Discrimination and Equality - Not as simple as it seems!

In a recent news story we see that a devout Christian couple have been refused as foster carers becasue their religious beliefs prevent them from teaching potential foster children that homosexuality is acceptable.
"I cannot lie and I cannot hate, but I cannot tell a child that it is ok to be homosexual."
Eunice Johns
It is clear that this has taken place to prevent 'sexual discrimination' but it has led to claims of 'religious discrimination'. That the only reason they cannot foster is because of their religious beliefs.
Whatever one's personal views on homosexuality or religous views towards it are, this is certainly a very contentious issue.
It is only becasue the couple are open about thier beliefs that this has become an issue. One wonders how many people have been allowed to foster and adopt that hold views, that they will teach to their children, that could be deemed discriminatory. One does not need to belong to a particular group or religion to be homophobic, racist, sexist etc and to then pass these beliefs on to the children on your care.
Indeed how does one decide what an acceptable belief is? If it simply a matter of what the government finds acceptable, we could find ourselves living in George Orwell's '1984', where we are told what to believe or else! If however we say it is about what the majority of people find acceptable there are huge practical implications of how this would be discerned and this also assumes that the majority of people are in some sense morally enlightened.
It should also be noted that not all Christians hold strong beleifs against homosexuality. Catholic teaching is that being homosexual is not wrong, although practising it is. The Anglican Church is currently debating how homosexuality should be viewed, with many arguing that, providing it is a committed, loving relationship, (marriage) it is acceptable, while others do regard it as a grave sin .
The truth is that just about every parent in the world will be teaching their children something that someone else finds offensive or wrong - it is the nature of the diverse species that we are.
How we then try to apply this to fostering and adoption laws is a very complicated question, and one to which I do not have the answer!
For more on this story click here.
For more on sexual ethics click here.
For more on the right to a child click here.

The Dangers of Relativism

Prominent American Atheist Sam Harris discusses the dangers of relativism. Interestingly it is religions that normally argue in favour of an absolute morality but Harris turns this on its head.

While I think he raises some very interesting and insightful points I can't help thinking he had somewhat of an anti-Islamic agenda. I would feel more comfortable if he had used more of a range of idealogical beliefs, both secular and religious (like the comparison between the veil and the magazine covers), and that this would have actually strengthened his argument.

For more on absolutism and relativism click here.

Elton John and David Furnish have a surrogate child

Elton John and his long standing partner David Furnish are now parents to a baby boy. ApparantlyElton is the boy's biological father via a surrogate mother.

This raises some interesting issues related to our topics of study.

Firstly the question of the 'right to a child'. Is it right that people, who cannot have children naturally, should be able to do so artificially? Some would argue yes. The joy that a child brings to its parents, family and friends means that it is a good thing. Technology is used in many different ways to improve our lives, so why not use it to provide children?

Others however would disagree. One reason is from a deontological perspective and is supported by the Catholic Church. They would propose that there is no 'right' to a child. A child is a gift. If you are unable to have children naturally you must accept this and maybe explore other avenues eg, adoption. (Incidentally it seem Elton and David did try to adopt but were not successful.) They would assert that children should not be treated as material commodities that are there to improve our lives.

Another response, a more practical consequentialist one, would refer to the world's growing population. It has been suggested that over population is one of the biggest threats to our future flourishing. This would mean that going to excessive lengths to have children could be viewed as not only damaging but also immoral.

Another related issue is that of homosexuality. In a society of equal rights it would be wrong to deny fertility and surrogacy treatments to homosexuals if it is allowed to hetrosexuals. There are those, often, though not exclusively from religious standpoints, that propose that homosexuality is an intrinsic wrong, either because of scriptural passages or on grounds that it breaks the nartural purpose of sex. Should the sexuality and gender of the prospective 'parents' be a factor when considering the morality of surrogacy? Catholic teaching can neatly avoid this awkward issue as they say surrogacy should not be allowed at all!

So, what do you think?

For more on Elton John's baby click here.

For resources on the Right to a Child topic click here.

For resources on sexual ethics click here.

Faking A Religious Experience

This documentary shows how stimulating the brain in a certain way can produce an experience with very similar characteristics to those of a religious experience.
Does this show that religious experiences cannot be genuine?
I don't think it goes that far. It does show that a scientific explanation of the experiences is possible and as such, bring more doubt as to the authenticity of such experiences but it doesn't prove they are not genuine.
After all, taking hallucinagenic drugs may make you see beautiful butterflies flying in front of your eyes, but this does not mean that whenever anyone claims to see beautiful butterflies that we must assume that the butterflies are not real.




For more on religious experiences click here.

Catholic Church announces that the use of Condoms can sometimes be the right thing to do.

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic Church is that the use of artificial contraception, including condoms, is wrong. This is because they believe that the main God given purpose of sex is to reproduce. This is based on a Natural Law view of ethics, heavily influenced by St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle who were both concerned with the purpose or Telos of an action.


This belief has, until now, been seen in an absolutist way so that the use of condoms would be seen as wrong in any circumstance.

There now appears to be a change of stance whereby the Pope has said that, in situations were a condom is being used to prevent the spread of HIV, and thus protect one's partner, that their use is the most repsonsible thing. This could still fit with a Natural Law approach under what is called 'double effect'. This is where, when one's primary intention is good, eg to save a life, a normally immoral action can be allowed.
This does not mark any significant change in the Church's view of sex or indeed contraception. It still holds that sex should only be within marriage and should always have the possibility of reproduction. It also still maintains that the proper way to combat HIV is not condoms but through a change of attitude and lifestyle with regards to sex.

It does seem to show though that there is some recognition of a 'grey area' in some ethical matters however which will be seen by some as very significant.

For more on this story click here.
For more on Natural Law click here.
For more on sexual ethics click here.

New Primate - Bad Design or Illogical Evolution?

I was very excited to see a new type of primate has been discovered in Burma. Such discoveries are incredibly rare.

The new primate, a type of snub nosed monkey, is very distinctive, with nostrils that point upwards. This unusual feature apparantly causes the animal some problems, with locals claiming that the monkey sneezes when it rains, due to rain drops falling into its nose. It seems that it puts it head between its legs to avoid this. (I am not making this up!).

So what would a Creationist have to say about this? Why would a perfect God create an animal with such an apparant flaw?

On the other hand a supporter of Darwinian evolution may also be faced with some difficulty here. Why would the upturned nose have survived as a characteristic when, again, it appears to be a negative trait?

A tragic side to this story is that the only known specimen of this monkey was killed by hunters and later eaten. It could be said that this human brutality is more fitting with evolution's 'survival of the fittest' idea than that of a species created and designed in the image of a loving God.

To read more about this incredible discovery click here.

How far can we trust our senses?

In his Cave Analogy Plato compares empirical knowledge to imperfect flickering shadows. He argues that our physical senses cannot be trusted and reveal the truth to us.

More modern Materialists, such as Richard Dawkins, have more sympathy with Aristotle's view that it is only through scientific empirical evidence that we can know anything.

The BBC documentary Is Seeing Believing explores how our senses can be misled and manipulated and, also, why this may not necessarily be a bad thing.



To watch more from this programme click here.
For more on Plato's Cave Analogy click here.