No equality please we’re Catholic
God, this is revolting.
Ruth Kelly is trying to water down new anti-discrimination laws to let Catholic adoption agencies turn away gay couples. Backed by Tony Blair, the embattled Communities secretary is at the centre of a full-scale cabinet row over the new gay rights laws…The Catholic church has threatened to close its seven adoption agencies rather than comply with laws that forbid them to discriminate against gay couples. 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.
Well, great. Because the Catholic church has such a shining history of taking care of children, doesn’t it.
Of the 2,900 children put up for adoption last year, the agencies placed around 4 per cent. But they found homes for around a third of the “difficult-to-place” children. Ms Kelly argues it is these children that would suffer if Catholic couples were no longer encouraged to adopt by church-run agencies. Gay campaigners argue, however, that gay parents are themselves more likely to adopt the most vulnerable children and nothing should be done to bar them from the system. 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”.
What’s that supposed to mean? If it’s a vote, it’s an issue of law; she’s in the government; what right does she have to refuse to vote on an issue not of conscience but of what Lord Whatsit the other day called ‘church teaching’?
Oh dear – I’m coming over all militant atheist. If Ruth Kelly wants to inspire a lot more people to turn militant atheist, she’s going the right way about it.
Ms Kelly stands accused of preparing to give in to homophobic lobbying from Roman Catholic bishops. It seems that these worthies, who present themselves as champions of children’s rights in their relentless campaign against abortion, would rather see kids remain in institutions than hand them over to same-sex adoptive parents. Faced with equality legislation that would make such discrimination illegal, they’ve lobbied the Government and found sympathetic listeners in the Prime Minister and Ms Kelly who – this is not a joke – is the cabinet minister responsible for equality.
Yeah well – we know they preferred to see them in institutions in Ireland rather than hand them over to their own mothers, in many cases not because the mothers were abusive but because they were unmarried. We know they have a very warped idea of what is immoral and what isn’t. Forbidding condoms during a pandemic, moral; keeping children in institutions rather than letting them go to gay parents, moral; being gay, shockingly immoral and sinful and bad.
If I were thinking about how best to promote the welfare of children in need of adoptive parents, I certainly wouldn’t take much notice of an organisation with such a scandalous record. No doubt Ms Kelly takes a different view, but then she would: she’s a devout Catholic, and in a sane world that would disqualify her from taking decisions which might provide special treatment to an organisation of which she is a member. Those of us with a surer grasp of morality are entitled to explain to Ms Kelly that for the second time in a month she faces something called a conflict of interest, and the Prime Minister’s support cannot alter that fact.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who is set to become the leader of England’s Catholics, recently warned the Government not to “impose on us conditions which contradict our moral values”. “It is simply unacceptable to suggest that the resources of… adoption agencies … can work in co-operation with public authorities only if the faith communities accept not just the legal framework but also the moral standards being touted by the Government,” he sermonised last November. When it comes to Mr Blair, the archbishop is preaching to the converted, according to senior ministers. The Prime Minister first asked Alan Johnson, then responsible, to include a loophole in anti-discrimination legislation to allow the Catholic ban on gay parents early last year. When he refused, the PM moved him and handed the equalities brief to Ms Kelly, whom he knew could be trusted to back him on the issue.
Well what a pretty story.
Ah, but you’ve got to support her, and woderful little christian …. Tony B.
After all, it’s only people like me, dangerous militant atheists who are going on about how nasty the christians (whether of the evengelical or RC variety) who are o.t.t.
OF COURSE Kelly is entirely reasonable, why should anyone onject to her christian proposals?
Oh, one very small advantage to the “Church of England” here …
“The Bishop of Rome hath no dominion in this realm of England”.
Maybe holy Tony and Kelly should remember that.
This isn’t so clear-cut is it? If Kelly is right that the law as it stands will force Catholic agencies to close, that would be a worse thing than having an exemption in the law, wouldn’t it? Why should an adoption agency be required to place children in situations that the agency believes will be damaging to the child? Would they be forced to place children with parents who use corporal punishment within the bounds of the law? Does the principle that there should be zero discrimination against homosexual couples in adoption procedures transcend the good that is done for children by agencies that discriminate? That seems a little doctrinaire, to me.
