or peculiar sexual habits. In the real world, as opposed to the culturally-constructed unreality fostered by political correctness, respect has to be earned.

In politically-correct culture, minority groups are treated like a sort of protected species that the rest of us are expected to handle with kid gloves. Melancholicus is not impressed. Not being a ‘minority’ himself, he enjoys no such vicarious protection. On the contrary, several of the ‘cultural categories’ to which Melancholicus belongs are regarded in the pc-Weltanshauung as ‘majoritarian’, and hence legitimate targets for attack and discrimination. He is white, male, heterosexual, and — worst of all — a Roman Catholic. His religion can be insulted with impunity, in speech, writing, and broadcasting, and Melancholicus must simply accept that as a fact, for there is nothing he can do about it. The BBC, in particular, is noted for its anti-Catholicism as well as for its simultaneous molly-coddling of sodomy and Islam. Melancholicus wonders why it should be apparently so acceptable to attack and ridicule Catholicism, but why Islam ought to be treated with respect and deference in all public discourse.

Here’s a BBC-related link I stumbled upon the other day. It’s fun.