Position on State intervention...

[The Feral Underclass]

There has been alot of debate recently about the upcoming adoption laws, which would effectively force the Catholic Church to accept applications from gay couples.

The problem here is that by allowing the state to enforce morals/ethics on organisations then we are legitimising state authority and opening up the door for further legislation against political groups the government disagrees with. The state is not justified in enforcing opinion on people.

Obviously I find the Catholic Church reactionary and repugnant and hope one day for it to be destroyed but it is the role of the working class to deal with such reactionaryism, not the state.

What are other people’s thoughts?

[Fawkes]

I don't think the state should have the right to impose anything on a non-government organization, even the church. Civil adoptions and religious ones are different. If the Catholic Church chooses to continue being as bigoted as they are, that will only encourage people to leave it.


Obviously I find the Catholic Church reactionary and repugnant and hope one day for it to be destroyed but it is the role of the working class to deal with such reactionaryism, not the state.
Though this is not a good example of it, there are times when for the short-term we should push for the state to pass legislation that could help the working class, yet in the long run continue to fight the state.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:34 pm
Though this is not a good example of it, there are times when for the short-term we should push for the state to pass legislation that could help the working class, yet in the long run continue to fight the state.
Why?

[Fawkes]

This is a good example of it.


In the 1890s, the anarchist Emma Goldman campaigned against the eight-hour workday, not because she thought people should work longer hours but because she thought that workers should not depend on the state to improve their condition. But at one of her speeches, an old worker came up to her and told her that he agreed with her argument, agreed that workers should reject palliatives and should not have the state act for them. But, he added, he was old -- he wasn't going to see the revolution, and a legislated shorter workday would give him some real liberty right now. Goldman changed her mind about the need for reforms, and concluded that seeking reforms in the here and now was important.
That quote was taken from this interview. (http://thetyee.ca/Books/2007/01/26/MarkLeier/)