Gary McFarlane’s barrister Paul Diamond at the employment tribunal today: “There will be a collision between the established faith of this land and judicial decisions which will lead to civil unrest.”
I don’t like the way this legal case is progressing one bit.
First off we’ve had Lord Carey et al demanding that judges who have previously ruled against Christians stand down for this appeal, as they are obviously biased and ignorant on the nuances of our faith.
Now we have the barrister threatening the judges with a potential “collision” and “civil unrest” from the Christian community!?!
Forgive me for going all neo-liberal and self-hating, but what the heck is this really all about?
This will be recorded in legal text books of the future in a chapter entitled:
“How to alienate judges and lose legal cases“.
Perhaps the defendant’s legal eagles are trying to lose this case so that they can use the defeat to reinforce the claim of a collision between the established faith of this land and judicial decisions.
Maybe they are just coming out all guns blazing and this is all necessary legal posturing.
It strikes me that whatever the outcome, in some ways the Christian legal groups can’t lose.
If they win cases then they have a success for their client, on the other hand, if they lose cases, this can be used to affirm the persecution narrative and victim mentality. Either way they get further exposure, more donations and further legal cases.
I don’t know, but none of this sits easy with me.
Feel free to put me right as perhaps I’m in a cynical mindset.
This from the Telegraph:
Mr Diamond supported by Lord Carey submitted an application requesting that a specialist panel of five judges with an understanding of religious issues be set up to hear Mr McFarlane’s case and future cases involving religious rights.
They urged senior judges to stand down from future Court of Appeal hearings because of what they claim are “disturbing” rulings in religious discrimination cases.
Lord Carey, in his written statement, said that recent decisions by the courts were “but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a religious bar to any employment for Christians”.
Christian leaders are particularly concerned by a ruling by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls on behalf of the Court of Appeal. Lillian Ladele, a registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships because they were against her beliefs, was deemed to have broken the law and could no longer work as a registrar.
They claim that the ruling meant that the right to express the Christian faith must take second place to the rights of homosexuals.
Mr Diamond told Mr Justice Laws: “At stake is the reputation of the United Kingdom as a nation that respects religious rights.”
Speaking after the judge reserved his ruling on whether to grant permission, Mr McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, said that Britain had “embarked on a slippery slope to a secular society where there will be no religious freedom”.
UPDATE 1: It would seem that the barristers words were taken from a witness statement provided by Lord Carey himself.
You can read the entire statement here courtesy of Ruth Gledhill.
UPDATE 2: Clayboy has put together a post taking a closer look at Lord Carey’s witness statement. Well worth a read:
Clayboy – One law for us, one for you: the Carey-a Sharia revisited
UPDATE 3:
Update 4: George Pitcher over at the Telegraph has just commented:
Lord Carey and Co. shouldn’t play the secularists’ game in the battle against religious persecution
April 15th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
From the report in the Times, it would appear that the barrister was reading the words of Lord Carey from his witness statement:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7098299.ece
Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, warned today of future “civil unrest” if judges continue with “disturbing” and “dangerous” rulings in religious discrimination cases.
He intervened in a case being brought by a Bristol solicitor and relationship counsellor who wants a special panel of five senior judges to hear his appeal against being sacked for refusing to counsel homosexual couples.
Lord Carey, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002, attacked the courts over a series of “disturbing” judgments and accused judges of being responsible for some “dangerous” reasoning which could, if taken to extremes, lead to Christians being banned from the workplace.
“Recent decisions of the courts have illuminated insensitivity to the interests and needs of the Christian community and represent disturbing judgments,” he said in a witness statement.
Lord Carey said it was “but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a “religious bar” to any employment by Christians.”
Lord Carey, who said he had the support of several other Anglican bishops and other leading churchmen, also attacked recent decisions by the Court of Appeal on the right of Christians to wear crosses in the workplace.
These displayed a “worrying lack of awarness of Christian religious and cultural manifestations, he said.
“This type of ‘reasoning’ is dangerous to the social order and represents clear animus to Christian beliefs. The fact that senior clerics of the Church of England and other faiths feel compelled to intervene directly in judicial decisions and cases is illuminative of a future civil unrest.
