Our Church Under Fire – On watch for ‘idiotic’ attacks on Christianity.
I rarely read my local newspaper, but boy am I glad that I noticed the front page headline this week, warning me of a wave of impending doom.
Here’s the headline:
‘OUR CHURCH UNDER FIRE’ – Vicar warns of anti Christian storm
Here’s some excerpts from the main article for your enjoyment:
…..[the vicar] is warning his flock and others in the area that a growing number of Christians are beginning to feel persecuted for their faith.
Is this not a fine example of the self-reinforcing group narrative? Notice the subjective perceptions being evidenced as an objective reality.
…He said he had no evidence of the “wave” of anti-Christian sentiment….”but it could happen at any time. I’m wary.”
Is it not odd to be wary of something that you have no evidence for, sounds like a bogeyman to me.
The good vicar then proceeds to cite a few recent high profile legal cases as they are wont to do, in order to reinforce the persecution narrative. I notice that they especially like citing the recent Shirley Chaplin case.
He continues:
“You might think, ‘Oh, come on, this can’t be true’ but it is. Stories of Christians being suspended without reason, sacked and even prosecuted because of their faith now appear every week. Many local authorities have been taken in by aggressive, mouthy secularists who demand Christians be shut up and pushed out of public life.”
More self-reaffirming narrative based on “stories” and then the necessary unsubstantiated generalisations and slurs on “evil doers” to prop it all up.
Advice centres had been set up to resolve ‘idiotic’ disputes before expensive lawyers were involved, but there were other queries like whether or not it is acceptable to send Christmas cards to colleagues at work.
Silly Billy, advice centres have been set up for the primary purpose of finding ‘disputes’ that are worthy of expensive lawyers. As for querying our Christmas card ‘rights’, pathetic. Where’s the backbone gone?
And thus the good vicar concludes:
…..he was happy for people to call him….to discuss anti Christian incidents and sentiments. Or alternatively organisation like the Christian legal centre……
This is an industry.
They’re hunting down evidence of persecution like sniffer dogs, so as to perpetuate the narrative. Let’s hope this doesn’t eventually lead to a subcultural “moral panic” that precipitates a self-fulfilling prophecy. And don’t forget the “crying wolf” tale.
And this is the front page ‘face’ of Christianity in my area tonight, exhibiting a severe case of persecution complex.
Heavy sigh.
Tags: Christian Life, Christian Persecution, Media, News
April 30th, 2010 at 10:37 am
I liked your post. I don’t think this is just a ‘cottage industry’. If you go to every single one of these stories- where a legal challenge is mounted, and the idea thta christians being asked to obey the law is reframed as persecution of christianity- it is the same groups over and over. It is always the Christian Legal Centre, who offer legal advice(obfuscatory legal advice), it is always their fundamentalist lobby group sister company- Christian Concern for Our Nation who publicise. With medical professionals it is always the homophobic, anti abortion christian medical fellowship.
They don’t care if the legal challenge is successful- because the legal principles they are ‘challenging’ are very straightforward. They are interested in making it appear that right wing political views about abortion and homophobic discrimination, are basic expressions of christianity. THis is a distinct political agenda.
These groups are toxic, and deserve a bit of scrutiny.
Recently the Archbishop of Canterbury signed a ‘declaration of conscience’ which declared that british christians should assrt their political will- primarily on these issues. It was signed and presented as a ‘united front of British Churches’- yet half the organisations on it- were right wing bigoted political lobby groups.
I do not for one second believe that christianity means bigotry, or restriction of health services, and imposition on other people. These people are working very hard to make it appear that it is- and any attempt to challenge your rights being restricted, is met with accusations of persecution of christians.
It would help if people like the Archbishop of Canterbury would look at these groups, before allowing his name to become affiliated with their toxic agenda- but it appears to me that the idea that christians are being persecuted- is pushing many people to accept that homophobic discrimination is a basic expression of religion.
It is worrying, and I think it does a great deal of harm to both our country, and to the christian faith itself.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:43 am
@Lisa, well said.
April 30th, 2010 at 11:25 am
No smoke without fire, looking at Lisa’s comment – “This is a distinct political agenda.”
Are the promotion and facilitation of such acts by the state and some missguided christians in the church not actions based on a political agenda of the left.
The idea that there is separation between church and the political estate in UK goes against all the evidence and in short is a big lie.
