Gary McFarlane sacked by Relate Avon for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexuals has had his appeal turned down by the High Court.
No big surprise here, but thought I’d keep you updated.
Gary McFarlane who was sacked by Relate Avon for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexuals, has had his appeal turned down by the High Court, despite Lord Carey’s untimely and bizarre intervention.
Here are my previous posts on this one:
This defeat will of course be used to reinforce the narrative of UK Christian persecution, which in turn will fuel yet more ‘persecution’ legal cases.
UPDATE: Guardian have now covered this one.
UPDATE: The Christian Legal Centre have sent out an email as follows:
This from CCFON:
Justice Denied for Christians as Counsellor Refused Right to Appeal
Lord Justice Laws today refused permission to Gary McFarlane to have his case heard before the Court of Appeal.
Mr McFarlane, a relationships counsellor from Bristol, sacked by the Relate Relationship organisation after he refused to provide sexual counselling to homosexual couples because of his Christian beliefs, asked that his case be heard by different judges to those who ruled against Lillian Ladele in December 2009.
Church leaders have been deeply concerned by the ruling by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, in the case of Lillian Ladele—a registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships ceremonies because they were against her Christian beliefs—and have argued that the Court of Appeal’s decision effectively means that the right to express a strong Christian faith must take second place to the rights of homosexuals under Labour’s equality laws.
It was argued by Human Rights barrister Paul Diamond that previous decisions had failed to grapple with the fundamental clash of rights that has occurred within the law between orthodox Christian teaching on sex and marriage and the protection of homosexual rights. It was argued that the Courts were required by Parliament to undertake such an exercise and have allowed instead one set of rights to trump another.
Lord Justice Laws refused Mr McFarlane’s application, and a personal plea by Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury (1991 – 2002), and other senior church leaders, that the Master of the Rolls be asked to stand down from future Court of Appeal hearings involving cases of religious discrimination because of ‘perceived bias’ against Christianity.
Senior churchmen believed that Mr McFarlane would not have received a proper consideration of the religious convictions involved if his case was heard in front of judges who, they argue, had already shown a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs in previous cases.
In his Judgment, Lord Justice Laws accepted that laws in Britain can be influenced by Christianity and said: “The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy.”
And Lord Justice Laws gave examples, such as the “core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty.”
However, he then seemed to draw a distinction between some moral positions of Christianity, where on merit they should be adopted by others, to other positions of Christianity, where he stated that it is “deeply unprincipled” to confer “any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture”.
Nobody would disagree that laws should not reflect purely irrational and subjective views of religious believers. However, 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.
Lord Justice Laws went on to say:
“…in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”
Andrea Williams, Director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “The notion that the Bible’s teaching, of particular focus in this case on sex and marriage is ‘necessarily subjective being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence’, is highly contentious to say the least. To put the reasonably held beliefs of Christians into a such a category is alarming and in effect seeks to rule out Christian principles of morality from the public square.
“Mr McFarlane simply wanted his religious beliefs to be accommodated by his employer, which in the specific facts of the case was not unreasonable. It seems that a religious bar to office has been created, whereby a Christian who wishes to act on their Christian beliefs on marriage will no longer be able to work in a great number of environments.
At the Christian Legal Centre we will continue to fight for people who find themselves suffering as a result of these kinds of judgments until the law once again recognised the public manifestation of faith within a free and civilised society.”
Tags: Christianity, Law Moral Ethical, News
April 30th, 2010 at 9:30 am
I do not understand what this has to do with ‘persecution’ of Christians. You can start your own Christian company and refuse to help gay people. You do not get sacked if you follow the guidelines of your own company.
Religious people should not demand from their employer to follow their religion. You should find an employer, that has the same paradigms or start your own company.
Beside from this: As god created homo-sexual humans, other mammals, birds, etc., why do (some) Christians object against homo-sexuality? Because it is in the bible? The bible can be seen as a view on the world of rather primitive people. Should we not evolve? Perhaps it is time to rewrite the bible. But who has the authority to do so? Because no one has, no one does. So Christians, Jews and Muslims have two options:
1. Leave their faith and create a new faith.
2. Stick with ancient obsolete rules and become out of phase with time.
Do you want to live like ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel? Do you want to live in tents with your sheep? Or do you want to be a modern person?
My parents were Christians. I evolved. I do not use the bible as an excuse to be primitive or ignorant.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:25 am
@ Andreas Firewolf: You may be encouraged to hear that by no means all Christians believe homosexuality is wrong and that I, for one, am very glad Gary McFarlane lost his case.