“The effect of these decisions is to undermine the religious liberties that have existed in the United Kingdom for centuries. If there is to be a limitation of Christian liberties in Britain, this should be a matter for Parliament.”
His intervention came in an appeal being brought by Gary McFarlane, a member of a Pentecostal church, who says he will have no chance of a fair hearing if his case is conducted by judges who have already made rulings that show “a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs.”
April 15th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Oh dear. What a sad, misguided, and ultimately mutually damaging action.
One can only hope that Mr McFarlane’s legal team is unsuccessful in trying to subvert the Law. The implications arising from the team winning the case are far, far worse.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:52 am
The British state now discriminates against christians, if muslims can have 85 islamic sharia courts then why not have christian adjudication. The reality of diversity is division – enforced multiculturalism the path to conflict.
April 16th, 2010 at 11:05 am
The reality of diversity is division – enforced multiculturalism the path to conflict.
Spot on!.
April 16th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Totally agree Goy. I am more than a little disturbed by the ascension and acceptance of sharia courts in the UK.
April 16th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
I’m sorry but I think you are very wrong.
1. There is simply no evidence of specific legal discrimination against Christians. Christians are, or should be, subject to the law of the land, just as everybody else is. The recent Cherie Blair legal decision which was apparently influenced by religious belief was rightly condemned. A decision which went the other way, influenced specifically by the religion of the plaintiff would also be soundly condemned, although I’m not aware of something equivalent in our recent past.
2. If Sharia courts are given powers which enable them to find against the law of the land, then that is also absolutely wrong. Declaring that if Muslims can benefit from positive discrimination then Christians should as well, is exactly the wrong way round. No religious group should benefit from positive discrimination under the law. This lack of partiality is the bedrock upon which a modern democracy such as ours is based. We tamper with it our peril!
Yes, I do wholly agree that Sharia courts with real independent legal power are not appropriate in the UK, and many people are doing what they can to see that they are not allowed to become so. Asking for special rights for other religious groups just weakens our argument aganst them, and is wholly counter-productive!
3. There has been an element of benign enforced multi-culturalism in the UK for many years. Far from leading to widespread conflict, it has defused potential conflict for all but the most radical and wilfully ignorant. What is the alternative? Is the alternative a more sound basis for a modern liberal democracy? I think not.
April 16th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
@Jim
“it has defused potential conflict”
Enforced multi-culturalism has given the illusion of defusing potential conflict behind a screen of deceit, diversity propaganda and the suppression of debate by the force of race hate laws.
All in all enforced multi-culturalism has been the undoing of the last pretentions of social and political cohesion in the u.k. it is obvious that enforced multi-culturalism can now only ever be sustained by the continued use of force by the state.
It is a political fact that that the mass social engineering that has made the u.k. multicultural was achieved by circumventing the will of the indigenous peoples a sure fire recipe for future conflict.
April 17th, 2010 at 8:42 am
What a load of dangerous rubbish!
I assume you are fundamentally against the concept of enforced multi-culturalism Goy, wherever it is praciced. The corollary from that is that you must also approve of the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries.
Or is it that you are just against multi-culturalism when it forces you to accept others in your community who do not share your views?
April 17th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Wow Jim you have been conditioned to the point that you fall through the spaces of my words and can only read into them standard charge of racism. You state that I should be forced to accept the theo-political whim that is that of an enforced multi-cultural community, which has and I opinion will lead to further bloodshed.
Tell me this those countries such as Egypt that are persecuting Christians what were they before they were “Muslim countries”.
Yours is the racism as you fail to recognize that a Muslim immigrant may have the appetite and fight to live in a community subjected to Sharia law while at the same time having an aversion to the rights of others within those communities. Do you practice a form of Christianity that is exempt from dhimmitude and the Jizya tax.
Enforced multi-culturalism is the establishment of Sharia law subjugated ghettos in the U.K. and the launchpad for the islamization of the U.K.
You play with fire but your brain has not yet registered the pain.