The RC adoption agencies wouldn’t be forced to close. No one is saying that the welfare of the children shouldn’t be paramount, or that any person has a right to adopt a child. The RC agency just wouldn’t be allowed to rule out prospective adopters simply because they were gay. If the RC agencies choose to close because of these strictures then that is up to them.
“The RC adoption agencies wouldn’t be forced to close. No one is saying that the welfare of the children shouldn’t be paramount”
From the point of view of the agencies (as it is presented by kelly and co) the practical effect of the legislation would be to force RC agencies to act against the interest of the child. If that forced them to close it would be a serious loss for many children with only ideological point-scoring as a benefit, wouldn’t it?
I think it’s the RC adoption agencies who are point-scoring here. They are prepared to shut down their operations on behalf of children who need loving parents because there is a possibility that some of them could be brought up by gays. They are prepared to sacrifice the needs of children simply because of a ‘yuk factor’.
RC adoption agencies?
I thought if they all closed it would be a good idea – judging from the previous comments on this forum of someone who really knows about these things … Marie-Therese O’ Loughlin ….
Yeah – so what if they are forced to close ? Like no other agencies will step in ? And with some luck, ones perhaps with a less medievalist outlook.
“Yeah – so what if they are forced to close ? Like no other agencies will step in ?”
You seem to think there is a queue of organisations wanting to do this work but forced to wait their turn. That isn’t the case. Who, exactly, is likely to ‘step in’, do you suppose? Why don’t they step in now?
I think John’s concerns are the outcome of the underfunding of the welfare state. For various reasons, the government has become dependent upon religious institutions and charities to deliver certain services. If the government caves in over this, I think it will be the result of religious blackmail.
“Would you feel as laissez faire if an adoption agency felt it their moral duty to bar black people ?’
I don’t know, although there are, or were until recently adoption agencies who would not allow white couples to adopt black children. It is still legal as far as I know to discriminate against parents on the basis of their colour and ethnic background in adoption cases.
A closer analogy for our purposes might be an adoption agnecy that ONLY housed children with gay couples. Would I object? No. My view would be that the tiny amount of discrimination against straight couples which was thereby created would be off-set by the much larger and more significant gains for the children who find adoptive parents but would otherwise grow up in institutions.
Hmm. So I am morally against GM foods, yet the government wants to force them on me (a) by allowing firms to produce them and (b) by not insisting on adequate labelling. Are the goverment seeking to ‘impose on us conditions which contradict our moral values’? Or, I am morally against halal slaughter, yet my kids, if I had any, would have to eat it at school if there are some Muslims in the school (I don’t believe LEAs source twice when they can source once). I live too far away from the school to make it practicable to get my kids home for their lunch. Are the goverment seeking to ‘impose on us conditions which contradict our moral values’? I am morally against religion in national life that I’d like to join in, such as national celebrations and mourning. Yet the government doesn’t do anything to include me. Are the goverment seeking to ‘impose on us conditions which contradict our moral values’?
They don’t half pick and choose, these slime, don’t they?
If they cave in to the threats on this particular issue, will the Church and other religious groups leave it there? I think not, they’ll see that the tactic works and look for where else they can insert further get-out clauses. This is bigger than just the adoption issue.
“the practical effect of the legislation would be to force RC agencies to act against the interest of the child.”
Yeah, funny how their religious dogma can do that.
So does archbishop Nichols think it is correct for an RC pharmacist’s assitant to refuse an umarried woman (or even ANY woman birth-control aids/equipment/drugs?
