“Liberal” Totalitarianism.
Posted by Will Haggard on January 25th, 2007
The current debate on gay adoption being forced upon Christian adoption agencies by government legislation raises some sensitive issues between advancing “liberal” causes and the wholesale imposition of “liberalism” in a manner more in keeping with “liberal fascism,” (for want of a better phrase.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6297107.stm
Christian adoption agencies are but one of many adoption agencies within thisfield who are essentially performing charity work. The proposed “Equal opportunities” legislation being debated at present would be a blanket imposition forcing all private adoption agencies to follow the state line. The outcome would be that Christian adoption agencies would find themselves in a predicament in which they would be forced to give children away for adoption to single sex families which in turn would undermine the very crux of their support for unitary mixed marriage families. Not surprisingly the agencies would be forced to close rather than face accusations of hypocrisy if they were to get themselves into this situation.
Why must this legislation be forced in such a blind and blunt manner into such a sensitive area of charity work which ultimately is carried out by non-governmental institutions? If gay couples want to adopt what stops them from going to the many other adoption agencies which aren’t Christian founded? “Liberal” impositions such as this bill are in danger of falling under the term of dogmatic and sadly taintthe cause of very worthy “liberal” agendas by forcing people into a Conservative stance. Rather than loose a valuable player in the adoption agency market and actively going out to humiliate the religion confessed to be followed in the 2001 consensus by 71% of the nation, surely this is a situation which calls for rational and reasonable compromise?
While I completely see where you’re coming from, I don’t agree. People don’t get to opt out of the law just because their personal views don’t fit with it. What’s to stop a restaurant owner then forcing black people to sit in a separate area because he personally is a racist? I realise that this situation is not nearly as severe as that. But in reality, with the attention this issue’s been getting, gay couples are unlikely to go to Catholic adoption agencies now anyway. And, frankly, I think it sets a dangerous precedent for legislation in this country if the Church can take a selective view of the law. I’m not anti-religion or anything like that, I just wish the two spheres could stay separate in this country. If the Church wants to teach people inside its churches that gay marriage is wrong, and that gay couples will not make fit parents, fair enough. Stimulate debate on the subject. But they can’t deny access to services for people who have made up their own minds.
“But they can’t deny access to services for people who have made up their own minds.”
Surely the Christian adoption agencies are not “denying” access as much as not offering a particular service which I don’t see should be compulsory for them to offer. Enough agencies would want to offer it anyway. Again it comes back to how dogmatic you want legislature to be. Make it too dogmatic and you risk creating a “tyranny of the state.” You say also that you wish church and state to remain two differnt spheres. If the State insists on such intervention into privately run charity organisations how is the Church meant to react?
Will,
The government funds Catholic adoption agencies (£20 000 for every adoption they successfully arrange, that’s how much it costs to assess a family and train them for adoption).
They are not a privately run charity organisation, they’re a function of the state, therefore I don’t think they can be subject to tyranny of the state.
Alex
Thank you for enlightening me on that. I agree that if the government has a stake in the organisation then they are entitled to dictate under what guidlines it may run. However are all Christian adoption agencies run in this format of public-private partnership? If privately run, they maintain a set of moral beliefs, in mixed marriages, which may go contrary to the beliefs of the general populous, or at least the loud minority who wish to overule them, but does that justify a dictate from the state forcing them to comply? For example, Muslim shops won’t accept British meat which hasn’t been slaughtered and prepared in a special manner. Should the state rule that they must accept British produce which after all is subsidised furiously by British government? I do however think my initial point has been spun out into murky water and I don’t wish to get involved in a long debate over religous rights in a secular society….
The main BBC article seems to imply it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6289301.stm)
Indeed I think very people would argue that a government funded operation shouldn’t be able to opt out of government legislation. I suppose the more interesting case is private discrimination.
I guess the question is… Do you think if say, Stagecoach Buses wanted to, they should be allowed to ban black people from their buses? If not, do you ever distinguish between racism and other brands of discrimination? Is there any kind of discrimination a private company should be allowed to engage in?