On January 30, 1649, King Charles I was executed; soon afterwards Eikon
Basilike, his partly ghost-written apologia, was published. It rapidly
became a bestseller, running through some 50 editions in the first year; no
doubt that played its part in building public support for the restoration of
the monarchy in 1660. The Eikon can be described only as a High Tory
document, arguing that a king and a subject have quite different functions.
Whatever else may be said of him, Charles I was neither a liberal nor a
democrat.
If one looks for the first recorded example of the use of the word
“discrimination” in its modern political sense, one finds it in a rather
tortuous sentence in Eikon Basilike. “Take heed of abetting any
factions, of applying to any public discriminations in matters of religion.”
King Charles always did believe in uniformity in matters of religion; that
was the policy of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Charles’s
enthusiastic supporter. Charles was a “no discrimination” king. That was his
advice to his successors.
It has been surprising to find Charles’s doctrine rising up again in the
present dispute over the Catholic agencies’ refusal to organise adoption for
same-sex couples. It is even more surprising that Charles’s doctrine has
been adopted by the Left or liberal wing of politics. Alan Johnson, the
Education Secretary, seems to be deciding this adoption issue. He has said
that he would never agree to discrimination; “no discrimination” has been
echoed by the Government front bench in the House of Lords.
It seems to be the policy of the Liberal Democrats. David Cameron has told The
Daily Telegraph that “we shouldn’t put up with this discrimination on
the basis of race, age or sexual orientation”. If interpreted literally,
that would eliminate the age of consent, which involves discrimination on
the grounds of age, and would raise the awkward question whether paedophilia
constituted a “sexual orientation”.
Almost all law is concerned with discriminating between different cases that
receive different treatment. Even the Civil Partnership Act itself is
avowedly discriminatory. Same-sex couples gain substantial tax advantages,
equal to those of a married couple. Members of the same family are not
allowed to enter into civil partnerships with each other; nor are unmarried
heterosexual couples. These seem to me to be unfair discriminations, but
that is not the point. They undoubtedly are discriminatory and the exclusion
of heterosexual couples is undoubtedly a discrimination based on sexual
orientation. It is a matter of same sex, yes, but different sexes no.
Mr Cameron is a thoughtful politician, which makes his views on the adoption
issue particularly interesting. He said: “It is time to sweep away failed
multiculturalism. I don’t think it would be right to allow carve-outs for
Muslim groups or Hindu groups or whoever, so that means one law that
everyone has to obey. And that’s why I don’t think a block exemption for
Catholic adoption agencies would be right.” Mr Cameron understands that he
is attacking multiculturalism. He does not seem to understand that
multiculturalism is the basis of liberalism.
If liberalism has a core of meaning, it is that different people, different
groups, different churches, different religions, have a right to hold
different views. Society has the overriding right to protect itself against
anarchy and terrorism, but so far as possible society should leave people
free to make their own judgments and decide on their own actions. All
voluntary agencies could and should have been left to make their own rules
for adoptions. The State could decide the rules for state agencies.
Mr Cameron is in company that would regard itself as liberal. He has most of
the Liberal Democrats with him, and most of new Labour with him. He sees
himself as a liberal Conservative. But his view that there should be no
exceptions in law to allow for differences in religious beliefs is neither
liberal, nor workable. It is illiberal because liberty depends on pluralism
and therefore has to accept multiculturalism. It is unworkable because
Britain has no way of imposing our belief systems on Islam.
Other religions may give way, like the ocean; Islam is like a rock. Wise
sailors do not steer into the rocks.
Society has no choice but to act against a church or religion that attacks
social order, as some Muslim groups do. In the reigns of Queen Elizabeth I
or King James I the English Government was justified in acting against
Catholic plots, though many Catholics were unjustly punished and were pushed
into extremism. British policy in Ireland has never been forgiven.
When Mr Cameron argues that Catholic adoption agencies should be given “time
to find a way through the new rules”, he does sound condescending to most
Catholics. The Catholic Church has had a doctrine of marriage, as an
indissoluble union between two people of different sexes, taking priority
over all other relationships, since the time of Christ, endorsed by his
specific words.
The Catholic Church believes that doctrine would be prejudiced if Catholic
agencies arranged adoption for same-sex couples. After 2000 years, the
Church is not going to change its mind because of a vote in the House of
Commons. In matters of faith and morals, the Catholic Church sees itself as
sovereign, because it is teaching the doctrine of Jesus. The Church may not
break British law, but it will certainly not break its own law.
