Issues of Conscience

I wasn't going to post today, since I did so much yesterday and have other things to do, but of course the first story I ran across this morning changed all that. I get a little unreasonable when people mistreat children and animals.

The Catholic Church in England is trying the same stunt with regard to adoptions that it tried here. Blair's government is in a shambles over the question.

[Ruth] Kelly, [Communities Secretary,] already at the centre of controversy after admitting sending her son to private school earlier this month, insists she is acting in the best interests of the thousands of children placed for adoption each year.

The Prime Minister is supporting her efforts to water down new laws that are supposed to guarantee gay people equal rights to goods and services.

But Ms Kelly faces a humiliating defeat on the issue as senior ministers queue up to oppose what they regard as an unworkable and unfair loophole.

Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Education, who refused Mr Blair's request to grant the exemption when he was responsible for the issue last year, has been joined by Jack Straw, David Miliband, Des Browne and Peter Hain. Blairite loyalists such as Tessa Jowell and Lord Falconer have expressed their dismay. . . .

Ms Kelly refuses to say whether she regards homosexuality as a sin. She has defended failing to vote for civil partnerships or gay adoption on the grounds that they are "issues of conscience".

I have the same attitude on this that I do on pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control or Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers with guide dogs. Modern democracy depends on rational laws applied rationally. I don't know what the legal structure is in England, but in the United States until recently, religious organizations that wanted to bid for government contracts for social programs created separate legal entities to run those programs, charitable organizations without a religious connection. In other words, they were secular arms of the churches. Worked just fine. Under the increased drive for the dominance of Christianity in the US, and to a lesser extent Europe, and the Bush administration's overt contempt for Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom (along with every other Constitutional guarantee of individual liberties), we've seen a working system begin to collapse. Apparently the Catholic Church in England is equally interested in making something that worked fall apart.

My opinion on that is, if you don't think it's right to place babies with gay parents, get out of the adoption business. The Church's doctrines on homosexuality, which have no basis at all in objective reality -- and I want to emphasize that: no basis at all in objective reality -- are nasty to start with, particularly coming from an organization that is not only riddled with gay men at the highest levels, but also has a history of moral turpitude in general. We've seen too much in recent years of how the Church cares for children and its reaction to those who try to point out its failings.

The whole idea of "issues of conscience" in civil law is not nearly, to me, as knotty as many would like to make out. Perhaps it's because we have the benefit here of basic legal doctrine that keeps religion and the state from interfering with each other. In general terms, I have no problem with people of strong faith holding public office. My problems start when the particulars of that faith begin to dictate their policies. So, in your career as a legislator, work for the common good, help the helpless, defend the defenseless, succor the destitute? Fine, do it with my blessing and full support. Attack those who are different, interfere with people's personal decisions, teach religion instead of science? No way.

The Christianists are making big noises about how gay-inclusive civil rights laws are eroding their religious freedom, particularly laws that help gay families, which is, of course, an outright lie from the bottom up -- unless you, like they, believe that their religious freedom is paramount and means that their beliefs are the final arbiters of law and society. The Founders took steps to insure that was not the case and it seems to have worked out just fine. It would be very sad if an old and corrupt entity with only its own institutional interests at heart were able to ruin it.

Footnote: A take on the Catholic clergy's moral rectitude by a victim of sexual abuse by a priest:

Hand of God is a very unsensational look at Paul Cultrera's 30-years-after-the-fact reckoning with his molestation by a Salem, MA priest — seen through the eyes of his filmmaker brother, Joe. . . .

What does it mean, what does the post of Bishop in the Catholic Church really mean? The organization has just been around a long time. It’s built this incredible power, and it’s holding onto that power. It is more concerned with maintaining that power than it is in actually carrying out the mission that it says that it’s all about.”

Being the Bishop basically means... there’s a good chance that you probably are a rotten guy that has just climbed to the top of that corporate ladder. They’re just a bunch of corrupt businessmen, and they’re sitting atop the Evil Empire.

If you think it sounds harsh, also consider what it describes: not only the moral failing of an individual priest, but the power of the Church brought to bear on the victims, not the perpetrators. I don't think it can be harsh enough.

This is the Church that says that allowing a gay couple to give an unwanted child a loving home is doing violence to children.