Christian foster carers Eunice and Owen Johns lose high court judgement

Previous post here.

A Christian couple morally opposed to homosexuality because of their faith have lost a landmark High Court battle over the right to become foster carers.

Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65, from Oakwood, Derby, went to court after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a “homosexual lifestyle” was acceptable.

The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers but withdrew their application, believing it “doomed to failure” because of the social worker’s attitude to their religious beliefs.

They asked judges to rule that their faith should not be a bar to them becoming carers, and the law should protect their Christian values.

But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation “should take precedence” over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds. The Johns are considering an appeal.

[.....]

The judges had stated that “biblical Christian beliefs may be ‘inimical’ to children, and implicitly upheld an Equalities and Human Rights Commission (ECHC) submission that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs”.

….read all

Christian Concern have a fairly detailed release on this already.

Full version of judgement text can be found here.

Interesting analysis by Gavin Drake and Religion Law Blog.

Tags: , , ,

65 Responses to “Christian foster carers Eunice and Owen Johns lose high court judgement”

  1. Gordon Says:

    “The Christian Legal Centre warned “fostering by Christians is now in doubt” and said the judges had effectively ruled “homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK”.”

    But its not homosexual rights. Its the right to indoctrinate small children to believe that homosexuals are inferior. It may be dressed up in other language but thats what it means in practice.

  2. Roger Pearse Says:

    Yeah. Kill the Christians! Kill the Christians!

    What a sick society we live in. The establishment decide to institutionalise unnatural vice, knowing that almost everyone is opposed to it; and then to ram it down the throats of everyone else. Since the world’s largest religion is opposed to this vice — like all the others — then its followers must be treated as heretics.

    As it said in Paul Kocher’s “Master of Middle Earth”, the important thing for the Saurons of this world is not that others do what they want, but to force them to do it against their own will.

  3. Charles Crosby Says:

    This whole business has been poorly handled. You cannot defeat the ministers of the Temples of Baal with their acts (theatre) and Statutes (the rules and regulations of a status driven society) commonly known as the law of England & Wales or powerless legalities – or their rules, which they make and break at will as they see fit. All our courts are Commercial Courts – there to make money and nothing else. There is no justice in them, only malfeasance and corruption. This means we have to fight them commercially and in Admiralty Jurisdiction – the Law of Sea. These criminals (pirates) do not obey the Law of the Land. We all have unalienable rights and this couple have been denied those rights – they are the victims of a crime and the criminals who committed this crime (The ‘Judges’) should be made to pay and there is a way to make them pay. Google Commercial Remedies and start learning.

  4. Jill Says:

    How long, I wonder, before the social services remove children from their homes and the care of their natural parents should they refuse to submit to the gay tyranny?

    A sick society indeed, Roger.

  5. Spirit_Of_Iona Says:

    Yes we wouldn’t want to ‘infect’ anyone with Christian moral beliefs or in fact any religious moral belief…despite the complete lack of self control – ill discipline – and immorality in Britain today with whole communities left in fear of feral teenagers we even have the ludicrous situation where the government is contemplating sending the army into schools to try to restore discipline. Instead we get drunkeness and lewd behaviour metal detectors in schools… police in schools… disruption and violence in the classroom…teenage pregnancy and STI’s

    No Society doesn’t want to be infected by ‘Christian moral beliefs’ that is why there are countless parents up and down the country trying to get their children into faith schools because the standards of respect discipline and crucially academic results are higher than their secular counterparts. The only answer from the secularists on this point is to ask why should the faith schools get the best teachers and the best results and that education should be free of religion and that there should be no faith schools.

    It makes you laugh and at the same time it makes you cry yet I take comfort from the fact that it was not unforetold.

  6. Edward Lindon Says:

    One of the ethical victories of our time is that, in a large part of the civilised cosmopolitan world, there is no longer any such thing as being “morally opposed to homosexuality”. This is because we have come to recognise two things. First, that sexuality is to a large degree genetically determined and therefore of no more moral relevance than chirality or eye colour. Second, that an individual’s private lifestyle, provided it remain within the law and hurt no-one, is nobody else’s business.

    Hateful doctrines such as racism and prejudice against gays only continue to exist because some people continue to insist there is an issue where in fact there is none. Mr and Mrs Johns may in other respects be perfectly kind and caring people, but if their conscience does not permit them to overcome their prejudices, they should not be sponsored by our government to spread their ideas to the next generation.

    We are all free to act as individuals; no-one is trying to force the Johns to be open-minded, tolerant or loving. But the government has a duty to ensure it does not use its funds and authority (which both derive from the electorate) inadvertently to support bigotry or hate speech. The effort to end blind, evil and irrational prejudice is too important to be swayed by the bleatings of the majority Christian culture.

  7. Gordon Says:

    Also, the idea that people are either homosexual or heterosexual has been found to be a poor explanation. There is a spectrum of sexuality on which some people will be definitely heterosexual and some definitely homosexual and others somewhere along that line. Fundamentalists deny this but rely on it for their stories of conversion from homosexuality, which often seems to be people who are not placed at either end of the spectrum or people who indulge in homosexual practices for reasons of isolation from women. Its a bit like the people who say Genesis must be literally true but then claim that when Jesus said “this is my body” he was using an allegory. There is a real sense that fundamentalists are trying to have their cake and eat it on the gay issue.

    On the education point, school results from non Christian fee paying schools is equal with Christian ones. Its down to resources, class sizes and teacher motivation rather than religion.