Harold Macmillan is said to have observed that a prime minister should avoid
taking on three bodies, the Brigade of Guards, the Roman Catholic Church and
the National Union of Mineworkers. Ted Heath was indeed destroyed by the
mineworkers, Margaret Thatcher eventually defeated them. A prudent prime
minister knows the limits of his own authority. He can pass laws, but he
cannot enforce consent. The great religions command strong loyalties. It
would be a great mistake if the British Government decided to take them on,
and a pity if the Leader of the Opposition supported a policy of compelled
uniformity.
Spot Mr Rees-Mogg. This issue was a chance for David Cameron to get my vote at the next election; he failed.
A.NEwman, London, UK
The Catholic church has a way out: it should make it clear that it does not offer services to parents, it offers services to children by finding them homes. Describing children as a "public goods and services" is degrading to humanity.
Herbert G., Leeds, West Riding
No one must be Roman Catholic and no one must adopt. The option was always available to allow any adoption agency to refer persons to another agency. In the case of the Catholic adopition agency, this was, is and will remain their stance until they are forced, by their belief, to close the doors.
The government's refusal to consider options for this and other agencies is typical of its "one-size-fits-all" policies. Policies in which everyone ends up with their second choice.
This is not liberalism nor socialism, it is the State putting itself above the voters.
I will leave you to think of a few of the hundreds of examples that this government has already imposed on the population.
What is required is fewer laws and more, not less, personal freedom.
David Cameron could appear a little less "broadly against things that are not good." by announcing the repeal of a good 50% of the restrictive laws passed by the present government.
Gary Mason, St Albans, Herts
The wrong kind of liberalism is driving much current policy, from the religious discirmination bill that lost by a single vote to this latest law. They reflect not simply the victory of the British left in the "culture wars", but their determination to impose their thinking to the exclusion of others. Given its history, the Roman Catholic church could be said to be poorly placed to criticise this bill on the basis of freedom of choice. Nevertheless, Roman Catholic adoption agencies play an important social role and it is ridiculous for any law to undo and prevent good work of this kind - indeed, it is a sign of its moral bankruptcy.
Alexander Monro, London, UK
Within a modern nation state there is but one law that is supreme and that is the law of the land; it may or may not be the law of God and in terms of any practical realization of beliefs, those churches which claim exclusive right to be the spokespeople of such august and otiose commands, are in the end subject – as well they should be – to the laws of a rather miserable and mundane land.
In a theocratic set-up the law of the land may sit quite happily with the law of God: they may be the best of acquaintances in some delightful tea for two, some felicitous tête à tête and over their teacups can plot and plan as they will the very disposition of humanity. For all I know there might not even be anything like the slightest genteel hiccup between them.
However, in the liberal secular democracy, the civil and civic society with its plethora of competing groups, with its rough and tumble, with its lack of common aims and ultimate purposes, it is not possible to oblige upon all others some kind of religious definition of the human condition. If this means that religious groupings that view as sinful and disordered homosexual practices and relationships and who in their own understanding of the needs of the child see serious and dangerous moral risk from such an environment – if this means that such groups are corralled and curtailed for the greater good, then so be it. Such religious groupings are not asked to change their views: far from it. They must be encouraged to maintain them. What they are being told is that others in society have every right to be free from the particular religious definition of the human condition, which would seem to inspire in the public sphere particular discriminatory faith practices.
The provision of public goods and services cannot allow of discrimination against any group of the grounds of sexual orientation, race or religion.
David E. Mahony, Putney, London, UK
This highly discriminatory law will punish people for refusing to do things they consider immoral. By its own definition of “Harassment”, it is an harassment of all who consider that the Bible is sacred and submit to its teaching as the ultimate authority on moral issues.
The right to freedom of conscience must be maintained in law or we return to the bad old days of genuine martyrdom, in which the state oppresses people of a faith or ideology other than its own.
The basic principle of secularism is that the state does not follow or promote an exclusive faith or ideology. This law ends secularism in Britain.
Des Byrne, Aberdeen, Scotland
What Roman Catholics do within their own churches is their own business. However. once they move into civil society whether it is in adoption agencies or commercial ventures like letting church halls they should be treated like everyone else.
David Gwilliam, Leicester , England
Mr Rees-Mogg, who has a stellar background in journalism, puts forth conservative views and well-argued advice to Mr Cameron, leader of the conservative opposition, with which Labor MP understandably may disagree. But the question still must be raised why Mr Cameron, believes he can get away with espousing the opposite side, hostile to conservative principles. Rees-Mogg's line "He does not seem to understand.." may be a key hint: Many do not seem to find it a necessity to understand or to make an effort to think through what they are supporting, among those who are influencing public opinion, leaders & backbenchers, but fall in with views being mouthed by a chorus of sound-bite purveyors, not a Greek chorus
reflecting the mind of the People, but intellectual happy-slappers, too noisy
to be ignored, drowning out reason. One would wish Mr Cameron and
others would go on Catholic retreats where prayer is practiced with meditative readings of great Church & Western writings.