The hidden political agenda in Lisa’s contention is that it is ok for the church and christians to practice left wing politics but not the politics of the right.
Does she promote the thousands of abortions and sterilisations performed on economic and social grounds i.e. population control of the underclass and poor in the UK.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
No. THere is no hidden political agenda. Equality for people with different sexualities- is a principle enshrined in law. That is a debate which is over. You can believe what you like about homosexuality- you just can’t discriminate on the basis of those beliefs. Discrimination is an action- NOT a belief.
This is not about religious belief in anyway. This is about lying, misinforming, and deliberately mounting legal challenges which have no hope of success- while creating the perception that christians are being persecuted.
You may believe that bigotry and christianity are the same thing- you are free to believe those things. You can believe what you like. You can express your religion however you like.
A relate counsellor refusing to offer services, because of his beliefs about homosexuality is an act of discrimination. As is refusing to carry out a civil ceremony- they are not acts of religious belief- they are acts of imposing your morality on others.
The judges ruling in this case, however it has been misrepresented by Christian Concern for Our Nation- was not that religious belief has no place- but that that belief is not enough to override the law of the land.
Someone may believe that black people are should be denied services- indeed some do- that is why we have legislation to protect people from being affected adversely by those beliefs.
I don’t promote abortion- but women are competent enough to make decisions about abortion for themselves- and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they aren’t.
You disagree with abortion, fair enough. You disagree with homosexuality- fair enough. You think its a matter of faith. Also fair enough. Your faith is to guide YOUR life- not the lives of people who do not share it.
The very fact that you know there are christians who do not believe that homophobia is an act of faith- means that your views are not even shared by everyone in your faith. They certainly aren’t enough to be imposed on people who do not share that faith.
This is a political agenda, which is solely about restricting other peoples rights, and which has NOTHING to do with personal religious expression.
And I for one, am very glad to see Christians standing up to defend their faith against bigots.
But that defence is irrelevant- because this is not about christians. This is about a small number of people believing that their faith makes them exempt from the law. It doesn’t. No matter how much publicity Christian Concern for Our Nation drum up, no matter how many cases Christian Legal Centre seek out.
April 30th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
[...] Deeplyflawedbuttrying's Blog Inane rantings of a woman with a child, half a career, half a brain, and a lot of flaws! « Someone is going to hell for this… Echurch Christian Blog. April 30, 2010 Since I wrote the piece about the rise in Christian Fundemantalism in British politics- have had a lot of contact from Christians who are also worried about the impacted of these bigoted groups. I was sent this blog post by the Echurch Blog this morning, and it made me happy. [...]
April 30th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
@Lisa Ansell,
“That is a debate which is over.”
Sounds like the voice of totalitarian, you assumed that I oppose abortion exclusively as an act of faith, wrong big time.
The British people know that this is not christianity and that large parts of the church and christianity have been infiltrated and usurped by the looney left. Trust me this debate is not over by a long shot.
What next weddings services for dogs and sex therapy at relate for worms.
April 30th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
I would suggest that Goy is entirely correct in his assumptions. There is indeed a hidden political left-wing agenda. There is a balance to be had here.
Withholding your own counselling services is not simply about imposing your morality on others. It is about exercising your right of conscience to do as you see fit. Something we all do on a daily basis. It is about not being forced to commit an act which you feel to be intrinsically wrong. It is a delicate balancing act between ensuring that vital services aren’t withheld and yet also determining that others have freedom to act as they see fit. To force somebody to do something with which they are deeply uncomfortable, on the principle that it is the end result that is the determining factor takes us deep into philosophical territory. Do the ends justify the means?
The law says that Christians need to put their beliefs away in a box for private use at home and to be taken out and dusted once a week on a Sunday. The law thus misunderstands Christians and therefore restricts our freedom of religious expression. This is not a misguided persecution complex.
April 30th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
The theological debate which you are struggling with is not over. Whatever your beliefs about homosexuality, race-whatever = that debate is very much over. British citizens have the right to exist without discrimination because of their sexuality- you may not like it- but that debate is very much over.
YOu can have theological debates about whether homosexuality is this, or that= but your right to have those views dictate to people who do not share your faith is over. Well and truly. I am sorry you don’t understand this- I understand that if you believe homosexuality to be wrong- it is difficult to understand that you don’t have the right to impose that on others- but no- there is no debate. Sincerely held beliefs about homosexuality are, after all, the reason legislation was needed in the first place.
