What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • From Criminality to Equality

    I think this is one of the moments in the debates on marriage where there’s more wisdom to be heard in one speech made well than in acres of newsprint trying to analyse the vote in the House of Commons last night.

    Here’s David Lammy giving it his all.

    Let me speak frankly.

    “Separate but equal” is a fraud.

    “Separate but equal” is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

    “Separate but equal” is the motif that determined that black and white could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets.

    “Separate but equal” are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers – schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty.

    It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and the racists.

    It is the same statement, the same ideas and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote – but not until they were 30.

    It is the same naivety that gave made my dad a citizen in 1956 but refused to condemn the landlords that proclaimed “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.

    It entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become.

    This was not “Separate but equal” but “Separate AND discriminated”,

    “Separate AND oppressed”.

    “Separate AND browbeaten”.

    “Separate AND subjugated”.

    Separate is NOT equal, so let us be rid of it.

    Because as long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to acceptance to stand unchallenged.

    As long as our statute books suggest that the love between two men or two women is unworthy of being recognised through marriage, we allow the rot of homophobia to fester.

    And then again at the end:

    The Jesus I know was born a refugee, illegitimate, with a death warrant on his name in a barn among animals. He would stand up for minorities. That is why it is right for people of religious convictions to stand up for this bill.

    There’s a longer version of the speech (which he would have given if he had been given more time) on his website.

    , , ,

4 responses to “+Katharine Jefferts Schori – interview”

  1. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Hurrah! Evidence, like the interview with +Gene a few years back, that you’d make a great ecclesiastical chat show host Kelvin 😉 I’d watch it!

    Reply
  2. Martin Ritchie Avatar
    Martin Ritchie

    Loved her vision of the church as holding different perspectives in tension. Hard work, but much better than settling for a monochrome church!

    Reply
  3. Revd Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Revd Ross Kennedy

    Yes – a well produced and conducted interview. But why no quesions asked that might challenge +Katharine. E. g. why does she seem so determined to turn the TEC into a monochrome (i.e. liberal) church by driving out those who hold conservative theological views? Why is she so intent ( using the full weight of secular law) to grab the church properties from those Episcopal parishes which have decided to realign with another Province? Of course, legally in the USA the church buildings do belong to the denomination. But morally? After all most of those churches have been built and maintained by the local people with not a penny being contributed by TEC. Bishop Katharine impresses me in many ways although she is at the opposite end of the theological spectrum. I just find it so sad that since she became PB the TEC has become increasingly fragmented. And just in case I am asked – I do not support the action of parishes that have decided to defect. I believe they should stay and continue to witness to their understanding of the Faith.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Well, I guess its a matter of perspective. I did kind of think that the oil spill affecting the US coast and the most devastating earthquake in recent history were kind of big stories. They also both related to the Synod that +Katharine was at. We were discussing ecological stuff quite a lot and we gave money directly to Episcopal Sisters in Haiti.

      It seems to me that the US church ownership thing is a bit of a non-story in the long run, however emotive it might be today. The SEC here and the Church of England down south would surely behave in exactly the same way to any vicar and congregation claiming they own the buildings and church fabric. Indeed, I think that in Scotland at least, it might well be the case that the charity regulations would make the Diocesan Trustees liable if they were not to press such a case.

      I’m no lawyer, I’m a priest. And I’m not as brave as you are, Ross, if you really think that the law of the land in the US (or in the UK) and moral values are not more closely linked than you seem to suggest.

      In Scotland we have no choice. Our canons acknowledge that our church will be governed in accordance with Scots Law.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • What I've been reading

    Just finished The Line of Beauty, Alan Hollinghurst's Booker winner. He does have a capacity to capture with such wistful longing, situations which seem so unattractive in the cold light of day. The mark of a true stylist, I suppose.Well, that having been completed over the last couple of days, I guess that I had better turn…

  • Singing Detective

    I’ve been thoroughly enjoying the rerun of the Singing Detective on BBC4 this week. I’ve never seen it before – either I didn’t have a television when it was first on or I was not interested then. Last 2 episodes tonight.

  • E-mail outage

    If I don’t seem to be responding to e-mail stimulus, it is because my ISP is having trouble delivering them to me.

  • Midnight Mass

    Midnight Mass tonight at 2315. Mulled wine. Carols. Choir. Candlelight. Communion at midnight. All the works. All welcome.