Hermann G W Burchard, Stillwater, OK, U.S.A.
Ron , it is your dim bigoted views that society must be protected from.
Huw, Conwy, wales
The church's doctrine has not remained the same for 2000 years but has been the subject for change. But the point at issue is not the church's doctrine, but their adoption agencies receipt of public money. Those organisations receiving public money should abide by the rules, whatever they are. You can't take with one hand and refuse with the other.
Robert Hugill, London,
Let us not forget that superstion is just as prevalent, if not more so, outside the confines of Christianity. It is an extraordinarily human thing to believe in something that happens to be personally appealing whether or not there is credible evidence to support it. The idea that gay couples can provide a healthy home for children may be or may not be correct, but at this point it cannot be demonstrated conclusively, Those who insist that it is are expressing blind faith in the unproven. After all, the testimony of human history certainly suggests the contrary.
The idea that "there can only be one Christian position" is self-evident... feel-good-ism's notwithstanding. Biblical testimony is clear that there is only one Christian faith, Christian tradition insists that truth can never be self-contradictory. If Christians disagree about biblical interpretation, they can't all be right. To say that different viewpoints are all valid is the same as saying they are all wrong.
Vince Brandolini, Salem, NJ, USA
The present British State, and many other European States, have established their own secular materialist religion, which they are trying to force on everyone. This was also attempted (much more brutally) by the Jacobins, the Soviets and the Nazis. Historic and orthodox Christianity can never accept this secular religion; there will always be tension or conflict. But the Church will outlast the secular State.
Dave, Wrexham,
Law will only exist with the consent of the people. Introduce a law that people find abhorrent and they will find a way round it and that is what will happen with gay adoption. Increasing the number of laws in areas where they should not be will just introduce ambiguity and make more tax payers money available for lawyers to argue about the meaning and intent of the words of legislation. Confusing religeous freedom with discrimination is the province of prejudice and will breed further contempt for the law - witness our overfull prisons.
People who wish for a gay adoption will be better going to a state rather than a Christian adoption agency. Legislation in this area serves to underline how little our politicians understand of human ingenuity!
Robert Whitrow, Northampton, UK
If a society or "culture" holds certain views that are displeasing to a particular religion a decision must be made as to which views are more beneficial to that society or culture as a whole. Religion, within a multicultural or multi-religious society is in effect a subculture. Which really means that their views should be tolerated but not necessarily adopted by the other groups. Views regarding behavior must be decided on the basis of reason, analysis and sometimes (but not always) consensus within the society at large. They must NEVER be decided on the basis of a "faith"-based organization or group. I think, therefore that Catholics, Moslems, Jews, C of E and everybody else must all be made to toe the mark - like it or not. Our survival depends on it.
d. gaber, los angeles, USA
We are getting into more and more of a mess here; commonsense has gone out of the window. Obviously those who shout their veto on discrimination are hypocritical because they have their own 'red lines' which they would impose on us all. Cameron for example in his 'modernizing' activities practises rabid discrimination and I doubt if he would accept paedophilia, for example.
Dr j Findlater , Carnforth,
It seems extraordinary to me that an anti-discrimination bill actually discriminates against one section of the community, namely the catholics. In this country where we are proud that of our tradition of freedom of speech, do we really need this legislation which bans it?
margaret wright, London, Great Britain
The Church in Her wisdom will see through this new law and work for the benifit of child and church alike . Should an agency close , then it will be closed for the better reason and not just to cut its noise off to spit its face. The love of God is far bigger than a vote in parliment.
Patrick Walesby, Hereforf,
Not for the first time William Rees-Mogg uses your pages for the special pleading of religion and Catholicism in particular. However, the religious do not have a monopoly on matters of conscience. If a prospective founder of an adoption agency were of the opinion that it is morally objectionable for the religious to fill a child’s mind with superstitious nonsense I wonder whether he would support the right of that would be founder to place a sign saying "Catholics and their ilk need not apply"? I doubt it somehow.
Andrew J, London, UK
The overwhelming need is to protect children.