April 30th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
@Lisa Ansell,
You are so lost in the madness of diversity and equality totalitarianism that you are not aware that you have made an admission of guilt to being a homophobic and racist.
In that you argue that you need man made diversity and equality laws to regulate and criminalise your behaviour on the presumption that your behaviour is inherently homophobic and racist and that eventuallity needs to be legislated against.
Or do you claim supremacy over you own thought crimes and that because of this the laws are only for the inherently homophobic and racist British public.
April 30th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I am not lost in the madness of anything. Who I sleep with is none of your business, neither is who I marry. Make relationship decisions fro yourself.
Your expectation that the state should impose what you believe- not what all christians believe- but what YOU believe- is ridiculous.
You have the right to express your faith however you wish- but I do not have to suffer the consequences of your inability to get your head round the fact that people love people of the same gender.
And the effects of allowing this ridiculous belief to restrict other people- has caused suffering, pain, humiliation and embarrassment to people who have done NOTHING wrong.
I do not care how you think, or what you believe, or what contortions of scripture you come up with- they are irrelevant to everyone else.
It is very straightforward. Your right to religious freedom is intact- if you want to believe homophobia is part of your belief= up to you-= you just don’t have the right to impose that on other people.
Christianity and bigotry are different. It isn’t my fault, you can’t see it.
April 30th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
And nailisinmypocket- he didn’t refuse to offer his OWN counselling services. He refused to offer the services his employer delivers. Relate was not HIS organisation.
April 30th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
@Lisa Ansell,
“Your expectation that the state should impose what you believe- not what all christians believe- but what YOU believe- is ridiculous.”
It is you that demands LAW and CRIMINALISATION pay attention when you read the comment this time -
You are so lost in the madness of diversity and equality totalitarianism that you are not aware that you have made an admission of guilt to being a homophobic and racist.
In that you argue that you need man made diversity and equality laws to regulate and criminalise your behaviour on the presumption that your behaviour is inherently homophobic and racist and that eventuallity needs to be legislated against.
Or do you claim supremacy over you own thought crimes and that because of this the laws are only for the inherently homophobic and racist British public.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Thank you Lisa. I for one enjoyed reading your intelligent and thoughtful posts.
@ Goy
Why is it you always appear to be someone who is unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion, preferring instead resort to inappropriate branding of those who hold contrary views to yours, and dismissing their attempts at logical argument.
And, yes Goy, I’m sure you’ll no doubt point out that I’m not a believer, and therefore my opinion does not count. But I am still a human being – and apparently possess a strong sense of morality and justice, according to my friends, including believers.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Hahaha! Lol- let me get this straight. You want the law to respect your right to treat ten percent of the population as second class citizens, because of who they are. Who they are naturally. And you complain about man made laws?
Hahahahahahahaha! That is funny. That is really funny. Sorry.
I will say this very clearly. You can think what you like. You can believe what you like. You can think that homosexuals are plotting to take over the world, and force us all into bum sex- you can believe any thing you like.
But you don’t have the right to make someone elses life miserable, because of your narrow belief. Real people. Real people, who don’t share your belief, a belief which has absolutely no basis in anything but your own distorted view of the scriptures.
Homophobic discrimination is illegal. It is not an expression of christianity- but if you CHOOSE to discriminate- you are acting illegally. If you version of christianity includes being a bigot- fair enough. That’s up to you- but the rest of us- don’t have to be affected by it. We get to be protected from people like you.
And the idea that all christians are bigots, is downright offensive.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Jim, ironically enough I think this is precisely what is happening to Christians. A Christian’s faith is based upon fact and logical argument. I for one, do not believe due to brainwashing or because of what someone might have said. I’ve had to follow the arguments through to their conclusion.
Surely homophobia is inappropriate branding of someone who holds contrary views to you, given that it is entirely possible to believe the sexual act inherently wrong/distorted and yet separate that from the person. Hate the sin not the sinner.
The problem is that totalitarianist liberals bulk at the use of the word “wrong”. As they see absolutely nothing wrong in the act, they therefore want to give unpleasant and loaded names to those who don’t subscribe to their viewpoint.
can I direct you to my blog? http://www.snailinmypocket.wordpress.com
I’ve only just set it up, but the main aim is to correct some misconceptions.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
sorry that should read http://www.asnailinmypocket.wordpress.com
April 30th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
@Jim,
@Lisa Ansell,
Read the comment and THINK about what it is saying there is no need to legislate, it is nonsene to legislate on a secular level never mind on a christian level.
