I attended another hustings yesterday - this time attended by representatives from both Christian parties, the Christian People's Alliance and the Christian Party. Again, although I disagree with them, I must say that the Christian People's Alliance came across as very reasonable. I wish I could say the same about the Christian Party - what follows is probably going to be a bit of a rant, for which I make absolutely no apologies, but the woman representing them really got me worked up.
Firstly, she twice compared the policies of the present government to Nazi Germany - always a lazy and crass comparison to make and to be honest, completely nuts in this instance - favouring gay adoption and civil partnerships versus the extermination of million Jews - not an obvious comparison. I would also think its one that, if anybody took them seriously enough to respond, could easily return to haunt them. After all, the Nazis weren't too keen on homosexuals either.
The leaflets they were handing out weren't much better either - full of horror stories about 5 year old being forced to learn about homosexuality and 13 year olds being allowed to go and live with men and parents being unable to remove them. If there is any truth at all in these stories, it is severely distorted. This is scaremongering of the worst kind, even worse as it comes from a party which claims to be standing fr truth!
They say they want to return to the land of the book, but the impression was more of just wanting to turn the clock back 50 years - there was the call to bring back matron! The details of their policies also would give teachers the right to use reasonable force to maintain discipline in school - note that, to maintain discipline, not to protect themselves or other pupils. There is something about that that makes me very uneasy. Yes, there is a problem with discipline in school and the number of teachers assaulted by pupils is completely unacceptable, but fighting violence with more violence has never seemed that sensible a solution to me. There a many teachers who do an excellent job under very trying circumstances, but there are some who have difficulty controlling themselves, let alone their classes. Take a minute to think which group are more likely to use force and what the outcome might be.
I did find it fascinating that when asked who else on the panel they would vote for if they couldn't vote for themselves, neither Christian party would have voted for the other. Now, what does that say? Colin Fox of the Scottish Socialists came out very well from that question, which seemed a fair response as, whether you agreed with his policies or not, he came across as both a man of integrity and a talented politician. Kudos also to Mike Pringle, the sitting Lib Dem MSP, for admitting that at a European election he did vote Green, because his party's candidate was a complete idiot.
One final thought on christian politics, before I leave the subject and I'm going to tackle that most controversial of all subjects - abortion. I should make clear that I'm against abortion, I think it is a tragedy for both parent and unborn child. It also seems to be an issue that creates the most entrenched opinions on both sides of the debate. In fact, opinions are so entrenched that realistically there seems little hope for any real movement on the issue. Now, here is where I'm going to get controversial, I think both sides get so stuck in arguing the case from a legal point of view that they miss something. What they miss is this - that NOBODY actually wants there to be more abortions, everybody would like there to be much fewer unwanted pregnancies, especially amongst teenage girls. I just wonder if all the energy which currently seems to be spent in futility arguing about legislation where re-directed into preventative work around sex education (including ideas both on abstinence and on birth control), drugs and alcohol awareness, confidence and skills training for young women, so they have the ability and the confidence to say no when they mean it or to insist on birth control when they do have sex, if all that were to happen, would we perhaps make more difference than all this arguing is producing. Of course, that would involve both sides recognising the best intentions and sincerity of the others, and maybe that is a step too far.
As always, please do feel free to comment with your responses or thoughts on these issues.
Showing posts with label family values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family values. Show all posts
Monday, 23 April 2007
Thursday, 12 April 2007
FAmily values and the Scottish elections
Yesterday, I attended hustings for the candidates for my constituency and regional list in the upcoming scottish elections. The following are just some personal thoughts and observations, in no way intended to influence anyone's votes. If you disagree or have your own thoughts please feel free to comment.
1. The first two questions last night were about the behaviour of an SNP MP at Westminister and about Trident - both issues which are largely irrelevant for these elections. Holyrood has no real power over issues like trident or the war in Iraq. The only way these become Scottish issues is if Scotland becomes independant. Therefore the SNP and SSP have a vested interest in keeping these issues at the forefront, but turning the election into a referendum around these issues seems to be denying us the chance to hear more about what the parties would actually want to do about key issues that Holyrood can actually impact - like healthcare, education and the environment.
2. Solidarity and the SSP seemed to give identikit answers to every questions, although Solidarity's were slightly more polished, which begs the question why we need both of them apart from to provide room for Tommy Sheridan's ego. I am slightly surprised that he hasn't gone the Robert Kilroy Silk route and named it the Tommy Sherida Solidarity Party - it might perhaps be a bit more accurate.
Two parties who weren't represented last night and who I won't be voting for anyway were the Scottish Christian Party and the Christian People Alliance Scotland. I've got to admit that I'm not totally sure about the idea of a christian party to start with - I think its great for Christians to be involved in politics - in all parties, but there seem to be so many issues where it would be legitimate for christians to hold quite widely differing opinions that to have a "Christian" party. Given these differences, christian parties tend to end up focussing mainly on the "family values" issues.