Society can legitimately discriminate to protect the young and the unborn who cannot protect themselves, thus there is absolutely no question that paedophiles must be abslutley barred from adoption. If it is society's view that children are better off if brought up in heterosexual households then the law on adoption must reflect that, but if society considers that children are safe and fulfilled in a one sex home then it is legitamate to permit that. If there is any risk however then the law must require safeguards. There must be only one law on adoption in Britain and it must aply to all races and creeds in order to protect children.
Ron, Longboat Key, Florida
I can see that Mr Rees-Mogg does not fully understand liberalism. His opinion that " multiculturalism is the basis of liberalism" is a bit of a sophistry. Liberalism always adressed itself to the individual, thus " the right to hold different views" refers to an individual human being. Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is a form of segregationism. It does not seek for groups just to hold different views but to apply those views to the society at large.
Jerzy W., Sydney, Australia
In response to David Smith from Bristol England, I have a question? What faith are you? Could you tell me who founded your church? Because Roman Catholics can. Jesus told Peter "you shall be called Peter, for on this rock I shall build my church" He also told his followers that "what you hold bound shall be bound in heaven, what they let loose shall be loose in heaven" and that He was sending the paraclet (the Holy Spirit) to guide them. This was the start of His church, which is now today known as the Catholic church, and its teachings are the same as they were 2000 years ago. As far a marriage goes, Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because the Jews were stubborn, but in the beginning it was not so. Jesus is going back to the original plan "two shall become one flesh" he goes a step further and says anyone who divorces and marries another commits adultery. I think Jesus' words are pretty obvious (but then you do have to have a bible that is actually translated from the original text) And since the largest portion of Christians are Catholic I would say that a lot of people regard the Catholic Church as a moral authority.
Elizabeth McLenon, Kansas City, USA, KS
Re "All voluntary agencies could and should have been left to make their own rules for adoptions. The State could decide the rules for state agencies."
The Catholic adoption agencies in question are paid by the state.
Why should they not then abide by the state's rules?
Jonathan, London,
Referring to homosexuality as a "chemistry problem" i think would offend most gay people; it certainly does me.
That said, as a gay man, i am categorically in favour of the the Catholic exemption, and i very much hope the law is amended. By not allowing such, it firstly rekindles Church and State, in a way that should never be the case again (the State should be the neutral arbiter in affairs); and secondly, it infringes upon freedom of conscience - if Catholic agencies (private, not public) want to offer an optional service based on their belief systems, then they should be allowed to do so. It is the State's responsibility, simultaneously, to ensure that there are adequate PUBLIC/State services that DO cater for same-sex couples.
I agree with Mr. Rees-Mogg, a Church with 2000yrs behind it, will not be restricted by a vote in the House of Commons. Long-live the rights of gay individuals. Long-live the rights of th Church. They CAN co-exist.
Jack, Birmingham,
Despite the Catholic Church's rigid stand on certain issues which some of its adherents might disagree with, I still regard the Church as one of the last universal bastions of decent values left today in the aftermath of the onslaught on its beliefs by the current orthodoxies of extreme individualism, secularism, crass materialism, hedonism and suchlike, which has led to the toll of broken homes, dysfunctional families, single-parenthood
etc. It is plainly clear that same-sex unions do not provide the masculine and feminine elements -- the yin and yang -- inherent in the polar relationship of the hetero-sexual arrangement which is essential to nurture a balanced child if his or her perception of their sexuality is not to become a confused one later.
Yet another nail is to be hammered into the coffin of Catholicism. But then as it is always the case with this faith, that in adversity it will come out even stronger and two thousand years of viability and history cannot just be wiped out in an instance.
SD GOH, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
Of course the civil partnership bill is discriminatory to other possible civil partnerships but only in the same way the civil benefits of marriage are discriminatory to gay people who are not allowed to get married. Civil partnerhsips for gay men and lesbians was intended to reduce the discrimination inherent in not providing them with civil marriage. Seems to me that Mr Rees Mogg is suggesting that government should capitulate to the irrational beliefs and social blackmail of the Catholic church at every opportunity. The Catholic church may have held beliefs for 2000 years, it doesn't make them right and certainly does not mean that the rest of us have to support or encourage them, should avoid criticising them or should give them carte blance to practice their religion to the detriment and misery of those they vilify or denigrate.
David Reid, London, England
I don't think any superstitions, no matter how old and entrenched, should have any bearing or influence on 21st century public society.
Yeswell Sortov, London, UK
Not for the first time William Rees-Mogg uses your pages for the special pleading of religion and Catholicism in particular. However, the religious do not have a monopoly on matters of conscience. If a prospective founder of an adoption agency were of the opinion that it is morally objectionable for the religious to fill a child’s mind with superstitious nonsense I wonder whether he would support the right of that would be founder to place a sign saying "Catholics and their ilk need not apply"? I doubt it somehow.
