Saturday, November 24, 2007

Government pays for exemption from the effects of its own legislation

Roman Catholic adoption agencies are pursuing a legal lifeline that will allow them to continue to operate under the Sexual Orientation Regulations. In accordance with their beliefs, the agencies have a preference for placing children only with heterosexual married couples. But the Regulations make it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation when providing a service, and so face being forced to place vulnerable children with homosexual couples.

Some Roman Catholic agencies have already closed rather than betray their tradition or compromise their moral beliefs, but 12 agencies have applied jointly for a Government grant of £250,000 to investigate ways of surviving under the legislation. The grant, which will pay for legal advice, was recommended by a committee set up by the Government to investigate the agencies' concerns.

Jim Richards, chief executive of the Catholic Children's Society, has confirmed that this is Government (ie taxpayers’) money and it will enable the Roman Catholic Church to explore possible ways of circumventing the SOR legislation.

This intrigues Cranmer.

The Government passes a law. It then establishes a committee to look at the specific implications of this legislation for a faith group. This committee decides that Government should fund the exploration of exemption from the law (which some will inevitably view as evasion of the law). While Cranmer has great sympathy for the position of the Roman Catholic Church on this matter, he cannot quite grasp the concept of the Government funding groups which seek exemption from its legislation: the taxpayer funds the formulation of legislation, and the taxpayer then funds faith groups which wish to be exempt.

Wait ‘til a few vocal Islamists cotton on to this little scam. O, hang on:

Terrorist activities outlawed…unless they are in the pursuit of jihad?
Incitement to violence outlawed...unless Muslims demand the Pope's death?
Religion-hate speech outlawed…unless it’s in the Qur’an?
Expressions of homophobia outlawed…unless it is an article of faith?
Wife beating outlawed…unless it is Shari’a compliant?
Corporal punishment in schools outlawed...unless performed by an imam?
Sexual discrimination outlawed…unless it’s a men-only mosque?
Treason outlawed...unless Muslims demand the death of the Queen?
Blasphemy law is rendered obsolete…unless Mohammed is the target?

Now there is precedent for Government funding the exploration of faith-group exemptions from the law, Cranmer thinks the humble tax-payer is about to be taken for something of a ride.


Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

HA! Very clever post Your Grace. But as you know, it is because politics is all about votes. The Government can't very well lose the entire Catholic vote. So they have thrown them a bone - however contradictory and crazy that bone might be.

24 November 2007 at 11:05  
Blogger Guido Fawkes Esq. said...

The one true and apostolic church will be looking for reparations from the State in due course.

24 November 2007 at 11:55  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Fawkes,

It has about as much chance of succeeding as your claim for compensation for the unsympathetic manner in which you yourself were treated.

Has 'the one true and apostolic church' (His Grace applauds your use of the lower case) yet obtained reparations for its losses under Thomas Cromwell?

24 November 2007 at 12:07  
Blogger Guido Fawkes Esq. said...

I do enjoy proddy baiting in the morning. Lighten up.

24 November 2007 at 12:33  
Blogger Not a sheep said...

The humble tax-payer is always being taken for a ride, this government has just used a more powerful vehicle to increase the velocity of the ride.

24 November 2007 at 13:00  
Anonymous The recusant said...

If this govenment is handing out cash to the Papists, someone please tell me where I sign, I could do with a bit extra for Christmas.

24 November 2007 at 14:06  
Anonymous Morus said...

Your Grace,

I'm not interested in reparations, but I would like to see the return of some of the older churches. With the exception of some grand Victorian examples, most Catholic churches are extremely disappointing architecturally.

When my father was in York in the 1970s, he visited the mangnificent Minster with a recent convert to Catholicism. They were approached by a charming woman asking if they would care to make a donation for the upkeep, and my father's friend (possessed of a new zealotry) angrily retorted in his broadest Yorkshire accent: "If tha' can't pay furrit, give it back!".

According to urban myth, the CoE agreed to a return of the Minster as soon as repairs were completed - there have been rolling, permanent repairs for decades! Reputedly, St Wilfred's Catholic Church is deliberately ugly so as to ruin the best view of the Great West doors.

Perhaps, in this new spirit of paying to be opposed, Rowan Cantuar and Sentamu Ebor would consider funding a commission to examine the legality of the 1559 seizure?

In jest,


24 November 2007 at 18:08  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

In view of what the RCs have done to a lot of their finer churches, they should not be trusted with any of ours.

25 November 2007 at 14:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if labour party had a similar grant to find way round party funding laws - and got it wrong?

2 December 2007 at 20:10  
Blogger Sudipta Das said...

well friend, I am not the one who likes govt or it's legislations. I think by putting all these legislations they are banning our freedom. specially when they are related with religions.

government grant

31 December 2007 at 13:36  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older