eChurch Blog

This from Pink News:

A new law criminalising stirring up homophobic hatred comes into effect today.

The law, which covers England and Wales, will punish offenders with up to seven years in jail or a fine. It brings protections for gay people in line with laws against racial and religious hatred.

Stonewall claimed that a new offence was necessary after it discovered a range of “extreme” websites with anti-gay material. Homophobic song lyrics could also be covered by the law.

[.....]

It is unlikely the new law will be used frequently. Similar laws against inciting racial hatred have only been used around 20 times in the 30 years since they came into force.

Read All

And this from Cranmer:

The Torah says:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (Lev 18:22).

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Lev 20:13).

The New Testament says:

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9f).

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another (Rom 1:24).

The Qur’an says:

Lut: he said to his people: “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? “For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds” (7:80-81).

Of all the creatures in the world will ye approach males. And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay ye are a people transgressing all limits!” (26:165-166)

Please note, this is not a post about the theological divergences between Hasidic/Orthodox/Haredi/Masorti and Reform/Reconstructionist Judiasm; or between Orthodox/Protestant/Roman Catholic and Liberal Christianity, or between Sunni/Shi’a and Sufi Islam. And Cranmer is fully aware of the hermeneutic complexities, exegetical difficulties and socio-theo-political debates over the Sitz im Leben of all of these passages. Sexual ethics is not the point.

We are concerned here with the religious conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the perception of ‘hatred’.

Whatever one’s interpretation of the above scriptures, as of today it would be a bold preacher who so much as jokes about homosexuality.

Today is the appointed time by our wonderful Government for Section 74 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to come into force. It creates the new offence of intentionally stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

What is ‘hatred’?

OED: ‘intense dislike’.

It is not a matter of inciting violence or grievous bodily harm: there are already laws against that.

So it is now a crime to ‘intensely dislike’ homosexuality.

Or to ‘intensely dislike’ homosexuals.

Because the two are so easily confused in the mind of the victim (if not the perpetrator) that the mildest disapproval of the behaviour might be mistaken (or purposely distorted or misinterpreted) as vehement disapprobation to the extent that it becomes an irrational attack upon the person.

It is true that the Lords won an important ‘freedom of speech’ amendment, but it will exist only on paper. In practice, the culture will shift towards an auto-self-censorship: people will be so afraid of transgressing the law (or, worse still, of merely being accused of transgressing the law) that the jokes will subside, humour will diminish, drama will avoid the subject and real life will consequently be impoverished. Debates on sexuality will become taboo, not because of a statutory prohibition but because of an impediment to negativity, questioning, accusation and allegation.

Continue Reading

Further Internet Link:

Christian Institute – ‘Homophobic hatred’ law comes into force today

Nope, I didn’t really understand the title either, however, I found this to be an insightful read from Roger Pearce, which holds a timely reminder for our generation:

Roger Pearce

A. Delatte begins his article of the above title with the following words:

Never did anyone prophesy so much, in the special form known as prophecy post eventum, as in the first centuries of Christianity.  The rapid conquest of souls by the new ideal and the solid establishment of the Christian churches showed the hand of God, and this transfiguration of the face of the world so stirred some spirits that in order to explain it they felt obliged to fall back on the idea of a preparation stage for the gospel.  Similarly some were unable to believe that the brightest and most inspired of the pagans did not have some presentiment or secret revelation of the mystery of the Redemption.

In order to satisfy this longing of faith, some people who were well-intentioned but too little scrupulous of their choice of methods composed new Sybilline oracles, and placed in circulation prophecies that had previously come, so they said, from the sanctuaries of Apollo, announcing the coming of the messiah.  They also began to search the books and the biographies of the philosophers for features and doctrines that could easily be misinterpreted as disguised evidence of foreknowledge of the great event.

Did they find them?  Some apostles of dissident Christian groups, those whose followers were of limited education and unable to detect the fraud, did not hesitate to resort to the falsification of ancient literary works to nourish the faith of their followers.  It might seem, moreover, that this was an excellent means of propaganda among those lingering in paganism, who were not fleeing the embrace of Christianity so much as clinging to the debris of the too mystical teachings of the magi, astrologers, and the theurgists, and were therefore ill-equipped to detect imposters.

Perhaps for Christianity to become universal, it had to appeal to the irrational element in every society, as well as the rational and devout; to the people who waste their time on New Age frauds in our day, as well as to the university-educated who make up most evangelicals in our day.  The thought is an interesting one, and the parallel also.  But let us return to Delatte, who is not so far footnoting these comments, unfortunately.