Andrew J, London, UK
I think that it is a matter of concern to me that William Rees-Mogg is assuming that the Catholic Church has the sole right to interpret the Bible and that there can in any case be only one Christian position. Adoption is not discussed in the Scriptures.
What is important is whether people can give children the care they need and whether children have their say in keeping valuable and stable relationships. What matters to children is not always what seems important to adults.
My great concern about adoption agencies is that they are almost neurotic about cross cultural adoptions.
In the end it is high time to start evaluating some of these issues on the back of scientific evidence.
And I remain a Christian.
John Edmondson , Louth , U. K.
While I cannot speak for Mr Rees-Mogg, I personally as a Christian believer would have no objection at all to an adoption agency set up on the lines that Andrew J suggests, particularly if it had a policy similar to that of the Catholic agency, of referring those with whom it could not serve to another agency that would meet their needs. Indeed some local authorities already discriminate like that. I know a couple who were refused the opportunity to adopt a child on the grounds that they were too well off and that they were Christians. Incidentally, as a Christian I too am against superstitious nonsense.
David Parsons, Street, UK
Why is the modern church waning?
Because its not modern.
When I was born homosexuality was ilegal.
Now its accepted.
It went through the same debate of change.
Now we are seeing this debate with other issues.
The fact that there is a dialogue means that change will come even if it takes another 20 to 50 years for younger minds to filter through into the Catholic church's echelons.
Agnostic, Roxburgh, Roxburgh
to refer to adoption as a 'business' betrays ignorance of the complexity of human beings and the mysterious working of personal considerations in bringing up children. Humans are essentially personal relationships but based to some extent on biology. To deny children a father who is a man or a mother who is a woman is to deny their rights in favor of political or ideological considerations.
anthony, Nashua, New Hampshire USA
Actually, I don't think this has much to do with religion. Rees-Mogg is a Catholic of the old school, a patriarch even, who uses religion as a means of engineering the world as he would like it to be. 2000 years or not "custom without truth is but agedness of error" as John Milton said.
Peter Plowman, Cambridge, UK
Actually, I don't think this has much to do with religion. Rees-Mogg is a Catholic of the old school, a patriarch even, who uses religion as a means of engineering the world as he would like it to be. 2000 years or not "custom without truth is but agedness of error" as John Milton said.
Peter Plowman, Cambridge, UK
Not for the first time William Rees-Mogg uses these pages for the special pleading of religion and Catholicism in particular. However, the religious do not have a monopoly on matters of conscience. If a prospective founder of
an adoption agency were of the opinion that it is morally objectionable for the religious to fill a child’s mind with what he regards as superstitious and potentially damaging nonsense, I wonder whether he would support the right of that would-be founder to place a sign
saying “Catholics and their ilk need not apply”? I doubt it somehow.
Andrew Jordan, London, UK
I think the Catholic Church has no choice but to get out of the adoption business in the United Kingdom.
parker, San Diego, California
Not for the first time William Rees-Mogg uses your pages for the special pleading of religion and Catholicism in particular. However, the religious do not have a monopoly on matters of conscience. If a prospective founder of an adoption agency were of the opinion that it is morally objectionable for the religious to fill a child’s mind with superstitious nonsense I wonder whether he would support the right of that would be founder to place a sign saying "Catholics and their ilk need not apply"? I doubt it somehow.
Andrew J, London, UK
Why should the government itself dicriminate on the grounds of sexuality by providing free government housing for rapists, but not non-rapists? Since the way to prevent discrimination seems to be by not providing special privileges for identifiable groups, then the way to avoid discrimination is to not provide free government housing for rapists, and let them out of prisons within 24 months from today.
Ron Seibel, Santa Ana, CA
On a different tack than the same sex adoption issue, let Mr. Cameron and Mr. Johnson start with the Act of Settlement - the monarch cannot be Catholic or married to one - certainly discrimination by one Christian sect of another. This Act is one of the bedrocks of British values, at its core is an act of discrimination ignored by virtually all those who laud "British values". Do they propose to dismember it?
Ian Stewart, Norwich,
William Rees-Mogg is quite right about marriage being instituted by God as a life-long union between two people of different sexes. He is also right to point out the absurdity of anti-discrimination laws in that they themselves always discriminate against someone or something themselves - in this case, people who do not want to have to promote homosex as an alternative to heterosexual sex within a marriage.
What he is wrong about is that marriage is indissoluble and that the Roman Catholic has some form of divine right behind it because it teaches the 'doctrine of Jesus' in this area.