Because that is where his “moral” stance leads us ……
>She is a devout Catholic and member of the Opus Dei sect. His leanings to Rome have been rewarded with audiences in front of successive Popes.< Cor Blimey, und Himmilsher Vater was, mehr kann man hier sagen. It all just jumps out at me. Crikey, Look what one is up against. They are everywhere to be had dominating all and sundry. The Irish CICA, The RIRB, the Irish Minister for Education Mary Hanafin, and oodles more TDs/Senators are purported to be knee deep in OP. Not only is she in the wrong job so too is Blair, and the whole IRISH OP shebang. I wonder if the vulnerable children have been consulted, or opinions sought. LOVE IS LOVE IS LOVE IT MATTERS NAUGHT a hoot FROM WHENCE IT COMES - INSTITUTIONAL LIFE STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN. Ms kelly should try to stop appeasing the Religious as they are blatantly holding her to ransom at the expense of the emotional and psychological needs of lonely loveless children. Morals,in my foot. Lord preserve the little ones from all the homophobic craw thumpers.
So the buck stops with Tony Blair.
The following is an excerpt of
UK: Tony Blair’s pact with God
“Tony Blair is a committed Christian, who “keeps the Bible by his bed”, reports The Observer. But up to now his special relation with God remained more or less a private affair. With his new project, to place religion at the centre of British politics, he has finally come out as a political agent of religious revival. Secularists in Britain have raised an alarm. “We feel this is a further example of the government’s desire to favour and privilege religious organisations, and wonder, when the opinions and needs of those who are non-religious will be similarly regarded”, wrote Keith Wood, executive director of the respected old National Secular Society in a letter to Mactaggert. Despite repeated requests, complaints Wood, ‘non-religious groups’ have been excluded from any involvement in the ‘religious’ working group.
To counter the severe blow against Secularism and to prevent a country with exemplary liberal and progressive morass of all religious “spirituality”,
the voice of Secularism needs to be clear and sharp. Religious advisory committees to governments of secular states have no locus standi, neither legally nor logically. They have to go, because their existence violates the very principle of separation of state and religion. Pleading for “equal rights” within illegitimate establishments legitimizes them. It’s a question of principles, not of numbers.
Blair’s quiet attempt to re-empower Christianity in its new attire of an all-religious partnership is highly alarming. It calls for decisive resistance of the enlightend part of the public before it is too late.”
Voting the way your conscience tells you to, rather than just voting the direction the party orders you to, seems to me to be fairly fundemental to the way parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. How would voting work otherwise?
You may not like her opinions but she was elected and has every right to vote, as I see it. You can argue it would be wrong to vote against the government over a manifesto committment, but I don’t think this issue was in the manifesto, maybe it was? And it would surely be immoral and hypocritical to support something you privately strongly disagreed with.
So a member of Opus Dei – a sect which practices mortification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortification) – in other words sado-masochistic practices – thinks gay couples are unfit to adopt.
It’s a funny old world…
I’m puzzled, doesn’t equal treatment mean that gay couples would have to meet the same criteria as heterosexual couples in order to adopt? Stable, long term relationship, suitable home life, etc?
But Cathal has demonstrated that gays are inherently incapable of anything other than rutting like rabbits in a San Francisco bath-house circa 1978. If a few aberations occur, what are the chances that they would want to adopt, or would choose a homophobic catholic agency if they did?
This whole issue is a timely reminder of why no government should let religious groups take over the responsibilities of the state. They always have a price.
“I wonder if the vulnerable children have been consulted, or opinions sought. LOVE IS LOVE IS LOVE IT MATTERS NAUGHT a hoot FROM WHENCE IT COMES – INSTITUTIONAL LIFE STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN. Ms kelly should try to stop appeasing the Religious as they are blatantly holding her to ransom at the expense of the emotional and psychological needs of lonely loveless children.”
There you go.
It’s especially galling in light of the fact that apparently gay adopters are more likely to adopt ‘difficult to place’ children. It seems the church would prefer such children to remain in institutions. It’s revolting…
“You may not like her opinions but she was elected and has every right to vote, as I see it.”
She’s not just voting, she’s in the Cabinet, she’s the Minister for Equality, and she’s working to create an exemption in the new regulations. That goes well beyond mere voting. Someone who wants to create exemptions in new equality regulations is a very odd choice for a Minister for Equality. So odd as to be oxymoronic. You might as well appoint an anarchist as Attorney General.
