In today’s Daily Telegraph we read how Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Human Rights and Equalities Commission sayin:
To me there’s nothing different in principle with a Catholic adoption agency, or indeed Methodist adoption agency, saying the rules in our community are different and therefore the law shouldn’t apply to us. Why not then say sharia can be applied to different parts of the country?
The legal background to this current debate can be found here. These recent developments have really got me thinking about the arguments being used in public and the apparent contradictions found there.
First, the utiliatarian argument that the impact of the eqality legislation is for the greater good of society.
Prior to the legislation there were 11 Roman Catholic adoption agencies in England and Wales, 2 in Scotland, and 1 Evangelical adoption and fostering agency in England. Most of these have had to withdraw from adoption services or abandon the religious ethos in order to continue, like the Cabrini Children’s Society (formerly Catholic Children’s Society).
These agencies accounted for over 4% of adoptions and were 1/3 of the adoptions from the voluntary sector. These voluntary sector adoptions include the “hard to place” adoptions with older children or those with medical or emotional issues.
In return if you visit the DFE Website and click on the excel file for England Summary Tables, and then table E2 you will see that Civil Partnership Couples account for 1% of adoptions between 2007 to 2010 (% are rounded up to the nearest whole number).
From this it does not appear that the best interests of the children needing adopting is being taken into account as they opportunities seemed to have been lessened by the legislation.
Futhermore, the Roman Catholic adoption agencies were willing to provide information for where Same Sex Couples could go to pursue an adoption, but this was not allowed by the law makers.
Second, the laws of the land and the Sharia law analogy.
The argument of Trevor Phillips seems to completely undermine the legal history of this fine country where by many of the laws of the land were guided by the Christian nature of the country. To imply that the requests for dispensation are a new radical approach fails to grasp the way the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches shaped this country.
Third, the motivational/moral misunderstanding.
The Human Rights and Equalities Council are forgetting about what motivates people, especially with regards to adoption agencies. Through history, be they schools, hosptials, care homes or adoption agencies, Christians have been motivated to help others through the Agape message of Christ. This has encouraged numerous people the world over to establish organisations and charities, to build places of hope, to volunteer their time and energy, and to donate their money to help people.
It was these principles which caused the adoption agencies to be formed and it is principles like these which underpin the ideas found in David Cameron’s “Big Society.” To then turn to these organisations, and the thousands of people that support them, and say “your religious ideas have no place in our society” or “you can only help if you leave your religious ideals or conscience at the door” fails to understand that it is these very ideals and principles which motivate the support and help being given.
Current health policy allows hospitals to positively discimate treatment on the grounds of weight, eatings, drinking or smoking habits. Other charities positively discriminate which area they wish to serve, or which particular illness they support.
If the government want this change to happen they need to think past the one goal of equality and look at the bigger picture of freedoms. They need to start looking at who is benefitting in any situation or what the motivation is.
I firmly believe that God “knows our innermost being”, it was he “that placed us in our mother’s womb” and it was he that made us all “free and equal.” He also guided us to put our neighbour’s needs ahead or our own, and in this case I believe the needs of the children should come first.