I use as my touchstone the ideal that God is love and that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” As you say, homosexuality is innate. It occurs across the animal kingdom. It can no more be a sin than being tall or having red hair.
Christians should be at the forefront of human rights, fighting prejudice and injustice. Sadly this is not always so.
There are two debates on this topic on the go at the same time here. I’ve just posted a more detailed reply on the other one. Here’s the link:
http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2010/04/15/gary-mcfarlanes-barrister-paul-diamond-at-the-employment-tribunal-today-%E2%80%9Cthere-will-be-a-collision-between-the-established-faith-of-this-land-and-judicial-decisions-which-will-lead-to-civil/comment-page-1/#comment-17366
April 30th, 2010 at 10:55 am
@ Andreas Firewolf: It’s a fair point that Christians could theoretically run a marriage-only relationship advice agency, though I am not sure our laws would actually continue to permit this indefinitely. However, given the size of Relate, why is it necessary that people who have been (for the sake of argument) excellent marriage counsellors should be excluded from that organisation in this way? Do they not have a contribution to make? The problem I have with this development is that our so-called ‘liberal’ society is increasingly intolerant to everyone who is ‘off-message’. I thought we were supposed to like diversity? McFarlane’s case says we don’t.
By the way, on your other comment, I am surprised you ‘evolved’- I thought that needed millions of years to take place!! Seriously though, throwing out labels like “primitive,” “obsolete,” “ultra-orthodox,” and “ignorant” does not constitute a rational argument. Have you anything more enlightening that you could say?
April 30th, 2010 at 11:02 am
@ Sophie, Surrey: Just before he died, our Lord Jesus said to the criminal nearby, “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” That wasn’t because he was a criminal, but because he repented, and trusted Jesus. This applies to all of us: we are “all one in Christ Jesus” through repentance and faith, and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
The verse you have quoted should surely not be used to approve any kind of behaviour Christians can think of doing. What- should we say the Crusades were right, because those people were “all one in Christ?” It doesn’t make sense.
I totally agree with you that as Christians we should be quickest to oppose prejudice and injustice; I am not so sure about the ‘human rights’ narrative. I believe the latter will only lead to greater tensions as we realise that society always involves granting one person’s (or group’s) rights over another- in McFarlane’s case, the rights of the homosexual contingency (I say that with all respect) over the rights of a conscientious Christian seeking to live out the faith as it has been taught for almost all of the last 2,000 years.
April 30th, 2010 at 11:58 am
I believe it is ignorant and primitive to be against homo-sexuality. If you are against homo-sexuality because ‘it is in the bible’, than you use the bible as an excuse.
.
Marian Diamond created homo-sexual rats by putting a pregnant rat under stress during the sixth day of pregnancy. Putting pregnant rats under stress during other days of the pregnancy created other sexual variations: for example male rats that were interested in female rats but behaved like a female-rat themselves. These rats could be called: trans-sexual rats.
.
When there is civil war, there is a lot of stress. Women who get pregnant could get more gay sons. Gay sons would be more inclined to have sex with other men instead of killing them. It is possible, that homo-sexuality evolved in the human communities as an antidote against civil war.
.
There are very good reasons to accept variances in sexuality. I am not aware of a good argument against homo-sexuality or other variances in sexuality. ‘Because the bible tells me so’ is not acceptable as a good argument. At least not for me.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
About evolution:
Genetic evolution takes generations, but is an unconscious kind of evolution. Personal evolution is what you do yourself. Each person with self-awareness can become a better person. You can stimulate your own evolution.
There is something between personal evolution and genetic evolution. Your life-style can switch on or turn of certain genes. This ‘state-of-your-genes’ is passed on to the next generation. It is possible to get better children by living a good and healthy live. And it is possible to damage your unborn children by living an unhealthy live. “I punish children for their parents’ sins to the third and fourth generation” seems to have some truth in it. But it is phrased very negative. If I were to rewrite the bible, I would write: “I reward children for their parents’ good and healthy live to the third and fourth generation”.
