Smacking Down Sullivan

Which is something I seem to do regularly. Probably because I want to like him and get really pissed when he makes a fool of himself. Of course, he doesn't know I exist, so. . . .

Sullivan on the Catholic Charities adoption wars in Britain:

If the Church wants to side with bigots against the needs of children, it should be able to do so. It pains me, but it is none of the government's concern.

This is probably one of the most egregious statements I've seen on his blog ever. It is, after all, not the Catholic church that is charged with the welfare of Britain's citizens, and in particular, its children -- it is the British government. If the Church is involved, it is as a surrogate for the government, and the government does indeed have an interest in the welfare of children. That is a long-established fact of life. One of Sullivan's readers points out:

None of these kids was born under the legal guardianship of the Church or its agencies. That guardianship is presumably assigned by British law on the theory that Catholic charities (among others) will do a good job of looking after the children's best interests. But if the charities turn down potential adoptive parents on spurious grounds, they aren't doing that.

Sullivan maintains that "The issue is how spurious the grounds are. They are spurious by any objective measure of parenting skills; but the Church has a right to uphold bigotry as part of its theology." It does, as long as its theology is an internal matter. These children are not. Since British law also rests on the idea of rational laws interpreted rationally, Sullivan's protests are beside the point. This is not a matter that affects only the Church and its members. He goes on to say "The state can and should withdraw support for such bigotry, but the Church still has a right, in my view, to maintain its stance of stigmatization and discrimination against homosexuals." Which is exactly what the government is doing, in a roundabout way: the state requires that the criteria for evaluating prospective adoptive parents be rational, which is not a term that applies to Catholic teachings on homosexuality, and that their primary consideration be the welfare of the children. The Church's primary consideration, as we have seen again and again, is the welfare of the Church (and it's a rather grandiose notion of "welfare"). The Church's alternatives here, as they have been in similar cases in the US, are clear: comply with the law or get out of the business.

So basically, Sullivan has argued himself around to supporting the British government's stance. His initial argument was just as flawed as the Church's: no one is demanding that the Church change its teachings. It is merely being told that it cannot apply those teachings to this particular government-sponsored function, because the Church's teachings are contrary to the law of the land.

I think the brouhaha, and perhaps Sullivan's misperception, is that this particular episode originates in Britain's nondiscrimination laws. The whole point of that, of course, is that gays have suffered discrimination and, as a matter of living up to its reponsibility to its citizens, the government wants it to stop. The real issue (or at least one of the real issues, and one that I'm going to dispense with as succinctly as possible, because it should be a no-brainer) is whether the British government or the Catholic Church will govern Britain. Duh.

While he was flailing around trying to cover his butt from the objections to his original post, he came up with a reference to a post by Arthur Silber, which is not, in fact, on topic here, although Sullivan tries to make it seem so. Much as I admire Silber and think the essay makes some good points, it simply doesn't apply in this instance.

The link here, I think, goes back to Sullivan's first post on the adoption imbroglio.

. . . my political principles - specifically my belief in unfettered religious freedom - tell me that the right of religious organizations to practice bigotry and even cruelty in their own affairs is integral to a free society.

The idea of "unfettered religious freedom" is, in itself, conceptually questionable. Assuming we mean "freedom" as the ability to enforce one's will without hindrance, there's no such thing as "unfettered freedom." Never has been, never will be -- the universe itself imposes restraints. Even the beasts of the field, if I may wax biblical for a moment, even though they neither sow nor reap, still have to eat, which means that their freedom is constrained by that necessity.

I find, the more I learn of libertarianism, that it is an impoverished philosophy. Of course, my feelings about political philosophies in certain regards are pretty much the same as my feelings on art: the less it has to do with human reality, the less it's worth. We are social animals, and there's simply no getting around that basic biological fact. One can argue the evolution of behavior all one wants to, but we're wired to work in groups, and that's something that goes back to a time long before we were even remotely human.

Given that, we have to ask ourselves, what is a society for? (Ahem -- "First Causes" is listed in the subhead to this blog, after all.) For a change, I think the obvious answer is also the correct one: a society exists for the mutual benefit of its members. However, we must remember that word "mutual." It imposes restrictions on the behavior -- the freedom -- of all the members. In good ol' American parlance, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts."

Of course, the development of human society over the past two or three million years has gotten terrifically complicated, and there's no room to go into any detail here, but I think that basic question still has to be our guiding principle. Given that, things like theologies are pretty ephemeral, while children and their well-being are eternal. So, the Church is wrong. Sullivan is wrong. (Silber, on the other hand, may be right, but he's not arguing this particular question.)

Given my insistence on dealing with the requirements of our physical make-up, among other basics, is it any wonder that I find things like libertarianism empty posturing?

(I have to point out, as well, that I'm more than a little irritated at Sullivan for, in the last paragraph to his first post, putting the onus on gay couples. ["There are plenty of avenues in Britain for gay couples to do the selfless and admirable job of raising abandoned or orphaned children in need. There's no need to trample religious liberty in the process."] Excuse me -- they are not the ones causing the problem. It's the Church's insistence, not on its freedom to preach a disgusting philosophy, but that its philosophy should be paramount in a secular state, that is causing the problem. That phrase about "trampling religious liberty" smacks of Sullivan trying to get in touch with his inner wingnut.)