There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday….
The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values.
In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”.
Christian persecution is now official in the UK.
Chilling.
You can bet your bottom dollar that a gay couple wanting to adopt would be free to indoctrinate their offspring with anti Christian belief!
Are any Islamic or orthodox Jewish couples fostering children in Britain?
Interesting.
“ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
“The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
“Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
I guess we need our own Christian courts.
It is but one short legal step from this ruling to another one taking away a couple’s own, natural children for holding the “inimical” beliefs of orthodox Christianity.
Who says the French Revolution is over? The Continent has come to Britain.
So, what’s the next step? I guess it’s snooping around potential foster parent’s lives in case they have un PC beliefs that they don’t disclose to the authorities. “Show us you’re a good left-wing thinker, and we’ll take it under advisement” I wonder how many Tory supporters who helped put the current government in office would even qualify anymore under this new “enlightened” court policy?
Turns out Orwell had it right, he was just off by a few decades.
Umm, I’ve always thought that judges should be neutral and fair. I guess the legal system in the UK doesn’t work that way, does it? It now looks like UK judges make law, but I always thought that this was Parliament’s job. I guess I was wrong, wasn’t I?
if you go to the secular priests for redress, you should expect a secular response.
Sodomy allowed, but no traditional Christianity allowed. Are the Muslims understanding the disconnect with their own faith?!! And is one still permitted to have Muslim foster parents? Who’s not “getting” the view of homosex in Islam?!!!
Just noting the comments on here. Do Christians of the bigoted variety really feel that persecuted? All I can say if you do you’d be way too fragile to survive as a gay person just about anywhere. People like me have spent our lives having to cater to the prejudices of people like you. What’s amazing is that you choose to define yourself as the last word on Christian tradition and belief. You’re not. There are lots of Christians who don’t feel a bit persecuted.
Time for you people to stop using and misusing the Christian religion for your own personal agenda.
Jockoro,
Your last sentence is the height of hypocracy. When’s the last time you ever saw a gay person portrayed in film or TV or anywhere else in the media in any other than glowing terms? And Christians? We are almost universally portrayed as either foolish or evil. Gays are a pampered, protected class and Christians are continually marginalized. Didn’t used to be this way, of course, but it definitely is now.
RE: “Do Christians of the bigoted variety . . . ”
Tee hee.
RE: “All I can say if you do you’d be way too fragile to survive as a gay person just about anywhere.”
Aw . . . poor victim!
RE: “What’s amazing is that you choose to define yourself as the last word on Christian tradition and belief.”
Nah — just Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason.
RE: “There are lots of Christians who don’t feel a bit persecuted.”
Yup — like me, for instance.
I feel great and not one bit persecuted. Tough for those who believe the Christian Gospel in the UK — but the secular world is in charge *for the present.*
RE: “Time for you people to stop using and misusing the Christian religion for your own personal agenda.”
Says the liberal activist ideologue! ; > )
The judgment itself is well worth reading.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html
I have yet to read an accurate report of the facts in this case nor an accurate account of what the judges wrote.
Christians who are bigots should be portrayed as bigots. Sorry if you people have a problem with that. Not all Christians are bigots. Thank you, Jesus.
Crying in our beer, are we? It sure looks like it!
#15 I’ve been called a “you people” by much more intimidating persons than yourself. I find it rather amusing in fact. At least gratefully your rant is not followed by “I pay your salary!!” and descriptions of just who one knows at the top who will take care of my failure to perform whichever ill advised action they are demanding. Following law and rules and procedures does get in the way of personal desire so often. So ho hum to you my good sir.
As to bigotry, you alone are the one showing bigotry. Is your glass turned silver side out?
Do you remember what the Magna Carta said about the independence of the church? I just read it again, by chance. The Brits seem to have forgotten something. Well, heck, that was 1217 or some such. Long time ago. Who cares. Dumb old King John. He and the barons were so yesterday. Still, it’s worth reminding ourselves what it had to say.
Nor is there any point in fretting over the jockoro’s of the world. We shall always have them with us, and they are winning all the battles now, aren’t they? Wonder if they will be magnanimous in victory. Brings King John to mind though, doesn’t it Larry
Jocks, old buddy, if all you can do is come with the “bigot” and “prejudiced” blasts just because people disagree with you, then I’m not really interested in anything you have to say about anything at all.
The linked article was fairly uninformative as to the actual content of the decision. Martin Reynolds (No. 14) did us all a service by providing the actual text. It is clear that the High Court in no way is denigrating Christian values or beliefs. Sarah is right that there is no reason for us to feel “one bit persecuted.”
So the foster care agencies attitude to Muslim couples is — what? Never?
#14: “I have yet to read an accurate report of the facts in this case nor an accurate account of what the judges wrote.”
Then get on with it.
Meanwhile, you must be pleased that the gay agenda you and “Inclusive Church” support in the UK is advancing every day.
Opposition to the Goodness of Gay must be outlawed.
#20: You haven’t grasped the point. What it means is that religious beliefs in Britain cannot be expressed now if they disapprove of homosexuality. You will be penalized if you do for “not valuing diversity” – which is a code word for homosexuality.
