Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Catholic Church in opposition to Equality Act
When the transitional assembly sought to defer the introduction of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, there was a concerted attempt to frame the debate within a particular, localised, context. In the end the vote was tied, and the motion fell, through the application of a controversial and recently introduced measure whereby a deceased MLA’s vote was cast against it. In England and Wales though, that localised context doesn’t apply, and it’s the Catholic Church which is leading the oppposition to the Equality Act, threatening the closure of their 12 adoption agencies unless they are granted an exemption from the provisions it contains. Update Related post here
The Guardian report quotes the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman
Mr Blair’s official spokesman said: “This is an issue with sensitivities on all sides and the prime minister recognises that, and that is why it is worth having some discussions in government before we come to a decision”.
“The key thing we have to remember in all of this is the interests of the children concerned and that there are arguments on both sides.
“This is not a straightforward black-and-white issue. This is an issue where there are sensitivities on all sides and we have to respect those but equally find a way through.”
And the statement by Cardinal Murphy-O’Cormac
Cardinal Murphy-O’Cormac released a letter the church had sent to Downing Street, saying: “We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the government to insist that if they wish to continue to work with local authorities, Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide such a service.”
Pete Baker @ 01:48 PM
Paedophiles also pay taxes.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 09:00 PMMore red herrings guys!
The core questions here are (1.) are there personal issues of conscience which society and the state should respect, and 2. is this such an issue? Let us focus our minds on these questions – not on the red herrings.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 09:19 PMThat was unworthy of you, Joe, and not really your style.
But since it has been brought up, even children pay taxes. Aye and poor children too. Direct taxation on goods affects children and on those who care for them.
But I hardly think that anyone in this debate would argue that rights only accrue to those who pay taxes. That would be a gross perversion of the Boston Tea Party warcry.
It is not about sex, it is not about sexuality. This issue is about the care of children. Children are not to be placed into the care of those who “want” a child.
Rich gay men who feel the need to provide a child in order to freshen up their jaded relationship with their younger, less affluent,(but age-rich) partner will always find a child to buy, as do affluent hetero couples.
Caring agencies may resist selling and certainly should fight giving the children away to satisfy the demands of those who simply want.
Whatever the past sins of the Catholic Church in the failure of child care, if indeed they are all past, on this issue they are right, I believe, to fight like hell.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 09:28 PMLord Laird must be in Heaven - he’s finally found a real member of Opus Dei in the Cabinet who appears to be placing her first loyalty to the Vatican instead of her country!
Every unionist’s nightmare come true!
Bwahahahaha!
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 09:53 PMI wonder if Fred and Rose West had of applied to a Cathloic adoption agency, would they ahve been succesful.
After all outwardly they where a normal married heterosexuel couple.
The govt. should tell the church to get on it´s bike and clean up their act as a priority. The church does have a voice within the cabinet however. Ruth Kelly is a strict member of Opus Dei.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 10:13 PMTo all
Can we try to keep the discussion civil?
..and on the actual topic.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 10:17 PMIf the Catholic Church are so keen to contribute to society then let them offer themselves up for election.
If elected by the people then they would have justification for a seat at the top table of policy making.
A democratic accountable Catholic Church is something honourable to aspire to.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 10:19 PMRory
I agree. It was a knee jerk reaction of mine and was uncalled for.
I stand by my other comments. however.Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 10:36 PM“I wonder if Fred and Rose West had of applied to a Cathloic adoption agency, would they ahve been succesful.
After all outwardly they where a normal married heterosexuel couple.”
What a fucking inane and hateful comment. The same could be said of almost any organisation that didn’t fucking know they were serial killers. It is also stupidly beside the point. I could pull out any number of gay people that did bad things and it wouldn’t prove gay people are bad, or people couldn’t be taken in by them. Giving examples of bad hetrosexual people proves nothing either.
“The govt. should tell the church to get on it´s bike and clean up their act as a priority. The church does have a voice within the cabinet however. Ruth Kelly is a strict member of Opus Dei.”
Ruth Kelly is entitled to her views and to join whatever religious body she chooses. There are people in the Labour Party whose views will range from completely atheist and secular to moderate religious to really religious. A range of competing views is a good thing. It’d likely tip towards the secular end in the Labour Party anyway.
Just suppose for a second DW, someone said something nudge nudge wink wink like that someone Jewish. Less smart now perhaps?