‘And it would surely be immoral and hypocritical to support something you privately strongly disagreed with.’
Of course it would. That’s why we have the word ‘resignation’.
These were the only recommendations {booklet form} given to boys on leaving Artane Industrial School in the past
“For your guidance.” “Don’t miss mass on Sundays or holy days of obligation. Be in good time. Don’t leave before the end. Don’t go around the door. Use your missal or prayer book. Go right into confession and holy communion, they will keep you straight and make you a man. Keep Our Lady on your side, you shall need her “The only one who can make a man of you is yourself and then only by God’s help by which you must pray daily and make Our Lady of Refuge your friend at all times.
There was nothing there which essentially equipped somebody who left an institution and who was undeniably
institutionalised because everything had been organised for him for years to deal with the outside world.
I am thinking particularly in terms of children who were either in orphanages/industrial schools around the country with the Sisters of Mercy, etc – and who at ten years old moved to Artane or who were there for maybe five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten years. There was nothing there to equip them for dealing with the ordinary, simple everyday things of life, like, for example, living on their own, getting
paid, how they had to spend their money, how they had to budget, how they had to try and save or anything of that particular nature. It was a type of vade mecum that was given out
So Ruth Kelly would prefer it if children made “their own way” in a lonesome similar fashion to that of the ARTANE boys of the past – than to be adopted by some “kind human beings.”
I know countless Goldenbridge contemporaries – including myself, who would have given our right hand to have been adopted by some “loving people. I remember once approaching a young lady with beautiful long hair who came on a visit to the institution and imploring with her to take me out. I also asked her if she would be my Aunty. She took me out for the weekend and it was a blissful one.
On leaving Goldenbridge we were advised not to attempt to go to England as there one would undoubtedly lose the “Faith.” To conclude I did not know how to cook an egg when I left Goldenbridge.
Ruth Kelly, PLEASE get real will ye! IS THIS REALLY WHAT YOU WANT FOR DEFENCELESS KIDS – FOR THEM TO BE LEFT WITHOUT ANYONE TO CARE?. WITH THE DRACONIAN MEASURES YOU WANT TO PUT IN PLACE.
Returning to something which might actually be interesting, I think I can guess why the RC church is so exercised about all this. Popes have never wanted people to take the bible literally. Popes wanted to decide which bits were to be taken literally (eg Mary was “highly favoured” and therefore, alone of all her sex, immaculately conceived; Peter was appointed as a rock, and therefore Popes are rocks too; men mustn’t lie with men; etc),
[oops, YHWH-lite, as worshipped in a church near you, made my finger slip]…and which bits are metaphorical or of historical interest only or maybe a bit garbled or deranged. And now they see a secular society getting all militant and saying that since it’s only humans deciding which bits of the bible are sensible (and come on guys and gals, there are some sensible bits), then that rubbish about religion as a source of morals is, well, rubbish. And where will that end, Holy Father? Why, we might have people rejecting would-be archbishops who acted as small-time narks for the communist secret police in Poland, even though the Pope had decided to appoint them.
If the legislation in question was aimed at limiting the right to discriminate to those with a good reason to do so, well, let the Catholics and anyone else apply to be exempt. However, it seems to me the point was to prevent a particular group from discrimination, period, so how the hell can there be exemptions? If the Catholics, or anybody else, come along and say it’s at odds with their beliefs, then – bravo – they’ve finally twigged that their beliefs are at odds with the kind of egalitarian society this legislation is aiming for. If Catholics are a group particularly disposed to discriminate against homosexuals, then they are one of the main groups this legislation is aimed at. Right, let’s exempt them. And while we’re at it, let’s forbid racial discrimination – unless, of course, you’re a committed racist.
