|
Post by Craig on Jan 30, 2007 7:36:54 GMT -1
Hi all,
I've put this here because I don't want to disturb the peace in the other fora.
My thoughts of late have been around the Catholic Adoption Agencies wanting exemption from Gay discrimination legislation.
I expect that most people here would agree that they have no right to be exempted and applaud the Cabinet's stand against the christian fascismTony B.Liar and Ruth (Opus Dei numenary) Kelly? (Remember what I have said here and come back after you've read the paragraphs below).
At present the Catholic Church is sulking and threatening to review all its voluntary agencies with a view to how they will deal with having to be equanamious to gays. My mind goes to a scene in Galilee in the 1st century. A man lies dying and his sister begs the Messiah to save him. She says he has always been a good man. The Messiah pokes the groaning man with his sandalled foot and says "Nah... he's a pooftah!".
But how far would you go on a point of doctrine, dogma or belief?
Would you refuse to help a fallen man because he was of a different faith? Would you refuse to help a woman and children because they were from the 'undeserving poor'? It's alright these questions are rhetorical, as they should be for Christians, especially in the light of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Our beliefs tend to be more personal, more internalised than most. But as the strength of our way increases so does the pressure to form groups, to create liturgy and dogma and to conform to the leadership of others.
The first example of this that I had heard of occurred last year. A leader of a large druid community stripped off at the annual camp and his little lambs followed suit. According to first hand testimony (OK - hearsay - but from people I trust) he then went around camp trying to get others to do so. Quite a number of people felt intimidated by this charismatic man standing naked before them, with a gang of followers suited likewise. A few actually disrobed because they felt they must - this man was a leader, well-respected and 'obviously' wiser than they. Who were they to question... and so it begins.
How soon before our 'leaders' don't merely show us the wisdoms they have acquired, but also their prejudices? It would not be hard to whip up discrimination against christian druids and An Ceile De. After all they can't be 'real druids' if they recognise Christ now can they? Easy target, meek opposition, easy win - smell of victory in the air, feeling of strength, turns the feelings of 2,000 years of oppression into... into... revenge.
Discrimination is easy. It is empowering, for if they are wrong, you are not, and people so want to be on the right side.
Now go back to that paragraph I highlighted above, about the Cabinet and Ruth Kelly. Did you agree with me and if so why? Did it make you feel justified that the Catholic Church was getting it's due comeuppance? Did my mention of Opus Dei put even that little bit of spice in the pot? Are you becoming tied to pagan dogma? The belief that we are, and always have been, the poor oppressed spiritual Britain?
Well folks I have news for you - its all b*ll*cks.
What happened yesterday is that a bunch of socialist atheists pushed an organisation that was doing sterling work into a corner and beat it senseless. The truth about the Catholic Adoption agencies barely got a mention, even on the sacred Today program on Radio 4.
I have family who work for these agencies. They never refuse a child - the only agencies in Britain that have this rule. As a result they get the very worst, the most abused, the most aggressive placements. They choose their families carefully, prepare them well and support them thoroughly. The sort of families you need to take the beating they will get have to be the most secure and experienced. And there is the rub - experienced. If you don't have this magic ingredient you are politely passed to another, less challenging agency - and this is what has been happening.
The Catholic Church tried to explain this alongside their own philosophical misgivings, but guess which part of their statements got aired?
So what will be the result of all this? Well in 21 months time we might see the Catholic Church turn away from running and supporting adoption agencies. What sort of victory would that be, especially for the children?
The problem with blanket rules, especially those tied to people's 'rights', is that they are well-intentioned but seldom wise. Humanity cannot be placed in nicely labelled buckets, they tend to slop over the edge. This is where we, as druid, need to be different, need to apply wisdom, fairness and justice - not law or dogma...
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
|
|
|
Post by jez on Jan 30, 2007 16:56:09 GMT -1
I'll bite -- One point for the present - if a same sex couple were to present as adoptive parents and were experienced in fostering or adoption through their contacts with other secular agencies, would the Catholic agencies treat them on equal terms with an experienced paired sex couple? And if not, why should they receive public funding? -- Jez
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Jan 30, 2007 21:28:29 GMT -1
That would put the Catholic Agency on the spot wouldn't it? But you are talking about a rare exception rather than the 'greater good'. Craig.