In this area, as in many others - such as, for example, its teaching that it alone can tell us what the Bible means, or that its officials should be called 'father' when Jesus Himself expressly said in Matthew 23:9 that this should never be done - it propagates its own politically self-favouring slant. Jesus endorsed His Father's recognition through Moses that because of man's fallen nature it is necessary, though regrettable, to have to allow some marriages to be dissolved.
It is because, in its core teaching, it is a false Church, and has so badly in this, and in many of its actions historically, misrepresented Jesus and true Christianity, that it's professional hierarchy is now so widely (and rightly) disregarded as a source of authoritative moral guidance on many issues.
David Smith, Bristol, England
As ever, a thought provoking Article. However, may we please clear up this point on perceived discrimination because civil partnerships are not available to mixed sex couples or to relatives (to which Mr Rees-Mogg and other commentators have often referred). Civil partnership was designed to mirror (as closely as political opinion would allow) the legal state of marriage. Accordingly, the same incest taboos are applied - two sisters can no more (and no less) enter into a civil partnership than a brother and a sister can marry. The same equality applies to the bar on mixed sex civil partnerships. If a mixed sex couple wants the legal consequences of a civil partnership, then marry.
Steve Yates, London,
Is there anyhing to prevent homosexuals setting up their own adoption agencies? Wouldn't that solve their problem?
Stuart, Chester,
It is true - NewLabour, the governemnt, the opposition, a group of old boys all rivately educated and trying to pander to what they think the public want have backed the wrong side. since when will one billion catholics listen to the puny david cameron, to the here today gone tomorrow philosophy of gay rights.
Gay rights in themselves are a discrimantion against catholic rights, what about the rights of indivudals, of the rligious, of the moral to do as they see fit and not be coerced into an unstable sense of morality - that will not last long
David, London,
A goverment can try to legislate morality but it rarely works. This proposal seems as outrageous as laws against specialty clothing stores because they don't cater to every size and style. Children, however, are not a comodity. This discussion is happening around them yet they are the ones who will suffer from the fall-out.
Are Catholic adoption agencies making children wait longer to be adopted because they refuse to place them with same-sex couples? No. Are there other reputable agencies that will work with same-sex couples? Yes. Why can't there just be a mandatory referral system? This just feels like people wanting to get out their anger at the Catholic Church.
B. Cunningham, Minneapolis, USA
I just think it's wrong having same-sex couples....that's how I feel. I know it's not their fault - there's obviously a chemistry problem at work, but in my eyes it should not be considered a normal state of affairs.
Phil, Preston,
This has nothing to do with prejudice against Homosexulas, all groups be they the homosexul minority or the Catholic church have a right to have their views respected! 2000 years of belief and development deserves respect, why should it be bigoted to say we do not accept same sex marraiges but not so for Gay people to say that Catholic beliefs are wrong? The only logical answer is that each party lives by its rules and tolerate each other, if you want adoption to same sex marraiges then do so through an agency that does this. Then let us Catholics ensure through our own organisations that people who do nopt believe in same sex marraiages can have children placed in opposite sex families. I do not oppose same sex marriages and am happy to let people live their lives as they see fit, but I question the warped liberal morality that says you must accept children to be placed into same sex marraiges regardless of the childrens religious orientation - surely we have a right to chose which religion our children should be taught?
Mark Cutting, Battersea, UK
But isn't it the case that, whilst preaching that marriage is an indissoluble union between a man and a woman - which won't be prevented under the Regulations - it doesn't practise that when placing children for adoption: anyone can adopt, married or single, gay or straight - except gay people in committed relationships. That's what makes it discrimination that the state is entitled to prevent - especially when it's being done in the state's name, which after all, all adoptions are.
On the issue of Civil Partnerships, Lord Rees-Mogg selects only the matter of Civil Partners (by no means a majority of gay / lesbian couples) being able to enjoy tax benefits "equal to those of a married couple". Heterosexual couples are able to enjoy those same benefits - they just have to change from being unmarried to married, in the same way as gay / lesbian couples have to register their Civil Partnership.
Unregistered couples of either orientation know what they're giving up by not doing so.
Rob , Swindon,
It seems extraordinary to me that an anti-discrimination bill actually discriminates against one section of the community, namely the catholics. In this country where we are proud that of our tradition of freedom of speech, do we really need this legislation which bans it?
margaret wright, London, Great Britain
Having now seen Catriona's comment, I would like to add to my previous one that I entirely agree with both Lord Mogg and her on this: anti-discrimination law that seeks to sweep away age-old God-given absolutes like the concept of heterosexual only marriage as being discriminatory against a legitimate form of sexual orientation (namely towards homosex), removes a bulwark against the absolute of no sex between adults and children.