April 17th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
If I fall into the spaces between your words Goy perhaps it is because although we share a common language, we interpret the words so differently. It would however be hard not to interpret some of your statements as racist.
Maybe in another respect we misunderstand each other. You may recall that I am an Atheist Humanist:
- Your fear appears to be that if we allow multi-culturalism, then Islam will take over from Christianity in the UK.
- My fear is that 50 years from now we will still be where we are now, with religions battling it out with each other for hegemony; when what we really need is the reduction of the influence of all religions in secular affairs.
I see mutli-culturalism as a way of making people think more for themselves, rather than just accepting the religion into which they were born. I believe that many will choose “none of the above” and embrace another way, such as Humanism. Multi-culturalism is about the acknowledgement of difference. It is not about allowing one type of religion to replace another. I do not want to see Sharia law imposed in this country any more than you do. We just have different ways of tackling the issue. I believe that mine will be more effective and cause less bloodshed. You are of course entitled to think otherwise.
I have no desire to see the end of religion. Human nature is such that many of us will always need religion. What I do desire, is the removal of any religious bias and partiality from the governance of the Country, be it for Christians, Muslims or people of any other religion.
April 17th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
@Jim,
I think your position is the lowest of the low, you are willing to prosecute a person with the charge of racism for exposing the REAL political agenda and motivations behind enforced multi-culturism, diversity and equality.
You are wrong in all the counts in your arguments, you are dangerously wrong what you are in fact arguing for is the oneness of totalitarianism. You are even willing to accept bloodshed to bring about this false utopia to the U.K.
You are even wrong in your thinking that I argue against your totalitarianism exclusively from a Christian perspective I challenge your tyranny on all levels.
I just hope others on this site read your comment and understand the real motivator behind the politics of enforced multi-culturism, diversity and equality and work to destroy this evil.
April 17th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
@ Goy: If you really think Jim’s position is “the lowest of the low” then you seriously need to get out more.
If you aren’t bonkers, you’re doing a very good imitation. You can virtually see the foam flying from your rhetoric!
April 17th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
The big problem, of course, is that if you do have Christian judges making Christian rulings then precisely which Christian values should they implement?
As the piece in the Guardian said: “it’s not just any old religious judges that Carey would want, but only those who share his particular view. Consider (he clearly hasn’t) where this would lead. Would a liberal Christian judge who believes that gays have equal rights be acceptable to him? In the case of conservative evangelicals – as so many of the current complainants are – would a woman judge be permissible? After all, they tend to believe that women cannot be allowed in headship of any organisation, including presumably a court room. What about a Christian who honestly believes that Jews are Christ-killers: could he refuse a Jewish judge (it’s worth noting that the Master of the Rolls, to whom Lord Carey objects, is Lord Neuberger)? What about a fundamentalist who believes that the Bible ordains slavery, as some still even now, do? Could they refuse a black judge? Or a Muslim judge? What about a divorced judge? The Bible’s pretty hot against divorce, so you might not want one hearing a matrimonial case. You just can’t pick’n'mix like this. Judges have to administer the law fairly, otherwise it’s anarchy – even civil unrest, as Carey so recklessly anticipates.”
Absolutely spot on. There is enormous diversity in Christians opinion. More than diversity – there are whacking great rifts – and this is very obvious here on this forum. We see it every day in a whole range of echurch debates: homosexuality, the role of women, Creationism, literalism – there is no fixed set of Christian beliefs on these issues. Debates rages on these – and many other issues. We can’t insist that the courts accept that all Christians disapprove of homosexuality when in America there are gay bishops! There are Christians who are pro and anti-abortion and then there are also those who oppose any form of contraception – right across the range, you’ll find a Christian group.
There seems to be stress on creating a Christian identity, an agreed Christian conscience. But Guy McFarlane isn’t all Christians. Many would disagree with his position. And what bothers me particularly is the desire I see to act as if there is consensus when there clearly isn’t.
April 17th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
This is not about Guy McFarlane’s employment prospects anyone who thinks that is bonkers this is the politics of enforced multi-culturism, diversity and equality. The objective is the criminalization of christian conscience by branding a person homophobic.
