POLITICALLY CORRECT PEOPLE VS. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE

BBC News: “Cecil Samuelson, president of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, led the "time for reflection" session [at the Scottish Parliament]. Green MSP [“environmentalist” Socialist elected member of the Scottish Parliament] Patrick Harvie has accused the Scottish Parliament of inviting the head of a "homophobic" US university”.

Professor Samuelson did not talk about homosexuals. He just happens to belong to a Church that is not in favor of gay marriage/behavior. If mere belief in a faith should exclude one from being a guest speaker, isn’t it religious discrimination?

Patrick Harvie was instrumental in including discrimination against gay people in the list of hate crimes in Scottish law, but has he forgotten, or has he ever known, that it is against the law in the U.K. to discriminate against anyone because of their religion or belief?

In a world in which Political Correctness has gone overboard, even keeping your ideas to yourself can get you in trouble.

Individuals’ personal opinions or belief should be respected. Can gay men positively contribute to society? I believe they can, of course, but beware before you say “no” because you may be called to publicly apologize for your bigotry.

Similarly, can religious men positively contribute to society? I believe they can, of course, but if you say “no”, those so-called “tolerant” people who love Political Correctness will join in to say “no”.

Don’t discriminate against gay people, but please do discriminate against religious people. Why this double standard?

Is it because it is now OK to be intolerant towards “intolerant religious people”?

Is it because people are now scared to criticize a homosexual man when he is wrong? In one episode of comedy show 'South Park', gay teacher Garrison sets out to be fired for discrimination on sexual grounds, so he can file for compensation. He performs extreme sexual acts in class, in presence of his students. Those who feel like complaining are told they have to be tolerant towards gay people.

I decided to write to Patrick Harvie. I started to write to him and then I stopped. I thought I should not be wasting time trying to show him how wrong his behavior was. I have learned a long time ago that you cannot reason with a bigot. I believe Harvie is a bigot. Yes, an irreligious gay bigot.

I had read that another member of the Scottish Parliament had defended the freedom of speech of the speaker, so I wrote to congratulate that MSP.

Here is the disappointing answer I received: “The point made by Patrick Harvie, and, I think a fair one, if a trifle esoteric, for people who may or may not be versed in politics or parliamentary procedure, was that President Samuelson was representing his university and was not speaking as an individual.” After patronizing me, the MSP said that “Patrick believes in free speech, even when he disagrees with the beliefs of a speaker”. Clearly, this was not obvious at all, so the MSP further explained: “However, he and I both consider that an institution which discriminates on the basis of sexual preference to be at variance with the institutional and corporate standards which we consider ethical.” In short, Political Correctness is now embedded in the Law of the Land, and this is far more important than Freedom of Speech, or even Freedom of conscience, championed by Protestant nations.

Speaking of Protestant nations, I had wondered why protesting against Professor Samuelson’s speech, when they do not protest against their Catholic peers. Isn't the Catholic Church a most homophobic institution, and, historically, isn't that Church against Britain's interests?

To cap it off, protesting against BYU's President for representing "an institution which discriminates on the basis of sexual preference to be at variance with the institutional and corporate standards which we consider ethical" seemed rather strange after they had invited the Pope to Scotland, and had lavished him with all the honors, paid with my tax money.

The MSP addressed this question: “I note your point regarding the Catholic Church which was well made. I think that Patrick also objected to the Papal visit. I did not object to the Pope’s visit.”

That MSP did not object to the Pope's visit but objected to the visit of a Mormon-run university president? I replied: “You stated that you personally "consider that an institution which discriminates on the basis of sexual preference to be at variance with the institutional and corporate standards which we consider ethical." The Pope does represent an institution which discriminates on the basis of sexual preference to be at variance with the standards which you consider ethical. So, why did not you object to the Pope's visit but objected to Professor Samuelson, who only represented a private school? Once again, this looks like double standards to me.”

I still have not received any answer from the MSP, presumably because this case is for Harvie just about political correctness and his gay agenda. For others protesters who did not protest the Pope's visit, I believe it is nothing short of religious discrimination.

Meanwhile, stories abound in Britain or the in the USA about what seems to be discrimination based on religion:

U.K. Christian couple sued for refusing gay couple a bed in their guest house;

California school district which canceled a fundraising program featuring memorial bricks, scuttling proceeds of $45,000, after two women submitted Bibe verses in their tributes;

Federal judge who ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony;

Man won two gold medals at the 1984 Olympics, had been filling the liaison officer position for the American team but had to step down because he is opposed to gay marriage.