What argument will there be against the paedophile who argues in court that he should be allowed to carry on unhindered in all situations because he has always been attracted to children this way, and because to do otherwise would be to discriminate against him on the grounds of his sexual orientation?
Personal insults against those asking this do not by any means adequately answer their question?
David Smith, Bristol, England
Although behaviour between consenting adults in private which as recently as the 1950’s could attract a prison sentence is now legal and is acceptable in others by the majority, (who also accept that same-sex pairs have an equal right to be considered as adoptive parents), that is a long way from the position that they cannot be excluded from consideration by religious groups or others, who on principle would insist that those acting as parents for a child conform to the traditional, historical model.
If the mischievous reasoning of ‘positive discrimination’ were to be applied to this scenario in the future, perhaps on the grounds that too few children were being accepted into atypical ‘families,’ there could emerge an element of compulsion that some children be forced into a child-parent situation where there is no adequate database of outcome.
Might that not be the phenotype equivalent of genotype engineering tried out in Germany in the 1930’s, now in disrepute?
dr venables preller, Warrminster, UK
Although behaviour between consenting adults in private which as recently as the 1950’s could attract a prison sentence is now legal and is acceptable in others by the majority, (who also accept that same-sex pairs have an equal right to be considered as adoptive parents), that is a long way from the position that they cannot be excluded from consideration by religious groups or others, who on principle would insist that those acting as parents for a child conform to the traditional, historical model.
If the mischievous reasoning of ‘positive discrimination’ were to be applied to this scenario in the future, perhaps on the grounds that too few children were being accepted into atypical ‘families,’ there could emerge an element of compulsion that some children be forced into a child-parent situation where there is no adequate database of outcome.
Might that not be the phenotype equivalent of genotype engineering tried out in Germany in the 1930’s, now in disrepute?
dr venables preller, Warrminster, UK
Mr. Rees-Mogg makes many good points, but leaves out, what seems to me at least, to be an obvious one. The most manifest time British law was changed to try to compel the Church to change her teaching resulted in a schism that has lasted nearly 500 years. Anyone remember Henry VIII?
Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz, Peterson, Minnesota, USA
A goverment can try to legislate morality but it rarely works. This proposal seems as outrageous as laws against specialty clothing stores because they don't cater to every size and style. Children, however, are not a comodity. This discussion is happening around them yet they are the ones who will suffer from the fall-out.
Are Catholic adoption agencies making children wait longer to be adopted because they refuse to place them with same-sex couples? No. Are there other reputable agencies that will work with same-sex couples? Yes. Why can't there just be a mandatory referral system? This just feels like people wanting to get out their anger at the Catholic Church.
B. Cunningham, Minneapolis, USA
I don't often find myself in agreement with Lord Rees Mogg these days, but in this article he hits the nail on the head. Few politicians seem to have grasped, yet, the impossibility of what the government has attempted in the Equality Act. In the name of tolerance it has made Britain a harsher and less tolerant place, following Orwell in naming the law by the exact opposite of its likely effect. Archbishop Laud's reign was a particularly dark period of British history, and one fears that we may be heading in that direction once again.
Stephen Morris, Shrewsbury, England
There doesn't seem to be a single comment here that really engages with Rees-Mogg's well argued article. The only one that comes close picks up on a slightly irrelevant point about whether measures against Catholics in the 17th century were draconian. This debate has for a long time, been hijacked by people who don't want to listen, as evidenced by MCC's comment that Rees Mogg's argument equates paedophilia with homosexuality. Where? He says that the idea that “we shouldn’t put up with this discrimination on the basis of race, age or sexual orientation” could lead to the argument that paedophilia is acceptable. And then of course the insults begin - Rees-Mogg is clearly just a prejudiced person. Where was this in the article? Did you read it? Did he say he hated homosexuals? Frankly, I'm bored with this style of 'debate'. You won't convince reasonable people that something is true just by brow beating them with unjusitifiable insults.
Catriona, London,
Is Rees-Mogg equating "adult homosexuality and paedophilia"? He appears to me to simply set out one consequence of the statement on discrimination by David Cameron. Surely if we are not to discriminate on any grounds whatsoever, there is no room for any individual to make their own decisions based on how they see the facts. There would then certainly be a case for paedophiles to claim that they are orientated sexually towards children, and are being discriminated against on the basis of the age of their putative partners. This is not to equate 2 entirely different cases, but is to make plain that every choice made by every individual in this country is open to challenge on the grounds of discrimination, and we would all need to be able to justify whatever we chose to do.