If you read the bible, you should keep in mind, that a large part is written by very traumatized people. And that Moses was a person ‘with issues’, to say the least. According to his own statements, he was an adopted son of the Pharaoh, and he had to flee after killing an Egyptian. This can not be true. If he was the son of the Pharaoh, he had no reason to flee. But if he was just a foreign laborer who killed his boss and hid his body, he had every reason to flee. Statements like ‘thou shall not kill’ are useless to ordinary people. I am not inclined to kill my neighbors and I really have no need for such commandments, but Moses obviously had. Later he took the Jews away from the ‘meat-pots’ of Egypt and starved them in the dessert. People who are traumatized like this have a tendency to develop harsh rules and a very strict tribal-mentality. Perhaps we put to much value in their writings. Perhaps we should re-evaluate the old scriptures and throw out what we don’t need. And perhaps we can learn something from other writings, like the Avesta, the Veda’s, the Kalevala, the Edda’s and other writings. And most certainly we can learn from modern writings. We should not respect a writing simply because it is old.
April 30th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
@ Daniel Howard: You say that the “verse you have quoted should surely not be used to approve any kind of behaviour Christians can think of doing. ”
Where we differ is that, as explained, I can’t see homosexuality as just behaviour. The evidence is that sexuality is intrinsic. Condemning someone for their sexuality is as unreasonable as condemning blond hair or deafness. It would be different if homosexuality harmed others, but it does not. Disapproval is not harm.
What’s particularly troublesome to me about this case is that Mr McFarlane made no protest about being forbidden to take a Christian stance on adultery under Relate’s rules. Adultery isn’t intrinsic. Adultery is a choice, and is typically extremely destructive, particularly to children. Does Mr McFarlane object to this? No, it’s only gay couples. I’m afraid I can only see him as a prejudiced man using his faith as a cloak
If you’re heterosexual just try getting up one morning and spending a sinful day desiring your own sex.
Doesn’t work, does it? You can’t make yourself desire your own sex anymore than gay men can decide to be straight.
Can you imagine what it would be like to be obliged only to become romantically involved or marry your own sex? To know that attempts to create a lifelong monogamous relationship with a member of the opposite sex would be considered disgusting or sinful? It would be unspeakable, wouldn’t it? All it takes is a bit of empathy.
When you say “society always involves granting one person’s (or group’s) rights over another- in McFarlane’s case, the rights of the homosexual contingency (I say that with all respect) over the rights of a conscientious Christian seeking to live out the faith as it has been taught for almost all of the last 2,000 years.”
I would reply that “the faith as it has been taught for almost all of the last 2,000 years” also endorsed slavery and other evils. Longevity of a tradition is no recommendation.
Gary McFarlane lives near two women who have recently been in the news for supposedly being victimised for their Christian faith. These cases appear to stem from a particular pressure group, perhaps even a specific congregation and are not perhaps as frank about their agenda as one might hope.
April 30th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Thanks for responding, Andreas Firewolf. “We should not respect a writing simply because it is old.” Well, I do at least agree with what you’ve said there. I would add, we should also not disregard it on the same grounds. More careful enquiry is needed to reach a conclusion.
Regarding the main topic- McFarlane’s stand on counselling homosexual couples- your 11:58 a.m. post raises some interesting points. In response:
a) “I believe it is ignorant and primitive to be against homo-sexuality.” I don’t doubt your sincerity, I just don’t think it’s a strong argument. We’re all ignorant; how do you know I’m more ignorant than you are? Because we disagree? (It has been a declared intent of some homosexual writers to gain public acceptance by insulting traditionalists as ignorant and hateful, whilst diverting attention from the real issues.) As for “primitive,” sex itself is primitive. Many beliefs that are primitive are still highly valued in society; in this debate the charge of “primitive” proves nothing.
b) I am not “against” homo-sexuality; I believe it does exist, along with many other sexuality variations, and that there are many biological and psychosocial causes behind all this. Homosexuals are just as human as I am. Yet I still maintain that some sexual acts are less ethically desirable than others, when considered within a coherent Christian worldview. I do not insist that you agree with me, but I seek to live out my faith consistently in all areas of my life. And I think there are good reasons why McFarlane should have the opportunity to be an excellent marriage counsellor within his own conscientious views- Relate is surely well enough organised to deal with this. Is it a ‘justice’ issue? I can’t imagine there being a crowd of homosexuals demanding to see him.
c) Is there scientific evidence linking the behaviour of rats and humans, in the way your post suggests? Can we even demonstrate that lordosis and mounting behaviours in rats are sufficiently comparable to human sexual behaviour? I would have thought it is much more complex for humans. And your thesis about “antidote against civil war” is fascinating but confusing. Perhaps I have misunderstood evolution. How would homosexuality become a surviving hereditary trait due to its relation to civil war? Is this science??!
April 30th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
@ Sophie, Surrey: Thanks for your comment, which I find helpful. Please be assured, I do not “condemn” homosexuals, though I accept my views may look bad enough from your perspective.
