britologywatch,

Thanks for your comment. I'll try to respond to the issues you raise.

"I think you're rather disingenuous in the way you associate the Cardinal's statement that governments should uphold 'God's morality' with Iris Robinson's apparent moral code. Not that I can act as a spokesperson for him, but I'm sure he would regard child abuse as a much more grievous sin than consensual gay sex or sodomy."

I imagine he would as well. He was wrong, though, not to make a statement on clarifying this distance. There may be some Catholics who feel he has lent his support to her stance, and this needs to be clarified. In any case, his comments were strictly on the role of government, and it is those that I take issue with.

"On one level, when a Catholic refers to 'God's morality', this just means true morality, or morality per se. Now, it's a genuinely moot point whether it is one of the responsibilities of governments to uphold moral values in this more general sense."

Far from being a moot point, morality as the role of government is the question raised by Mrs Robinson. You cannot address a different point ("it is one of..."); her view was anti-democratic, and she repeated it twice.

"resorting to cultural standards... instead of morally right or wrong."

Not quite cultural standards, but the will of the people. That is democracy. Morality is as subjective as will, though both can be manipulated and coerced. What is significant is that the people control government, as opposed to being controlled by theologians.

"Indeed, it's hard to imagine what our society would be like if governments didn't think they had any role in symbolising and encouraging moral standards of behaviour"

The standard should be the rights we have, and those we do not have. We have no right to muder, steal or abuse children. We do have a right to behave in accordance with our sexuality. We have those rights we choose by our votes. We have no responsibilities to government other than to vote and pay taxes; they are thereafter only to ourselves. That is not to support individualism, only the right to choose it. Particularly in an economically liberal state, that is the least that can be expected. It's not hard to imagine a state divorced from public morality, there are examples close to this model within the EU functioning as well as, or better, than the UK.

Patrick,

"all thanks to idiotic Iris"

All credit to the work you and others have been doing, though no credit is due to Iris Robinson. It is despite her, and those who feel too alienated to play a role in public discussions in the aftermath of her comments must be respected in their silence.

Further, I am considering the views expressed elsewhere that she may be experiencing personal difficulties, as the behaviour is extreme, even by her standards. I feel it's best to deal with her comments alone - "love the sinner, hate the sin," if you like.