A Liberal defence of the Catholic exemptions
At last, a thought-through argument in defence of the English Catholic Church's call for their adoption agencies to be granted exemptions to the new equality regulations. The distinguished legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin makes such an argument in an article in the current edition of Prospect magazine.
What makes his argument particularly interesting (and important) is that Dworkin, a professor at New York University, is one of the world's leading defenders of political liberalism, an opponent of discrimination within society, and a strong supporter of legal rights and equal protection for lesbian and gay couples.
He argues that an exemption on the basis of a long-held religious belief is not tantamount to endorsing discrimination. Religious beliefs, he holds, are a special category of belief which deserve protection within a free society. He does not support exemptions in the case of religious hoteliers who wish to refuse accommodation to gay couples; but religious adoption agencies (even with charitable status) are another matter altogether. His argument, which I haven't fully summarised here, is intriguing for many reasons.
We are currently trying to arrange an extended interview with Professor Dworkin in the very near future to explore his argument and to talk about his new book Is Democracy Possible? (Princeton University Press).
Comments
A rather patronising first line don't you think! (Given the extent of the debate and the intellect of some of the contributors so far). I can see nothing new in what you describe but I do not have full access to the online article. Are you only willing to accept that "religious beliefs deserve protection in society" when it is said by a liberal and comes in your favourite magazine?
paul you rather make my point for me when you admit that you havent actually read that article. im also impressed by dworkin, he's not just any liberal. he deserves special consideration because he's one of the great minds of the world today. i suggest you read the article before you dismiss it as so much repetition of already made points. Thanks.
paul you rather make my point for me when you admit that you havent actually read that article. im also impressed by dworkin, he's not just any liberal. he deserves special consideration because he's one of the great minds of the world today. i suggest you read the article before you dismiss it as so much repetition of already made points. Thanks.
Helen
1. Humour me, what is so new? I only have William's summary (which has no new content).
2. I'm not not dismissing him because he is a liberal (even a special one. Indeed I am not dismissing him at all, I am objecting to William's outragous claim that he is the only one to have a thought-through argument.
Paul
Perhaps the only great minds in the world today are liberal?
;-)
PB
Like much in life, the question of whether or not this is a well reasoned argument is a matter of perspective, in this case the perspective of political culture. In Great Britain where a rigid social hierarchy is not merely accepted but institutionalized as in a house of Lords where clergy have an automatic seat of power, in a royal family even though only nominally head of state and more ceremonial in fact than in theory, in an legal aristocracy, and in an official church, the argument that the church can have special powers to participate in making the laws and should be exempt in the execution of some laws for the greater social good may sound reasonable and acceptable to some. In the United States, it's an entirely different matter. In American political culture, the argument is without a doubt inane. The very reason America came into existance was in part due to the rejection of this notion of institutionalized hierarchy. Why should an exception be made for one group and not for others? Why on this issue and not on other issues. This is not to say that the wealthy, or religious leaders, or others of prominence don't have influence out of proportion to their numbers but it is not a matter of law that they should and it is subject to the capricious whims of public taste of the moment. So today, some entertainment and sports celebrities may have undue influence in making the laws or being elected to public office, tomorrow they may be seen as the modern equivalent of court jesters who serve to amuse with their diversions and little more. When government allows exemptions to the law based on class, it is no longer a government of laws but of personalities. It starts down the road to despotism. The barrier to this road in the United States is in the Constitution's first addendum, the Bill of Rights; Amendment I "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was specifically intended to prevent religious persecution, a reason why some people left Europe to come to the New World in the first place but also to prevent the establishment of a state religion with priveleges including exemption from the laws. In truth, Americans have grappled with the dilemma of practical enforcement of this provision since the founding of the nation from subsidizing tuition to religious schools to permitting practices of ritual slaughter of animals. But on the whole, this is not an acceptable argument in the US. The fall from grace of the Salvation Army, a charitable organization once highly revered but now held in some contempt due to its attitudes and policies towards homosexuals is an example. In America, Ronald Dworkin's argument is not only not well reasoned, it is an anathema to what our culture has come to beleive in. Nevertheless, it is also true that there are still many who would agree with him even here. Hatred based on irrational prejudice dies a long hard death.
Mark - sorry but your really don't speak on behalf of "America". Ronald Dworkin is a New York university law professor, one of the leading academics in the world, and he deserves a little more consideration than your pedestrian dismissal.
Jan Green (Belfast) #7
I don't care who or what he is, his argument flies in the face of the most fundimental precepts of American government. It strikes at its very foundation. And that is the point, in America, it doesn't matter who you are in determining the validity of your arguments, they stand or fall based solely on their own merits as judged by the system that has been devised for us and of which we are the current custodians. His argument that somehow the Catholic Church is a priveleged exception to the law may carry weight in Britain and in other less perfect democracies than the US or in despotisms but not in the US legal system.
In their own private affairs, the Catholic Church or any other organization or individual can express any point of view, enforce any policy it wants to but as an adoption agency, it acts as a licensed agency of the state and must conform to the state's laws. That means it cannot deny a child the right to a qualified loving parent willing to adopt it nor can it deny the would be parent the right to adopt a child because that parent happens to be homosexual. The state does not recognize homosexuality as a condition or state of mind which precludes an individual from enjoying any of the rights and priveleges under laws which apply to anyone else. Quite the opposite, any policy or practice of discrimination based on factors such as sex, age, race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, disqualifies an organization from the benefits available from public funding and endorsement by government such as aid to schools and colleges, government grants, even the right to bid and be awarded government contracts. Prejudice against homosexual adoption is an automatic disqualifier to being a licensed adoption agency and I have no doubt the courts will uphold that position strongly. Ronald Dworkin like Andrew McIntosh is a man whose professional judgement based on his training has been badly clouded or cast aside by the mental disease of his religion.
By the way, if you don't like seeing people knocked off their pedisals, don't put them up on one in the first place. And if they are foolish enough to put themselves on a pedistal, then they also have nobody to blame but themselves when they get knocked off it.
nkyw vzhufrxd qjkfap idwhbymp sqduy dyput ksxnclwqb
LATEST NEWS
Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) will be fully implemented from 30 April 2007 in the UK without a parliamentary debate and without concessions, the Government have used their underhand parliamentary tactics once again to force these unwelcome new rules on the majority without a consensus and without the issue being debated in the House of Commons. What did you expect from this atheistic Government? How do you feel now, you trusting liberal Christians and Catholics about this Government? Maybe you were taken in by their false reassurances and their smooth sounding sound bites? Fools the the lot of you! When will you wake up to the fact that this Government doesn't care less about your weak protests? This is an aggressive secularist agenda, all you need do to let it continue , is to do the same as you have done for the last ten years. NOTHING!