The Church is doing the right thing. I don’t believe that homosexual couples should be barred from adopting but at the same time, you can’t really ask people to participate in something they find completely against their faith. So if, the Church can’t comply and something can’t be worked out so maybe there is some kind of vetting process done before it gets to them (so everyone gets a fair crack but people are sent to organisations who don’t hate them), then yes, they should get out of the business.
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 11:32 PMkensei
“The Church is doing the right thing. I don’t believe that homosexual couples should be barred from adopting but at the same time, you can’t really ask people to participate in something they find completely against their faith.”
After the theatrics, you get to the point.
As has been indicated, the issue is whether public funds should enable any agency to decide which couples are suitable to adopt in circumstances where that decision relies entirely on the religious views of those making the decision.
That’s what we’re discussing. And what Ruth Kelly is to advise on.
And, given the comments tonight of Angela Eagle - on decisions of conscience and the availability of public services - there may also another issue to consider..
Posted by on Jan 23, 2007 @ 11:42 PMIf people want to put their child(ren) up for adoption would they have any say in who adopts the child?
If not why not
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 01:02 AMThat’s actually a very good point Beardyboy.
Just to stay off topic for a moment, i believe the biggest perpetrators of paedophilia in the western world (excluding tourist predators) by profession, are farmers followed by state school teachers. Priests are a long way down the list but generate the most publicity (understandibly).
That doesn’t excuse their behaviour, and especially doesn’t excuse the covering up which is arguably worse from an institutional perspective (not of course from a sinful perspective).
I do have differences with the Catholic Church regarding the offical way to view homosexuality and sexuality in general. I can’t see the logic in regarding homosexuality as sinful. I can understand that a free for all sexual culture does cause problems for that culture and there needs to be generally respected boundaries, but i think the church has been too quick to claim moral authority on sexual matters. Personally, i think they’d be better off being constructive and offering ‘guidelines’, a little like the orthodox Christians with marriage / divorce.
Sorry, that’s my 2 pennies worth.
As far as placing children in certain homes i would support the Churches right to decide the qualifications. In the unlikely event that i would be using the adoption agency my natural inclinations would be with the Church before the state agency. But that is my individual preference.
With regards to agencies being funded by public money and therefore bound by public dogma, that is an interesting question that has good arguements and examples on both sides. In the end i think it’s a matter of how much faith you have in what we call democratic institutions and how big of a say you would like the government to have in our lives. I think at the moment there is a healthy balance and that’s probably the best position.
In general, the state has ultimate control (on paper) but is mindful of the diversity of opinion of the people and knows it cannot take full control of some matters. The state rules only by acceptance from the overwhelming majority of its citizens. It cannot risk losing that acceptance, and most governments and public institutions are well aware of that.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:43 AMThe British government should be wary of creating a dangerous precedent. If one religious sect is allowed the right to refuse does it not follow that other sects should also have the right to refuse?
How would the people supporting this measure feel if they were refused entry to a taxi at the airport because they were carrying a few bottles of Duty Free single malt? (As Muslim taxi drivers in the US recently did)
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 06:03 AMI see in this mornings papers that the COE is positioning itself behind the Catholic Church on this one.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 07:16 AMWhy don’t we put it to a vote and see what the outcome is?
Our are the anti-catholic brigade to scared to find the outcome and what a lot of so called bigots we might be!!
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 08:22 AMI am wary of majority rule in cases which are high on emotion, low on evidence. If we held a vote to bring back hanging, I am not sure I would bet on the decency of common folk to turn it down. Leave the voting to Big Brother. Fra, I know it isn’t kind, but please check your spelling before offering your witty diatribes.
I am strongly against the use of public funds to justify discrimination. If we don’t have to fund missionary work out of the public purse, why should we fund adoption which is based on discriminatory criteria out of the public purse?
Does anyone know how many children are placed through Catholic agencies? I realise the Church’s issue is based on principle, but it would be interesting to find out how many individuals are involved. That might make it easier to put odds on who will win this battle.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 08:34 AMoverhere “I see in this mornings papers that the COE is positioning itself behind the Catholic Church on this one. “
Don’t let that surprise you; most ‘Christians’ see this issue the same way.