I would hate to have you lot on a jury you can not even follow the most simple concepts of law. The monkey would indeed be foud guilty and hung in your courts of justice.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
A snail is in my pocket- this is not about obscure definitions of homophobia. It is about the restriction of goods and services to people because of who they are. THat couple had their services restricted because their relationship counsellor, the person who is supposed to work with them in a non judgmental way, to sort out THEIR problems- refused to do so. Not in a church counselling session- but in a session for Relate. A nationwide organisation.
THey were denied goods and services because of who they are. The judgement was fairly clear.
It is not an unpleasant name- he restricted their services(at a time when I am presuming they were quite vulnerable- in a deeply personal situation) because they were gay- it is a very straightforward homophobic discrimination. By definition. There are no complexities here= this is not a confusing issue.
You cannot discriminate against someone, refuse to provide a service- because they are gay. Simples.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
@ asnailinmypocket
I will indeed have a look at your blog. Thanks.
What on Earth is a “totalitarianist liberal” ?
April 30th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Jim, a totalitarian who believes that they are a liberal
Probably the term liberal fascist would cover it, but actually I don’t want to hurl insults.
Lisa – I don’t believe that the OED definition of homophobia is widely regarded to be obscure is it?
April 30th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Homophobic discrimination-discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation. Refusing to offer a service available to everyone because they are gay. Caroline- I do know its you- I got sent a link this evening.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
@asnailinmypocket,
A warning and some advice on the comments section on this site some contributors pretend not to understand terms like “liberal totalaterianism” and “liberal fascism” this is a marxist tactic to undermine your comments and arguments.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
”A warning and some advice on the comments section on this site some contributors pretend not to understand terms like “liberal totalaterianism” and “liberal fascism” this is a marxist tactic to undermine your comments and arguments.”
You really do yourself no favours. Think am done here. Thanks very much echurch for writing the post-will be reading the blog with interest in future.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Yes, but let’s keep things civil and to the point shall we? Homophobic is the adjective derived from the noun – homophobia as defined above. Not being able to join a profession because it involves participating in an activity disbarred by your faith (a faith arrived at through logical discernment) is not the same as an extreme and irrational aversion to a homosexual person.
April 30th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Caroline- refusing to offer goods and services to someone because they are gay is homophobic discrimination. If someoen doesn’t like being called homophobic- then they shouldn’t be homophobic should they?
April 30th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
OK. The reason I ask is genuine. “Totalitarianist liberal” seems like oxymoron to me, and it’s not something I’ve come across outside this blog. So I googled it. Guess what. The two top sites that came up were Conservapedia and The Edmund Burke Institute – both mouthpieces of the American religious far right. This explains a lot – Conservapedia even supports the view that Barack Obama may seek to establish a Marxist dictatorship in the United States.
The term is also used to describe those who want tighter gun control in the US. Their argument is, and I quote: “By removing guns, a government can remove citizens’ ability to resist totalitarianism, as occurred in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.” End of quote…
In light of this, how is one expected to take your comments seriously?
April 30th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
If we’re going to have bigotry, could it at least be informed? Refusing to aid and abet a situation which is against your core principles, does not automatically entail that those principles are born out of irrationality or signify extreme aversion.
The difficulty is, that this conjecture actually creates unnecessary tension and intolerance because it sets Christian against secular principles and won’t allow them to co-exist peacefully.
We have to ask ourselves which is the most important? That one minority is not discriminated against, in a way that might offend them, or that another more numerous minority is allowed to exercise their freedom or conscience? Why can we not let these two co-exist, i.e. accord everyone the same secular freedoms, but within that, let people act according to their religious conscience with the caveat that it doesn’t incite hatred or prejudice. Quietly assigning the counsellor only the hetrosexual cases, seems to be the most non-confrontational, tolerant and indeed practical solution, instead of ascribing him labels based on personal prejudice and intolerence.
April 30th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Furthermore it strikes me that the current situation means that one side has to win and the other lose. In ensuring that one minority is not discriminated against, the other minority most definitely is, because they are not free to act according to their conscience.
Given the original article was all about the persecution complex whether real or perceived, surely the decision this week simply heightens this?
May 1st, 2010 at 12:07 am
Caroline- refusing to offer goods and services because someone is gay- is homophobic discrimination. Textbook homophobic discrimination. The motivation for it, ceases to matter- when the effect is felt.