All the legal jargon and self-righteousness comments in the world will not make the subverting of this man and his conscience proper. Anyone that does not conform to the tyranny of oneness will be outlawed Guy McFarlane is living proof of that agenda.
@Sophie, Surrey,
You speak the language of frogs.
April 17th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
@ Goy: If I speak the language of frogs, then your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries….
Is this the first cuckoo of Spring I hear?
April 17th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
@Sophie, Surrey,
How did you know that my mother was a hamster, you are a wee red smarty.
April 18th, 2010 at 8:06 am
@ Goy. Your response is barely coherent. I will try to deduce what you mean to say. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted anything.
In this wonderful liberal democracy in which we live, you will not get locked up for holding the views you express, even though your views may cause many good people hurt and offence. Totalitarianism this is not, nor thankfully is there no immediate prospect of this country becoming so. There are too many largely sane and rational people like me to allow that to happen.
Far from seeking to create a totalitarian state, I wish to preserve one where humans treat all their fellow humans with respect, and substitute religiously inspired intolerance and hatred with tolerance and compassion for our fellow human beings, whatever their colour, creed or sexual orientation.
I think it’s interesting that both you and Lord Carey threaten civil unrest if things do not go the way you desire. And just who is it who will be carrying out this civil unrest? People like you? Who else would want to? In what way is this good for the liberal democracy on which this country is proudly based?
And how will that help to stop Islamicists from taking up the fight?
It is your attitude which is the greater threat to the stability of this country, not mine. I have personal experience of blood shed in the wholly misplaced name of religion. It is not a pretty sight, and not one I want to witness again.
Tolerance is my watchword, not tyranny.
April 18th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Just spotted a typo above. Apologies. In the second paragraph the phrase should read “…nor thankfully is there any immediate prospect…”
April 18th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
@Jim,
My friend first you accuse the person of being racist when that fails you imply mental health issues this has become the standard branding when the real political agenda of the multi cult is exposed.
Not only can a persons life and career be wrecked on grounds of conscience or for expressing an opinion but the fact is in this “wonderful liberal democracy” the person can also face criminal penalty behind bars.
[MP Philip Hollobone was referred to police over 'paper bag' burka comments]
Your agenda is driven by a contempt for christianity and the falsehood that the cause of all human wars and conflicts are because of christianity a closer look at the causes of those configurations will reveal to you that this is not the case and in the majority the christian influence has acted as a brake. If slaughter has a face in the numbers game then that face is not that of christianity, try atheism, islam and neo paganism.
Where is the mutual respect when the state legislature works on the presumption that a majority of the citizens are racist, homophobic or hold other assorted dangerous thoughts in their head and need to be outlawed.
The word respect has taken on a sinister meaning in the modern U.K. political lexicon it has become a demand for submission both to the secular state and islam – a strange alliance you may think but the athiest and muslim share a common objective the destruction of christianity.
I do not threaten civil unrest I warn of civil unrest AGAIN you turn my words and try to attach the label of extremist.
Your watchword of tolerance has manifested itself into tolerance of the intolerant.
April 18th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
@ Goy: Let’s not beat about the bush. Jim isn’t accusing you of having “mental health issues.” What he said was that “Your response is barely coherent” which was a reasonable observation.
It was me who said “If you aren’t bonkers, you’re doing a very good imitation.” You seem obsessional and irrational. Your arguments are bizarre: they jump from irrelevancy to irrelevancy, and you attribute beliefs to Jim that he hasn’t expressed.
It’s ironic: your lack of respect for women and loathing of homosexuals are both attitudes I associate more with Muslims than with Christians.
@ Jim: I wonder if you noticed what I think is a very important point: that Gary MacFarlane was happy to provide relationship counselling for gay couples. It was only sex therapy he refused to provide. This appears wholly inconsistent and I’d love to hear how he explains how his faith allows him to deal with one and not the other. I will be very interested to see how this issue is dealt with in court.