Jim, Liverpool,
Not only the Roman Catholics object to this legislation: also the Muslim and the Jews, never mind the Hindus.
It is disgraceful that anybody should hand over to the State a young child. It reminds me of Nazi Germany.
David Hardcastle, Ilkley, England
Harvey, I hate to let facts get in the way of your argument but . . . there is no commandment in the Bible to stone adulturers, merely not to commit it, nor any against children being naughty (not quite sure where you got that ridiculous one from). Yes there was segregation of lepers in Jesus' time, however, he actively bucked the trend and mixed with them. Also when Jesus came across the potential stoning of a woman who had committed adultery he told the crowd, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", of course nobody bar Jesus was without sin, so they all left, and Jesus chose not to.
Also you should be made aware that common law is that made by the judiciary and they have never criticised the Catholic church for not considering gay couples for adoption.
The Catholic belief on adoption would seem to me to be quite rational; since only a man and woman are capable of naturally conceiving a child, perhaps it might seem logical that a man and woman are best equipped to bring up a child in a balanced way.
Toby , London,
Thank you Mr Rees-Mogg. You have the courage to say what many others for reasons of political correctness do not dare to say. It seems that we are evolving towards a totalitarianism of relativism where anybody who defends a truth or faith is considered a dangerous member of society that should be silenced or put aside.
M Vial, London, UK
William Ree-Mogg has a valid point and his critics appear to have missed the point.
It may be argued that is unwise for Christians to seek to impose Christian values on a largely non-Christian society but now we have something entirely different. Perhaps for the first time in recent history the government intends to "correct" the Biblical intrepretation of many Christians who, whilst opposing homophobia, see nothing in Scripture to suggest that homosexual acts are either natural or desirable.
Paul Laidler, SALFORD, Manchester
Surely hypocrisy is the one thing we can all agree that it is good to discriminate against? The Catholic Church may, in the word "conscience", have discovered a new toy, but its historical behaviour towards children in its care shows little sign of conscience. Catholic law is not only not superior to other forms of law, it's not even followed by Catholics. Catholics, like Tolstoy's Orthodox faithful, break one of the strictest injunctions of their faith every time they appear in court and swear rather than affirm.
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
William Rees-Mogg really lets his prejudices shine through in their piece. Any integrity he has disappeared when he attempted to equate adult homosexuality with paedophilia. And he just can't get over Civil Partnerships can he? He should just 'come out' and state that he really doesn't believe that gay people are worthy of the rights of citizens in this country. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he was honest about his prejudices.
MCC, London, UK
How much non-governmental discrimination must society tolerate in the name of non-discrimination against the discriminators? May a group, on the basis of its immutable dogma, refuse to rent to blacks, or hire Pakistanis? Should Government have no power to prevent racist, sexist or religious discrimination? What is different about homosexuality, that a group should be allowed to discriminate against it? Is it only non-rational beliefs that should be given this priority over common law and morality? If the Catholic Church can't treat all potential parents equally, it should get out of the adoption business. There are many commandments in the Bible which we have abandoned in the light of a more humane morality, such as stoning adulterers and naughty children. Perhaps this anathema against homosexuals ought to join that against lepers, in a more civilized age.
Harvey S. Frey, Santa Monica, CA
I am surprised that Rees-Mogg of all people says the measures against Catholics in the 17th century were justified. The arrest of certain individuals was, but not the draconian curbs on Catholics that ensued. Neither was the restoration of the monarchy a period of liberalism. The Act of Uniformity for one, the cruel and vengeful measures against Puritans and the driving out of priests from their living for another. Yet again Rees-Mogg is content to use history in a superficial manner. There are a great many comparisons to be made between the state and society in the 17th Century and the current relationship between these two bodies today. One common theme is the increasing obsession among the rulers of the land to maintain the status quo at all costs and with whatever measures they could lay their hands on. Another lesson is that societies do not change from the top down. Quite the opposite, they rot from the head. It is popular revolt that radically changes things - democracy in action.
John, Bonn,
To create laws that put out of business sources of social capital working in a cost effective and efficient manner on the welfare side of the economy seems like madness.
The NUM and the mining industry did not have this ecomonic advantage on it's side! and therefore was defeatable.
In a free market social welfare system the most likely casulty would be the state which has all the ecomonic advantages of the old mining industry and more so.
I think it is time we stopped talking theory and concetrated on practical solutions to welfare problems - who ever may provide them.
S P Harrison, Worcester , UK