But in putting Christianity back among paganism, in making Orpheus, Pindar, Plato, Hermes Trismegistus and many others be Christians before the fact, the Orthodox faith was at great risk of diminishing itself, or even being contaminated.  The church was cautious; some of these theologians  to the troubled soul learned this to their cost.

A certain Aristocritus (5th century) used all the resources of an uncertain science and the powers of a too supple spirit of conciliation to compose a book entitled Theosophy.  He wanted to show that the most eminent souls among the Hebrews and the Greeks had, by the grace of God, the divination of the mysteries and prior knowledge of certain Christian doctrines, but in the opinion of orthodox theologians he only succeeded in demonstrating the identity of the doctrines of Judaism, Hellenism and Christianity, which was a hopeless error.  This system of accomodation which resembles the methods practised by the Stoics in handling previous philosophies was not to the liking of the strong-minded and clear-minded.  As a result the book of Aristocritus features among the works tainted with the Manichaen heresy which are anathematised in an ancient formula used for renouncing Manichaeism.

Accomodation is indeed the chronic hazard of the apologist; to be coloured by the views of those you oppose, to insensibly move to resist certain views and unknowingly accept others equally fatal to your position.

Delatte then goes on to review the scattered remains of Greek texts which preserve supposed extracts from philosophers predicting the coming of Christ.  I won’t repeat all this here, in what is already too long a post.  But these texts deserve to be gathered and made more readily available.

A thoroughly fascinating piece in the New Humanist looking at birth rates for the [fundamentalist] “religious” as opposed to the “secularist”.

For some background reading do have a quick gander at these relevant posts:

eChurch – Families with more than 10 children are becoming the norm among a group of traditionalist US Christians. The so-called Quiverfull families believe they are carrying out God’s work, and providing a new generation of moral leaders.

eChurch – Europeans too selfish to have children says Chief Rabbi – Lord Sacks said European society’s focus on consumerism and instant gratification had left little room for the sacrifice involved in parenthood.

eChurch – A nightmare for Richard Dawkins: statistics show that atheists are a dying breed

This also ties in nicely to a post earlier today on China:

eChurch – The Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs – Back to the Future: Pre-modern Religious Policy in Post-Secular China

Battle of the Babies – By Caspar Melville

Whenever demography is the subject a panicky headline usually follows. Generally these take the form of anxieties about overpopulation. “Are there just too many people in the world?” asks Johann Hari in the Independent. “The World’s population is still exploding,” confirms the Optimum Population Trust (patron David Attenborough). Though equally they could be about the opposite. “Is Europe Dying?” queries Catholic apologist George Weigel (before answering his own question: “The brute fact is that Europe is depopulating itself”). “Falling birth rate is killing Europe says Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks” is the Guardian’s offering. To these hysterical headlines let’s add another, especially for you secular folk: with birth rates of seven babies per women fundamentalists will take over the world. And here is the kicker: it’s all secularism’s fault.

This grim prognostication comes courtesy of political scientist Eric Kaufmann, a reader in politics at London’s Birkbeck College, and the author of the new book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, out in March from Profile Books. If, like me, you skip the six dense chapters of politico-demographic analysis, in the very last line of the book you can find his answer: “The religious shall inherit the earth.” There is, of course, an “unless” and we’ll get to that later, but let’s just let the idea sink in first.

What Kaufmann is arguing is that the secularisation thesis, the assumption that modernity leads inexorably to a lessening of religious belief and a day when we are all rational humanists, is wrong – at one point Kaufmann approvingly quotes Rodney Stark and Roger Finke’s view that this is “a failed prophecy”. Further he is saying that there is something about our current form of liberal secularism that contains (here’s another headline) the seeds of its own destruction. Since the birth rate of individualistic secular people the world over is way below replacement level (2.1 in the West), and the birth rate of religious fundamentalists is way above (between 5 and 7.5 depending on sect), then through the sheer force of demography religious fundamentalism is going to become a much bigger force in the world and gain considerable political muscle. Literalist religious conservatism is being reborn and we secular liberals are the midwives.

Continue Reading

Woah, I just came across some US research analysing how to deal with atheists in the courtroom:

Science + Religion Today

Pink News:

Paul Shaw, 62, of Duffield Drive, Colchester, was arrested on February 19th outside the town’s Debenhams store after complaints about his behaviour.

