Apology accepted, we all make mistakes.

I must admit though, that I am astonished lack of foresight inherent in your comment that you don’t see any objective difference between Christians who disagree with a position and, say, extreme BNP supporters who use violence. Perhaps if you had had a friend who was beaten up for being gay by some real nasty pieces of work, but also had parents who believed homosexuality to be wrong, but still accepted and welcomed friends who were gay, then you might be closer to understanding a truly objective difference.

This is a real difference, not the use of extreme language and weasel words that authoritarian parties like Labour and other trendy lefties use to demonise people who happen to believe in something they don’t.

David

I apologise for missing your correction, especially since I spotted it (and quoted) it the first time around.

Also I would suggest that comparing Christians’ views on homosexuality (which nowadays tends to be that they believe it is wrong and so cannot support it) with the BNP’s racism (with an undercurrent of violence) and , is a bit of an extreme choice – possibly a bit too close to stigmatising for comfort.

I don’t see any objective difference between the two. They are both irrational prejudices that society and the law once deemed acceptable but now deem unacceptable. The only subjective difference is that the Catholics’ unnaceptable irrational prejudice is codified in the bronze-age book they use for moral guidance while the BNP’s isn’t, but that is only a justification for the Catholics themselves, it means nothing to anyone else.

It’s not my or anyone else’s comparisons that stigmatises the Catholic church, they do that job themselves by means of their own bigotries and prejudices.

Finally, I do assure you I have a clear hold of myself, and as a liberal I will never be ashamed of supporting minorities that are broadly good but possibly misguided in some area. In trying to do that, I may on occasion be wrong or misguided myself, in reconciling the conflict of differing group’s liberties it was always so, and I always try to explore other liberal’s views to see where their logic lies.

I don’t think it’s intolerant to refuse to tolerate the intolerant, and I don’t think it’s illiberal to criticise the illiberal, because taken to its logical conclusion that sort of wet relativism makes it impossible to take a principled stand on any issue. It’s the same sort of logic that labels as “cultural imperialists” those who criticise the barbarities of the Taleban, for example.

My view is that in adoption the Catholics position was one of not actively supporting, but not one of preventing, and definitely not one of use of violence or other activities to intimidate others to support then. In that it is close to the position of conscientious objectors in WW1, not the BNP or the Nazis and the danger is by using these comparisons we lessen the impact of what the Nazis did and stigmatise a minority A minority who, I know would support much of what we believe in and also we would support much of what they try to do. We must build on what links us, not what divides us.

I think your objection to the comparison is just a diversion, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is that the Catholic Church weren’t singled-out for oppression or intentionally excluded from anything, they just couldn’t bring themselves to comply with the laws of the land, laws that were enacted by a democratic government for the protection of a minority. As regrettable as their exclusion may be, I really do fail to see any compelling arguments in favour of granting them an exemption from those laws.

On what grounds do you think religious groups should be entitled to demand such exemptions?

Clearly we will never agree on this point, but I would suggest you read my correction where I clearly said “Both viewpoints are illiberal if used to stigmatise the others.” Also I would suggest that comparing Christians’ views on homosexuality (which nowadays tends to be that they believe it is wrong and so cannot support it) with the BNP’s racism (with an undercurrent of violence) and , is a bit of an extreme choice – possibly a bit too close to stigmatising for comfort.

Finally, I do assure you I have a clear hold of myself, and as a liberal I will never be ashamed of supporting minorities that are broadly good but possibly misguided in some area. In trying to do that, I may on occasion be wrong or misguided myself, in reconciling the conflict of differing group’s liberties it was always so, and I always try to explore other liberal’s views to see where their logic lies.

My view is that in adoption the Catholics position was one of not actively supporting, but not one of preventing, and definitely not one of use of violence or other activities to intimidate others to support then. In that it is close to the position of conscientious objectors in WW1, not the BNP or the Nazis and the danger is by using these comparisons we lessen the impact of what the Nazis did and stigmatise a minority A minority who, I know would support much of what we believe in and also we would support much of what they try to do. We must build on what links us, not what divides us.

If you wish to consider these points further, let me know.

David

I think you need to refer back to my original post where I said “Driving away a generally good group trying to minimise that problem, just because you can find one thing to disagree with them over is counterproductive.” I will leave it to you to determine where you think I consider the Nazis and their view on the extermination of the Jews lies, but I would suggest you are over egging your argument a bit here.

