Pope reveals he doesn't understand religious freedom

On the Guardian website last evening I saw a news story that Pope Benedict XVI thinks that anti-discrimination laws are restricting Catholics' religious freedom.

His remarks were a little cryptic about the specific legislation, but the Guardian article speculated thus:

It is thought his comments relate to laws that came in last year preventing adoption agencies from discriminating against gay couples and also Harriet Harman's equality bill, currently going through parliament.

...

It is also thought the pope was referring to the equality bill, which narrows the special exemption enjoyed by churches allowing them to exclude people whose lifestyles do not fit in with the religious ethos of an organisation when hiring staff.

The first point is about providing a service (in this specific case, adoption agencies). Here's my take: When you provide a service to members of the public, you do not get to discriminate on religious grounds: I couldn't turn around and say I wanted not to serve someone because they were a Catholic, so why should Catholics get to say they don't want to serve gay folks? The reason that these Catholic adoption agencies don't want to serve gay folks is because gay folks choose not to live by the Catholics' religious code; the choice of gay folks not to live that way does not affect Catholics' freedom of belief or, indeed, of action. The provision of this service, while obviously a controversial point because it involves children (and rightly or wrongly, British society has developed a strong aversion to any hint of upset surrounding children), is not something on which I can see a lot of religious dogma hanging; gay couples say "we want to raise a child in a loving environment", and out there in the world there are children in need of loving environments in which to grow - an adoption agency is just a service to match the people who want to care for a child with a child who needs their care. As the meerkat says, "Simples!"

I suppose a Catholic might turn around and say, "But my religion tells me a child needs a mother and a father, not two of one and none of the other!" But again, while a Catholic adoption agency would I am sure be free to express this opinion to any potential adopters (including gay couples), to deny the service on those grounds would be to force their views on others.

Therefore, there is absolutely no restriction of religious belief or worship involved here.

One last thought regarding the adoption issue: English and Welsh bishops "told [the Pope] sexual orientation legislation that came into effect on 1 January 2009 had forced the closure of half the Roman Catholic adoption agencies because the law making it illegal to discriminate against gay applicants went against their beliefs."

This is probably the element that makes me angriest. It makes me angry as a Christian, and it makes me angry as a humanist, because what this says is that these Catholic adoption agencies put their homophobic beliefs above the welfare of the children whom those agencies were helping to find loving homes. That's neither a Christian thing to do, nor is it an ethical thing to do. Christ preached love for the sinner, preached "I was naked and you clothed me, hungry and you fed me" etc; if these adoption agencies were performing the service as a religious calling, then that calling must surely have been to help clothe and feed and so on the children who were being found homes, and it doesn't matter what homes as long as they had the love and resources to care for them. And humanist ethics as well say, "put the needy folks first for crying out loud!" (and that's the children in this case).

The other point suggested is about hiring workers. Specifically, about excluding those whose "lifestyles" conflict with Roman Catholic teaching. At which point I have to ask, how is it even relevant? If you have a job that needs doing, here's what you need:

A person who does the job efficiently, accurately, to a high standard, and without preference, favour or bias. In other words, someone who will do the job professionally and well.

What they do with themselves outside of working hours (so long as it's not illegal or directly defamatory to the employer) is entirely their own business and not a proper part of the decision process for hiring someone. If you're hiring someone to perform religious (worship) duties, of course, then I think you have a right to expect them to share your faith. But for jobs like admin, repairs, etc - where there's no direct religious involvement - it's a nonsense to say that religious freedom is at stake. An applicant for the job should be judged on their ability to do the job properly and professionally. Nothing else.

My final remarks on the Pope's comments relate to this excerpt:

"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

Now, a) that's not my understanding of Christian theology of human rights (but maybe I am unfamiliar with specifically Roman Catholic teachings on that matter) and b) it most certainly isn't the basis of secular human rights.

On point a) it is that we are endowed with a spirit that renders us created "in the image of God" - and that goes for all humans, "natural law" or not; what I like so much about Quakerism is the centrality of the concept of "that of God in (all of) us". But it's a key concept in a lot of Christian ethical philosophy.

On point b) just the very fact that a secular human rights exists is proof that this "natural law" gibberish is total bunkum.