political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Iain, I'm disappointed. This isn't a witty comment, it's an attempt at victimising someone because they happen to oppose something you don't. You should realise that views on lifestyles are not universally held. You are not helping your cause.
Harley, no-one ever said that just because John Prescott was fat, he could not be a good Deputy Prime Minister. People said that about him because of his record in the ODPM and his antics in what he did at the office.
What people choose to believe is thir business, but a prospective clash between someone's faith and the requirements of a role in government is worthy of comment and analysis. Let us say we had a minister in charge of animal welfare who was also an orthodox Jew or a Muslim - I would regard it as wholly legitimate to ask questions about his or her position on ritual slaughter. Likewise a Jehovah's Witness as a health minister, etc etc etc.
On an earlier thread about the Nearly-Rev Kelly, in the context of conflict between job and belief I misspelled hypocrisy as hypocracy. Thinking about it, I guess that hypocracy means rule by hypocrites.
Ruth Kelly has stated she believes in equal rights, but apparently she has been absent at voting for these issues at the House of Commons.
I believe she can be fairly attacked on this basis, if true. This is a matter of behaviour NOT religion, and it does cast serious doubt on her ability to do her job.
11 comments:
Recess Monkey has a wittier and marginally less gratuitously offensive suggestion:
OH DEAR PRETTY MESSY
Iain! Don't sink to this level.
What's next? If a gay minister gets appointed to the DoH, does that become the Department of Homosexuality?
What is the problem, Jim? Her membership of Opus Dei and her job represent a very real conflict of interest and matter for legitimate debate.
Your comment is tacky. Iain's post is a witty slant on a valid topic.
Iain, I'm disappointed. This isn't a witty comment, it's an attempt at victimising someone because they happen to oppose something you don't. You should realise that views on lifestyles are not universally held. You are not helping your cause.
So it's alright to, say, mock Prescott because of his heavy-eating lifestyle, but Iain can't make a relevant witty remark on Ruth Kelly's religion.
By the way, THE DA VINCI CODE is released on May 19th!
Iain,
Did you make the A list?
Harley, no-one ever said that just because John Prescott was fat, he could not be a good Deputy Prime Minister. People said that about him because of his record in the ODPM and his antics in what he did at the office.
What people choose to believe is thir business, but a prospective clash between someone's faith and the requirements of a role in government is worthy of comment and analysis. Let us say we had a minister in charge of animal welfare who was also an orthodox Jew or a Muslim - I would regard it as wholly legitimate to ask questions about his or her position on ritual slaughter. Likewise a Jehovah's Witness as a health minister, etc etc etc.
C'on Iain - R U A OR B?
Order Daily Prayer Meetings?
On an earlier thread about the Nearly-Rev Kelly, in the context of conflict between job and belief I misspelled hypocrisy as hypocracy. Thinking about it, I guess that hypocracy means rule by hypocrites.
Ruth Kelly has stated she believes in equal rights, but apparently she has been absent at voting for these issues at the House of Commons.
I believe she can be fairly attacked on this basis, if true. This is a matter of behaviour NOT religion, and it does cast serious doubt on her ability to do her job.
Post a Comment