Charlotte,

Again, I refer you back to my original post, as I fear your position will if taken to its logical conclusion drive out a significant community that is on balance a great contributor to good in our world. In particular your comment “But to allow these groups to participate in public sector work is facilitating the imposition of one group’s prejudices onto taxpayers who had no say in the matter.” seems rather extreme to me. All adoption agencies have principles and criteria which they use to help them determine whether they believe a candidate adoptive parent would be suitable. Some are easy to agree with – No convicted murderers could be one example; some more difficult – No smokers; one that I find difficult to agree with is “adoption has to be into the same racial group as the child”, particularly if it results in significant delays in adoption for some children. However, as a taxpayer I don’t remember having a say on any of these. And by your own logic, each of these discriminates against some group or other and so is illiberal.

The point I am making whether as a troll or not, is that I fear in this case some in our party are too keen to look for disagreement and make it into a show stopper, rather than look for the good and build an alliance on it. That route leads to an ever smaller “pure” party, but failure for our values.

David

The Catholic Church demands a right to discriminate against homosexuals in a way that no non-religious or secular organisation is allowed to do or would ever be allowed to do, because thanks to liberal principles society no longer accepts discrimination against individuals on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Is discrimination against open racists “illiberal”? If the BNP wanted to run a community program but demanded the right to exclude black or mied race couples would you be making the same “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water” argument?

No, of course you wouldn’t.

The plain fact is that the Catholic Church is clinging to traditions and prejdices that are completely incompatible with the laws and mores of modern society. It is their own stubborn attachmemnt to those prehistoric prejudices that are preventing them from carrying out said community work, not some secular oppression being waged against them.

“Ultimately, they believe that homosexuality is wrong, and you believe that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. Both viewpoints are illiberal.”

That is easily the most stupid and offensive sentence I have ever read on this site, and you should be ashamed and embarrassed for having written it.

But to allow these groups to participate in public sector work is facilitating the imposition of one group’s prejudices onto taxpayers who had no say in the matter. I regard that as a fundamentally illiberal course of action – in effect, the state would be discriminating against the affected groups.

Did that really need spelling out? Or am I just feeding a troll here?

Ultimately, the Nazis believed that the Jewish race should be slaughtered, whereas I believe that discrimination against Jews is wrong. Are you saying that my viewpoint is illiberal? (and yes, I am quite happy to be using it to stigmatise the Nazis, I’m afraid).

Opposing naked prejudice? Which belief do you consider naked prejudice, or do you consider them both naked prejudice? On what basis do you consider one or both of them naked prejudice. If it’s just because you don’t like them, I think you’re in danger of becoming a part of the same problem. Liberalism has to be applied consistently, not just applied to things you like, and used to exclude people with strongly held views that you happen to disagree with.

I suggest you reconsider your grip of Liberal principles.

David

Opposing naked prejudice is illiberal?

Get. A. Grip.

I still think its a can of worms like faith schools are…there are actually serious problems with faith schools in principle in terms of promoting a seperate identity etc etc which obviously dont exist to the same degree here….however, i do see the danger of preferential treatment, allegations of such and the general fostering of provison of care to do with identity…

I think they may even be self selecting in that people will feel inhibited in seeking support..

I am sure you are right and there are plenty of good people in these organisations…I am sure there are good teachers in faith schools however, that does not change the principle at stake which is that the state and whatever services it provides by definition should be seperated from religion and religious organisations…

Your first paragraph is a perfect example of the illiberal thought which I was referring to. We all know that both sides of an argument can find/fund enough research to “justify” its particular dogma. Ultimately, they believe that homosexuality is wrong, and you believe that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. Both viewpoints are illiberal. We all know the worst thing for a child is to spend lots of time in council care. Driving away a generally good group trying to minimise that problem, just because you can find one thing to disagree with them over is counterproductive.

I vaguely remember some guy was reported once as saying “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Or in more modern terms, “When you’ve found all the perfect adoption agencies you will ever need, then close down the ones which aren’t up to it.”

I would say to that the experience with state-funded faith schools is that they simply ignore the rules and make their own as they go along yet still take money from the public purse..this whole idea should be a big no-no as far as secularists are concerned…

Although I’m uncomfortable with some faith-based charities, the anti-discrimination laws should make sure that any involvement in the public sector is providing roughly the same service that a secular organisation would. It just remains to ensure that they’re properly implemented.

The extent to which voluntary organisations ought to be delivering public services is a whole other story, but since it’s likely there’ll always be some involvement it’s good to have a solid set of rules to work with.

“These religious bods may have some strange ideas, but they’ll work for peanuts, so let’s get them to do it”