(The only ‘Christians’ who don’t are liberal in their theology and practice. And, since they don’t believe in the deity of Christ, miracles, the atonement, the resurrection etc etc etc they can hardly deserve to be described as truly Christian anyway. If it does not do what is says on the tin then it is not what it says on the tin. Apologies to my good liberal friends – love you!)Christians, of all sorts, represent a very large slice of UK society and deserve to have their sincerely held views respected.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 09:31 AM“After the theatrics, you get to the point.”
Personally, I reckon putting down borderline offensive comments like the West one important. If you are so interested in getting the point too, maybe you should cut out the sarcasm.
“As has been indicated, the issue is whether public funds should enable any agency to decide which couples are suitable to adopt in circumstances where that decision relies entirely on the religious views of those making the decision.
No, it goes beyond that, and this is an issue even if the agencies were getting NO public funds. Clearly discrimination is wrong. But at the same time, forcing people to place children in homes that goes completely against their religion is a farce. It should also be remembered that Christian organisations are likely going to have different selection criteria than secular services anyway, or at least different emphasis. The question extends to whether religious and moral belief can ever be a factor in decision making, do these organisations do a more effective job such that government would want them involved, and the nature of equality. It is trivial to set up systems here the overall outcome is equally but no gay couples are sent to Catholic organisations. Is this acceptable? In most areas I lean toward “no”, but sometimes examples like this drop out and it is harder to say.
“That’s what we’re discussing. And what Ruth Kelly is to advise on.”
Really? I had no idea. How does that change the point I was making, exactly? Ruth Kelly may or may not agree with any of the above. Assuming she does, she is entitled to it, and is entitled to argue her case as a member of the cabinet. She is also bound by collective responsibility to accept the result. It would be bad if there was no one in the cabinet to argue the other side anyway. Nudge nudge wink wink Opus Dei Papish plot stuff don’t actually help the debate any, and hint at underlying attitudes. Ruth Kelly is irrelevant to the debate.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 09:47 AMWay Icit - isn’t there a difference between respecting one’s opinion and forcing others to pay for it? In my heart of hearts, I may think that religious people should never be allowed to adopt the child of atheist parents. But should that be a public policy decision or would it best to judge an individual case on its merits?
Mores change in this area. It used to be completely normal for white families to adopt black babies without any thought given to the child’s cultural background. Now consideration is given to try to place children within their own background, or at least to try to raise a child with an understanding of his or her background.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 09:49 AMAnimus “isn’t there a difference between respecting one’s opinion and forcing others to pay for it? “
Not ‘others’ – Christians also pay taxes.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 10:10 AMSo you are in favour of completely representational spending on tax or what? I’m talking generally, not specifically. Why should we (any of us) pay for discrimination? You have not answered that question. Let it be self-funding.
And for the record, not all Christians oppose homosexuality, and not just the ‘liberal’ ones either. Many people struggle with what God thinks on this one. It is easy to condemn the faceless mass, but it is considerably more difficult to hate your own gay son/daughter/niece/cousin. And if you do, that is not adherence to Christianity, but a corruption of it.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 10:32 AMAnimus “it is considerably more difficult to hate your own gay son/daughter/niece/cousin.”
I do not ‘hate’ anyone – my view is that homosexuals are no more sinners than the rest of us. Like so many here you miss the real issue – see my previous posts
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 11:28 AMKen
Far from being irrelevant to the debate, Ruth Kelly is the Minister in charge of the department bringing forward the legislation.
So less of the hinting at underlying attitudes, if you don’t mind. And I’d also point you to the previous debate in the transitional assembly.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 11:39 AMWay Icit - you are missing my point. I am not accusing you of hatred. I am accusing the churches, in condemning all homosexual adoption, of displaying a hateful attitude without giving thought to what might be the best interests of a child by dismissing certain people out of hand. This is not a personal discussion of you and whether you are hateful, moral or not.
What is the real issue? As I have said (feel free to see my previous posts) the real issue is whether or not the Church should use public money to discriminate against potential adopters. I say no. If you wish to discriminate, pay for it yourself. Just like beating kids in school. If you think that this is the way to, set up an independent school. Don’t use my tax money to discriminate or injure.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 11:44 AMI think they should pass a law to make all Jewish butchers sell pork as it discriminates against all pork eaters.
You could go on forever if you wanted to please every minority.
Why can’t gay couples just go to agencies that allow them too. Problem solved
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 11:57 AM
