h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This post has been removed.

Darn, got the link up before me.



Well, God's people?


He also said:

'Forcing people to act against their consciences would mean discrimination on the grounds of belief'

Therefore, I will happily allow Catholics to discriminate against gays as long as I can go with my believes and open up an adoption agency that did not allow people who believed in gods to adopt. I believe that it is almost child abuse to fill an innocent mind with fairy stories and tell them they are real.

However, as this is based on evidence and accounts of people who have had their minds screwed up by religious parents and therefore it is a common sense thing to do: not allow relious types to adopt then it is against the law.

BUT when the principles are based on the 'word of a god' and therefore most likely made-up and make no sense then that’s OK and is protected by law.

If the Catholic agencies closed, would not other adoption services end up dealing with the people no longer served by Catholic agencies?

Since when did the Catholic church ever give two hoots for vulnerable kids?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/paedophile_priests.shtml

Afternoon SoRB,

I understand you getting steamed up, but isn't this similar to many recent debates?

If it is OK and legal to force people to accept someone else actions and views on the basis of their religious beliefs, then the same argument must apply in this case. You and i may not agree with discrimination against gays ( though a gay couple adoption is a bit way off my radar )but if it is as a result of a genuine 'belief' then we cannot cry 'foul' whilst acknowledgeing other religious based behaviour.

Note please I am not speaking for or against the Catholic Church, merely pointing out that the sauce is indeed as good for the gander.

Novo

<>

What particular beliefs do you have in mind, Novo?

What is special about belief? For what reason would you make it more valuable than an opinion in the eyes of the law?

Whatever the rights and wrongs, beliefs and morals, the bottom line is that legislation was passed to prevent discrimination against one group and 4000 or so kids a year suffer as a direct result.

Was it worth it?

Yeah, you're right. Especially considering their hardline attitude on paedophilic priests.

And it hasn't happened yet. Are you serious or just shit-stirring again?

I'm not voicing an opinion on the rights and wrongs of it at all, I'm simply asking if on balance the cause is worth the effect?

Well, to rephrase your question..

Should an organisation be exempt from anti-discrimination because part of their holy book says it's wrong? When it blatantly disregards other bits of Leviticus because those 'abominations' would be bad for business. When its record of protecting sexual abusive criminals should get the entire ****ing hierarchy in court for aiding and abetting paedophiles?

I think anyone trying to blackmail the government in this way should be exposed for the swine they are. If it wasn't for fellow fairy-followers in the Cabinet, then they could point out some of the above.

I'm more than happy for the government to fund *all* adoption services, and to pay more taxes to cover this (although I doubt they do it for free anyway). As an added bonus it would take away a little bit more of the church's influence.

A couple of things spring to mind.

Why is the Church having its own 'adoption agencys'? The government/state already do this job don't they? And, and somethign I cna't substiantiate but which I heard on the radio this morning (BBC radio four), sounded to me like it was saying that the Church, once they've found, and investigated potential adoptees for a given child, then the state takes on teh final 'bits' of the process, and refunds the money that the church has spent on 'investigating' the potential adoptiving parents... if that/they are the case, then I can't see any problem, the church either come into line with the law, or if they can't/don't want to do that, then they get out of running adoption agencys.

Apparently it's not just the Catholics. Jewish, Muslim and C of E adoption agencies are thinking of pulling out too.

The sooner religious groups pulll out the better if they can't face up to us no longer being in the 16th centuary...

This post has been removed.

oh there had better be a good reason for those postings being yiksed.

Some over-sensitive God-fearing type no doubt got the first, and the second was spam that I yikesed myself...

SWL, yes it was absolutely worth it. It shows that the catholic church doesn't really care for the children. Should be no surprise there! But this helps clear up any remaining doubt. And if that's the case, the kids are better off.

That cause and effect is artificially created by a pressure group attempting to bully the government (by removing its support from innocents). Considering the wishes of a group that cares enough to organize is reasonable; bowing to their threats sets a poor precedent.

Frankly I think its a bluff: if the Catholic Church fails to maintain its adoption agencies, that'll make its pro-life position look a bit thin, won't it?

SoRB, maybe you need to adopt that technique again of posting the link in a separate post from your comments so that when one gets yikesed at least we get to read the other (I assume this time it's the comments that got yikesed not the link).