| |
|
I've been thinking about how some people stick to certain institutions even when they have problems, while others just give up on them. In particular, I was thinking of the recent case of Church of England Bishop, Jeffrey John, who has now decided or been forced to withdraw from his appointment as Bishop because he is a (celibate) gay man.
I was listening to the Moral Maze about this, and reading some commentary, where some argued that it was essential to "modernise" the CoE, in order that it stop discriminating against gays. Given my atheism, it is perhaps unsurprising that I don't quite see the point of this reform. The CoE is a homophobic, sexist institution in my view, and tinkering with the outward appearance perpetuates its core prejudice.
OK, that was a bit strong, and I am actually much less certain about the issue than that. After all, if I shift attention to New Labour, my position is quite different. I accept all the criticisms of New Labour (well, most) but I don't think that abandoning the party is a good idea. It leaves a major political party to the centre right, when there is ample support amongst rank and file for a move to the centre left, at the very least.
It seems this question of how to deal with established institutions forms a large part of politics and ethical choices. In the US, does a left winger hope to affect the Democrats or simply vote for a Nader? Does one remain a member of an envornmental organisation if, like me, you don't get on with the luddite and propoganda elements? There are lots more examples, (for many, the fabric of western democracy presents such a choice) and I realise that the answer is largely "it depends", but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
How do you choose which organisations to support? |
|
|
