Dispatches: In God's name

[untethered]

I didn't find the film angering or upsetting at all - it was hilarious - they're twerps with very limited influence - as the film showed, all you need to do is point a camera at them and they show themselves up instantly. Why get angry at such idiocy?

Because certain "liberals" insist not just that everyone should act as they do, but must think as they do, too.

Anyone not conforming to a mandated set of beliefs is seen as a threat.

 

[Aravis]

Because certain "liberals" insist not just that everyone should act as they do, but must think as they do, too.

Anyone not conforming to a mandated set of beliefs is seen as a threat.

I am getting such a strong feeling of deja vu.....

 

[Belushi]

However, it doesn't really show them in a good light if they'd rather children stayed in care than were adopted by gay people, does it?

Bigot

 

[untethered]

Here's the thing, supposing you are gay and a fundamentalist Christian, you are perfectly free to believe you shouldn't engage in homosexual activity. That is a matter for yourself. What you are not free to do is seek to prevent others from doing so. That is authoritarian.

Quite right, it is. And I think these kinds of issues show up which side of the line people fall on.

Personally, I don't have a problem with authoritarianism. I just have a problem with other people's authoritarianism and authoritarians posing as liberals.

This film tonight showed people who were opposed to other people being gay. It is, frankly, none of their business.

And yet it becomes other people's business when, for example, they want to adopt children.

Now, as to adoption. If Catholic agencies would rather throw a hissy fit and close down rather than adopt children to gay couples, then of course that is a matter for them. However, it doesn't really show them in a good light if they'd rather children stayed in care than were adopted by gay people, does it?

I believe this point has already been made.

What you seem to be missing is that there are many people in this country and in the wider world that think the Catholic agencies were put in an invidious position and did exactly the right thing. They abided by their principles and the law of the land. Of course, the liberals would have loved it if they could have forced the agencies to act against their principles, but they didn't get that so they (you) settled for the next best thing.

 

[Belushi]

Are you actually trying to create a society where people are told what to think, or is it just an incidental by-product of other aims?

I'm trying I'd like to see a society where people are treated equally, not discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality.

Not a Society where bigots use the language of liberty in a cowardly attempt to defend their own shameful prejudices.

 

[Orang Utan]

Because certain "liberals" insist not just that everyone should act as they do, but must think as they do, too.

Anyone not conforming to a mandated set of beliefs is seen as a threat.

I agree with you, despite your words coming from a distrustful fearful bigotted little mind. There are plenty like you on the other side though too.

 

[danny la rouge]

I didn't find the film angering or upsetting at all - it was hilarious - they're twerps with very limited influence - as the film showed, all you need to do is point a camera at them and they show themselves up instantly. Why get angry at such idiocy?

Except there is a fundamentalist group in the town where I live. It is growing in strength, and has its claws into one of the primary schools. The self appointed pastor runs the assemblies every week and has done so for eight years. (The mainstream church here is obviously the Church of Scotland. The C of S minister has been invited once in the last two years).

This pastor is homophobic, Creationist, and every bit as "humorous" as the people in that film. And yet he has quite unprecedented access to a state primary school.

He also runs a youth group for older kids, on Friday evenings, where they chat about sexuality etc. It regularly has attendances of 60 kids. Kids who have grown up hearing this man's message, and so turn to him for support.

This is a small town, you couldn't get 60 kids to turn up to a free Buckfast night. That is a significant power base this guy has built himself.

I know people who have been sucked into this group, and they prey on the vulnerable, and, I have no hesitation in saying, ruin their lives.

So, no, I don't think these people can be brushed aside the way they once could.

 

[Belushi]

What you seem to be missing is that there are many people in this country and in the wider world that think the Catholic agencies were put in an invidious position and did exactly the right thing.

You mean they were asked to abide by the law and not discriminate on the basis of sexuality?!

The poor persecuted dears - it's like the Romans feeding them to the Lions all over again

 

[untethered]

I'm trying I'd like to see a society where people are treated equally, not discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality.

This appears to be a noble aim but I think it's not possible to achieve in practice. For a start, you're upholding the principle of "equality" above all other things. Yet when you move from encouraging to mandating equality you start to infringe on liberty. If homosexuals can demand to have the state enforce their way of life on others, why can't Catholics?

Everyone knows that the pragmatic compromise here would have been to allow an exemption for these agencies. They were doing perfectly good work until the law suddenly decided that it wasn't good enough.

 

[danny la rouge]

And yet it becomes other people's business when, for example, they want to adopt children.

Yes, people are vetted for suitability. Of course. But if you are going to argue that it is OK to say gay people never make suitable parents, then I'm sorry, we disagree.

What you seem to be missing is that there are many people in this country and in the wider world that think the Catholic agencies were put in an invidious position and did exactly the right thing.