The NI regulations, which 4 bishops voted to have annulled because they were a nasty militant atheist plot, actually say:
16(3) Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for an organisation [of a religious character] to which this regulation applies, or for anyone acting on behalf of or under the auspices of such an organisation to which this regulation applies —
(a) to restrict membership of the organisation;
(b) to restrict participation in activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices;
(c) to restrict the provision of goods, facilities and services in the course of activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices; or
(d) to restrict the use or disposal of premises owned or controlled by the organisation,
in respect of a person on the ground of his sexual orientation.
(5) Paragraphs (3) and (4) permit a restriction only if imposed —
(a) if it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation; or
(b) so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion[‘]s followers.
Now where did I put that machine gun …
Ah, thanks for the clarification, Nicholas. I had the idea from reading the various news sources that the regulations for England and Wales already existed but didn’t come into effect until April.
“And while we’re at it, let’s forbid racial discrimination – unless, of course, you’re a committed racist.”
Exactly. [smites brow]
Anyway, wouldn’t it be at least more honest for Ruth Kelly to simply oppose the legislation completely, rather than try to help “her people” get out of it? It’s not just Catholicism that makes problems for gays. Why isn’t she fighting for exemptions for other groups that call homosexuality an abomination? Of course, the real bottom line about that is simply that if she doesn’t at least embarrass herself mightily trying to get her people out of it, they’re not going to make it very pleasant for her, are they? And that’s a problem she doesn’t have to face with Jews or Muslims because she isn’t one of them.
Ah, well, what did I tell you?
All religions are blackmail, based on fear and surperstition.
And, this morning, the RC church is upping the public blackmail….
“You must exempt us, or we’ll close our reception/orphanages/schools (as appropriate) – And it’s all your fault!”
I think I can legitimately call “hypocrites” on this one, can’t I?
“And while we’re at it, let’s forbid racial discrimination – unless, of course, you’re a committed racist.”
Racial discrimination in adoption is permitted. An adoption agancy is entitled to prefer adoptive parents of the same racial designation as the adopting child.
Stewart, the cabinet of which Ruth Kelly is a member has decided that there are to be regulations outlawing discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in England and Wales. It would be honest for her to resign her ministerial post, but if she doesn’t, she can’t publicly oppose the making of these regulations. What she appears to be doing is telling her officials to draft some loophole which will let RC adoption agencies off. If such a loophole is drafted, I am sure it will cover Jewish and Rastafarian and militant atheist adoption agencies equally.
John, indeed so. But that is demonstrably in the interest of the child. Adoption agencies are not permitted to consider placing only white children, or consider only black adopters.
John M, “Racial discrimination in adoption is permitted.”
Yes but for perhaps more enlightened reasons than than “No! Sinners and Sodomites!!”
And to think I assumed that people like Madonna were adopting African children because the law mandated it…
“John, indeed so. But that is demonstrably in the interest of the child.”
No it isn’t; if it was, someone would have demonstrated it. I don’t believe it is in the interests of the child at all. In fact, I think it is ideologically driven, racist and offensive. But I would prefer that agencies operated according to these principles than that they closed down, and I accept that some (deluded) people do believe that they are acting in the best interests of children when they apply these racist policies.
“And to think I assumed that people like Madonna were adopting African children because the law mandated it…”
The law does not fobid it, but neither does it forbid the placing of children with homosexual couples. Thje point is that, if you believe that it is against the interests of a child to place it with parents of a different racial designation, you are entitled not to.
“All religions are blackmail, based on fear and superstition.”
What is it with you and “newspeak”. Why when we have two words doing two different jobs do you want to try and take one of them away. Are you trying to restrict the thoughts that it is possible for people to have? This is not double plus good.
How about we call all political idealogies, “stories” (or better yet “narratives”) and get rid of the phrase political ideology. We have got rid of another two words there. Hell, I reckon we could be down to a few hundred if we worked at it.
Bloody hell, I actually agree with you on most of what you say, but do you really have to talk in cliches? They are a subsitute for thought you know, and very boring for the rest of us.
Because religions really are based on fear and superstition, and operate through a combination of moral and physical blackmail …
It is true, and repetetive, yes, and possibly boring.
But how long do I have to go on about this, before our “political” classes get it?