April 18th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Having pondered the issue, it surprises me that a sex therapist can’t simply opt out of treating any couple if the trio are not “in tune”. I don’t imagine it’s common but there must be situations where a couple’s sexual preferences or the relationship dynamic is out of the therapist’s comfort zone or actively distasteful. And it would seem to me reasonable to simply pass them to a different therapist.
The idea that not all therapists are suitable for all patients is accepted among therapists. Matching patient to therapist is part of the process. I suppose Relate is so stretched for staff they haven’t the luxury of offering a range of therapists. But it seems strange to me that he wasn’t able simply to pass patients he felt ill-equipped to help to a colleague.
April 18th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
@Sophie, Surrey,
Absoulute slander where in the comments on this post did I direspect woman and express a loathing towards homosexuals.
Looking at yours and Jim’s comments and the fact that Jim is a self-confessed atheist humanist it is clear that the aim is to troll and spoil with the purpose of reinforcing a deep held displacement.
April 19th, 2010 at 12:07 am
@ Goy. No. You are wrong. It’s sad that you appear to be unable to grasp the fact that I have no desire to destroy Christianity, and that I am trying to learn more about religion so that I can be more tolerant of all shades of opinion. You also appear to have a very simplistic fixed idea of what an Atheist is. I’m not sure what Trolling is, but if it’s making a nuisance of oneself on a website then that could not be further from the truth.
April 19th, 2010 at 12:10 am
@ Goy. No. You are wrong. It’s sad that you appear to be unable to grasp the fact that I have no desire to destroy Christianity, and that I am trying to learn more about religion, so that I can be more tolerant of all shades of opinion.
You also appear to have a very simplistic fixed idea of what an Atheist is. I’m not sure what Trolling is, but if it’s making a nuisance of oneself on a website then that could not be further from the truth in my case.
April 19th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
@ Goy: You post repeatedly on this and other debates about the “criminalization of christian conscience”
What is this dreadful affront? Is this brave Christian standing alone for his faith against massacre or slavery? No. There’s nothing noble about Gary McFarlane’s stand. He wants to discriminate against gays and is applying a perverted version of Christian teaching to try to justify it. Given that he’s a solicitor as well as a therapist, it seems likely he’s doing so with a particular agenda.
The law of the land is very simple. The right to express any faith must take second place to equal rights of every individual. If Gary McFarlane refused to treat black people or Jews it would be the same principle. Both you and he are as prejudiced and wrong as the Klu Klux Klan at prayer.
Discrimination is wrong and using faith to defend it is worse. The fact that you bang on about the rights Christians should have to treat this group unfairly makes it very clear where your values lie. Your cries about Christian conscience seem inextricable from your belief that treating homosexuals as inferior is justifiable.
Well, it isn’t, and far from the courts not representing our Christian heritage it is the fundamental Christian value that we are all of equal value that is represented by the legislation Guy McFarlane is trying to flout.
So yes, I think your position on homosexuality is perfectly apparent, and your lack of respect for women is obvious in every debate in which you engage. I find your sexism impossible to ignore and I can’t imagine I’m the only person who’s noticed it.
April 19th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
@Sophie, Surrey
Sophie, if I was in the mood I would rip your arguments to the point that it would embaress you and I really do not want to spend the rest of the day feeling bad about doing that.
Yet again you indulge in the old communist trick of branding and criminalizing opponents when you have lost the debate. Where in the comments on this site did I even mention the word woman.
April 19th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
@ Goy: When we enter into dialogue on the Net, there’s often no way to be sure people are the sex they claim. I could be a six foot SAS officer for all the other participants on this forum know.
I am genuinely female, but can think of occasions on which it might be amusing to adopt two online personas – one male, one female – just to observe how others react. I’m not suggesting I’ve done this here, but it’s crossed my mind.
Most of us treat the opposite sex slightly differently from our own. This is often nothing more than a pleasant display of social skills, but not always. No, not always.
Just as black people sometimes have to point out the almost unconscious racism they encounter daily, so do women register misogyny when it comes their way.
I don’t expect you even notice you’re doing it, but you interact completely differently depending on the perceived sex of the poster. You debate with men. You attempt to patronise women. Your posts to women are brief and insulting. If you go back over a few recent debates you might recognise a pattern. I certainly have.
