The Policy Blender

I like that - it makes a lot of sense.

Hurrah! A debate at last! It's been a while.

This is how we attract new readers you know.

Personally I'm not a fan of religion. In many respects it does provide people with hope, meaning and a generally warm fuzzy feeling. On the other hand it is often used as an excuse to make war, and discriminate against people (I say 'excuse' because if religion didn't exist the people that do these things would just find something else to 'justify' such behaviour). That said, people have the right to believe whatever they like and I'd like them to continue to have this right, I do take issue with the fact that religious beliefs are for some reason more significant and important than my 'personal' values and beliefs. Because I don't really associate myself with any religion my right to do something is less valid than that of 'The Church'.

If I wish to decide I belive I must always wear sunglasses for some reason or other I would still not be able to wear them in my passport photo because it is *my* belief. However, a religious belief to wear sunglasses is different, the laws of the land can quite happily be bent or broken, even though they are there for a reason that reason does not apply to a person with religion it would seem.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that peoples beliefs are trodden on a ignored every day, unless you use the religion card. I don't see why religion should allow people to be above the law. There are laws and legislation that I disagree with, the point of a democracy is that I elected (in theory) these politicians to represent my views and if I don't like what they're doing I should vote to change it (or demonstrate in a legal and peaceful manner). But basically the rules exist, I must obey or face the punishment, them's the rules.

People that disagree with this legislation shouldn't have voted for the people pushing it through. The people that disagree should demonstrate to try and make their voices heard. But if they fail, they should accept it. Democracy works (in theory) because we elect people to stand for us, and they make the decisions based on what they think is right and what they thing the people they represent would want. Our land has many avenues for the majority to voice their opinions if they decide the elected officials did something wrong, so those are the avenues that should be used. But, when all is said and done the rules exist, and it is your right to ignore them, but you must accept the consiquences for your actions like a mature adult.

In a nutshell, the legislation exist rather than mere policy because our elected officials think that is what 'the people' want. As a result the legislation is made, if you don't agree try and get it changed. Assuming democracy works, if the majority decide they want it changed it will be. But for now the rules are in place so stop trying to say that your belief is more valid than mine because you have religion; you should not be made a special case and excused from the rules as a result.

Sorry, yes I am aware the above comment is slightly off topic, I'm just feeling particulary downtrodden today :-)

I'm happy with the legislation myself. Policy would have been good, but I don't think it would have had the desired result, so I say keep the legislation. The elected officials that speak for us think we want the legislation too. If the majority disagree they should vote with their feet (so to speak) and try and get it overturned. If democracy works their success or failure to get things changed will be dictated by numbers. Majority rule and all that.

I'd disagree entirely with this whole argument about democracy. This is how I think it works.

Before an election, politicians try to put forward what they think their voters want to hear, in order to get elected. Afterwards, they will run the country in two ways. One, the way they think is 'best for the people', which usually has to do with their own ideals, and has always confused me. Two, for the less significant areas of government, the way that causes them the least hassle while they get on with the above. Point one is all too complicated to get into, but the point that's relevant here is that this legislation is going through to keep a vocal minority happy, and the government hadn't counted on another vocal minority disagreeing with it. The vast majority of people are unaffected by this ruling - a large number of gay couples can probably arrange babies of their own, perfectly legally, and a large number of Christians etc. have nothing to do with adoption agencies. Presumably the government thought that they'd appeased the most vocal minority, and doing so would let them get on with their main job, which is raping our liberties and hoarding more and more of our earnings. Or keeping the economy healthy and that we don't get bombed to crap, one of those.

Exempting some agencies from being obliged to consider gay couples isn't really on a par with 'Whites only' buildings and schools, or the Holocaust. Most adoption agencies will still offer the right services. Forcing some of the major religions to accept a few things about the world we live in can't be a bad thing though, but I'm sure they'll find something else to be annoyed about later - some people always do, regardless of religious orientation.

Hey, I've got an idea - all organisations that refuse to adopt to gay couples... let's make secular, government-run adoption agencies refuse to adopt to couples who are part of those organisations! Then everyone can do what the hell they like. Though it makes it difficult for gay Catholics of course. They'll be used to that though.