“Sexuality is intrinsic.” Well, that would be a good essay title! Yes and no! But I agree that homosexuality is not “just behaviour.” If I said it was, I take that back. As a point of principle, I am reluctant to regard any human behaviour as morally acceptable, purely on the grounds of biological, even genetic, determination. Part of being human is the exercise of responsible decision making in the face of many factors, including personal disposition.
“Adultery isn’t intrinsic”—agreed, according to our present knowledge. It will be interesting if someone in future finds a genetic tendency or correlation…
“Does Mr McFarlane object to ‘adultery’? No, it’s only gay couples.” Are you suggesting that McFarlane has given approval to adultery by counselling people who have been unfaithful in marriage? Quite the reverse, I would say. Or am I missing the point here? Surely he would not be obliged by Relate to give counselling that would enhance an adulterous relationship? I can’t find their principles stated on their website. Maybe I’m being naive here.
“You can’t make yourself desire your own sex…” Can’t I? And what if I take up your challenge, and succeed… what does that prove? That I was already predisposed to homosexuality but had been living in denial? I think on both sides of this debate we should avoid treating human sexuality in such simplistic terms. Even people who live in wholehearted homo- or hetero-sexual ways for their whole lives still have sexual hang-ups of one kind or another. This is messy.
“Can you imagine what it would be like…” No, I wouldn’t claim to be able to do this, but I do try to be as understanding and respectful as I can, and your thoughts are helpful on this. As I said, I do not condemn homosexuals.
“Longevity of a tradition is no recommendation.” Another good essay question! Of course traditions must be examined critically, but they do count for something. We are not always smarter than our ancestors in the way we think we are.
“…pressure group… not perhaps as frank about their agenda as one might hope.” This seems like an unfortunate slur, hopefully unintentional. The Christian Legal Centre has supported this case and their website is easily found. Their “About us” page gives comprehensive information on their values, a list of directors, staff, and lawyers engaged, and description of the mission and objectives. They give regular news updates online or by email subscription. You may not like the organisation, but cloak and dagger it ain’t. Are your concerns related to another group hiding somewhere in the shadows?
April 30th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Thanks for debating with me, Daniel Howard. About your points:
.
a1. A primitive reaction is a primal reaction, not a deliberate and conscious action. A primitive thought is a thought that has not been thought over, not has been re-evaluated. Thinking or believing that there is something wrong with homo-sexuality is a primitive reaction. It is different and we tend to react like Chimpanzees, condemning it. If you have a sound reasoning against homo-sexuality, I am more than willing to read about it.
.
a2. Ignorant can be defined like “Lacking education or knowledge.” Once people are educated about homo-sexuality and know that it is quite common, their attitude towards it changes. Unless they are gay or bi-sexual themselves and refuse to accept this. When a person knows that homo-sexuality is quite common and he is still violent (in thoughts, words or deeds) towards homo-sexuality, it is quite likely that he is a homo-sexual. Or that he wants to gain from defying homosexuals. Some politicians do that.
.
b1. You write: “some sexual acts are less ethically desirable than others”. Which sexual acts are less desirable and why?
.
If we compare Bonobos with Chimpanzees, we see a huge difference in sexual behavior and levels of aggression. Bonobos are likely to be bi-sexual and have fun with each other. Genocide, one group killing another group, has not been sees with Bonobos. Chimpanzees live in a very restrictive society and are sexually repressed. They are also very violent. Genocide has been reported.
.
If we compare humans: Gay men having group sex in a dark room are not likely to fight other people just for fun. Hooligans are not frequent visitors of dark rooms. (As far as I know.) Do you mean that all men should become frequent visitors of dark rooms, to decrease the level of violence in society. Do you believe this is ethically desirable? (I write this tongue-in-cheek, of course.)
.
What people consider ‘ethically desirable’ is most likely based on prejudice. Around 1550 educated people believed it ‘ethically desirable’ to burn people if they read about Luther. Today most people believe, that the people around 1550 were insane. And what do you think the people of 2600 will think of us?
.
According to the gospel, Maria was pregnant before she had sex with Jozef. Jozef wanted a divorce, but was forced to stay in the marriage. According to Jewish sources, Maria was from a strong family, Jozef from a weak one. He could not get out of the marriage. So they went to Bethlehem, Maria had to sleep in a stable, because she was not Kosher and had her baby Jesus. Jesus was rejected by his father, who refused to learn him the trade of carpenter. So Jesus developed a father-complex and re-invented god. If this is the true story, Christianity is the result of adultery. Can we now say that adultery is ‘ethically desirable’?