Posting: “Sophie, if I was in the mood I would rip your arguments to the point that it would embaress you and I really do not want to spend the rest of the day feeling bad about doing that.”
Exactly demonstrates my point.
April 20th, 2010 at 6:09 am
Sophie, Surrey,
Irrelevant if it is Sophie or Jim in my book it is your politics that are dangerous and totalitarian in nature. By your own admission you are willing to practise deception to further your political agenda.
The deception of multi-culturism, diversity and equality that is pontificated by the neoliberal totalitarians under the false flag of the democrat or christian is over the British people are waking up to the fact that the new fascists are the anti-fascists of the multi cult.
As I said previously you indulge in the old communist trick of branding and criminalizing opponents. Do you really believe you can bring about a man made utopia by outlawing everyone – genocide by identity theft.
“unconscious racism” LOL
The charge of subconscious racism demonstrates the desperation of the multi cult’s, an absurdity beyond a thought crime into a political psychosis of paranoia.
April 20th, 2010 at 7:12 am
@ Goy.
I do not share Sophie’s religious belief, but I think we both share a desire for equal justice for all under the law, and I believe fairness and tolerance is very important to both of us.
You come across as someone who does not share these views. You may not use certain words directly, but you do use language in a way which clearly appears to betray disturbing underlying traits.
You say that Sophie has lost the debate. There is no debate Goy. You try to shut down debate each time you respond. If people don’t agree with you, your reaction is not to listen, but to metaphorically shout louder. You make wild accusations about others without a shred of evidence. You accuse people of branding you and yet you invariably brand others freely, and without justification.
I don’t think we are likely to see eye to eye on many subjects, but can’t we at least have a civilised debate? I am genuinely here to learn and to understand; and I would also like to try to persuade people against extremism in any form. I try to be sensitive to people’s beliefs, and to respect them. Sometimes people make this very difficult to achieve.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:01 am
@ Goy: Jim asks “can’t we at least have a civilised debate?” and it seems to me that no, we can’t. You don’t want one and it’s obviously a waste of energy. Jim’s an atheist, I’m not, but I agree with him on everything else. You do not come across as someone for whom fairness and tolerance are central.
Jim’s courtesy and patience are impressive. I think any Christian following this debate would have to agree there’s more Christianity in action in Jim’s posts than either yours or mine. He’s sincere, thoughful, polite.
I’m not as patient as him or as humble. By their fruits, as they say, and no one reading your words would get the message that our faith is based entirely on love.
I’ll finish with a joke. It’s just one-liner but I wish you’d give it a bit of thought:
“If you can’t be a good example, at least try not to be a dreadful warning.”
April 20th, 2010 at 10:06 am
@ Goy: N.B. please Google “neoliberal.” It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
This from CCFON:
April 30th, 2010 at 10:16 am
@ Webmaster: I am particularly struck by this paragraph:
…it is deeply disturbing that Lord Justice Laws appears to place Mr McFarlane’s view on sex and marriage into the ‘subjective’ category as opposed to the ‘meritorious’ category. Hence it was held that the religious belief in question—namely that marriage as between one man and woman for life is the only proper place for sexual expression—could not be protected, because it is a belief held only on subjective basis with no objective merit to it.
This ignores two important points. First, and most obviously, that there is no suggestion Gary McFarlane had issues about working with unmarried or adulterous couples, despite what the CCFON says about marriage and Christian beliefs.
Relate was originally called the Marriage Guidance Council. The name was changed to reflect the fact that marital status was no longer considered relevant in its work. Yet Mr McFarlane took the job knowing much of his work would be with unmarried couples. These beliefs of his are far from consistent…
The second point is the claim that “It is deeply disturbing… that the religious belief in question—namely that marriage as between one man and woman for life is the only proper place for sexual expression—could not be protected, because it is a belief held only on subjective basis with no objective merit to it.”
I don’t think many people would argue that marriage has no objective merit. It would fly in the face of the evidence. The ideal of a lifelong marriage is partly objective, partly subjective.
