![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Quoting from Marnie's comment:
A local authority shall not
I'd forgotten about part b... well, part a makes sense, 'cos they oughtn't be promoting any lifestyle choices, but part b really needs serious rewording.
Of course, many Christians would probably disagree with me here, but I think a secular government is a Good Thing (as opposed to a Christian religious government). The problem with religious governments of *any* sort is that they obviously restrict freedom of religion. And although I'd like to see everyone in this country as a Christian, it doesn't *work* if it's forced on them. The difficulty is, it's hard to argue that people ought to have the freedom to be wrong - after all, they don't have the freedom to go around killing people, or even to take some kinds of drugs. But not giving people the freedom to be wrong, especially on such an a) important and b) contentious issue as religion, comes with the danger of it being so easy from that state to turn this not-having-the-freedom-to-be wrong into not-having-the-freedom-to-be-right... if people accept restrictions of a certain level, it's easy to change what those restrictions actually are, without changing the level of them, so that good things are suddenly restricted. In this particular case, what would everyone feel about Section 28 if it was worded the other way around - if it was talking about *heterosexual* relationships? If people have accepted this kind of restriction on religious grounds, it wouldn't be that big a leap to accept it the other way around on environmental grounds (and environmental activists sometimes can make this into almost a religion), due to overpopulation...
Yes, a religious government would be perfect if it actually *was* governed by God, and therefore actually did have perfect judgement on issues. But if it's run by people, there is so much scope for the twisting of God's word... it's better that the government is secular in this case, so that it seeks to restrict as little as possible on moral grounds, and works on the pragmatic 'people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others more than others would otherwise harm them' grounds, which are twistable but not quite so easily and devastatingly, because they're not seen as the product of some divine authority that cannot be contradicted.
This would be a nice speech to give at a church sometime... I suspect it'll meet a mostly positive audience among LJ'ers, and it'd be interesting to argue it against detractors to it...
A local authority shall not
- intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality; and
- promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
I'd forgotten about part b... well, part a makes sense, 'cos they oughtn't be promoting any lifestyle choices, but part b really needs serious rewording.
Of course, many Christians would probably disagree with me here, but I think a secular government is a Good Thing (as opposed to a Christian religious government). The problem with religious governments of *any* sort is that they obviously restrict freedom of religion. And although I'd like to see everyone in this country as a Christian, it doesn't *work* if it's forced on them. The difficulty is, it's hard to argue that people ought to have the freedom to be wrong - after all, they don't have the freedom to go around killing people, or even to take some kinds of drugs. But not giving people the freedom to be wrong, especially on such an a) important and b) contentious issue as religion, comes with the danger of it being so easy from that state to turn this not-having-the-freedom-to-be wrong into not-having-the-freedom-to-be-right... if people accept restrictions of a certain level, it's easy to change what those restrictions actually are, without changing the level of them, so that good things are suddenly restricted. In this particular case, what would everyone feel about Section 28 if it was worded the other way around - if it was talking about *heterosexual* relationships? If people have accepted this kind of restriction on religious grounds, it wouldn't be that big a leap to accept it the other way around on environmental grounds (and environmental activists sometimes can make this into almost a religion), due to overpopulation...
Yes, a religious government would be perfect if it actually *was* governed by God, and therefore actually did have perfect judgement on issues. But if it's run by people, there is so much scope for the twisting of God's word... it's better that the government is secular in this case, so that it seeks to restrict as little as possible on moral grounds, and works on the pragmatic 'people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others more than others would otherwise harm them' grounds, which are twistable but not quite so easily and devastatingly, because they're not seen as the product of some divine authority that cannot be contradicted.
This would be a nice speech to give at a church sometime... I suspect it'll meet a mostly positive audience among LJ'ers, and it'd be interesting to argue it against detractors to it...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 06:26 am (UTC)From:For my part I would be horrified that if I sent a kid to school (hyperthetical being as I'm not planning on having any children) they might being taught by their teachers that homosexuality is okay.
Neil
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 06:50 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 07:06 am (UTC)From:The idea of making that legal is *incredibly* scary.
What are you thinking Chess?
Neil
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 07:56 am (UTC)From:Nobody's ever been prosecuted under S28, and I'm not sure anyone can be, since the only bodies that come under it are LEAs, and only by "promoting" particular teaching. Choices of what goes on the curriculum isn't, afaiaa, part of the responsibilities of LEAs. If an individual teacher, a school or the National Curriculum decided to "promote" it, the law would be inapplicable.
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 10:55 am (UTC)From:Neil
P.S.: You just wrote that 'cos you weren't getting enough comments didn't you Chess?
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 11:23 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 11:00 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 11:19 am (UTC)From:Neil
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 11:44 am (UTC)From:CORE DUMPED
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-17 10:55 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-17 10:56 am (UTC)From:(sheesh, trying to clean up someone else's sentence I give a non-parsing one...)
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-18 05:09 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-14 12:22 pm (UTC)From:Well, surely part of the point of 'the state' is to prevent individuals hurting/harming others? To create a society in which most people live 'good' lives. (Modern states, I mean - I guess the feudal barons were quite likely to just be looking out for themselves, but even then ... think of fairy stories/myths, the 'good king' is always one who cares about his subjects and wants them to live as safe and happy lives as possible. Ie he locks up/kills those who would make people's lives unsafe.) Badly expressed (it's been a long day), but I hope you see my point :)
For my part I would be horrified that if I sent a kid to school (hyperthetical being as I'm not planning on having any children) they might being taught by their teachers that homosexuality is okay.
For my part I would be horrified if any potential child of mine was taught at school to pass judgement on the sexuality of others - if all involved are (explicitly) consenting adults. I quite firmly believe in tolerance unless others are being harmed by the actions of the person in question.
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 02:13 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 08:25 am (UTC)From:So yeah, it's not a non-view. I never said it was. Neil said something, that I paraphrased to show my view on the subject.
And yeah - every government has problems. But I agree with Chess, in that I think that a government that thinks it has divine right to rule, and divine inspiration for its rules will be more likely to get autocratic quicker than a government that thinks it has to answer to the people in some way.
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-15 01:45 pm (UTC)From:Being "taught that homosexuality" is okay would be acceptance. It wouldn't be teaching them "oh go, on, give it a try, you might like it" ;)
Surely you can see that there's a world of difference between accepting people as they are and actively trying to change people's sexual preferences?
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-17 09:36 am (UTC)From:And is the system at present trying to change anyone's sexuality?
What exactly is the problem here?
As far as I can see the problem is that Chess can't drag her teachers off on tangential debates about the subject. But I think that's the best way, teachers not talking on the subject atall seems the best solution to me.
Neil
Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-17 10:46 am (UTC)From:Re: Well I'm going to disagree!
Date: 2001-06-18 04:42 am (UTC)From:Do you think the same is true of heterosexual experimentation?
Insofar as people who are perceived to be homosexual are often persecuted by the other children, and can also see that the teachers refuse to discuss their difficulties, then yes.
Would you support such a restriction on discussion about, say, drugs, the occult and sex in general? Or is this subject special in some way?