They are entitled to think that, but why do they think that throwing a hissy fit and leaving kids in care who could have been a part of a loving family is the "right thing"? Doesn't seem very ...Christian, or does it?

 

[Belushi]

Because certain "liberals" insist not just that everyone should act as they do, but must think as they do, too.

.

Really, would you like to provide a link to these certain liberals where they demand that people must 'think as they do'? I bet you cant outside of your own fevered imagination.

Funny how in the conservative mind expecting adoption agencies to abide by anti-dicriminatory legislation becomes some kind of Orwellian nightmare

 

[untethered]

You mean they were asked to abide by the law and not discriminate on the basis of sexuality?!

You speak as if this were an unchallenged, universally-accepted value. Let me remind you once again that it is not, as much as you would like it to be and as much as you no doubt try to blot out any evidence to the contrary.

 

[danny la rouge]

You speak as if this were an unchallenged, universally-accepted value. Let me remind you once again that it is not, as much as you would like it to be and as much as you no doubt try to blot out any evidence to the contrary.

I think you'll find most people are aware that discrimination is indeed not universally condemned. Some, indeed, revel in it. However, what you have not said is whether that's OK.

 

[Belushi]

You speak as if this were an unchallenged, universally-accepted value

Are you seriously suggesting that homophobia is somehow acceptable because plenty of people are homophobes?

. Let me remind you once again that it is not, as much as you would like it to be and as much as you no doubt try to blot out any evidence to the contrary.

No, we've got you here to remind us that mindless, unthinking bigotry is alive and well.

 

[untethered]

Yes, people are vetted for suitability. Of course. But if you are going to argue that it is OK to say gay people never make suitable parents, then I'm sorry, we disagree.

We've had this discussion recently on the IVF thread. Indeed, we do disagree.

They are entitled to think that, but why do they think that throwing a hissy fit and leaving kids in care who could have been a part of a loving family is the "right thing"? Doesn't seem very ...Christian, or does it?

I don't remember anyone throwing a "hissy fit", just people articulating and standing up for their values. I think the Catholic church are in a good position to know what Christian values are, at least from their sectarian perspective. If you don't understand why then you understand very little about how the Catholic church works.

On the specific point, did anyone really expect that the Catholic agencies were going to permit homosexual couples to use their service? Don't be silly. It was all just a game, organised by "liberals" in the name of equality, in which the children were just pawns in the service of a political ideology.

 

[untethered]

Are you seriously suggesting that homophobia is somehow acceptable because plenty of people are homophobes?

I don't remember suggesting that. Surely it has a validity or otherwise on its own merits.

Incidentally, while I can't speak for anyone else, I'm more than happy for you to call this "homophobia". It's a little dramatic but it does the job.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't remember anyone throwing a "hissy fit", just people articulating and standing up for their values.

They took their ball away. They were (in my view) entitled to do so, as I have said. If they didn't want to work to place children in gay families, they don't actually have to. However my use of the phrase hissy fit is because it illustrates the fact that they would rather stop doing adoption work altogether and leave children in care.

I think the Catholic church are in a good position to know what Christian values are, at least from their sectarian perspective. If you don't understand why then you understand very little about how the Catholic church works.

As a former altar boy, I understand very well how the Catholic Church works. It is one of the most reactionary forces around.

On the specific point, did anyone really expect that the Catholic agencies were going to permit homosexual couples to use their service?

I can't speak for the legislators. I have no idea what they thought would happen. I, on the other hand, knew fine well the Catholic Church would rather close down their agencies than work with poofs.

 

[danny la rouge]

We've had this discussion recently on the IVF thread. Indeed, we do disagree.

Well, I didn't post on or read the IVF thread. It was too long before I saw it. So can you be specific for me: are you arguing that people never make suitable parents, or are you arguing that it is OK to say gay people never make suitable parents?

 

[untethered]

It would seem that we have some deep conflicts here that are unlikely to be resolved. And that, really is my point. The law and culture in this country is a mass of contradictions when it comes to matters of religion and belief. No-one is happy. We have the law on incitement to religious hatred which offends both religious people and free-speech libertarians. We have laws on abortion and homosexuality which, according to who you're talking to, either go too far or not far enough. The various sides of these arguments are pretty well entrenched and aren't inclined to shift very far.

I think there's a huge irony that the "liberals" are building a most pernicious form of authoritarian and inequitable government in the name of equality.

 

[8ball]

Channel 4 is going through a real "crazy-mofo-pr0n" season at the moment.

Beats all the property development shite, I suppose . . .

 

[treelover]

Wait till the new welfare reforms kick in and the evangelists win many of the contracts, they are growing in power, and when the Tories get in and welfare is even more massively cut, it will be the Fundies(perhaps incl the Islamicists) who fill in the gaps as they have in America.



'I didn't find the film angering or upsetting at all - it was hilarious - they're twerps with very limited influence - as the film showed, all you need to do is point a camera at them and they show themselves up instantly. Why get angry at such idiocy?'

