A Bit of a Rant

[auriol]

My view isn't trendy, and it sure as hell isn't going to be popular, but it's my journal and my opinion.

If anyone would like to actually debate the issue, please feel free - that's how we all learn and develop. I welcome it.

I'm bored with people jumping on the 'easy target' that is the Catholic church. I'm not Catholic, but i watch a hordes of

Comments

[fuseblues]

"The voices of outrage currently accusing the Pope of bigotry didn't sound so loud when Islam4UK were planning their march through Wooton Bassett"

That was probably because they're a bunch of extremist nutbars of no consequence to anyone who wanted (and got, thanks to the press giving them it) publicity, not the faith leader of 70 million people.

"or when Channel 4 decided that President Armadinajad of Iraq was a great candidate for the alternative Christmas speech"

They weren't? The should have been. I'd even posit that they were, if I recall. Bigotry is unacceptable. Full stop. Bigotry from those in a position of influence is worse, as its insidious nature infects those who don't, or won't question. The concept of Papal infallibility even puts a dogma into the catholic church which prevents followers questioning.

"If Christian adoption charities don't want to hand children over to gay couples because it's against their beliefs., then what the hell is wrong with gay couples who wish to adopt approaching secular agencies, such as

[auriol]

Thank God for that - a reasoned argument, not another round of 'the Pope gives people AIDS' or 'the pope was in the Hitler Youth therefore the Pope's a nazi

[swiftblade]

I think the point you make is a good one. I don't like bashing of any kind, and much as I think organised religion has alot to answer for, bashing it for bashing's sake is not productive. That said, the things they do that are harmful should be justly critised

[auriol]

"If Catholic adoption charities withdraw because of this provision, then that shows how truly unchristian they are. Your question about what impact on children's social services would be caused is one that they should answer, not us. I don't like having a gun held to my head

[nicky_cky]

This is an odd one, because both sides seem to me to be right. It's a paradox. Of COURSE no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sexuality; but equally, of COURSE the church cannot in good conscience place a child in the care of people who they consider not to be suitable parents.

I totally agree that IF the church cannot be given an exemption on this, then we also cannot give exemptions on other, similar grounds: no more jobs demanding only women cleaners in women's toilets; no more female only taxi/bus drivers; no more requiring that the LGB rep be LGB; no more 'we particularly welcome applicants from the Asian community...'

I would imagine that Catholic adoption agencies also wouldn't want to place children with unmarried couples, or indeed non-Christian couples. Which is definitely religious discrimination. So is it also wrong for a religion to discriminate on the basis of religion?? Or are there circumstances when we should be flexible about these things?

[auriol]

"This is an odd one, because both sides seem to me to be right. It's a paradox. Of COURSE no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sexuality; but equally, of COURSE the church cannot in good conscience place a child in the care of people who they consider not to be suitable parents."

You've hit the nail on the head. Both sides of the argument are compelling and entirely understandable, and there appears to be no acceptable compromise between the two.

I think I may have an idea, which is the closest to a compromise, and I'd be interested in what any of you think of it:

Abortion is legal in the UK in certain circumstances, and require the signatures of 2 doctors to procure. Christian doctors who are religiously opposed to abortion may not refuse a woman an abortion, but they can refer the lady in question to another doctor for approval if they feel that signing the forms is against their faith. Could we not have the same with adoption?

[auriol]

"I totally agree that IF the church cannot be given an exemption on this, then we also cannot give exemptions on other, similar grounds: no more jobs demanding only women cleaners in women's toilets; no more female only taxi/bus drivers; no more requiring that the LGB rep be LGB; no more 'we particularly welcome applicants from the Asian community..."

My point entirely. It makes a huge amount of sense that the LGB rep is LGB, but insisting on it is bigoted. In addition, if we're going down this route, then having ANY services solely available for individual groups (whether based on gender, religion, sexuality, political persuasion etc) must be outlawed.

If we want equality and no descrimination, then Masonic Lodges, Working Men's Clubs, Labour Clubs, Women's interest groups, LGB societies, the Black Police Federation, and all other similar organisations must be banned tomorrow.

I don't think we're ready for that yet.

[poppymayhem]

That point is interesting to me as in going for a counselling position with the survivors network, they employ females only as the company works with female survivors of rape/sexual assualt/domestic violence

[auriol]

My point entirely, and I will check out Newswipe. I don't watch a lot of TV, but that sounds interesting.

[darzil]

I find it 'wonderfully vitriolic', but can be very incisive.

My main memory of last years series was a piece where he compared the huge media coverage of the G7 protests (which had a couple of hundred people), with the non-existant media coverage of the Pro- Northern Ireland peace agreement demonstration (which had a couple of hundred thousand people).

The media need more taking to account like that.

[darzil]

Oh, and both were on the same day.

[darzil]

"There are very few Catholics in the (predominently african) nations who currently have the highest HIV infection rates, and those that are there are as aware of the churches' teaching on extramarital sex as they are of its stance on condoms. Why therefore does this form part of any otherwise unrelated argument about the Catholic church?"

I think it's a simplification of the fact that central and southern Africa has the highest rates of infection, and around 80% of the populations of those areas are Christian (though of course that covers many denominations). (from http://www.thearda.com/internationalData/byregion.asp and http://www.aidsinafrica.net/map.php)