The persecutioin complex is not only perceived, but deliberately manufactured by a small number of political lobby groups.
May 1st, 2010 at 12:18 am
@Jim
Google monitored your browser history and directed you to the links probably based on the keyword -religion. Try changing your browser security settings for more relevant search results. In light of this, how is one expected to take your comments seriously?
Was national socialism an oxymoron?
May 1st, 2010 at 1:13 pm
You’re at it again Goy. You make an irrelevant statement and follow it with an unfounded conclusion.
And no. It wasn’t, but I don’t think you really want to understand why.
May 1st, 2010 at 2:55 pm
@Jim
What do you not understand about the word liberal?
What do you not understand about the word totalitarian?
liberal totalitarian = The corruption and distortion of western liberal values and enforced as absolute – totalitarian.
Liberal totalitarianism is a European political concept, I prefer the term neoliberal.
May 1st, 2010 at 6:46 pm
I understand the words Goy. I just can’t find them together in reputable European academic studies, unless it is to point to the shortcomings of the term. The main sources I’ve found where this term is used in a positive way comprise conservative religious and politically right wing essays and blogs. Perhaps you could find me a reputable source to disprove this. I’d have no problem with being proved wrong.
I think there is also a danger of conflating liberal with left wing. I’m assuming you are not?
I guess I also struggle to understand why it should be necessary to give Christianity a special status outside the law. The suggestions put forward for exemptions regarding adoption agancies and gay counselling might appear to some to be rational pragmatic courses of action, but where does it stop?
To take an example in another comment elsewhere, if I run a private London bus company and my sincerely held belief means that I do not wish to have Scottish people on my bus, should I be able to refuse them? There are other bus services that will carry them. If not why not?
I think what you label totalitarianism is really the voice of sanity trying to promote a more enlightened outlook. There are freedoms we now take for granted that 200 years ago would have been unthinkable – and all this as a result of people being forced to confront unacceptable practices and realise that just becauae they are the “status quo” does not make them enlightened. Surely we should not be trying to turn back the clock, to a “golden age” that never was?
May 1st, 2010 at 7:24 pm
“To take an example in another comment elsewhere, if I run a private London bus company and my sincerely held belief means that I do not wish to have Scottish people on my bus, should I be able to refuse them?”
Should you be prosecuted for not taking them?
May 1st, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Gary McFarlane wasn’t prosecuted. He was fired.
May 1st, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Anti-discrimination laws are passed because people are suffering as a result of the prejudice of others. Every time an anti-discrimination law is passed there are protests from those who feel their prejudice against that particular group is justified and should therefore present a special case.
We’re currently debating homosexuality, but for many centuries churches endorsed discrimination on the grounds of both gender and race. Would those who support black Gary McFarlane be equally eager to support Relate if it decided to sack all its black or female employees on sincerely held Biblical grounds?
asnailinmypocket writes that it’s “… not simply about imposing your morality on others. It is about exercising your right of conscience to do as you see fit. Something we all do on a daily basis. It is about not being forced to commit an act which you feel to be intrinsically wrong.”
Should the prejudices of the Klu Klux Klan be honoured because of their depth and sincerity? After all, no one can doubt just how passionately some groups hate blacks – or women.
All this talk of conscience: let’s be clear here. There’s nothing noble in what you’re trying to justify. We’re talking about trying to bring to an end millenia of cruelty against a vulnerable minority. Those who use their Christianity purely as a stick with which to beat others are deeply unappealing and seem to me a poor example of the values they claim to hold.
May 1st, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Sophie, Surrey,
“Should the prejudices of the Klu Klux Klan be honoured because of their depth and sincerity?”
In the name of equality, diversity and multicturism HAMAS are celebrated and tolerated so why not the Klu Klux Klan?
May 1st, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Jim, you raise a good point and one that has given me much pause for thought, thank you.
It seems to me that in this entire debate, we need to be very careful about ascribing inherent thoughts or agendas to various groups or people.
In the case of our hypothetical bus company, I believe that the owners of the company should at least be given the opportunity to explain why it is that they refuse to carry Scottish passengers so that it could be ascertained whether or not this is reasonable. Was it due to religious belief or simple uniformed prejudice? Gary McFarlane was denied the opportunity to explain.
Sophie, I agree, Christianity should not be used as a stick with which to beat people, however refusing to participate in something that you feel to be inherently in error is an entirely different prospect.
