Comments on: Societies staying quiet on blood drive debate.

By: sleepy_gonzalez

sleepy_gonzalez — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:42:30 +0000

oh, and my 2 cents worth on the debate– the first 2 posts sum this debate up pretty well. Significantly raised transmission rates (500%) is enough reason to alter policy. Urgent need for blood is good enough reason to try to accommodate even high risk groups , and financial and logistical constraints should be the only factor to prevent such accommodation.
With such clear figures, I just can’t see where anyone has got homophobia from. Over-sensitivity perhaps? You must have a pretty dim view of humanity, or a persecution complex and a half, to jump to the conclusion that someone would compromise their objective of taking as much blood as possible and saving lives, purely in order to mistreat gay people, or because –engage alarmist knee-jerk response– they are homophobic.(Report comment)

By: sleepy_gonzalez

sleepy_gonzalez — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:21:17 +0000

Christianity doesn’t have a particularly acceptable attitude to homosexuality as far as most people are concerned. However you need to be more accurate when using the word ‘homophobic’. Homophobic does not simply mean anti-gay, and should not be employed unless denoting an actual fear of homosexuals/homosexuality. While I agree that calling homosexuality ‘an abomination’ is not cool, there is nothing to suggest that the church’s doctrine is homophobic.
It’s so annoying when people use ‘homophobia’ as a sort of blanket term for anything. It’s such an overused term. Anti gay maybe, but that isn’t the same thing. Just like racism and xenophobia.(Report comment)

By: Siz

Siz — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:30:56 +0000

Waldo — no, Christianity isn’t homophobic. Some Christians, unfortunately, are. Please don’t take the prejudices of some to be the beliefs of all.(Report comment)

By: waldo

waldo — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:54:37 +0000

Christianity isn’t homophobic? Umm…yes actually it is. Take my word for it. Suicide is the biggest killer of gay men. Maybe changing toxic attitudes the Church pervades might save lives as well as the blood that’s not good enough to donate.(Report comment)

By: julianchgreen

julianchgreen — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:54:45 +0000

I also note that there is no mention of either the Islamic Society or Jewish Society who were in close proximity of your reporter at the time. What did they have to say?(Report comment)

By: julianchgreen

julianchgreen — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:53:59 +0000

My name is Fr Julian Green, and I am the Catholic Chaplain to the University. I was certainly asked about this question at the Societies Fair. However, what I said is not fully reported here. I said that Christians are against all forms of discrimation against the dignity of the person. I also said that this is not the only criterion to be used, and that sometimes, in order to protect others, society has to be discriminatory. One such case might be — and I emphasise ‘might be’, as I am not fully informed nor an authority in the case of blood donation — where the health of others is prejudiced. The juxtaposition of my comment next to a half baked theological statement on the Old Testament might be seen to be a ‘slur’ by some. I do not. However it is the sort of comment I would expect to be placed next to anything said about Christianity that might sound positive in any way. I also pointed out to your reporter that this was not the first time in years that the NBS were taking blood donations on the Campus. The University Chaplaincy, St Francis Hall, has been welcoming the Blood service for several years each term for donations. This was discussed by the Chaplains (who discussed this issue) who saw the availability of life saving blood transfusions as a greater good, and that the perceived discrimination felt by some was outweighed by the right to life of those in need of blood.(Report comment)

By: Nick Petrie

Nick Petrie — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:58:35 +0000

Apologies for those that feel they have been mis-represented, the quote was intended to demonstrate that there was a split when it comes to opinions on homosexuality, it certainly was not intended as a ‘slur’. I am glad that you feel you could comment and make your views clear and we will work in the future to make sure committees are approached in an appropriate manner.(Report comment)

By: Siz

Siz — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:57:20 +0000

I agree with Charlotte on this one. As a member of the Anglican Society (and of its committee) I certainly wasn’t approached for my views on this and it hasn’t been discusses in committee meetings. You would probably find that we wouldn’t take a stance on behalf of the society, though — we’re a pretty eclectic bunch and you’d probably find as many different views on this issue, or at least the wider issue of homosexuality as a whole, as there are members. That may be why whoever was asked ‘refused to comment,’ to be honest.

For what it’s worth, I have nothing against either homosexuality or gays giving blood; and that’s my own individual point of view, and nothing to do with AngSoc.

(All the while the ban is in place, though — if you’re eligible and don’t already do so, go and give blood. While the NBS are prohibiting a significant proportion of the population from donating, it’s all the more important that those who can, do. Go on :))(Report comment)

By: Arthur7

Arthur7 — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:36:06 +0000

May I just comment on the disgusting paragraph about the Christian societies in many respects. Fisrtly I believe you spoke to the Crosslinks Stand which had representatives of three societies, CathSoc, AngSoc, and MethSoc. Whoever you spoke to would have refused to speak for two reasons -
1. They were not prepared for a question whose answer would have reflected as a whole society’s viewpoint. You’d simply be gaining a personal perspective and then reported it as a society viewpoint. I suggest next time you wish to get a society’s opinion on a matter you contact them officialy and not just approach miscellanious members.
2. Anything a member would have said could have easily been twisted or mis-reported to spread your own opinion. I realise that’s what journilism comes down to, but at a student paper? Your opinion on Christian beliefs was set before you asked anyone. Father Julian, the Catholic priest, specifically said that Christians were against any types of discrimination. Yet you followed this with a singular biblical quote to the contrary. What was the point of asking for a priest’s opinion when you’ve already decided what his standpoint is. You might as well not mentioned anyone and just replaced that paragraph with “Christianity is homophobic”, which it really isn’t.

On the point of your choice of biblical quote, do you even know where that quote comes from in the bible? Leviticus 20:13 I think you’ll find. To be honest, there are quite a few passages around that section which many Christians consider irrelevent and wrong around that passage. A lot involve stoning neighbours for this and that. Many, not all but many, Christians now consider homosexuality to perfectly fine. That’s why there are many Anglican and Protestant gay Ministers and Vicars.
I understand you’ve worded your paragrph very well by using “traditional” and “devout” to hide the general slur behind a sheild. Yet, the placement of it in the paragraph, when you had understandable silnce (for the above reasons) and a anti-discrimnatory message from a Priest, seems unreasonable and detramental to the hopes of gaining a moderate view. Also you can be a devout or traditional christian and still be fine with homosexuality. Are you suggesting that a homosexual Vicar is not a devout Christian?
Maybe next time you write an article, you can hink about it a bit more before being discriminatary yourself.(Report comment)

By: Charlotte

Charlotte — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:00:51 +0000

This is clearly a controversial issue in society — and people have different opinions based on many things, possibly including their faith. However, do you not think that maybe you have misrepresented the Anglican Society somewhat, by adding the little quote from Leviticus, when they didn’t mention anything about it! Taking a stab at a religious society when they have not commented is not only unfair, but misleading to any student reading this article. I wonder if the person reporting actually went to the committee, where maybe they could have taken a stance on behalf of the society, or just turned up and asked people to comment on the spot.(Report comment)