´óÏó´«Ã½

I would change the final sentence (the 'conclusion' of the paragraph) to: "This is hardly evidence of a conversation on rights, rather it has become a discourse considering reversing the direction of discrimination."

It continues to amaze me how many people seek to redress the imbalance of civil 'rights' by swinging the pendulum to the other side in a manner which does nothing to redress civil rights at all but rather changes which groups of people are given preferential treatment by the state. Rather than eliminate victims of discrimination, new victims are created by the shortsightedness of those advocating such measures.

If that's what the Archbishops are addressing, then they have my attention.

Its a fair enough comment, the quoted section above. The tricky bit is in ensuring that it is clear that the politicians beliefs are not affecting their judgment, or making it easier for certain groups to get privileged access to them.
(I realise that half of what the gvt does seems to involve people trying to get privileged access to politicians and then influence them, but you know, I'm talking more generally and ideally here)

The general topic the letter in question addresses looks to me part of a general movement towards more separation of church and state here in the UK, which I agree with.

Perhaps that would make an interesting blog post.

Will

I noticed on Sunday you "corrected" the review of the paper by interpreting that the Catholic Church was "threatening" to close its adoption agencies.

Of course this is a perfectly valid interpretation to take but I question why this is always the line you appear to emphasise.

It appears to be in total denial that Christians might have any rights at all that might be infringed by the new legislation.

That does not attempt to settle the debate, rather to open it. It is not to argue again gay people being given more specific rights.

This is consistently the line of many Christian groups and leaders on this issue, which often stimulates a backlash which ignores their balanced contributions.

Should Christians' rights on this matter be examined in the proper forum and any possible grounds for win-win solutiosn be examined?

Or should the very concept be dismissed without any discussion whatsover?

PB

Not sure what pb's complaining about. It's perfectly ACCURATE to say that the catholic church has threatened to close adoption agencies rather than allow gays to adopt. Pull your head in pb.

A better question to ask: should the catholic church be allowed to run adoption agencies given 4 decades of collusion in the cover up of child abuse across the world.

Guthrie raises a valid point. It is one thing for a politician to be in office and have a faith affiliation. It is quite another for a politician to be in office and legislate based upon their faith affiliation.

In today's political climate where lawmaking involves not protecting rights and freedoms but violating them, it is expected that a politician will vote according to his or her own version of morality, not according to that which will maximise individual choice and freedom. That makes someone with a faith affiliation very likely to let that affiliation dictate their legislative choices.

The distinction between voting freedom and voting the voter's morality is lost on most people. For example, there are few evangelical Christians who believe that homosexuality is sinful that would vote to allow homosexual civil unions. They don't understand the concept of limited government, or the principle that one is responsible for one's own morality and that it is neither moral nor desireable to make moral choices on behalf of an entire nation.

So let's recognise that there are two distinct types of politician, regardless of faith affiliation. I'm a Christian. But given the choice between a Christian lawmaker who will legislate his (or even our) morality and an atheist lawmaker who will legislate to allow each individual the freedom to make their own choices, there wouldn't even be a conversation for me.

henry
Not only 'run' adoption agencies, but get taxpayers money to do so!

Henry

An impartial ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporter "might" just also describe the situation by saying the catholic church feels compelled to close its services rather that compromise traditional judeo christian teaching of 6000 years.

You are rather typifying the liberal side of this debate in that you refuse to acknowledge that religious and others have got rights, for examples under the Human Rights Act.

You are quite right that the Catholic church has committed many crimes against children.

But you are using that to close the real debate rather than open it;

You are attempting to divert from the question raised; Should the rights of religious people, for example under the Human Rights Act, be given any credence in the current discussions?

At the moment faith groups are given exemptions to teach in their congregations that homosexuality is wrong, but they are not given any exemption to believe this in their workplaces. To me this is double standards and it would be more honest to either ban all religious teaching against homosexuality or consider reasonable exemptions.

As I have said before, this is not really attacking abrahamic believers, it is attacking abrahamic sacred books; it is only one step removed for outlawing the portions of these books that teach against homosexuality; and that is only one step removed from state sanctioned book burning - and sets a precedent in the direction of it.

Government figures projected only 3.5% of gay people would partake in civil partnerships and there are many, many state adoption agencies that could deal with gay couples.

It seems a rather fundamentalist position from some gay people at the moment that they insist on "ramming" their views on sexuality and religion "down the throats" of the church adoption agencies, whether catholic or otherwise.