The Colchester Gazette reports that he appeared at Colchester magistrates’ court charged with using threatening words or behaviour, which he denied.

District judge David Cooper told him: “You said you were spreading God’s word and when interviewed you said children needed to be protected and basically, homosexuals and lesbians should repent and ask for God’s forgiveness.”

[.....]

The case was dismissed as the prosecution could offer no written evidence from complainants and Mr Shaw argued his right to free speech.

Mr Cooper warned him that further complaints could land him back in court and said: “There are other sorts of ‘sins’. Do you think you could concentrate on those for a bit?”

Read All

I have just been informed that BNP Leader Nick Griffin will debate live with black, British born pastor, Revd. George Hargreaves, leader of the Christian Party, on Revelation TV this evening from 9 – 10.30pm (March 22).

George Hargreaves has recently become the political poster boy of Christian Concern for our Nation, and I confess to not knowing an awful lot about him. I have posted on his comments in the telegraph once here.

Christian concern for our Nation sent out an email last week which stated:

George Hargreaves for Parliament

CCFON has worked with George Hargreaves, leader of the Christian Party for years. He has been involved in every major Christian interest campaign in the last decade. We would like George Hargreaves to gain a seat in Parliament. Many people, including Christians, will say that it is impossible, but we believe it is possible, even probable, with your prayers and help.

The Christian Party seeks to proclaim Christ’s Lordship in Parliament. Please support its campaign and watch this video to find out more.

I deduce that this caused some negative feedback, as another email from CCFON stated:

Dear Supporters,

I have had a mixed reaction to yesterday’s email. Many have spoken in support of George Hargreaves and the Christian Party, others have raised concerns. I would like to try and clarify the situation.

I would love to see George Hargreaves in Parliament. He is contending for the Barking seat against Nick Griffin of the BNP and it would be wonderful if George were elected.

In no way does an endorsement of George Hargreaves mean we do not support Christians in other political parties. We hope that our support for other Christians in public life has been abundantly clear over the years.

This is not an ‘either/or’ situation where we support either George Hargreaves or mainstream parties.  It is a ‘both/and’ situation. We support both George Hargreaves and other Christians in other parties. We are working hard to ensure as many Christians as possible will be elected to Parliament from every party. The Country needs this more than ever.

Please let us know if there is a candidate in your constituency who supports Christian values and we will seek to support them.

Andrea Williams

Anyway, this guy will be debating Nick Griffin on TV and they will both respond to the following motion:

“This house believes that the election of any BNP MP or leader of a Local Authority will be detrimental to Black and ethnic minority Christians in particular and the wider church in general in Britain.”

All from a secret location, ooh.

Interestingly the website; “There is nothing British about the BNP” have today posted an article entitled:

Labour minister Ian Austin calls for a sophisticated approach to tackle the BNP

I commented on their website, as I do on this blog so often, that it’s not just political ministers who need a sophisticated approach to tackling the BNP, but Christian ministers also.

I won’t bore regular readers and repeat myself, but refer you to the following links if you’re interested:

eChurch – Why there’s Nothing British about the BNP’s (British National Party) “Christian values”

eChurch – It is entirely sensible that ministers have ruled out a ban on teachers being members of the BNP

Here is some blurb for you from the debate organisers:

Churches across the UK have been advised of the debate and asked to urge members to tune in to listen, especially where we know BNP are putting up Parliamentary Candidates or running in local elections.

“We hope this debate, which will be recorded and available for use in churches and by community groups, will ensure that voters in the country concerned about the erosion of our national identity, particularly as a Christian nation might see that the BNP are not the answer but the Christian party is.”

Well then, let us dearly hope that George Hargreaves is sophisticated enough to tackle Nick Griffin!

Did you know that the Vatican is on Twitter?

@news_va_en

I’m assuming this is “official” as I read it on a Catholic Blog.

Also did you know that there is a website dedicated to the Pope’s visit in September?

The Papal Visit

Well if you didn’t, you do now.

Don’t “officially recognise” any sub group – religious or otherwise – and don’t hand public money to any such groups, and hey presto, problem solved. Then we won’t get a repetition of these problems, as in this recent case:

The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) received £90,000 in grant aid in the last two years while the Christian Police Association (CPA) received just £15,000 in the last five years.

The Sun:

Christian Cop’s ‘are snubbed’

AN ORGANISATION representing Christian cops has been denied official recognition – while a nationwide Scottish Muslim Police Association was launched with a political fanfare and £10,000 of taxpayers’ cash just days ago.

