Homophobes barred from fostering

February 28, 2011 By fatemeh 133 Comments

Here’s an interesting nuance on the often popular freedom-of-speach discussion:

“Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, of Derby, said the city council did not want them to become foster carers because of their traditional views.

The couple said they were “doomed not to be approved” because of their views.

The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers.

The court heard that the couple withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child that a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.”

[Link to full story on the BBC News site]

The wording in bold is very specific, which adds a slight twist to the discussion; they haven’t said that they would tell a child in their care that a homosexual lifestyle is not aceptable, only that they wouldn’t tell them that it is – but this begs the question: Could this couple provide the full range of emotional support a child might require if that child wanted to come out as gay, bisexual or transgendered?

It also sets an interesting precedent in UK law: Anybody caring for a person who is a ward of the state cannot express homophobic views to them, and homophobes cannot care for wards of the state.

Hopefully one day the US might have a similar moment (assuming it hasn’t already) and force otherwise well-meaning Christian foster parents to address their religion’s attitudes to sexuality.

Update:

Just listened to this couple interviewed on Radio 4 – it was revealing but predictable:

“The [sexual orientation discrimination law] exists because of gay people, but Christians have to suffer for it? How is that fair? We just want a level playing field in society, we don’t want to be discriminated against as Christians. It’s a dark day for Christians.”

Let me count the ways…

1) Denying you the right to discriminate against other people is not discrimination against you.
2) I’d love Christianity to have a level playing field in society – rather than the position of privelige which it has enjoyed for centuries.
3) You don’t get to define “Christian”. Many Christians aren’t homophobes – they can still foster.

Filed Under: Current Events, Morality, Religion 133 Comments

Better Than God?

February 22, 2011 By vorjack 47 Comments

All atheists are aware of the immorality of God’s behavior throughout the Hebrew Testament. There are a number of arguments that revolve around the conquest of Canaan or the death of the Egyptian first born. One thing that does not commonly get mentioned are the times that humans actually argue God into being more just or merciful.

Abraham

The most famous is the bargaining scene between God and Abraham over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Then Abraham drew near, and said, “Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”(Gen. 18:23-25, RSV)

Abraham is actually chastising God, calling on him to be just and not “destroy the righteous with the wicked.” Its almost as if Abraham is having to remind God of his own just and merciful nature – or at least his reputation.

Moses

Less famous, but even more striking, is the scene between Moses and God after the Israelites and Aaron have created the golden calf:

But Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, “O LORD, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people, whom thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, `With evil intent did he bring them forth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and didst say to them, `I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it for ever.’”(Exodus 32:9-14, RSV)

Notice how Moses diverts his God’s anger? Moses actually appeals to YHWH’s pride: “You dragged the Isrealites out to the desert just to kill them all? But God, what will the neighbors think?” He then all but rebukes God, calling him to “repent of this evil” and reminds him of his earlier promises.

Job

I’m not quite sure how the book of Job fits into this. On one hand, the point of Job (as I see it) is that God is beyond mortal categories of moral and immoral. And yet, there is that curious inversion of roles, where Job is laying out his case against God Almighty, and God actually responds.

Archibald MacLeish expanded on this in his remarkable play J.B. After Job cowers before Mr. Zuss, in the role of God, Zuss has the following epiphany:

The whole creation! And God showed him!
God stood stooping there to show him!
Last Orion! Least sea shell…
And what did Job do?

Job…just…sat!

Sat there!

Dumb!

Until it ended! Then! … you heard him!

Them, he calmed me!
Gentled me the way a farmhand
Gentles a bulging, bugling bull!
Forgave me! …
for the world! …
for everything!

[...]

He’d heard of God and now he saw Him!
Who’s the judge in judgement there?
Who plays the hero, God or him?
Is God to be forgiven?

Are humans called to be better than God? I think that’s an implication that you could draw from the Bible.

Filed Under: Bible, Christianity, Morality 47 Comments

God's Priorities

January 13, 2011 By Daniel Florien 10 Comments

Filed Under: Comics, God, Miracles, Morality 10 Comments

WBC Thanks God for Shooter

January 10, 2011 By Daniel Florien 29 Comments

Like we needed more reasons to hate Westboro Baptist Church. Now they’re thanking God for the shooter and saying God sent him. Are they insane? Or just despicable?

(via)

Filed Under: Current Events, Fundamentalism, Morality, Oh the Stupidity!, Where is God? 29 Comments

The Incest Taboo

December 17, 2010 By vorjack 112 Comments

The incest taboo is one of those tricky moral question for people who don’t accept some sort of divine command form of morality. Consider this case from Gawker:

David Epstein, 46, a political science professor at Columbia University, was arrested and charged with a single felony count of incest on Wednesday. He was reportedly engaged in a three-year-long consensual sexual relationship with his 24-year-old daughter.

[...]

Given that the relationship (apparently) ended a year ago, and it was (apparently) consensual, and the woman was (apparently) over 18 when it began, it’s unclear what prompted the investigation, or why Epstein was arrested now, or whether or not his daughter is or was also under investigation.

How do we feel about this? Other than “eewwwwww!” For the sake of the discussion, let’s assume that the bare bones story is accurate and that there was no harm done, no pregnancy resulted and everything was consensual. Granted, there’s the issue of adultery, but the professor likely wouldn’t have been arrested for that.

Or how about this case of a mother breastfeeding her six year old son from the Daily Mail (sorry custador, but at least it’s not one of their editorials.):

The love between mother and son is ­tangible. But there is something intensely uncomfortable about this scene — a child big enough to prop himself up to suckle, jostling at his ­mother’s breast with his infant brother.

William is a baby, completely ­dependent on his mother. Jonathan is a small ­person, rapidly becoming a bigger ­person, and at his age many little boys would grimace at the thought of ­suckling at mummy’s breast, let alone competing with a baby sibling.

Many mothers, too, will find ­Amanda’s decision to breastfeed a six-year-old and a five-month-old simultaneously ­shocking and even distasteful.

This caused a pretty intense reaction from the folks at Scotteriology, where you’d think repeated viewings of the New Mystics would have deadened their sense of horror.

This is clearly against tradition and triggers some worries about incest, as well as a sense of revulsion from many. (That said, breast feeding seems to set some people off for some reason.) But by what rationale could we say that it is immoral?

And no, I don’t think I’m going to give this post an image.

Filed Under: Current Events, Morality 112 Comments
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »