“First of all the Catholic Church does not encourage discrimination against either gays or women.”

Really? How many priests do you know who are of the female persuasion??

“The issue of the ordination of women and practicing gays is theological not a human right.”

Ah that’s ok then. “Dear Sarah, you can NOT be a priest because you are a woman – but don’t take it personally, it’s a theological problem not one for human rights – don’t worry your pretty little head about it”…

Bring on Father Jack Hackett to say “that would be an ecumenical problem”…

“There was discrimination against gays in the UK until recently.”

Oh that’s ok then. So long as someone else is discriminating against a particular group then that is carte blanche….

“Mam I hope that comment on shielding gays and paedophiles was not a freudian slip and an implication that gays are paedophiles.”

I certainly didn’t read VM’s comments that way… are you boxing at shadows here??

“Let him and let the National Sardine Society protest him, all 10 of them! Deus Vult”

You believe that there are ten of then if that gives you comfort – carry on looking out at the empty pews…. disputandi pruritus ecclesiarum scabies.

No, not correct, sorry. Quite the opposite. The thrust of the legislation means that it will not be legal for organisations to apply pre-screening based on some arbitrary assessment of the candidate. For example, right now, it would be quite legal for the Catholic church to refuse to interview someone they believed to be a lesbian, even if that candidate was exceptional, in terms of their pastoral care work, and their management of their flock. What the proposed law will say is that the church will be required to judge applicants solely on their pastoral care work, and their management of their flock. What is wrong with that?

Let me give you an extreme – and fictitious – example. I hate English people (I hasten to add that I don’t). I set up a company and as my corporate mission statement, I say that “English is Evil”. I then go recruiting, and apply these rules to my recruitment policy. It doesn’t matter if the candidate for finance director is the best candidate possible – she is from London!! Therefore, I say no, she cannot get the job. I’m happy to tell her that at the interview – indeed, it is widely known that as far as my company is concerned, English people need not apply.

Do you think that I would escape censure from the authorities? Do you think the Pope and his medieval religion should?

Let the Pope come to Wales. As with Jon D, it will save me a train fare to go and heckle the old bigot.

I am a practising Catholic but I certainly wouldn’t portray myself as a stringent follower of Catholic doctrine. I believe that the Church does need to modernise in some areas and cannot hide away for the significant errors and atrocities it has committed in the past. However, what Jonathan is saying is right and it’s not just the specific domain of religion or religious institutions. Trying to achieve absolutely equality is an impossible task because someone, in a given context will feel aggrieved, that their rights have violated. How do go about measuring the importance level of rights?

I believe David Blackburn of the Spectator is absolutely right when he says that the Equalities Bill is fundamental un-British as “it ignores that toleration and freedom in Britain were derived from the right to religious observance free from state proscriptions.”

If the Equalities Bill is enacted it will require organisations to employ without thought to suitability, and allocate resources under the perverse dictates of positive-discrimination. The key objective of this Bill should be centred on conscience and not compulsion because you cannot switch on or switch off someone’s mindset or behaviour. That doesn’t mean condoning bigotry or hatred as everyone should be treated with dignity and respect.

The reality is that it is a deeply ideological and poorly designed piece of legislation, cobbled together at the fag end of the Labour government, to further its attempt to mould the sort of nation that Harman and Brown would like to see – one that is politically correct and completely secular.

What you seem to be saying, JM, is that provided an organisation calls itself a religion, it can do what it wants and say what it wants, since to deny them their views is not on. To paraphrase St Augustine, “make me believe in equality, Lord, but not just yet…” No, no, no.

“What he is saying that pursuing the objective of giving people absolute equality to all has unintended consequences of unjustly limiting peoples’ religious beliefs.”

What we are saying is that if their objectives call for discrimination against minorities, that is hateful. If I started a church that said “no women, no blacks, no disabled people, since my god says that you are all aberrations” – I would quite rightly be closed down pronto. Why is it right that the Pope can say this about other groups and get away with it?

Hypocritical is the word that Job D used, and I can think of no better one. This is the religion that has protected paedophile priests, while forbidding entry to gay men. The religion that allows celibates to lecture other, more conventional men, on the state of their marriages. I’ll be out there with a banner as well, Jon D – sign me up. I have never forgiven these bigots for their treatment of Galileo….

The line he is trying to spin – that he passionately believes in equality while being outspoken in his opposition to any practical attempts to try to make people legally more equal – is so transparently hypocritical that it insults the intelligence of anyone who hears it.

The catholic church, along with most other religious movements promotes bigotry and the oppression of minotities. That is why they are so opposed to equality legislation.

I’m glad to see that the NSS is planning protests to co-incide with the pope’s visit – the only consolation were the WAG to bend over and invite him to Wales would be that it would be easier for me to join the protests.