Scotland’s 127-year-old Christian Police Association say they feel they’re treated as “second-class citizens”.

The CPA is run on a shoestring budget and has been consistently refused recognition by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) on the grounds it would be “inappropriate”.

Harry Pearson, branch leader of the Strathclyde CPA, described the situation as “unfair”.

He will write to both ACPOS and Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill to demand the same recognition.

Continue Reading

Just came across a fantastic lecture from Social Scientist Richard Madsen analysing religious policy in China:

The secularization thesis is a pillar of modern social theory. There are different versions of this thesis, but all hold that religion will fade away and/or become irrelevant to public life in the modern world. In some countries, secularization is not only the basis of a descriptive theory but of normative policy. Chinese government policy toward religion is explicitly based on both the descriptive and normative aspects of the secularization thesis.

But many social scientists are now saying that the secularization thesis is wrong and that we need a post-secularist social theory to account for the empirically obvious facts of the early twenty-first century. Religious belief and practice have not faded away, and in many parts of the world they are playing a more obvious role in public life than in the past century. Religion, moreover, is dynamically evolving, taking on new forms as well as reviving old forms, and becoming intertwined with the modern bureaucratic state and the market economy in new ways. This leads to a crisis in modern social theory but also to crises in modern political practice.

In this article, I discuss how this crisis manifests itself in Chinese politics.

[.....]

Unlike liberal democratic governments, which for the most part purport to be neutral towards religion, making religion a private matter beyond the reach of the state, the Chinese government has an active policy toward religion. The policy is carried out by the State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA) and the Communist Party’s United Front Department. But the policy is, on its own terms, a complete failure, which, will not be overcome as long as it continues to be guided by secularization theory. There are signs, indeed, that the Chinese government is recognizing this failure and is seeking a “post-secular” theoretical foundation for its policies toward religion.

[.....]

After being harshly suppressed during the Cultural Revolution era (1966-76), religious activity of all sorts has become increasingly visible in Chinese society. According to official statistics there are about 100 million religious believers in China.

[.....]

According to a well-connected scholar interviewed during my recent fieldwork, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is itself concerned that all of these numbers may be too low and they are now commissioning large research projects aimed at getting more accurate statistics.

Read All

Go on, hop over and read it. It makes for a great morning read.

This lecture also ties in nicely with a post from last week:

Read this very brief article in the China Daily (China’s official English language newspaper). It’s the testimony of a university student who converted to Christianity.

This one caught my eye in the news and I predict this latest “episode” may have the potential to become the new battlefront and rallying point, for both sides of the divide.

First I read the BBC report:-

A gay couple were turned away from a Berkshire guest house by the owner who said it was “against her convictions” for two men to share a bed.

Michael Black and John Morgan, from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, had booked a double room at the Swiss B&B, Terry’s Lane, in Cookham, for Friday night.

When they arrived Susanne Wilkinson refused to let them stay.

She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples.

The couple have now reported the matter to Thames Valley Police.

Under the Equality Act 2006 it is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Ms Wilkinson told the BBC: “They gave me no prior warning and I couldn’t offer them another room as I was fully booked.

“I don’t see why I should change my mind and my beliefs I’ve held for years just because the government should force it on me.

“I am not a hotel, I am a guest house and this is a private house.”

Mr Black and Mr Morgan were in the village, near Maidenhead, to meet some friends for dinner and to see a local play.

Mr Black told the BBC: “We’re two respectable middle-aged men – John is leader of the Lib Dem group on Huntingdon Town Council.

Continue Reading

I must admit I breathed a heavy sigh of relief when I noted an absence of the word “Christian” in this BBC report, however, my relief was short lived:

Guardian:

[....]

Mrs Wilkinson said: “I don’t see why I should change my mind and my beliefs I’ve held for years just because the government should force it on me.

“The property is not a hotel. It operates as a guest house and private home.”

Mr Wilkinson disputed the couple’s claim that they had not been given a friendly welcome.

“We are Christians and we believe our rights don’t have to be subordinated. We have religious freedom and we are not judging that but we are not prepared to have that sort of activity under our roof,” he said. “These people are very organised and we have already been inundated with abusive calls and emails. It is really sad that people act like that.”

A Thames Valley police spokeswoman said she could not comment on the particular case, but added that similar complaints would normally tend to be dealt with as civil matters.

Read All

Get your tin hats on folks, cos here we go again. I wonder which Christian legal group will be first out of the blocks.