Where is the tolerance, the live and let live? The understanding and the compassion for religious believers? If you have suffered intolerance is the solution now to inflict it?

There is plenty of legal and practical room for a compromise in this situation but apparently only closed minds that will not discuss this.

How many gay couples would prefer to approch a Catholic agency rather than a state one anyway?

And, BTW, has any thought been given to whether the children in question should have a say on whether they have same-sex parents or not?

Is this a question that should be logically and calmly discussed or brushed aside also?

Are all rights equal but some more equal than others?

PB

PB

The Church has had too much involvement in the running of things more correctly handled by the state. If the state becomes somewhere you no longer wish to live, then I understand that you are free to leave; the state must legislate in line with the wishes of the people. That's what your vote is for - you are free to use it.

I believe that as our electorate mature they will increasingly elect representatives whose thinking is objective. A welcome development.

The fact that this debate is occurring, and legislation like this is discussed is symptomatic of the increasing divorce of the church from public affairs - hooray!

How can you support and develop a non-disriminatory society by enabling some groups to discriminate? It's a nonsense.

The US have the separation of State and Church built into their constitution. This is a state of affairs we should aspire to.

To clarify my position, after reading g dubyas above- there is nothing wrong with churches taking part in public affairs, the only difficulty comes when they are taking public money, i.e. money from everyones taxes, and performing services for it.
Of course, if we had a more democratic country instead of the elective dictatorship we currently inhabit, it might be that most people would be against adoption by homosexual couples. But at the moment, the tendency seems to be towards such liberalisations, thus spending public money on organisations which oppose it seems a bit silly.

Some politicians are stupid enough to think that they can offload large chuncks of the welfare state onto private and voluntary organisations, but this kind of thing shows one of the problems with doing that. The voluntary organisation may well be against something that would be done by the welfare state, and as such may decline to cover part of the community, leading to issues of fairness and equality and access to services.

This all boils down to one central question: collectivism or individualism? Do we want a society that honours our freedom to make our own choices or do we want a society that wants to make universal choices on behalf of us all? Answer that, and you've answered a question that really matters to everyone.

pb is obsessed with this anti-gay theme of his but I'll just say this. It is completely correct to say that the catholic church in england has "threatened" to close down services rather than abide by the new equality law. That's a threat = if you do this, we will close our services.

John Wright-

Neither. We are neither hive animals nor monads. We form societies, mixes of individuals, and whatever we do are deeply involved in feedback to and from other people. So your duality is false. If only it was that simple, things would have been sorted out long ago.

The problem is in reaching an effective compromise.

Helen

Thanks, just goes to prove my point; there are too many liberal fundamentalists in this debate who will brook no discussion.

Helen, have you seen the latest entry on this blog - conscientous objection? It seems worth discussing anyway, or are you just so right you need take no constructive dicussion?

GW and Guthrie

Church groups are often funded by the state because they have a unique motivation and committment in certain areas. This is true of my own church which plays an active role in the community, assiting in teaching english to foriegn nationals and provided services for the disabled.

Of course anyone could do this but the churches often have a passion to do it.

gutrie is quite right, the churches have as much right to take part in public affairs as any secular lobby group.

The difference is that the secualr groups did not provide the original basis for the entire cultural-legal system in the UK - more correct to say they often lobby to dismantle it.

I have nothing against a fair fight in this regard though.

PB

.... I have to say though...

I have no doubts that whatever happens in this case will not be the end of this matter.

sooner or later the exemption to churches to teach the bible's view of homosexuality will be rescinded and anyone expressing such a view will be a criminal.

The momentumm and appetite in this direction is too potent to stop now.

It is what is called a neo-pagan society, "babylon" (meaning confusion).

There is no road-map, no blueprint and the architects admit they have no idea where they are going or where it will end.

We have not finished by a long way.

PB

Guthrie- I agree, to a certain extent. But to rationalise the coercion of others in such a way is to create a problem for society that does not exist. You say things would have been sorted out long ago in the case of a duality of individualism and collectivism. But all societies have been collectivist in some measure: some collectivist in the least (USA), some to a large degree (North Korea). There has never been an individualist society; America is as close as we ever got.

The proper question to ask is: how much coercion of the individual is morally justified and why?

Ok it's not my real name - just wanted to tease PB a bit.

PB ... you are an argument for banning fundamentalism

John- your last statement is exactly the one you should have started with.
;)

Banning fundamentalism doesnt work, it just makes it stronger. What does work is ridicule, the removal of any causes that the fundamentalists might latch on to, and education about the world around them.