Here is a good account of the decision:
http://www.peter-ould.net/2011/03/01/breaking-christians-with-traditional-moral-views-can-still-be-foster-parents/
#24: I have read that and most of the 109 paragraph legal decision. The key point is that the judges declare they are “secular” and that Christianity has no part in the laws of England. The guiding principle is something called “diversity”, according to which approval of homosexuality must take precedence over traditional orthodox Christian belief. Although you make conciliatory noises to orthodox Christians (and I believe you genuinely wish them well), your own commitment to the moral rightness of homosexual relationships does put you on the side of those who must penalize or silence traditional Christian morality. Sadly, you do not help the Christian cause.
#24: Here’s a good summary of the implications of this ruling:
The high court has ruled that protecting a person from being discriminated because of sexual orientation trumps protecting a person against discrimination because of their religious beliefs.
From Simon Vibert of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford: “So now it seems: Christianity is an oppressive and an unhealthy place to bring up foster children. The downward spiral our society has experienced is-
•Denial of Christian beliefs;
•Loss of Christian behaviour;
•The conviction that Christian beliefs and behaviour are not good but bad for society and even to teach a child Christian morality is harmful to their well being.
A foundational part of equality is the right to hold your own views and not to contravene your own conscience. But modern England today, like ancient Rome has “exchanged the truth for a lie†(Romans 1:25).”
Whateveer Martin Reynolds believes, homosexuality is not good for the body or the soul.
Then there is the issue of pedophilia as “sexual orientation”. See http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-experts-tell-parliament?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ec65627c9c-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines02_28_2011&utm_medium=email
[blockquote]OTTAWA, Ontario, February 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a recent parliamentary session on a bill relating to sexual offenses against children, psychology experts claimed that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation†comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality, a definition that was questioned by one Member of Parliament who was present.[/blockquote]
I always am a bit hesitant to dive in on English law questions, as their legal system and their governmental structure are profoundly different from those of the United States. But, in reading the decision, I found nothing that disparaged Christianity in any way. I was struck, however, by the sense that the lawyers for the couple had chosen unwisely to base their arguments not on the fitness of this particular couple to foster children, but rather to mount a general attack that packaged up as straw men a lot of anti-Christian polemics. The court seemed impatient with the tactic, one that certainly did the clients no good. As an outsider looking in, I do find it ironic that a nation with an established Christian church would be deemed at law to be “secular” , but, again, I think this may reflect my American Anglican misperceptions of English church/state relations. Nowhere in the decision can I find eve the foggiest hint that “religious beliefs cannot be expressed in Britain now if they disapprove of homosexuality. . .” the proposition that No. 23 chides me for missing. I am certain that those views will be expressed as assertively today and tomorrow in Great Britain as they were prior to this decision.
“Nowhere in the decision can I find eve the foggiest hint that “religious beliefs cannot be expressed in Britain now if they disapprove of homosexuality. . .†the proposition that No. 23 chides me for missing. I am certain that those views will be expressed as assertively today and tomorrow in Great Britain as they were prior to this decision.”
Not if you want to foster or adopt children, or to work as a teacher, nurse, social worker, registrar etc etc in the UK. You clearly haven’t been following the news.
If Britain has decided as a matter of law that Christians who expressly oppose non-marital sexual activity (I elect that phrasing because I assume that the objection to homosexual activity is essentially the same objection as objection to non-marital heterosexual activity) may not adopt children, teach, be nurses, social workers, registrars etc. etc., then I share your concern, No. 20. I did not glean that from the decision, but I fully agree that that would be an enormous violation of basic human rights. I find it hard to believe that that has happened anywhere, particularly in England, but, as you suggest, perhaps I have not been following the news closely enough.
Apologies for typo in last comment. Reference should have been to No. 29.
#30: There have been a whole slew of such cases, following the introduction of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (2007) by the last government, and heightened gay activism prosecuting Christian B&B owners and foster carers. Google it and you’ll find the details easily enough.
But the facts are that there have only been a handful of cases related to the regulations and only three where gay people have made use of them, all the other cases (and there still have only been a tiny number) have been mounted by Mr Diamond and his friends alleging the regs discriminate against their client’s faith.
This despite threats (from Mr Diamond and his friends) of “a whole slew” of cases from litigious gay people as the regulations were being introduced.
In a country of 62 million one might have expected “a whole slew” it just hasn’t happened.
Readers here will be pleased to know that people of faith enjoy full access to the professions and are amongst the majority of those seeking to be foster parents and adopters.
No. 33 – Thank you. I am much relieved, although your report is what common sense and some knowledge of England would lead me to expect.
#33 Rev Reynolds: “In a country of 62 million one might have expected “a whole slew†it just hasn’t happened”
You might believe that if you are also prepared to believe that all Muamar Gaddafi’s people love him.
What we have seen a series of test cases, which confirm the worst fears of those concerned about the bringing in of these regulations and their misuse. It only takes one or two to establish the precedent.