|
|
|
Post by jez on Jan 31, 2007 7:23:03 GMT -1
That would put the Catholic Agency on the spot wouldn't it? But you are talking about a rare exception rather than the 'greater good'. Craig. Absolutely. But the incidence of same sex couples being experienced fosterers and adoptive parents is one which will increase - but only if they are not discriminated against. The fair test of a position is not the most extreme point, but the point at the limit of comfort - which is the one I proposed here. A couple who have fostered several difficult children, successfully, and now apply to adopt. They have confidence in their ability to cope, and a proven track record. They take the decision to take on a child who has been rejected by other agencies. The child has been placed with a Catholoc adoption agency. Should they be discriminated against? Or is this unacceptable? -- Jez -- PS - I tried to ring you last night, but your phone was off Thanks for your support and help.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 31, 2007 10:25:43 GMT -1
replace the word 'gay' with 'black'.
what the catholic church want is the right to discriminate - its that simple. that cannot be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Jan 31, 2007 12:25:58 GMT -1
Hi Lee,
The Catholic Church do want the right to discriminate, and that is fundamentally wrong, but should we throwing the babies out with the bathwater? Will the action of closing down their agencies increase the general weal or not?
The net effect is likely to be that we will force these agencies to close even though it was highly unlikely that any self-respecting homosexual/lesbian couple would have approached the Catholic Church anyway, especially as there are numerous other agencies that are far more welcoming to them.
As the Catholic agencies were the last resort for 70-80 children a year we will be denying them the chance of a positive adoption. Where is the benefit in that?
It is a bit like the situation where some small shops have had to close because they cannot afford the improvements required under the various disability access regulations.
It seems to me that there is a hell of a lot of law out there, with compensation lawyers hanging around them like vultures, and precious little common sense.
Blessings, Craig.
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Jan 31, 2007 12:32:12 GMT -1
Hi Jez Is your example real or just an example? As I said to Lee I agree that discrimination is wrong, in principle. Pragmatism rules though that we need all the help we can get in serving these children's needs and if that means occasionally doing a deal with the devil well so be it. My first thought is with the childen, not some adult's hurt feelings. Hey you gay people! Yes you! The Catholic Church doesn't like you, never has, and never will! You can't legislate them into loving you so get over it! As for me, I'd love a nice gay couple to adopt me. My mum might not like it mind - she's catholic Blessings, Craig <o>. PS: I'll try and ring you Thursday - that old phone is flat and not charging at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 31, 2007 16:03:24 GMT -1
but then if you start making exceptions for religions on the bais of faith, you open up the possibilities of people trying to get exemption from other laws.
what if they then want to be exempt from other discrimination laws on the basis that they dont want children going to jews or muslims?
|
|
|
Post by jez on Jan 31, 2007 19:26:53 GMT -1
Hi Jez Is your example real or just an example? Does it matter? It will be real in the future, even if, at present, there are few (or at least fewer) same sex couples qualified and willing to adopt the challenging children. And what if the challenging child is gay? -- I have no problem with adoption agencies run by Catholics being selective through their own principles. But if they are, then they should gain their funding through Catholic monies, not through state funding. -- Jez
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Feb 1, 2007 7:02:38 GMT -1
Hi Jez,
As far as I understand it they get government money for placing the children, not just as a set annual grant - does that make a difference.
Did you all know that there are government funded adoption agencies out there that are dedicated to placing afro-caribbean kids with jusr afro-caribbean families? So we can have discrimination when it favours a minority community and it is seen to benefit the child. Shame if you are white though and you'd love any child...
Blessings, Craig <O>.
|
|
|
Post by jez on Feb 1, 2007 10:17:36 GMT -1
From my PoV, I am not against people doing the best they can within their own perspective, whether that perspective is faith-based or otherwise - like Elizabeth I, I know you cannot see within a man to his conscience.
But, as I believe you have said in Another Place, one person's freedom of expression stops before it hits my face... I am not in favour of secular taxes going to support faith- or other-based organisations if those organisations are not following secular laws.
Such organisations must expect to be funded by their own communities.
However - and there is always a 'however' isn't there?? - if they do a job that the secular organisations cannot do, then they should receive at least some financial recognition - or the secular institutions should be funded to add to their capabilities.
It is interesting to wonder why the Catholic agencies are better able to place difficult children, and to wonder also if their expertise could be out-sourced - at a paid rate - to run training or whatever is needed for the secular agencies to come up to speed. The money charged for such traingin could then off-set the funding lost by failing to obey the law of the land in which they find themselves.