However it’s also true that most people no longer believe that marriage is the only acceptable setting for sex. Many Christian couples live together before marriage and the Christian divorce rate is higher than that of atheists. Modern insights into sexual orientation make us aware that being gay isn’t a choice, it’s a given and encouraging gay people into heterosexual marriage is a recipe for misery.
CCFON is disingenuous in pretending there is a universal Christian position on homosexuality or sex outside marriage. Christians are far from homogenous in their attitudes. Homosexuality may be a key issue for Evangelicals but we are no means all Evangelicals. Half of us disgree with the statement that homosexuality is always wrong. The existence of gay bishops, gay Christian groups, etc. demonstrates the range of belief among the faithful.
Seems Mr McFarlane wanted allowances made for Christian beliefs that half of his fellow Christians do not share. And there’s more to it than that. Christians who don’t have a problem with gay couples consider the hateful contemptuous tone of some Christians towards homosexuality an evil in itself.
There is another perspective on this issue: that striving for equality under the law is God’s work. From this viewpoint, Mr McFarlane is no better than those who refuse jobs on the grounds of colour.
When I hear of someone refusing to deal with gay couples on the grounds of their Christianity, my immediate reaction is to establish how they treat unmarried or adulterous straight couples. If it’s only gay couples that are the problem then it’s not a religious issue. It’s dislike, pure and simple.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:22 am
@Sophie – You are spot in questioning the validity of someone who will not counsel the gay community, but will happily counsel non-married heterosexual couples.
This is hypocrytical and proves that in some minds there is “degrees” of sin? Some’s OK, some’s not.
It all strikes me as very arbitary.
April 30th, 2010 at 11:45 am
“The reality of diversity is division – enforced multiculturalism the path to conflict.”
.
I disagree with that. After Columbus sailed to America and Luther started the reformation, Christians burned each other for having the wrong faith.
A few centuries ago Christians hung homosexuals for being what they are.
When we have a strong nation that protects minorities against the majority we have peace. But minorities need no protection against the majority. The vast majority of people are humans. And as humans, they just want peace. Minorities need protection against ‘the moral majority’, which is in reality a small minority. ‘Moral majority people’ can not cope with people being different. We have this in common with Chimpanzees. Chimps become really angry when confronted with something new. Humans have a choice. We can accept that anger takes over and exercise our ape-genes and become more like an ape. Or we can control ourselves and grant other people the freedom to be different. If we control ourselves, we become more human.
The problem is not multiculturalism. The problem is egoism. The notion that I am more than you. And that my faith is better than yours. And that my farts smell good and yours stink. If we reason like this, our faith is not more than our farts. Our farts are a by-product of bacteria in our bowels, and the believe-system of ignorant people is a by-product of the chemistry of our brain. If faith is a ‘brain-fart’, then the law should not put to much value on it.
There is a huge difference between a person that just believes something and a person who examines his/her own believe system. It could be, that this is the real distinction between humans and animals.
Not long ago, people believed, that Chimpanzees and other apes were very different from humans. This believe has changed. Apes have self-awareness, have empathy, have morals, culture, knowledge how to handle and make tools and even a system of education. But do they know that they know? Or is this a higher level of abstraction, that creates the distinction between humans and animals?
How many humans know that they know? If we examine this question in the field of religion: How many people question their own faith, their own culture, their own paradigms? If you re-evaluate your believes and ‘knowledge’, you start to humanize: you become more human and less animal. And you end-up with an extreme form of multiculturalism. Each and every person who examines his/her own upbringing and view of the world developes his/her own culture. And one learns to respect the views and believes and culture of other people.
If we want peace, we should enforce multiculturalism upon ourselves. War is the result of clinging to ones own culture, nation or tribe with disrespect to everything else. People who oppose multiculturalism are in fact clinging to their tribal-mentality. Do we want to be like Hutus and Tutsis? In Belgium this could mean genocide between Flemings and Walloons. In other European countries it could mean genocide between Atheists, Christians and Muslims. Do we really want to regrade to an attitude of the 16th century? Or do we choose to evolve to real human beings, each with his/her own culture, faith, sexual identity, etc.?