.
b2. You also wrote: ‘And I think there are good reasons why McFarlane should have the opportunity to be an excellent marriage counselor within his own conscientious views’
.
Is the website http://www.garymcfarlane.com/ from Gary McFarlane? If it is, he only gained from the conflict.
.
The judges did not forbade McFarlane to be a counselor. They ruled, that his employer had good reasons to terminate the relationship with McFarlane. The behavior of McFarlane was bad for the reputation of the employer. Keeping McFarlane was not an option. If you become an employee, you have to behave like one. If you can not do that, you should be self-employed.
.
c1. There is no evidence that human sexual behavior is more complex than that of rats. We can think about our sexuality and we can make things complicated. This however has nothing to do with sex.
.
Human society is more complex than a rat-society. We have our own believe-system and we have a believe about what ‘society’ expects us to believe. We believe for example, that being faithful in a monogamous relationship is good. Biologically it is bad. Suppose a man and a woman have three children. But the genetic combination is wrong. After about 20 years, the children start to die from a genetic disease. Then the genes of this man and this woman disappear from the gene-pool. But if one of the children is from the postman and another from a neighbor, these two do not have this bad genetic combination. And if the man has another child with has secretary and yet another child with the wife of his priest (I am joking of course), his genes live on to.
We have a genetic ‘knowledge’ that adultery is good, but we believe that society wants us to believe, that adultery is bad. So we pretend to believe, that adultery is bad. If we are really honest, things are not that clear.
.
Biologically it is better to have serial monogamy or a group-marriage.
Serial monogamy: Imagine that you have every four years another monogamous relationship with one child. Once in every four years a child is acceptable. Having a child every year is not. Bringing forth a baby is very hard work. In this way you spread your genes and there is a better recombination of genes.
Group-marriage: Imagine a dozen males and females having sex in every combination they like and raising the children together. If you have one father and one mother and one of them dies, you have a serious problem. If you have a dozen fathers and mothers and one of them dies, it hurts a lot, but is less a problem.
Group-marriage is biologically and sociologically ideal, but it goes against our genes. So you don’t see it very often. Adultery is sociologically despised but a strong biological advantage, so it continuous to exist.
.
c2. Homo-sexuality against civil war.
Let us compare with the Orangutan. The males of these species are extremely violent against each other. In the wild it is hard to find an adult male with all his fingers and toes. If humans were like that, we would not have a society.
Males of all primates tend to violence against each other. A society can exist only when this violence is checked in some manner.
Imagine a human society of people without homo-sexual tendencies. Would males have contact with each other or would they avoid each other?
Evolution is quite simple: Each and every thing that harms or hinders a species is filtered out by evolution. In the deep sea you find creatures with very strange colors. Why? Because there is no light. It does not matter what color you have, so color is random. But in nature you find no white mice. White mice are good in a laboratory, but on a green grass or in a brown forest they would be to visible.
With humans: Each and every property of humans is either harmless or beneficial or unimportant for our children. If a property harms us, it is a disadvantage. For example: cancer. Cancer is harmful for people younger than say 50. If your genes give you cancer before you have children, your genes will cease to exist. If your genes give you cancer before your children can take care of themselves, the chances of your genes for continued survival are far less. But if your genes give you cancer when all your grandchildren can take care of themselves, it doesn’t matter for evolution.
The fact that homo-sexuality is quite common can mean two things: It is beneficial or it is not important. But homosexuals are less likely to have children. Why do they continue to exist? Why did homo-sexuality survive evolution? The only reasonable answer is: Because human society benefits from homo-sexuality.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Daniel Howard. You said:
“Of course traditions must be examined critically, but they do count for something. We are not always smarter than our ancestors in the way we think we are.”
I would agree that we are not always smarter than our ancestors. Indeed I know of no evidence to suggest that we are.
However, what we are, or at least most of us are, is so much better informed about so many things. We understad things that our predecessors did not – Not because we are smarter, but because over time our shared knowledge, and hence understanding, has grown exponentially.
The practice of Christianity has also evolved over time. Others have quoted our changing attitudes to slavery and other practices.
But there appears to be something that singles out homosexuality as still being something profoundly apart. I wonder if it has anything to do with fear? Many men experience latent homosexuality, especially as teenagers. This passes in most cases, but we remember it, and against a teaching that homosexuality is wrong, we become like reformed smokers – who are frequently the strongest anti-smoking voices to be heard. I may be wrong, but it’s an idea.