I had a quick scout around the websites for both parties this morning and have to say I couldn't find a single policy for the Scottish elections for the Christian Party. The Christian People's Alliance was far more comprehensive - although their first two policies were on Trident and the War in Iraq (see above). Pleasingly and surprisingly they did have policieson healthcare, the environment and education, although not as comprehensive as the major parties and not different from many of them. So, their major distinctive and the area where they are getting all their media coverage is around "family values". What follows are my own individual view on these issues and why I tend to get turned off by the political debate on these issues. Please feel free to comment and disagree.
(1) To start on a positive - the CPA favour offering greater financial incentives for parents who wish to to stay at home looking after their children, especially in the early years. This I believe is a great idea - bringing up a child is one of the most valuable jobs anybody can do - greater recognition and valuing of this key role can only be a good thing.
(2) How people react to talk of the family will depend to a large extent on their own experiences of family - for many people this is not a positive thing at all. I think the CPA need to recognise this one heck of a lot more than they do.
(3) The biblical concept of family is a much wider, more inclusive one than the Western nuclear family - maybe we should stop talking as if this is an inherently Christian concept.
(4) Of course the Bible is very strong on marriage. However, I'm not sure that I see it as a politcal agenda to support it. In fact, I tend to think that if marriage needs politics and legislation to support it, then the battle is already lost. Maybe Christians should instead focus on the power of a good example. As to offering financial incentives for married couples over other couples - with divorce rates already so high, do we really want people to marry for financial reasons? Most people who choose not to marry do so for other reasons - sometimes the negative example set by their parents. I think the law should be there to offer equal protection and rights to all. We are not looking at a situation where marriage is being discriminated against - that would be unjust and a cause for outrage - rather there seems to be unhappiness because other relationships are being given equal status under law. Basically I think marriage is God's plan, but don't think it is the place of legislation to give one group of people or ideas privileged status over another. So why shouldn't co-habiting couples or same sex relationships be equal under the law?
(5) Yes, God's ideal plan would be for a child to be raised by a mother and father who love them and perfectly image God's love for them. But lets be honest, no child since the Garden of Eden has actually had that. We are dealing with degrees of imperfection here - and in some cases it might be better for a child to be with a single parent or same sex parents who are able to show them love, than a mother and a father who aren't or who are even abusive. I do tend to find that alot of the debate about family values is actually far too divorced from the reality of what childhod is actually like for many children.
(6) Two of the main areas of recent legislation the CPA have been critical of are civil partnerships and gay adoption.
Civil Partnerships - if two people of the same sex want to enter into a legal commitment to each other, who are we to say that they shouldn't be allowed to do this? Nobody is saying that churches should be forced into marrying them. I'm not sure that I see this as a threat to marriage. Is ther real argument here pro-marriage or anti-gay?
Gay Adoption - the thing that bugs me most here is talk, on both sides of the argument, of a right to adopt. NOBODY has a right to adopt - they have a right to put themselves forward to be considered for adopting a child - there is then, as there should be, a very thorough selection, vetting and matching process before they are allowed the privilege of adopting. The process, as it should be, is governed by the best interests of the child and as I've said above, those best interests may sometimes be best met by two parents of the same sex. If it places more children in homes where they will be genuinely loved and cared for it can only be a good thing as far as I can see.
(7) The CPA favours an abstinence based sex-education programme in schools. All well and good in principle - it can only be good for teenagers to hear about abstinence as a viable alternative, but I'm afraid their language tends to suggest a "just say no" approach, which has been shown time and time again to be counter-productive. (After all, the Bible tells us that one of the effects of the law is to produce a desire for the opposite). It is also based on the huge assumption that the most at-risk teenagers have the confidence and the skills to say no - I'm afraid that this is not the case. Any serious sex-education programme I believe should include not only biological facts, but also moral and ethical considerations plus some element of social skills training. Fundamentally, it needs to recognise that teenagers will make decisions for themselves, preaching won't work, but supporting and guiding so that they have the confidence to make choices that help themselves might.
In general then, I'm not in agreement on a lot of these issues and even if I was, I'm not sure they're important enough issues for me to sway my vote, but what do other people think?
1. The first two questions last night were about the behaviour of an SNP MP at Westminister and about Trident - both issues which are largely irrelevant for these elections. Holyrood has no real power over issues like trident or the war in Iraq. The only way these become Scottish issues is if Scotland becomes independant. Therefore the SNP and SSP have a vested interest in keeping these issues at the forefront, but turning the election into a referendum around these issues seems to be denying us the chance to hear more about what the parties would actually want to do about key issues that Holyrood can actually impact - like healthcare, education and the environment.
