West,

“Mjpb what planet are you on?...”

If you substitute "African-American" for Christian that is not far from Ku Klux Klan comments. I genuinely believe that hatred is hatred, vilification is vilification, and people are people who should be treated kindly.

SF
You are wrong to assume I assumed you humanitarian or that all are gay (eg. Mother Teresa, I absolutely cannot imagine being gay).

Your strong reaction indicated by your insult, your correction, your advices about political affiliation, and your feeling the subject of a “reds under the bed” accusation is noted. I apologize. You aren’t gay. I didn't realize anyone was offended by that these days.

W,

“Your response questioning the methodology makes me wonder what level of homophobic harassment and violence you would find acceptable. “

I always question methodology until I consider it. It is probably fine. RE: level: Is that because I described it as “shocking”? To be honest in modern Australia I didn’t think there was any. None would be an acceptable level. The survey indicates it is prolific.

”… there’s a man in my street whose homophobic attacks on the lesbian couple next door to him forced them into the courts for an AVO. I do know that that man recently got married in a christian church.”

Many people get married in Christian Churches who aren’t Christian. Careful with the assumption. Look at the trouble I got in with SF for a similar assumption.

”… it is a bit naïve of you ...”

That would be naïve. It is just that Christian beliefs are inconsistent with gay bashing.

”Of course the discrimination against homosexuals is arbitrary. Most churches no longer reject straight couples who haven’t married – just the gay ones. George Pell doesn’t refuse communion to heterosexual sinners, just the homosexual ones.”

No it isn’t. I’m sure the homosexuals you refer to even wear rainbow sashes or something. The heterosexual sinners adopt a solemn pious look rather than wearing sashes and he would be none the wiser.

Associate Professor Johnson is ‘troubled’ that a Christian politician 'pointedly' did not use speech on Bonhoeffer to boost the genital-centred world-view. The parochial monomania of identity politics knows no bounds. The dismal, po-faced language of 'concern' just makes it all the more ridiculous. She writes about conservatism as if it were the new deviation. Now only conservatives are the perverts.

And all this nonsense about "diverse ways in which Howard manipulates' all sorts of things. Gawd! Howard must be an evil genius to do so much effective manipulation despite all the clever people in universities and the yarts constantly unmasking and exposing him.

Thank you, mjpb. Now I understand.

It's OK to discriminate against honest sinners, but not OK to discriminate against those who successfully fake piety.

Glad we cleared that up.

W,

I don’t think you do. But I can empathise with the reaction.

The practical effect is totally unfair for the homosexuals involved who are more in tune with Church teaching than the fakes. Anyone who supports the rainbow sashers and is obtuse to the obvious implications of virtually carrying a sign saying “I sin and think it is good. You will be breaking the rules if you give me communion” would understandably feel outraged.

However to put that on Pell is unfair to him. He can’t read the mind of the fakes. He can either assume goodwill or refuse communion to everyone. Naturally he chooses the former.

Wow, mjpb has a real thing about rainbow sashes

If there are any psychologists reading, could you tell me whether or not fear of certain coloured garments is classed as an irrational phobia?

I think you'll find, mjpb, that the rainbow sash people are not saying "I sin and that's OK." They're saying that they are homosexual, or friends of homosexuals.

Pell denies them communion not on the basis of their sin (about which he knows nothing), but on the basis of their membership of a group. Homosexuals are the only group he singles out in this way. This is arbitrary discrimination, and for non-religious organisations this is illegal.

“The practical effect is totally unfair for the homosexuals involved who are more in tune with Church teaching than the fakes.” I’m afraid your defence of this situation discredits your statement that zero is a tolerable level for homophobic harassment.

Pell’s response to the rainbow sash people is emblematic for the church’s response to homosexuals generally, in denying them employment, refusing them services and excluding them from membership of their community of belief. As long as christians defend unfairness to other humans because they are homosexual, they align themselves with the bashers and the abusers.

Christians cannot claim to despise the sin and love the sinner when they exacerbate the suffering of people whose behaviour is impeccable, just because they hang out with an undesirable group.

Ultimately, this discussion is about applying christian principles consistently. Kevin Rudd wants to bring a bit of christian compassion into public life. That's great, and it would be even greater if he and all christians applied those principles equally, to everyone.