He denies saying it, yet at the end of the 3rd paragraph in the letter he sent to one of his constituents he says quite clearly, "EDO's, in this case, would apply in a situation where a teacher was specifically teaching that gay marriage was wrong".
We are quite used to the fact that many of our Parliamentarians are not the sharpest knives in the box, and most have little understanding of ethics and even less of morality or honour. I left a comment on his 'Facebook page', saying,
"EDO's, in this case, would apply in a situation where a teacher was specifically teaching that gay marriage was wrong". So you are saying that simply saying gay marriage 'was wrong' warrants an extreme disruption order. So what about parents who believe it is wrong, or members of your own party?He simply denied saying it, and did not respond to the question I asked, then after some else had replied for him, giving him an excuse not to reply, I then pointed out where he might find his comments.
Just now on an unrelated post I received a comment from a 'Mark Spencer', which had nothing to do with what was being discussed.
Mark Spencer said...Obviously it could be a coincidence and have nothing to do with increasingly famed Honourable Member for Sherwood, perhaps Mark might clarify. I am sure many mothers who found themselves called 'Mrs Spencer', were inspired to name their sons to remind themselves of their favourite High Street emporium but it is the lack of logic that makes me think it is indeed the MP.
Why are closeted gay bishops pushing an agenda for heterosexual married priests?
Mark Wrestler
6/8/15 10:43 a.m
Increasingly I think that we have a duty in order to make our democracy work we need to question our members of Parliament, we simply can't con ourselves into thinking making an 'X' with a stub of a pencil on a ballot paper once every few constitutes democracy.
Spencer won his Sherwood seat at the 2010 general election with a majority of only 214, which he managed to increase a little in the last election.He has form, in 2015 Spencer again emerged into the limelight by suggesting that a man with learning difficulties, a recluse and unable to tell the time, who had been left without food or power after being sanctioned for arriving four minutes late at a benefit office should "learn the discipline of timekeeping". Again Spencer said critics had "twisted what he said" but stood by his comments that "normal people doing normal jobs would get their wages docked".
With MPs like that, so bereft of Christian compassion, and dare one say so out of step with real 'British', no, with 'human' values really does need careful watching and being held to account.
He reminds me of another MP....
10 comments:
I think that within the comment, the chap signs himself "Mark Wrestler", so unlikely to be the MP in question- just a troll teasing you. Not that Mr Spencer's antics regarding EDOs don't deserve a good airing in their own right.
Except Google gives his real name as 'Mark Spencer'
Let us thank Mr Spencer for telling us that what has been regarded as wrong for over a thousand years is now an integral part of British Values , even though it was never put to the electorate and is only a few years old. Whatever ones views on religion this is surely a most undemocratic situation. The National Secular Society is surely right to regard the government's intentions as inimical to free speech.
He may be having difficulties in expressing himself clearly rather than being a jack booted totalitarian.
Might not a teacher present the view of a number of faith traditions that same-sex relations, and thereby union between two people of the same sex, are morally wrong but that it is right the civil law reflects the moral positions of the population as a whole, properly expressed through our democratic processes. It may well be that it is this latter which the MP is referring to.
Otherwise, presumably Catholic's would be arguing that the dispensing or sale of contraceptives should be illegal.
@pooka. The introduction of gay marriage in the UK was not "based on the moral position of the population as a whole, properly expressed through the democratic process". It was in no party's manifesto and had no mandate from the electorate. My own MP admitted in writing that all the surveys indicated that there was not a majority view in favour of it, but he thought it was "the coming thing" so he would have to go with it. Anyway, moral truth is not guided by democracy or civil law, it should really be the other way round. I can easily say that so called "gay marriage" is allowed by the law in this country, but that it is still objectively wrong.
"normal people doing normal jobs would get their wages docked"
Funny, when I turned up for work half an hour late yesterday my Boss told me to 'forget it', most likely reasoning that even the best of us sometimes slip up, in fact not only did he not send a missive to HR telling them to dock my pay, but he took me aside later that morning and offered me a permanent post with the company, pending the HR director signing off on it.
The thing is I've been in the exact same situation when I was claiming JSA, I was 5 minutes late because my bike had a puncture and I had to walk, but on those occasions where I arrived early it was not unusual to be kept waiting 10 or 15 minutes beyond my appointment time.
Mr Spencer clearly has no brains as well as dodgy heart.
It would be nice if the introduction of a form of marriage between two people of the same sex had been 'properly expressed through our democratic processes.' What we had instead was a small number of parliamentarians imposing their will on the rest of us without having the decency to properly consult us beforehand. Typical of 'liberal' politicians (of all parties): they know best so why bother to ask us what we think?
"Typical of 'liberal' politicians (of all parties): they know best so why bother to ask us what we think?"
Well said Highland Cathedral and heaven help us is we dare to disagree with their 'liberal' views.
Father,
Persecution is coming for us Christians. Our freedom to express our beliefs is being curtailed as a first step. The concept of “hate crime” will be employed.
There are two ways of dealing with this. You can retreat, flee, or you can face the threat and confront it sturdily, and take the consequences, but fight through the courts. Most Catholics, including our Hierarchy, still choose the former. Some Protestants to there credit, do not. They deserve our strong support, and that now means financial. But even supporters are considered trouble-makers and subject to censorship, even from within the Catholic community.
No being “nice” and meek, and very PC is still, it seems, required of us Catholics.
But that is disastrous and profoundly un-Catholic.
Example. So-called gay marriage is unnatural, rather unpleasant (if you care to think about it), and for Catholics profoundly sinful. Yet it is being “considered”, even many bishops. And there will be double talk. “Yes you can believe what you want, but don't ever actually say so”.
And we must sort out all this nonsense about Rights. For every Right there is a equal and opposite Right . The Right not to be offended maliciously, is balanced by the Right to have and express, without malice, a belief.
"It would be nice if the introduction of a form of marriage between two people of the same sex had been properly expressed through our democratic processes."
Fair enough, but at least people in Britain can say that the change was rammed through Parliament by David Cameron in defiance of popular opinion.
The Irish, sadly, have no such excuse.
Post a Comment