--
Jez
|
|
|
Post by jez on Feb 1, 2007 10:25:47 GMT -1
replace the word 'gay' with 'black'. What the catholic church want is the right to discriminate - it's that simple. That cannot be allowed. It is possibly fairer to replace the word 'gay' with 'adulterous', 'fornicating' or non-Catholic marriage couples. As far as I know, there is no religious injunction to intolerance of particular ethnic groups, but there is a lot of biblical reference to sexual practices. Adulterous or fornicating couples - anyone not married in the Catholic church, in this case - are condemned in the Old Testament, and in Acts and some Letters. Though as far as I recall, never by Jesus... Hmmm... If the agencies are only placing children with experienced, Catholic-married couples, then they will be discriminating against CofE couples, Moslem couples, Hindu couples and, obviously, Atheist and pagan couples. None of this is available in the information I have found, though. -- I say again, if they are placing children with experienced couples, that is great. But not all experienced couples are Catholic, are they? And not all tax-payers are Catholic, and I, for one, would rather see my money doing good in a different place. -- Jez
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Feb 1, 2007 12:16:36 GMT -1
Hi Jez,
As far as I can tell their success rate lies in their ability to find and support adoptive families from within the mostly catholic community. Strong, well-established mariages, with their own children, supported by the agency and the local church make good foundations for disruptive kids.
The catholic moral emphasis on 'family values', and the extended family cultural background of many catholics, possibly assist this.
I came from just such a family, although I was home-grown, and it never did me any harm (until I met Father Pete O'Feill that is....).
Blessings, Craig.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Feb 1, 2007 15:57:28 GMT -1
Hi Craig/Jez I guess I'd rather hide this one out - as I expect my own view about what 'prejudice' is, and when I feel people use that word as a Trojan horse for their own prejudice won't be popular! I suppose to put my view into context - I'll mention that I was born into a recusant catholic family and occasionally I notice myself thinking in ways that leave me worrying that my escape from certain patterns of thought isn't quite yet complete! I like to believe that I'm not a prejudiced person and the only thing I can think of to say in support of that relevant to this is that of my daughter Ffion's ( and her soon to be joining us brother or sister three appointed guardians, in the event of Anna and myself leaving this mortal coil a little earlier than we hope, two are gay. This wasn't deliberate- it just happened to be that that was the sexuality of the people we thought most suitable. I don't say any of the above out of the vanity of thinking you're interested to read about who I am, but in the hope that I can offer my view without just being condemned as prejudiced or being economical with the truth of my relationship to the catholic church. There is I think a huge difference between legislation that is discriminatory, and legislation that is anti-discriminatory. I don't believe they are quite the 'two sides of the same coin' they appear to be. The first is obviously abhorrent but the second is a much more difficult situation and I don't think necessarily all golden. It is legislating against opinions, beliefs and personal conscience (which isn't a wholly christian concept). If legislation prevented gay couples adopting then I'd be out there protesting for the law to change. But that isn't the case - I don't know but given the way this has been covered in the media it sounds like the vast majority of agencies do place children with gay couples. If you're gay and you want to adopt in this country then no-one is stopping you. The Catholic church is not stopping you. It isn't lobbying the government for a law to prevent gay couples adopting. The Catholic church isn't trying to stop this practice. The Catholic church is a club that you can join or leave as you wish (without getting burnt either now or for eternity later Do we want to live in a country where the government legislates over what opinions and beliefs are legal for members of a club to hold? If you're a gay couple then frankly it’s daft, perhaps even disingenuous of you to approach the Catholic church's adoption agency. There are any number of other agencies you can approach- and I would suspect those gay couples approaching the Catholic church to have more of a militant political than child focused agenda. I think that our society is led by idiot, atheist, knee-jerk liberal urbanites (not that I’m prejudiced who more and more seek to impose their opinions on everyone not by persuasion and rational reflection or even the sort of education that leads folk to be capable of coming to their own rational conclusions, but through legislation- (doesn't the liar Blair hold the national record for the introduction of criminal legislation?) Their fear of the accusation of prejudice shows them to be spineless to stand up more honestly and rationally in the debate about personal freedoms and discrimination. It would be unacceptable discrimination if gay couples couldn't adopt. I think it is an unacceptable situation to legislate against personal freedoms that don't hurt anybody. It might annoy, even upset people that the Catholic church doesn't subscribe to the current Secular State Religion of Liberalism but that’s life - get over it and get on with what you want in life. If you want to adopt then go and adopt don't worry that <5% of adoption agencies will discriminate against you. Prejudice will always be with us. We can't legislate all of it away in terms of how people ‘want’ other people to act. One man's prejudice is another woman's personal freedom. We can try and convince