I am not attempting to justify that the gay community should be excluded, ostracised or be denied access to healthcare or vital services. Simply that if one man feels that he is unable to give relationship counselling in order to support a situation that he feels to be in error (and this is where people will baulk, the use of the word error), then he should be given the opportunity to explain as opposed to it being automatically assumed that this arises from some deep-seated fear or hatred.
Homophobic is the adjective arising from the noun homophobia – which means an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual activity. Therefore homophobic discrimation means making the choice based on an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality.
I think before automatically assuming that Christians who have difficulty with condoning this issue are motivated by irrationality and or hatred we need to give them the opportunity to explain why and examine whether or not an exception is reasonable on a case by case basis.
Some clergy will hold blessings for civil partnerships. Others will not. In the same way some clergy will conduct a full marriage services for divorcees, others will not. Does that therefore mean that all clergy who refuse to conduct civil partnership blessings are inherently homophobic and we need legislation to change this?
As I said previously, it takes us into the realms of philosophy. Do we have to force people to conform their will to that of the state, to engage in activities that are morally questionable, for the greater good? Does the end result justify the method by which it is achieved?
Jim – thank you for conceding that it might seem rational and pragmatic to grant exceptions. Where do we stop? I think we assume that people are not inherently prejudiced and intolerant and we examine things on a case by case basis, instead of automatically criminalising and prosecuting.
To assume that those uncomfortable with the act of homosexuality are somehow unenlightened is more than a little dismissive and fundamentally misunderstands those particular Christians. The motivation is as important as the result. It might be discrimation (choice) based upon rational logical faith, but to describe it as homophobic is disingenuous.
May 1st, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Having just re-read the comments the following stood out.
- but if you CHOOSE to discriminate- you are acting illegally.
So, to be clear, if you decide to exercise a choice due to a rational and informed faith, which doesn’t incite hatred or impact upon basic human rights, then this is illegal because of the effect that it might have upon other people?
May 1st, 2010 at 10:24 pm
@ asnailinmypocket. (Can we call you something a bit shorter?)
I think you assume that I would feel differently towards someone who acted outside the law because of their religious belief than someone who acted out of “simple uninformed prejudice”. I do not. There is no real difference.
And what I said was: “…might appear to some to be rational pragmatic courses of action,…” I did not intend to concede that I thought myself that it would be rational and pragmatic to grant exceptions. I apologise if I gave that’s what came across. I simply posed the question for others to consider.
I do concede that many people may still be uncomfortable with physical homosexuality. That does not in itself give them the right to discriminate against homosexuals. Incidentally, I don’t think I have described anyone as homophobic.
The concept of “rational logical faith” is a concept I struggle with. I have great respect for many people who have faith, but I cannot understand how their faith could be described as rational or logical.
May 1st, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Jim – yes, I am Caroline. And I agree, you have not described anyone as homophobic.
I could enter into discourse as to how my faith is logical and rational but it isn’t pertinent to the debate. I think that’s the crux of the matter. Those without faith struggle to understand how a belief in a Deity can be logical and rational, which is where of course, Christian apologetics have a role to play.
Although you may dismiss this article, given its source (the Christian Institute) I think the comments of Evan Davis certainly give pause for thought. http://www.christian.org.uk/news/bbcs-evan-davis-grayling-comments-not-homophobic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+christianinstitute+%28The+Christian+Institute%29
May 1st, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Thanks Caroline. I’m risking going way off topic, but you’ve hit on something I’m really trying to understand. I’ve not yet found an apologist who could convince me that faith in an unknowable God is logical or rational. I do not mean this facetiously. I speak as one who lost their faith, and who takes their lack of faith seriously.
Thanks for the link, which was very interesting. However, I’m not convinced it is helpful. The protagonists are just expressing personal opinions (albeit perhaps unexpected ones).
Hope you’ll stick around on this blog anyway
May 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 am
@Jim ,
You have faith that I exist so much so that you respond to my comments and have built an imagined picture in your mind of my political substance yet you have no reputable European academic or scientific studies that I do in fact exist.
“I speak as one who lost their faith,”
It would help if you informed people why you lost your faith before you jump to the chase, science is not devoid of faith or unknowables.