My local councillors won’t listen, my local MP is himself an atheist, but may not stand for re-election next time …
Etc.
I find the whole thing extremely depressing.
Why and how did this collection of bronze age/classical/dark ages superstitions and obscurantism escape from its closet in the first place?
And why cannot anyone seem to shove it back there?
“Because religions really are based on fear and superstition, and operate through a combination of moral and physical blackmail …”
Ahh, but that is not your mantra. You don’t merely claim that religions USE blackmail, but that they ARE blackmail, ie that the two terms are synonymous. I am not taking issue with you for your low opnion of religion (which I share), but with the fact that you wish to deprive us of a word, and/or that you think that many of us are the sort of people who are impressed with soundbites. (Clue, most B&W readers are free thinkers, and want an argument, not a soundbite). The two words are not synonymous (apart from anything else, one is a noun, and one a verb).
“But how long do I have to go on about this, before our “political” classes get it?”
Maybe try not to talk in slogans then. I myself turn off when someone talks in slogans as I know that I am not going to hear someone’s thoughts, merely a bundle of words strung together. Who knows, maybe our “political” classes likewise turn off when they hear slogans.
“But how long do I have to go on about this, before our “political” classes get it?”
To put it another way, you are preaching to the converted with me, and yet I get irritated by this mantra. So if that is how someone “on your side” reacts to how you express your message, how do yoy think that someone hostile to your view point is going to react?
Not to mention the fact that repeating it ad nauseam in comments on the N&C page at B&W is not hugely likely to come to the attention of your ‘”political” classes.’
“Not to mention the fact that repeating it ad nauseam in comments on the N&C page at B&W is not hugely likely to come to the attention of your ‘”political” classes.'”
More’s the pity.
SDorry, CHrisM, I take your point.
Yes, as far as I can see, all religions use blackmail, particularly if they have any temporal power at all.
The “moral” blackmail being perpetrated by the RC’s on holy creeping (etc) Tony at the moment is quite disgusting, and thank-you Ophelia, for putting up the link on the main page ….
And, similarly, most (if not all) of them ARE blackmail, in the sense that the deal goes like this ….
“If you join our religion, which is the only true one btw, all the others are evil and false, then you will be saved and go to heaven, and all will be well. If you reject us, you will be eternally damned.”
And this is NOT blackmail?
More extortion, surely?
‘Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal information about a person unless the threatened party fulfills certain demands. This information is usually of an embarrassing or socially damaging nature.
In a broader sense, blackmail is an offer to refrain from any action which would be legal or normally allowed, and is thus distinguished from extortion.’ (wiki)
“”If you join our religion, which is the only true one btw, all the others are evil and false, then you will be saved and go to heaven, and all will be well. If you reject us, you will be eternally damned.”
And this is NOT blackmail?”
Yes, it may be. But that is an example of religion USING blackmail; this is not the same as saying that religion IS blackmail. I think it is known as the compostitional fallacy (but I could well be wrong). Because A includes B, it does not follow that A IS B. Religion also involves tradition; that does not mean religion is tradition. Religion often involves sexism, that does not mean religion is sexism. The list goes on, I am sure you take my point.
I had this row with someone on Comment is Free (now there is an exercise in banging one’s head against a wall). Someone claimed that racism is ignorance. Again, I know what they were trying to say; but the assertion is so demontrably wrong (I pointed out I am ignorant of tensor calculus, but that did not mean I was racist, therefore the two terms are not the same) that although the person’s heart was in the right place, they were insulting my intelligence by claiming two orthoganal concepts are the same thing. I am quite capable of dealing with lots of different words and don’t require people to try and reduce the number of words that are available for the purposes of expression.
Apart from anything else if you say that religion and blackmail are the same thing, then that means that religion does not involve ignorance, (because blackmail does not involve ignorance). It also means that religion does not involve sexism or homophobia or tribalism, because blackmail does not involves these things. It also means that religion is NOT factually wrong, because blackmail is not factually wrong. You are actually cutting down the number of ways in which religion can be critised. This is not something I would guess you want to do ;-).