Ok, perhaps I'm rely on democracy to actually work here, but I think that it does for the most part. Whichever type of government you choose you'll always get corruption and the actual views of the general populus ignored or mis-understood. However, of the possible types of government I think democracy manages these normal human traits in the way that is best for us. Perhaps the parties are all as bad as each other, but at least you have a way to change things without resorting to trying to arrange a military coup (for example). Hell, you can even try and enter government yourself if you really want. When you take into accout politics and government at least democracy is the most fair, but I never said it was perfect, or ever would be (until we replace politicians with robots that govern in an un-bias way as a result purely of majority rule; do you think Arnie would star in this if I pitched it?).

I know you're being flippant, but ovbiously tit-for-tat is not the recourse of a mature society so I don't really think thats a solution.

I think I'd disagree with the statement that this issue isn't on par with 'white only' buildings and schools. The pricipal of exclusion is the same. If we have decided as a society that it is acceptable and ok to be gay, then we should treat those people the same way as everyone else, otherwise you're saying it is ok to be gay as long as you don't expect to have the same rights as everyone else. People should be free to do exactly what they want as long as the law of the land permits it. Having one rule for one set of people and another rule for others is simply unfair. If there was evidence, widely accepted, that gay parents cause harm to their children there should be laws to prevent gay people adopting or having children at all! But there is no such evidence accepted or otherwise, so let everyone be treated the same and undergo the same evaluations as to their suitability as parents regardless of sexual orientation. They're either acceptable parents or not, sexual preferance makes no difference, society has indicated it believes this to be the case.

I'm happy to let a small group try and overturn the legislation. If they can change the opinion of the whole, then it probably should be changed, but for as long as things are legally binding I say they are free like all of us to do what they believe to be right. But they'd better not come bitching when they are punished for getting caught breaking the rules. Rules exist, people are free to break them, but should accept the consiquences of their actions. This is what being an adult in a civalised society is all about.

As a society we’re well passed deciding that it’s ok to be gay, or black or Muslim or whatever.

Introducing the lumbering fist of the state to legislate over an issue as petty as this – whether adoption agencies that are independent of state subsidisation can determine their own client base or not – creates an issue where there was none.

It’s not even a case of mountains and molehills. There was no bloody molehill anyway. How many homosexual couples that want to adopt would be saying “you know, I really wish we could use one of those Catholic adoption agencies because they’re so in-line with our lifestyle and beliefs…”?

To pick up on the point above – of course the state regulates adoption agencies, but it doesn’t necessarily fund every one. And if the withdrawal of funding from church adoption agencies that did not meet the policy criteria meant that they closed down – bad luck to them but job done for the Government. If you live on subsidies you’re at the whim of the state, so if you don’t play ball you’re outa’ there. Policy problem solved, without the ridiculous clunking one-size-fits-all state imposed legislation that this Government loves to spend our money on.

Any church adoption agencies that mange to practice independent of state funding can do what the hell they like – it’s not like it’s costing the taxpayer anything. In this incidence the state has no business telling them what to do anyway.

I don't know. It's somewhere between being gassed for being Jewish at the top end, and me not being able to get ar insurance from Diamond or Sheila's Wheels on the other. I can still get car insurance, after all. Not taking sides, just arguing for the sake of it. Anyway, the Catholic Church hasn't decided it's acceptable to be gay, and presumably it's still acceptable to be Catholic. So if the two are at odds, then we have to decide which one is unacceptable.

Ben - I don't think we are past that at all. I think if an organisation decides it's unacceptable to be (in the instance of the Catholic Church) gay or (in some more fundamentalist religious groups) anything but insert-name-of-religion-here, then can we condone these positions as acceptable? It's all very well having a tolerant society but being tolerant of intolerance is dangerous ground. All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

That’s it exactly – we’ve got a Sheila’s wheels situation getting a “oh my God they’re gassing the Jew!” response. The reason for which is that the government knows no other form of response.

So the Catholics don’t like the gays. We all knew that and it wasn’t a big issue until the Government tried to weigh in and legislate – pissing both sides off.

Influencing unifies, compulsion divides. The heavy arm of the sate should be used more to influence (re policy and funding) than to compel, which – as we are witnessing with this ridiculous situation – is counter-productive.

Re Sheila's Wheels, I think you'll find that you can still be insured by them if you want. I beleive they are unable to refuse you just because you're male (I can get past the first bit of the quote process while stating I'm male). In their case it's just marketing, but they're not actually refusing to insure males.

