|
|
|
|
The close ties between the Catholic Church and the Fascist regime of general Franco clearly demonstrated to the Spanish people how trustworthy the church is when it comes to human rights. Therefore I'm not surprised that an increasing number of people believe that the church is at odds with realities, and that they turn their backs on it altogether.
The same applies to other churches where the main emphasis is on holding on to old dogmas and power structures, which most people find increasingly meaningless, instead of spending their resources on solving real ethical problems.
One can always hope, that more religious leaders like the past and present archbishops of Cape Town and the present archbishop of York will emerge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the Regulations for Northern Ireland got through.
The ones for the rest of the UK are still awaited, and there is a considerable feeling of nervousness, as it is thought the the NI ones may have been introduced in advance of those in the rest of the UK because the NI Secretary did not want to risk being faced with exemptions he did not support.
For the rest of the UK: there's an interesting article in The Independent today (usually regarded as pretty well-informed on such issues) on the split in the British Cabinet that is thought to exist:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2171678.ece
The LGBT section of my Trade Union, (Unison - which represents many of those working in Local Authorities on child welfare and adoption issues) has drafted model letters to MPs ( http://www.unison.org.uk/file/model%20GFS%20letter.doc ) which I'd urge anyone in the UK who has not already written to their MP on this issue to copy, adapt, and send!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
debate having failed, the catholic church once again resorts to blackmail...
its an interesting insight into the cabinet though. so far, of those whose views are known, only Kelly and Blair are for the church, while Falconer, Miliband, Hain and Des Brown are against...
notably nothing said from either G Brown Reid or Beckett... you'd think those heavy weights would want to weigh in...
and the very worst part is, the act is already passed. Parliament voted us equality last year... this is just an enabling instrument, so there's no parliamentary vote...
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but all the indications are that the Church's action has misfired badly.
For the benefit of overseas posters, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham has threatened that if the Church is denied the right to discriminate against prospective adoptive parents who are gay it will close down its adoption services, thus transferring the burden to the state. The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated sympathy with this view.
Despite the views of Blair and Kelly, independent political analysts are pretty well unanimous in concluding that the majority view in the cabinet is that Parliament cannot give way to blackmail; the law is the law, and the Church cannot be allowed to appear to be above the law.
Though it rarely happens, a Statutory Instrument can be rejected by Parliament, and I'm pretty sure that if it came to the crunch that would happen in this case. The action of the churches has created a very strong reaction; they are seen to be attempting to claim that they would suffer discrimination if they were deprived of the right to discriminate. I doubt very much that their protest will achieve anything other than to increase the rate at which their membership is already declining.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
Parliament cannot give way to blackmail; the law is the law, and the Church cannot be allowed to appear to be above the law.
Wow! The old grey mare ain't what she used to be. 
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie, to you recall the arguments over faith schools not so long ago, and what was described as "the fastest U-turn in british political history". if blair can give in to blackmail once, he'll do it again...
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Churches unite over adoption row
The Church of England has backed the Catholic Church in its bid to be exempt from laws on adoption by gay couples.
Catholic leaders in England and Wales say its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will close if bound by the rules.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have written to the PM.
They say "rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning".
etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6293115.stm
Who is to decide that one set of beliefs is better than any other? Why can't I, as a hypothetical bigot, put up signs saying "No blacks"? If I'd been brought up as a racist I can honestly believe that it would be against my "conscience".
Aaargh. I know everyone else has made exactly the same point. Logic doesn't work against people who believe that there's a 2000+ years out of date bogeyman in the sky telling them they deserve more rights than everyone else.
I used to like or at least have no strong feelings over the Church of England. So much for equality among congregations, gay or otherwise. It's a shame about the decline of C of E cathedrals, churches, choirs and so on, but if they are terminally backward then perhaps it's better that they go.
Even assuming that logic prevails, it won't prevent me from being sincerely disturbed by the positions of Drs Williams and Sentamu.
Sorry, I'm in rant mode at the moment.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have now seen fit to join in on this. As their views are - I think - not representative of the mass of members of the Church of England, presumably it has been done to placate the virulently anti-gay elements of the African and some of the American parts of the Anglican Communion.
The time has now clearly come for the disestablishment of the C of E. If the Church is to be able to feel free to express such opinions freely, it should be relieved of the obvious conflict of interest where it is taken as representing the formal religious views of the State.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Only 7% of UK Citizenry attend church. Interesting that the gilded career god botherers claim to represent the moral majority.
Let them appease Africans in Africa.
Now, All UK readers write to your MP
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Independent Television News and some newspapers are now reporting a climbdown by the reactionaries - it looks (unofficially) as though Catholic Adoption Agencies will be allowed a few years transitional period to either brace themselves not to discriminate or to cease operation in an orderly fashion.
see eg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1998017,00.html
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Is that a littke like a traffic cop giving insane drvers a year or two to slow down to the speed limit?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> Is that a littke like a traffic cop giving insane drvers a year or two to slow down to the speed limit?