people why we feel their opinion is wrong, but as long as the law itself isn't the cause of the discrimination then I think we should be wary of legislating against what are matters of personal freedom. On the point about public money going to the church. Then I really don’t understand your problem in this specific instance with this Jez? As I understand it the Catholic adoption agency gets a fee for every child it places. In much the same way that a group of Catholic Polish workers currently get a fee from the forestry commission (public money) for every tree they plant – i.e. piece rates. I recently read that a local womens rugby team recently got a grant to buy equipment from the council- that’s Public Money and I expect if I turn up wanting to play they will discriminate against me just because I’m male. I know there are huge holes in my argument above. But this is a topic more easily convincingly written as a book not a (relatively) quick reply in a discussion forum. Please remember that I do say it would be unacceptable discrimination if gay couples couldn’t adopt! And that although some personal freedoms may upset some peoples sensibilities, sometimes you have to accept that not everyone thinks in the same way, and that not only one way should be acceptable (I didn't say desirable)– which is what may happen if we go down the path of this sort of legislation. In the context of a situation where legislation and the vast majority of agencies do help gay couples adopt, then individuals and groups (such as the Catholic church) not wanting to help gay couples adopt might not be very nice but I’m not sure it should be illegal. Pagans and christians in my limited experience seem to come down particularly hard on each other whenever the oppurtunity arises- I don't think this sort of prejudice is very nice but I wouldn't want to legislate against it either! I’d have much rather talked about this around a campfire than by email!- I think its easy to misunderstand each other on emotive subjects - when you get no feedback as to how people are seeing what you're trying to say until you've got to the bitter end! Bendithion Stephen
|
|
|
Post by jez on Feb 1, 2007 17:28:56 GMT -1
But it is a good topic, isn't it? A good, solid topic, with good reasons to come down on either side. Thanks, Craig -- Jez
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Feb 1, 2007 18:13:29 GMT -1
A simple question, please no weighted arguments or spirited defenses. Just a simple answer.
What is more important - the principles we hold or the wellfare of a child?
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Feb 1, 2007 18:38:35 GMT -1
Hi Stephen, I do like it when you wander down out of the woods. Good to hear from you, particularly in such depth. I hope you don't mind me snipping your paragraphs with the term ...snip... for brevity's sake, after all the full text is just above this post. I do like to relate my answers directly though to your word - just as if we were having a real conversation. I guess I'd rather hide this one out - as I expect my own view about what 'prejudice' is, and when I feel people use that word as a Trojan horse for their own prejudice won't be popular! As far as I'm concern your view is quite welcome. It has the twin virtues of both being honest, and in my own opinion - true. I suppose to put my view into context - I'll mention that I was born into a recusant catholic family and occasionally I notice myself thinking in ways that leave me worrying that my escape from certain patterns of thought isn't quite yet complete! I am also a recovering catholic. It's been 35 years since my last mass and confession and I still have to take it one day at a time I have had to accept that some of my world view shall be forever catholic, but all in all that hasn't been a bad thing. My love of my family, and part of my understanding of the concepts of duty and honour all stem from this early exposure to a highly moral environment. My ancestors were persecuted for their catholic faith and I will not dishonour them for it. I like to believe that I'm not a prejudiced person ...snip... two are gay. This wasn't deliberate- it just happened to be that that was the sexuality of the people we thought most suitable. Gay friend credentials noted - check! I don't say any of the above out of the vanity of thinking you're interested to read about who I am, but in the hope that I can offer my view without just being condemned as prejudiced or being economical with the truth of my relationship to the catholic church. Ah, but your friends - like me, BB and Jez - are interested in knowing you better me old mate. There is I think a huge difference between legislation that is discriminatory, and legislation that is anti-discriminatory...snip... I don't think necessarily all golden. You are correct they are not the two sides of the same coin - we must always look at the public and underlying intent in any legislation that can limit freedom. It is legislating against opinions, beliefs and personal conscience (which isn't a wholly christian concept)....snip... The Catholic church isn't trying to stop this practice. Conscience is not a christian-only concept. In earlier times where many people had much more direct personal experience of the divine this would have been a common thread in their lives. Their surviving tales talk of it directly and indirectly often. The Press coverage of this issue has been scandalous and not a few atheists and pagans have jumped unthinkingly upon the bandwagon. "How dare the Catholic Church deny poor gays their human rights!" - it makes me want to spit! What bloody human rights? But that is another topic I'll be opening up when this has run its course. The Catholic church is a club that you can join or leave as you wish (without getting burnt either now or for eternity later Do we want to live in a country where the government legislates over what opinions