Bring back the test act

There is, according to the Bible, no new thing under the Sun (Eccl. 1.9). I was reminded of this last week when A and I had a fun little argument one morning over the merits of the decision on the Christian couple barred from fostering. I don't think I'd like them; I certainly don't agree with them, but they seem to be perfectly good foster parents on most axes, and this all seems like a bit of a waste.

Essentially, this debate seems to have gone wrong somewhere. Namely, that while they have some dodgy views, they're probably better than care. And even if they aren't, there will be some people who are. We seem in this debate to make the ideal the enemy of the good. And, while I wish all was well in the world and that these kind of compromises didn't have to be made, they do. Here I am sceptical of the value of preventing people from providing services to the state because of some difficult opinions they have and some potential harm they may do. Overall, I suspect they would be beneficial as until and unless we have surplus of potential foster carers, I don't think we can be so picky. I don't hold with this nonsense about discrimination against Christians or anything silly like that, but I just feel we're stopping good but flawed activity from happening. Not being perfect is not a reason for not doing things.

A wasn't very interested in my view, instead concerned for another issue - namely, the growing discrepancy between what parents can do to their children and what is illegal for others to do - but she did point out that this isn't really a problem: people will just lie. A sensible couple who hold non-orthodox views on, say, sexuality, will simply pay appropriate lip service to the right views. Rather usefully, we have the legislation for this pre-prepared in the shape of the seventeenth century Test and Corporation acts which emphasised outward conformity as a requirement for public office, or in this case public service. Now I think this is an excellent idea. Outward conformity drives belief of the individual and the community, and that example prevents harm. As I think no right thinking person can object to orthodoxy, both against prejudice and for Anglicanism, both should be upheld.
So, bring back the test act, and push on with its modern equivalent. You don't have to believe what you're saying, but we're not asking you to do that.

Bibliography, February 2011

Books Read (11)
BOTM - U.Eco, The Name of the Rose*

A. Adiga, The White TigerJ. Austen, Emma
J.G. Farrell, Troubles
A. MacCaffrey, Follow the Unicorn
J. Morris, Conundrum
W.G. Sebald, Austerlitz
P.G. Wodehouse, Right ho, Jeeves
P.G. Wodehouse, The Code of the Woosters
P.G. Wodehouse, Joy in the Morning
P.G. Wodehouse, The mating season

Momentous. A reread book is BOTM. Pushed very close by Austerlitz, which was let down by the end, Eco's masterpiece stands well the test of time. In other news, as you can see, I've discovered Wodehouse in a big way. It's going to be expensive. I seem to have fallen into a pattern whereby I pretty much alternate a Jeeves novel with a serious one. The Code of the Woosters my favourite to date.

Anyway, Eco's most famous and best book stands the test of time triumphantly. It's complex, clever and dense. I read it first maybe 15 years ago, when my knowledge of medieval philosophy and theology was lacking. It is admittedly not much better now, but the limited extra knowledge does improve it. There is too much untranslated Latin, but this is a small caveat to a book that is simultaneously a good thriller, learned and profound.