Finally (for now anyway) the fact that religion is factually wrong is more important than the fact it involves blackmail. If xtianity (or insert religion of choice here) were actually true, the blackmail aspect of it would be irrelevant. I don’t disbeleive in religion becuase it is nasty and involves nasty things (like blackmail). Afterall, on that basis I would have to disbeleive in the existance of communism. I disbeleive in it because there is no evidence to support it.
I’d agree with ChrisM that religion being factually wrong is more intellectually important.
But, the logic of “our way is the only one true way, and you’ll go to hell otherwise” Strikes me as blackamail, and it intergral to, completely fundamental to (no pun intended) the structure and the operation of (most) religion.
And, of course, religion isn’t ONL:Y blackmail – as you pointed out, it’s a lot of other things as well.
Most of them pretty nasty, if you get in their way …..
The obvious exception is Bhuddism, where the Guatama said, in effect: “Here’s A way – it worked for me. It should work for you – give it a try – lots of cycles of treis, in fact … “
I think it is a debate on style more than substance.
I’d agree that Budhism deserves special dispensation. I still think it is deluded, but I have yet to hear about those damn budhists causing trouble anywhere so I am happy to let them get on with it. Whatever double clicks your mouse.
“But, the logic of “our way is the only one true way, and you’ll go to hell otherwise” Strikes me as blackamail, and it intergral to, completely fundamental to (no pun intended) the structure and the operation of (most) religion.”
As with secular “religions” (ie unquestioning beleif in the inerrancy of some txt) such as communism. They may not threaten an afterlife in hell, but they generally will either give you hell now, or send you to the (non-existant) afterlife PDQ if you question any of it.
Although, I have to bear in mind Don’s comment about blackmail being the threat of doing something which in itself is legal. (Ie the action is legal, threatening to carry out that action is not eg. “give me money or I will tell your wife you have a mistress” is illegal, whilst telling said wife of said mistress is not). I am not sure what the law is regarding sending someone to eternal damnation (or threatening to do so), so perhaps “threats” would be a more accuate word than blackmail.
“I have yet to hear about those damn budhists causing trouble anywhere”
Ah…think Tokyo. Subway. Sarin gas.
There is also an argument that like other religions, Buddhism does in practice have a progress-impeding aspect in some third world countries. That it’s better at teaching people to be indifferent to nasty this-world conditions than it is at inspiring them to change this world.
There is also the fact that the doctrine of reincarnation can be and is used to convince people that 1) they are responsible for their own condition in life, however degraded it may be, and 2) that there are better and worse kinds of people to be in life and that one is what one is because of what one did in previous lives. This simply conveys the message that being, say, a woman is 1) a bad thing and 2) a deserved punishment. This way of thinking and teaching makes any kind of egalitarian reform meaningless and useless; even perhaps destructive, because it interferes with karma.
“Ah…think Tokyo. Subway. Sarin gas.”
Was that them? I remember they had some weird name like Aum Shrinko or some such. I didn’t realise they were a Budhist sect.
I had not thought of the other issues you raised. But having raised them I am reminded of some dick head UK football manager who claimed that disabled people must have done something in a previous life to deserve this misfortune in this one. Point taken. OK, I shall damn them with faint praise instead and reduce my claim to they are not as bad as most of the others.
Yup. Aum Shin Rikyo – that’s phonetically right but may not be the right spelling. They were Buddhist all right – though a small and self-created sect, so not the fault of Buddhism as a whole.
But yeah. I like many things about Buddhism myself, but it does have its traps. And women (and other inferiors) really do get told that.
“Someone claimed that racism is ignorance…but the assertion is so demontrably wrong (I pointed out I am ignorant of tensor calculus, but that did not mean I was racist, therefore the two terms are not the same) that although the person’s heart was in the right place, they were insulting my intelligence by claiming two orthoganal concepts are the same thing.”
I think you’re being overly literal in your interpretation of words. For example, “religion is fanciful” is not asserting an identity. Similarly “Racism is bad”, “ignorance is bliss”, etc.