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:06 am
@Goy
There is a World of difference between my belief that you exist and hold certain views, and a proof the God exists. I admit that you might turn out to be a Muslim grandmother living in Iran, but on the balance of probability, that is clearly very unlikely! I have the first hand evidence of my eyes in what you write, and it is more likely that you are more or less what you appear to be. If it was sufficiently important to ensure that my assumptions were correct, I could confirm this by meeting you in person.
By contrast, belief in God is by definition an act of pure faith, and it is impossible to prove the existence of God.
Of course science is not devoid of unknowables and we take some things as being correct on the balance of probablity rather than physical experience. But scientists by nature question everything, and constantly seek to find ways to improve their understanding, Contrast this with religion, where questioning fundamental beliefs and finding better ways or new ideas are usually discouraged.
I’m not sure why informing people why I lost my faith is at all helpful to this discussion, and risks taking this thread even further off topic. But in a nutshell, I was brought up in a religious environment. As a young man I was sure of my faith and was hungry to deepen my understanding and commitment. I became increasingly puzzled by many of things I was discovering which I could not reconcile with my views.
Then one day I had what I can only describe as a sort of “road to Damascus” moment in reverse. It was an extraordinary feeling. It took me a long time to come to terms with it, and I saw it as just a lapse of faith. But the more I studied and the more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that I had no option but to accept my new found view of the World.
Is that helpful?
May 2nd, 2010 at 12:48 pm
@Jim, thank you for explaining. I agree we risk taking this massively off topic, but I thought it might be helpful to explain something about me. I was brought up in a very loosely religious environment, with one lapsed Catholic parent and the other a C of E. I did however attend a Catholic school run by some very fierce nuns. The type that really did cause immense psychological damage to so many people. I was expelled, having been told “one day you’ll end up raped and dead in a ditch and you will have deserved it”.
Throughout school and in my early adult life I had an extreme aversion to what I perceived to be the authoritarianism and hypocrisy not only of the Catholic Church, but Christians everywhere. I couldn’t cope with and I still can’t, be told what to think.
I had the opposite experience to you, I did have a road to Damascus moment and eventually reverted to Catholicism. Along my journey I have had to do much reading, thinking and indeed questioning. Questioning is a vital part of faith. If you aren’t questioning some aspect of your faith, chances are you aren’t thinking about it.
My reversion has as much to do with rational and reasoned thought as it does belief. I’ve had to face the grey areas head on. My faith has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of childhood indoctrination, which may well have exposed me to Christian teaching, but I utterly reject the methods employed by so many misguided religious orders. The bible has a clarion call to all apologists “Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Ptr. 3:15). I cannot share or defend my faith unless I truly understand it. However the second half of the phrase from Peter is often omitted “Yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” (3:15–16).
Christianity may be a belief, but surely atheism is exactly the same? You believe on the balance of probabilities that God doesn’t exist, I believe on the balance of probabilities that he does. Ultimately neither of us has proof of his existence or lack thereof. Stephen Hawking says ” You cannot understand the glories of the universe without believing there is some Supreme Power behind it.”
May 2nd, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I know it’s off topic but you raise interesting points Caroline. Thanks for this.
If I might respond to tyour last paragraph: I suppose we could get into semantics, but actually I would say that atheism is not a belief, in the religious sense. Rather it is a lack of belief. I percieve no reasonable evidence for the existence of God. Therefore I have no reason to assume that God, (whose apparent nature does not conform to anything I have experienced in the World I inhabit), exists.
I cannot see how you can base a belief in God “on the balance of probabilities”. By the nature of God, such a being is “incredible” from a logical point of view. Surely it is only through suspending rational analysis and having faith, that one can believe in God. I know that many apologists have produced counter arguments, but I find none of them convicing – and I have tried very hard to do so.
As I have said to others, neither of us can prove empirically that our position is unassailably right. (Again due to the very nature of this God as assumed by believers). But having studied the main rationales put forward for the existence of God, I can find none that satisfies me as convincing evidence. On the other hand, I can find much evidence that there is no need for a God to exist. To me, the balance of probablities is very much in favour of non-existence.
Regarding the Stephen Hawking quote, as with so many others, it’s important to understand it in context, but even if we were to take it at face value, that is still just an opinion. It is not evidence.
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Yes Caroline. You read correctly. Because the effect of excercising the right to choose to deliver services is discrimination. And when you are being turned away from a hotel at 11pm, or have a relationship counsellor refuse to work with you, or a registrar refuse to marry you- is fairly horrible- and the reasons behind the active discrimination become irrelevant.