and beliefs are legal for members of a club to hold? ...snip... Catholic church to have more of a militant political than child focused agenda. I honestly think that most people would rather this matter was kept under wraps like all the other incidences of open 'prejudice'. How many black or openly gay members of the BNP are there? Answer - probably none. Some situations are self-selecting, few people that Nick Griffin and his thugs hate are going to be clamouring at their door to join them. This government however, has made it clear by their actions that they are willing to take us down the road to '1984'. I re-read Orwell's masterpiece last year and was chilled by the similarities to New Labour's Britain. If they could legislate our consciences I honestly believe they would do it - for the greater good of course. I think that our society is led by idiot, atheist, knee-jerk liberal urbanites ...snip... (doesn't the liar Blair hold the national record for the introduction of criminal legislation?) I am less concerned about the 'liberal urbanites' than I am about the neocon centre of power in New Labour. Seldom has a modern British Government had so many overtly religious cabinet ministers. One even wears the Cilice. Mr B.Liar has introduced over three thousand new offences onto the statute book, many of them under the guise of freeing us from discrimination or fighting terror. Yet to date the majority of then people caught by them have been people using their commonlaw right of free speech and assembly. Do any of you feel less discriminated against? Do you feel any safer? Not me either. Their fear of the accusation of prejudice shows them to be spineless to stand up more honestly and rationally in the debate about personal freedoms and discrimination. Is it cowardice or the cynical exploitation of fear we are facing here? It would be unacceptable discrimination if gay couples couldn't adopt. I think it is an unacceptable situation to legislate against personal freedoms that don't hurt anybody. Agreed on both. It might annoy, even upset people that the Catholic church doesn't subscribe to the current Secular State Religion of Liberalism but that’s life - get over it and get on with what you want in life. If you want to adopt then go and adopt don't worry that 5% of adoption agencies will discriminate against you. But it isn't a liberal agenda they are pursuing. It is quite the opposite, the real iron fist in a velvet glove. I am hurting you to make you free Winston Smith. I think most gay couples are quite bemused by all this furore as they wouldn't have even thought of going to a catholic agency. The Catholic Church is quite upfront about its unreasonable prejudices, unlike that dissembling fool in Canterbury. I had high hopes for our 'fellow druid', but it seems the post has broken him just as it has his predecessors. Prejudice will always be with us. We can't legislate all of it away in terms of how people ‘want’ other people to act. One man's prejudice is another woman's personal freedom. We can try and convince people why we feel their opinion is wrong, but as long as the law itself isn't the cause of the discrimination then I think we should be wary of legislating against what are matters of personal freedom. Ah, but what is prejudice? Is it merely an irrational fear of that which you do not understand? Or do the roots of many of today's prejudices have more rational roots, long lost and become irrelevant? Such as the Scot's disdain for the English... based on real historical acts of unrelenting persecution, now no longer relevant - but maintained to feed the political ambitions of a few - eh President Alex Salmond - the would-be new Bruce? Many christian, jewish and islamic prejudices are based upon laws devised to aid the survival of a fleeing tribe of nomadic hebrew goat-herders from slavery in Egypt. Go figure... On the point about public money going to the church. Then I really don’t understand your problem in this specific instance with this Jez? ...snip... that’s Public Money and I expect if I turn up wanting to play they will discriminate against me just because I’m male. Ah but those female rugby players are a new labour identified discriminated-against minority you rotten chauvinist In the context of a situation where legislation and the vast majority of agencies do help gay couples adopt, then individuals and groups (such as the Catholic church) not wanting to help gay couples adopt might not be very nice but I’m not sure it should be illegal. Agreed. Pagans and christians in my limited experience seem to come down particularly hard on each other whenever the oppurtunity arises- I don't think this sort of prejudice is very nice but I wouldn't want to legislate against it either! Not all of us Stephen. Even though I have my own problems with Papal doctrine, I'd rather have a good interfaith relationship in place than blood on the streets. I’d have much rather talked about this around a campfire than by email!- I think its easy to misunderstand each other on emotive subjects - when you get no feedback as to how people are seeing what you're trying to say until you've got to the bitter end! So when are we coming up to your woods to chat then? Some of us are pretty close you know...? Bright blessings, Craig <o>.
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Feb 1, 2007 18:41:05 GMT -1
Hi LR, What is more important - the principles we hold or the wellfare of a child? Always and forever - the welfare of a child. I am on a journey of many lifetimes. I can play out my spiritual fantasies another time - but if I can help that child but once I would be a poorer pilgrim for turning away. Blessings, Craig <o>.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Feb 1, 2007 19:43:14 GMT -1
Hi LR, What is more important - the principles we hold or the wellfare of a child? Always and forever - the welfare of a child. Anyone care to argue that?
|
|