Synogenes.com

Last week we saw Blair and Kelly trying to put together a shoddy compromise in which the catholic church is allowed to continue discriminating beyond the April deadline for the new Equality legislation providing that they observe a "statutory duty" to refer gay couples to other agencies. By any reckoning, that is endorsing the continuation of discrimination for another 18 months.

BBC: No exemption for church over adoption

Even Blair's statement was mealy-mouthed. His statement is not watertight and actually provides a subtle escape. He said "And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination." Now maybe I'm being picky but what about when the agency is not publicly funded? Does that mean if the catholic church raises the funds to replace the public funding, they can continue discriminating? No doubt some lawyers are already examining the possibilities.

It is clear that the Vatican is moving to get support from the catholics in parliament to attempt a watering down of the legislation but so far the MPs have understood the distinction between religious ideas and the law.

See the National Secular Society article.

In Scotland, it looks as though the church will be campaigning against certain MPs:
The Scotsman

It's clear that the church thinks it should have a say in what is to be discussed in political circles and in the past, the religious institutions have influenced massively what was possible politically. That irrational ideas should have such a sway in public life is offensive to many and clipping the wings of the church in these matters is a democratic responsibility.

Churches do not represent: they are neither elected nor accountable. Their message is based on irrational dogma not subjected to rational criticism and evaluation, and their institutions are devoted to spreading and maintaining myth. Even some church people are realising that the historical role of the church is no longer viable but it will use every device available to coerce and bully politicians into following the church rather than their political principles.

The irony is that in the UK, of the 2900 adoption agencies, only around 4% are run by catholics (but using state subsidy) and they are insisting on their right to discriminate. What has not been widely publicised is that many of their staff are non-religious and are not willing to discriminate. Although the church is making these statements it is not representative of the staff who work in the agencies. I stress - the church is not a democratic organisation. So it looks like the smallest and easiest change required to sort out this situation is to secularise the adoption agencies and tell the church where to go.

We frequently hear complaints that by critically examining ideas and rejecting them, we are thereby attacking the individuals who hold those views. Church people often claim they have been insulted by what people say about their notions of supernatural beings, miracles, and the like. An attack on the irrationalism of Islam is interpreted as an attack on both the rights of muslims to worship, and an attack on the muslims themselves. It is neither.

The reaction is understandable because where positions of influence depend on the respectability of the ideas advanced, as they do in political circles, criticising widely accepted beliefs undermines the credibility of those posts. To put it more concretely, if we demonstrate that bishops are neither expert nor even consistent in matters of ethical judgement, it is hard to justify their presence in the House of Lords, as least as far as they claim any sort of right to be there. In the same way, an Imam who is shown to be prejudiced or denigrating the rights of others, will find their claim to be a leader undermined. So it is no surprise that those who hold positions of power based on an irrational set of beliefs, are somewhat resistant to rational debate, and are keen to conflate the ideas with the people holding them.

By defining themselves in terms of their faith, they assume that others should also define them that way too. If indeed that happens, then any question of their faith is interpreted as an insult. It’s a very convenient tactic to deflect criticism from the core religious ideas and claims.

But what happens if ideas are treated this way? What happens if ideas are insulated from critical assessment because those who sincerely hold them might feel insulted in the process? Anyone claiming sincerely held strong beliefs could use the defence against insult as an argument for being free to live by those beliefs. So what about racists? Should they be allowed to be free of insult just because they are racists? Of course not. Ideas are not people, they don’t have rights.

But why should we concede a right not to be insulted? Whether or not someone feels insulted by an argument against something they believe, that cannot be an argument against the expression of the criticism. If the state used such an argument, we’d have repression and censorship such as existed under fascism. No-one seriously wants that. There is no right to be free of insult.

Ideas should be criticised and attacked mercilessly to identify weak argument, fallacies, non-sequiturs, and so on. The people engaging in those debates deserve full respect, even those who are adamantly trying to resist change, doggedly defending what seem to many to be absurd ideas. We involve ourselves in those debates to increase understanding. It’s only when we pin ideas to our egos that we risk insult.

Daniel Dennett advanced the position that religion is a social phenomenon that deserves scientific investigation, in his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Well worth a read. For those who feel insulted by such scrutiny, they need to remember that these are only ideas.

Opus Dei are apparently working on a film project to celebrate the life of their founder Josemaria Escriva, who was canonised (made into a saint) by the pope in 2002. The idea is that they get together with some stars such as Robert De Niro, and try to counter the impressions of Opus Dei generated by Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Now cyncical folks may well be thinking that this is an extremely lucrative project to piggy-back on the publicity already provided by Brown. Dutiful catholics the world over have already bought hundreds of thousands of copies of the works of Escriva (some dashed off in a few hours after counting his rosary beads), and the platform to launch a film is too good an opportunity to miss.

Opus Dei was founded with the intention of persuading people to use their daily lives and occupations to "get closer to God", which in common parlance means using their influence through their work to push a religious agenda.

They have three categories of members, the supernumeraries which are the married followers, and the two other groups, numeraries and associates, who are supposed to be celibate. These are the ones associated with corporal mortifications (hitting themselves) in a fashion very similar to some extreme muslims. Some use a celice which is a chain with prongs designed to hurt the flesh. The idea is that pain brings you closer to God - there are medical and psychiatric terms for this too. All members enter into a specific contract with the organisation and are expected to use their influence in the interest of the church.

The way in which this is done has been documented by many organisations, including the Rick Ross Institute which studies religious cults and their impact. Opus Dei has a long history of staunch conservatism stretching from the many members who served in Franco's cabinet, through to Ruth Kelly in Blair's government, an illustrious group if ever there was one. Of course, Opus Dei doesn't like to be represented in such stark terms and has claimed that it is being misrepresented, complaining in particular about an episode of Waking The Dead in which the murky world of religious fanaticism is the backdrop for a murder cover-up.

Of course, the catholic church wouldn't want to be seen to be producing commercial propaganda films so in this case it's only put up several tens of millions of dollars, and will be acting as consultants. It would be churlish to wonder whether or not the consultants are on a percentage of the gross.