I agree with Matt that we as a society should not stand by while people are discriminated against, but perhaps forcing the issue doesn't help. However, this may not be an "oh my God their gassing the Jews" issue now but when people are allowed to be singled out we're on our way to something similar, although probably not as violent, where people are downtrodden and abused for some reason or other. It's belief versus belief, and society's belief as a whole should always win over the minority.

I don't know anything about adoption, but do couples necissarily have as much choice over where they can adopt from? Adopting isn't exactly like getting car insurance now is it. Car insurance is a commercial business so if some insurers were to refuse you insurance you simply go elsewhere, there will always be someone that will insure you because there is money to be made from you. Yes there are agencies that will adopt to gay couples now, but there may not always be. The government could (but probably wouldn't) withdraw all funding from adoption agencies so they can buy tanks leaving only Church run agencies leaving certain people snookered.

Correct me if I'm wrong but is this legislature not part of something bigger regarding discrimination? If so should we scrap these rules just because some people want to enforce their minority beliefs on society and choose who they allow to be parents based on some criteria that society has deemed a non-issue? If this is not part of something bigger I suspect that deciding discrimination is fine in one area leaves us open to others that might want to argue they're allowed to dicriminate too. Perhaps I should be allowed to murder and steal if I 'believe' I should?

Well, murdering and stealing is taking-something-from-someone. Not considering certain people for adoption is not-giving-something-to-someone. They don't lose anything by not having it.

I was a little confused by where you said that thing about being downtrodden and then said 'Society's belief as a whole should always win over the minority'. To invoke wossname's law all too soon, that is what happened in Germany in the thirties and forties, though society's beliefs had been manipulated somewhat. To give a non-Nazi example, it's also arguably what happened in South Africa (actually, I think the whites were probably in the minority here, but I'm not sure) and in certain parts of Australia against the Aborigines. And America, of course. A group can easily be downtrodden democratically.

The problem isn't one of democracy here. It's one of morals. And Ben will argue - yes, we should scrap the whole thing because it's about making everyone equal by forcing them to be the same and stopping them from doing the same things; not giving everyone the same opportunities while embracing their differences. Or something like that. I disagree, not because of relative numbers of people and their opinions, but because I think discriminating against anyone based on who they sleep with is wrong. Blair should never have got into this, but now he's in it, I'm right behind him telling the churches to lump it. Morally, it's the right thing to do, but politically, it will cost him. He's going to lose the votes of a number of immoral people.

Fair point, things aren't necissarily as simple as I made out. What if I decided it was against my beliefs to pay tax instead? The point is that could I not argue "they were exept from some rules based on belief, surely I can be exmpt from some rules based on my beliefs".

Perhaps my majority versus minority is an oversimplification of things. We should in equal measure be looking out for the rights of the minority, which in this case we are; "it is your right to believe gay couples shouldn't adopt but because you're singling out people based on something that is socially acceptable we're going to not allow you to act out your un-reasonable belief". So in the same vain I can believe that I shouldn't pay tax but I still have to obey the not entirely unreasonable rules.

To change tack a little; while looking at Sheila's Wheels I found I was not allowed insurance if I had no no-cliams. Here I'm being discriminated against based on what I have or haven't chosen to do, or been sujected to in my life.
Question: Religion is chosen? yes/no
Question: Is it right to discriminate against someone based on their life choices or circumstances?

Equally feel free to ignore the questions above as this thread is already rather long and moving swiftly away from politics and into a moral debate.

Well, actually you've raised the idea that we 'allow' people to believe something. I'm reluctantly willing to have my government choose what I can and can't do, but I don't think there's ever a situation where I'll let them choose what I believe. Even people with beliefs that are unquestionably immoral, their beliefs are their own. We can persuade them that something else is true/acceptable/normal if we like, but you can't make someone believe anything.

Oh, and from a secular pint of view, religion is chosen. From a religious point of view it's based on ultimate truth, and you can't choose what is True. (The capital T is important - it distinguishes Truth from that which can be shown to be true). From a cynical point of view, religion is dictated to people from birth by repeated encouragement, ritual and conditioning, until the idea that anything else could be true is completely alien. Religious people would argue that they do not choose God, but he chooses them. Possibly.

No, we shouldn't discriminate against people with beliefs of any kind. But if they start ccting on them, that's where we can choose to do so, if we feel it's all wrong. As for where we put the line for discriminating against people's behaviour... on a religious front unacceptable behaviour is probably somewhere between attending church on Sunday and burning people for being witches.