 

[danny la rouge]

I think there's a huge irony that the "liberals" are building a most pernicious form of authoritarian and inequitable government in the name of equality.

I don't. That's what liberals do: legislate.

 

[untethered]

Well, I didn't post on or read the IVF thread. It was too long before I saw it. So can you be specific for me: are you arguing that people never make suitable parents, or are you arguing that it is OK to say gay people never make suitable parents?

I'm sceptical about the former. I don't think anyone should be prevented from expressing their view that something is wrong provided that they are not inciting violence.

That's what I think the problem is here. Certain things have become unsayable and to an extent, unthinkable.

 

[untethered]

They took their ball away. They were (in my view) entitled to do so, as I have said. If they didn't want to work to place children in gay families, they don't actually have to. However my use of the phrase hissy fit is because it illustrates the fact that they would rather stop doing adoption work altogether and leave children in care.

It's worth bearing in mind that the Catholic church were quite voluntarily doing this work in the first place, motivated by their values. Most of the critics wouldn't dream of getting involved at all.

As a former altar boy, I understand very well how the Catholic Church works. It is one of the most reactionary forces around.

Maybe so. The point I was making is that from a Catholic perspective, what the church says is Christianity is Christianity.

I can't speak for the legislators. I have no idea what they thought would happen. I, on the other hand, knew fine well the Catholic Church would rather close down their agencies than work with poofs.

Everyone knew that. That's why this whole issue is so ridiculous. The stupid pretence that there could have been any other outcome.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't think anyone should be prevented from expressing their view that something is wrong provided that they are not inciting violence.

I don't think people should be prevented from expressing their views either. Although that of course means I can express my view that they are wrong.

As a libertarian, I'm a free speech fundamentalist. However, free speech and discrimination are not one and the same thing. And here is where the conflict lies: bigots want not just the freedom to speak, but the freedom to discriminate. And since discrimination can mean a violation of the freedom of another autonomous individual, those behaving in a discriminatory fashion can expect to see that discrimination resisted. Indeed, I would assist in resisting it, if it was within my power.

 

[danny la rouge]

Maybe so. The point I was making is that from a Catholic perspective, what the church says is Christianity is Christianity.

Of course. I realise you took a quip of mine too literally; I was merely contrasting the (perhaps now old-fashioned) usage of 'Christian' as an adjective meaning charitable with the reality of the Catholic Church's interpretation of the theology. It was meant to be humorous.

Everyone knew that. That's why this whole issue is so ridiculous. The stupid pretence that there could have been any other outcome.

You are arguing with the wrong person. I despise liberal legislators.

 

[8ball]

I love liberal legislators - they make me do a little sex wee in my pants!!

 

[untethered]

As a libertarian, I'm a free speech fundamentalist. However, free speech and discrimination are not one and the same thing. And here is where the conflict lies: bigots want not just the freedom to speak, but the freedom to discriminate. And since discrimination can mean a violation of the freedom of another autonomous individual, those behaving in a discriminatory fashion can expect to see that discrimination resisted. Indeed, I would assist in resisting it, if it was within my power.

You can call yourself what you like but that position doesn't sound very libertarian to me. I thought libertarians saw the state as being legitimate only to defend people's lives and property. It's not the state's job to say who people should employ or who they should do business with (in my understanding of the libertarian view).

 

[danny la rouge]

You can call yourself what you like but that position doesn't sound very libertarian to me. I thought libertarians saw the state as being legitimate only to defend people's lives and property. It's not the state's job to say who people should employ or who they should do business with (in my understanding of the libertarian view).

I'd rather the state did nothing at all, as it happens. And I have certainly not argued that the state should say who people should consort with. I fear you have misinterpreted my words.

Let me put it again in another way: you have the right to wave your hands around however you like, however if you think you have a right to strike me in the face unimpeded, you are in for a nasty shock. (Nothing to do with the state).

 

[untethered]

Let me put it again in another way: you have the right to wave your hands around however you like, however if you think you have a right to strike me in the face unimpeded, you are in for a nasty shock. (Nothing to do with the state).

I don't entirely follow you. Are you saying that you have personal political views that you wouldn't like to see enacted as public policy? Surely not.

I'm aware that the boundary of liberty is when someone's action harms another or impedes their action. I think the issue when we're talking about discrimination is whether we look at this as a positive or a negative action.

This throws up the issue of individual and collective provision. If I decide not to employ a homosexual, that doesn't (necessarily) mean that that person wouldn't be able to find employment. In the same way that Catholic adoption agencies shutting down doesn't mean that those children they would have placed don't have the option of being placed by someone else. If there's a demand, the market will provide for it and if it doesn't and the state really feels that strongly about it, it'll do it itself.

Isn't freedom from association as important to libertarians as freedom of association?