Well, it feels like it! But given that it can take eighteen months or longer for the training and approval of prospective adoptive parents and a long period of relationship-building with older & more vulnerable kids before adoption should be considered, I reckon that it is a decision that really is in the best interests of the children.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I liked that logic, but only briefly. The parents start to understand the needs of an adoptee way before they approach an agency. And, while I agree that adoption must be done for the right reasons, looking at the feckless, useless people where I live who breed like rabbits with no undersanding if what a child is (long rant available on demand, here), I really do see that a prospective adopter has already through the concept of children through.
One might say "But the child has rights here" and set out many arguments that adoption is a certain kind (choose one from many) of process, here, but all kids have rights, even those whose genetic material is contained in a pre-existing egg and a yet to be manufactured sperm.
Even so, it is actually the educator that requires training. The challeneg is that I do see it as reasonable to ask to be excused on religious grounds from working with people whom one genuinely believes are "sinful". I can understand a Roman Catholic making this request in the same way that I can understand a Musim woman requesting not, in a ceremony, to shake the hands of a senior person. I can see that religious discrimination should not allow me to object to the requst - that cuts both ways.
I can see that current staff, recruited under different legal regimes might consider that their hands had been forced if the organisation (without the insistence of the law) forced them to go against religious principles. But we also have the law. And, if the law says "do this thing", then they are required to "do this thing", even of it is distasteful to them. They delegated the authority to legislate to their elected representatives and must abide by the deleghated decisions.
What I wonder is "How will their attitides have changed in 12 months? In 18 months?"
Alongside that there are children, and this must be child based, who would be ideally suited to a same gender parenting relationship, and children who would not. But the vital thing is to place the child in the right, supportive and caring home.
To me this means that adoption must be child centric. Placing a Muslim child in a Jehovah's Witness home or vice versa is tantamount to abuse. How does one decide about the gender pairing? I have no idea. But I think one decides on the parenting attitude and the true internal desire to adopt and raie a child to the very best of one's ability. To me this neither favours nor discriminates against a same gender couple.
There is substantially more to be said here, but it woudl run to 20 or 30 pages. My summary is that a grace period benefits no-one except the adoption agency's desire to be "free from sin"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy said,
>Placing a Muslim child in a Jehovah's Witness home or vice versa is tantamount to abuse.
It depends what age they are, of course. Babies have no religion. It is foisted upon them by their elders.
David
[Updated on: Thu, 25 January 2007 14:16] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I agree David. A baby has no religion, but I am sure that Tim was perhaps thinking of an older child who has been raised Muslim or Catholic etc.
I can see his other points also and concur that having a belief that is in direct conflict with your job as a adoption placement counselor etc is a very bad situation. These people should be neutral, but I would always feel that if I was going to try to adopt thru a Catholic agency, they would be finding me a child who is probably Catholic. A natural assumption I would think! I have a problem with forcing a religious based agency to conform to something that is against their religion. If the law is to be obeyed with no thought to religion, then the Catholics and others like them had better get out of the "business". I see no other option if I were in that spot.
I think any couple or single person should be able to adopt, but only after he or she or they have gone thru some kind of evaluation to determine motives and consequences for the child. It would not be an easy task I would think; how do you determine who will make a good parent? I dont think that you can accomplish this by the letter of the law and that it is many times what is felt in the heart which is most important. With an older child, I would think that he or she should have some imput on the issue as to who they are going to live with in the future. I know that simple concept is lost many times here in the US in cases of divorce, so I dont feel it will have a simple solution. I know of several cases where children were made to live with a parent they did not want to be around. But that is another issue isnt it?
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Indeed I did mean a child, not an infant. There is not a vast number of newborns for adoption because of good birth control and abortion.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
It seems the catholic church must adapt its adoption processes or the agencies affiliated to it must close. 20 months is still ridicuous to allow them to adpat, but they should just fade away after some kicking and screamimng
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we woooooon we won we won we won...
well no... we compromised actually... It was Stonewall who proposed a transition period, but if a long transition period means we can actually get these regulations implemented, then i'm all for it, which i think was ben Summerskills reasoning...
so... we woooon!
lol
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
> we woooooon we won we won we won...
>
We won. Common sense won. And, most importantly, the kids have won: there's a lot of very open-minded genuine goodwill among those who work in Catholic adoption agencies, and numbers of highly-skilled staff who do not agree with the "official" church line. These staff can now look for jobs in less bigoted agencies, where their commitment will be valuable. In addition, gay kids who wish to be considered for adoption can feel more comfortable that there are prospective adopters who will not hold their sexual orientation to be "sinful".
The Sexual Orientation Regulations - applying to nearly all goods and services, not just adoption - are the biggest step forward for gay people in England since the 1967 Sexual Offences Act ... although I've been a non-drinker for a couple of decades, I intend to toast them in Champagne on the day they come into effect.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