If you can’t deliver the service your employer expects you to- then you shouldn’t offer your services.
May 2nd, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Interestingly I think there is a sort of parallel to the Gary McFarlane/Shirley Chaplin narrative on the “other side of the fence”.
I was reminded of the recent “resignation” (apparently with quite persuasion) from The Reformed Theological Seminary of Bruce Waltke, a noted and highly regarded evangelical scholar of the Old Testament who featured on a video where he was seen to endorse evolution, and where he said that evangelical Christianity could face a crisis for not coming to accept science.
Now I can see that an endorsement of The Theory of Evolution by a senior member of the academic staff at a Seminary where this was viewed was seen as anathema was going to be troublesome, but should he have “been resigned?”
And would the same people who condemned the outcomes in the Shirley Chappel and Gary McFarlane cases also condemn the outcome of the Bruce Walkte debacle?
May 2nd, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Apologies for typos – I hit the submit button too soon by mistake.
May 2nd, 2010 at 6:43 pm
@Lisa – do you not think that we have a conflict here though. I agree that it might be pretty “horrible” to be turned away from a B&B at 11pm at night, I believe that given the business was run from a private home, that the proprietors did have the right to choose who they let into their home.
I also agree that it might seem pretty “horrible” to have a registrar refuse to conduct your civil ceremony or to be denied counselling services, the point I am trying to make is that if the situation had been handled in a pragmatic fashion, there would have absolutely no need for the couple to be aware that there was a counsellor/registrar who didn’t feel able to accomodate them. Ultimately we have to decide which is the more “horrible” to feel as though you are being discriminated against, or to be forced into doing something that you believe to be implicitly wrong or disbarred from a profession because of the beliefs you hold, your beliefs being inherently “wrong” or having “no place”. I believe that all the situation requires is a smattering of common sense and compassion so that neither side is put into an unpleasant situation.
@Jim, this is difficult because Bruce Waltke is correct, evangelical Christianity does face a crisis for this very reason. From what I understand however, evangelical Christianity does not compel one to reject evolution. I know plenty of evangelicals who openly embrace the entire concept. It’s an interesting parallel but I think there are subtle differences.
May 12th, 2010 at 11:18 am
No, there is no conflict. The idea that hoteliers should retain the right to humiliate guests, because of their homophobia, regardless of the justification, is as abhorrent as the idea that someone should be turned away from a hotel for being black. YOu remember the ‘No Blacks/No Irish/No Dogs’ cards.
It was a business, not a private home.
May 12th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Should hoteliers then retain the right to humiliate guests, because of their zoophilia, where do you draw the line of moral relativism.
May 12th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Are you comparing a relationship between two adults, to a relationship with an animal? Seriously, you need a bit of help.
May 12th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
No, the point is when do hoteliers have the right to humiliate a guest for what they want to practice.
Who gave you the power to draw the line when you have argued against others drawing moral lines in their own establishment does your liberal compassion and moral relativism not extend to the practice of zoophilia.
May 12th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
They didn’t discriminate because of what they ‘wanted to practice’- they discriminated because of who they were.
And the fact that you seem to believe that fucking animals, is similar to two adults in a relationship-says quite a lot really.
May 12th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
I really didn’t realise that there were people with this kind of twisted view of the world.
How do you grow up believing that a healthy relationship between two adults, is akin to bestiality?
You are of course entitled to hold such a downright weird and warped view of people. I would advise against a relationship with someone of the same sex for you- but your comments just bring home how necessary equality legislation is. Wow.
Being gay equivalent to bestiality? Wow.
May 12th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
@Lisa Ansell,
Who said anything about f**king animals. Philia, “friendship” or “love”. lol
May 12th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Zoophilia the practice of sex between humans and animals. Owning a cat is not zoophillic. Having sex with a cat is.
As for their being any comparison between that, and a relationship between two adults- that makes this the most disturbing conversation I have been part of.
Am done here. Anyone reading this thread can see we are done here. I think once you have resorted to comparing an adult relationship with having sex with animals, there is nowhere to go.
May 12th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Sorry, I put ‘their’ instead of ‘there’.
May 13th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
@ Lisa: Try not to take too much notice of Goy, though I know it’s difficult not to respond when he posts such provocative things. If you hang around here awhile you’ll see he seems to despise pretty anyone and everyone. I’m never sure whether he means the bizarre stuff he posts or if he’s just a troll.