2. Solidarity and the SSP seemed to give identikit answers to every questions, although Solidarity's were slightly more polished, which begs the question why we need both of them apart from to provide room for Tommy Sheridan's ego. I am slightly surprised that he hasn't gone the Robert Kilroy Silk route and named it the Tommy Sherida Solidarity Party - it might perhaps be a bit more accurate.
Two parties who weren't represented last night and who I won't be voting for anyway were the Scottish Christian Party and the Christian People Alliance Scotland. I've got to admit that I'm not totally sure about the idea of a christian party to start with - I think its great for Christians to be involved in politics - in all parties, but there seem to be so many issues where it would be legitimate for christians to hold quite widely differing opinions that to have a "Christian" party. Given these differences, christian parties tend to end up focussing mainly on the "family values" issues.
I had a quick scout around the websites for both parties this morning and have to say I couldn't find a single policy for the Scottish elections for the Christian Party. The Christian People's Alliance was far more comprehensive - although their first two policies were on Trident and the War in Iraq (see above). Pleasingly and surprisingly they did have policieson healthcare, the environment and education, although not as comprehensive as the major parties and not different from many of them. So, their major distinctive and the area where they are getting all their media coverage is around "family values". What follows are my own individual view on these issues and why I tend to get turned off by the political debate on these issues. Please feel free to comment and disagree.
(1) To start on a positive - the CPA favour offering greater financial incentives for parents who wish to to stay at home looking after their children, especially in the early years. This I believe is a great idea - bringing up a child is one of the most valuable jobs anybody can do - greater recognition and valuing of this key role can only be a good thing.
(2) How people react to talk of the family will depend to a large extent on their own experiences of family - for many people this is not a positive thing at all. I think the CPA need to recognise this one heck of a lot more than they do.
(3) The biblical concept of family is a much wider, more inclusive one than the Western nuclear family - maybe we should stop talking as if this is an inherently Christian concept.
(4) Of course the Bible is very strong on marriage. However, I'm not sure that I see it as a politcal agenda to support it. In fact, I tend to think that if marriage needs politics and legislation to support it, then the battle is already lost. Maybe Christians should instead focus on the power of a good example. As to offering financial incentives for married couples over other couples - with divorce rates already so high, do we really want people to marry for financial reasons? Most people who choose not to marry do so for other reasons - sometimes the negative example set by their parents. I think the law should be there to offer equal protection and rights to all. We are not looking at a situation where marriage is being discriminated against - that would be unjust and a cause for outrage - rather there seems to be unhappiness because other relationships are being given equal status under law. Basically I think marriage is God's plan, but don't think it is the place of legislation to give one group of people or ideas privileged status over another. So why shouldn't co-habiting couples or same sex relationships be equal under the law?
(5) Yes, God's ideal plan would be for a child to be raised by a mother and father who love them and perfectly image God's love for them. But lets be honest, no child since the Garden of Eden has actually had that. We are dealing with degrees of imperfection here - and in some cases it might be better for a child to be with a single parent or same sex parents who are able to show them love, than a mother and a father who aren't or who are even abusive. I do tend to find that alot of the debate about family values is actually far too divorced from the reality of what childhod is actually like for many children.
(6) Two of the main areas of recent legislation the CPA have been critical of are civil partnerships and gay adoption.
Civil Partnerships - if two people of the same sex want to enter into a legal commitment to each other, who are we to say that they shouldn't be allowed to do this? Nobody is saying that churches should be forced into marrying them. I'm not sure that I see this as a threat to marriage. Is ther real argument here pro-marriage or anti-gay?
Gay Adoption - the thing that bugs me most here is talk, on both sides of the argument, of a right to adopt. NOBODY has a right to adopt - they have a right to put themselves forward to be considered for adopting a child - there is then, as there should be, a very thorough selection, vetting and matching process before they are allowed the privilege of adopting. The process, as it should be, is governed by the best interests of the child and as I've said above, those best interests may sometimes be best met by two parents of the same sex. If it places more children in homes where they will be genuinely loved and cared for it can only be a good thing as far as I can see.
(7) The CPA favours an abstinence based sex-education programme in schools. All well and good in principle - it can only be good for teenagers to hear about abstinence as a viable alternative, but I'm afraid their language tends to suggest a "just say no" approach, which has been shown time and time again to be counter-productive. (After all, the Bible tells us that one of the effects of the law is to produce a desire for the opposite). It is also based on the huge assumption that the most at-risk teenagers have the confidence and the skills to say no - I'm afraid that this is not the case. Any serious sex-education programme I believe should include not only biological facts, but also moral and ethical considerations plus some element of social skills training. Fundamentally, it needs to recognise that teenagers will make decisions for themselves, preaching won't work, but supporting and guiding so that they have the confidence to make choices that help themselves might.
In general then, I'm not in agreement on a lot of these issues and even if I was, I'm not sure they're important enough issues for me to sway my vote, but what do other people think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