  8. Charles Crosby Says:

    Homosexuality is a developmental disorder – period.

  9. kate Says:

    Although Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson who ruled on this case might WISH it were so, it simply is not the truth that england is a secular state. Parliament and the Queen include statements of Christian faith in the content of their key pronouncments. Who will judge the judges on this?

    This potentially stops children being adopted by Christian, Jewish and Muslim families for what they believe on homosexuality. Presumably the judges realize the children under care will, by law, not be expected to be sexually active and that parents and children are allowed, under law here, to hold differing opinions on many topics!

    Should the Christain, Jewish and Muslim families who are currently adopting/fostering now hand the state back these children. The above ruling will close the opportunity for a large number of children to be adopted into loving homes.

    Derby Council should take steps to correct the above named judges whose error this craziness stems from.

  10. Gordon Says:

    What seems to lie behind a lot of the fundamentalist concerns about homosexuality is a belief that gay men are attempting to recruit or convert heterosexuals. Hence the concern about who is caring for children.

    I may be wrong so please feel free to challenge that perception.

  11. David Says:

    The real victims of this judgement, are the children who will not now be able be adopted by these loving families and who will therefore be intentionally deprived by the state of normal family life. This in itself is not only morally wrong, but evil in intent.

    Such judges are promoting political fashion by using these children as pawns, in order to gain personal ‘credibility’ amongst their peers. Also those behaving in this way against children who need to be adopted and fostered, demonstrate no care or consideration for these children they are depriving.

    The fact that judges like these are happy to put their own ‘personal credibility’ above the interests of the children they are depriving of a loving home, leads to the inevitable conclusion that this service should be taken away from the hands of those who seek only their own interests and instead provided by those whose only interest is in the children’s best interests.

    The media appear to be portraying this as a ‘victory’ against ‘anti-gay Christians’, and judgement being given that the so called ‘equality laws’ (which in this case deny equality to children in care), must be held more important than religious discrimination against Christians offering to adopt. This is of course unbelievable foolishness, typical of those whose only intent is to follow the latest political fashion, without having ever given any deep thought to what they are promoting or the real consequences of their actions.

    The effect of implementing this ‘equality’ legislation like this, is that children who are already damaged and broken from infancy upwards, who have never had the privilege that the judges have enjoyed, are discarded pawns, denied the loving Christian homes to which they should be entitled (along with other social groups) and dened their equality rights to immediate adoption by loving Christian families. So for the sake of the current political sacred mantras which promote gay rights above other people’s, while judges who have enjoyed a loving family can go home from their court room to a loving wife, these children are left in state child provision, denied of the love that these Christian families, willingly offer to provide. This is not ‘equality’ but Inquality against children in care.

  12. Gordon Says:

    Just to clarify, this case was about respite fostering not adoption so nobody is being deprived of a permanent family life by this ruling.

    There are quite a lot of things taken into account for adoption and fostering. Its not just the political and moral beliefs of the prospective foster carer, but how that would be likely to affect any placement of a child. Its possible to have quite extreme views without that being likely to have any ill effect, but some people with less extreme opinions might allow them to influience their behaviour more. Its never a black and white opinion.

    Oh and not all Christians hold the same position on homosexuality as this couple, so to paint it as an anti christian decision is over egging the pudding slightly. Its a decision against this couple, not against all christians and it doesn’t constitute case law so it has no wider effect. What it does do, however, is show that the law is not good at dealing with religious issues. With so many different religious opinions its impossible to give them all equality.

  13. Charles Crosby Says:

    @Gordon

    “Just to clarify, this case was about respite fostering not adoption so nobody is being deprived of a permanent family life by this ruling.”

    That then weakens the case of the criminals who made the evil decision to deny two good people their unalienable rights to foster children.

    Furthermore, who are you to determine what is extreme or not extreme? God or someone above God i.e. a liberal?

    “Oh and not all Christians hold the same position on homosexuality as this couple, so to paint it as an anti christian decision is over egging the pudding slightly.”

    Thanks though for revealing and confirming to us that you do not know who or what a Christian is.

  14. Gordon Says:

    I would define a Christian as someone who believes in the historic credes (nicean and apostles). None of those mention sexuality at all and leave these issues as matters of personal conscience.

    Nobody has an “unalienable rights to foster children” just as nobody has the right to build bu8ildings wherever they like or drive at whatever speed they like. Society has to have rules. These do limit our freedom, but they make things safer and more equitable.

  15. Charles Crosby Says:

    I would define a Christian based upon The Truth and The Lord Jesus Christ IS The Truth, so real Christians follow Him not apostles or Mickey Mouse creeds.

    As for unalienable rights, we all have those unless we elect to give them away and become the slaves of those who in TRUTH have no jurisdiction over us at all. This is something the couple in question need to learn.

    “Society has to have rules. These do limit our freedom, but they make things safer and more equitable.”

    What society is that and would you care to name it and thank you for admitting that your freedom is limited – I would use stronger language?

    “Nobody has an “unalienable rights to foster children””

    Who says? I’ll tell you, people who do not have the authority to do so. In their evil arrogance they assume they have authority.

    “build bu8ildings wherever they like.”

    If the direct neighbours to the building project do not object to it, then who has the right to stop it? I’ll tell you – no one.

    “Or drive at whatever speed they like.”

    If you treat people like children and never train them to take responsibility for their actions i.e. to love their neighbours as they love themselves i.e. to quote the ‘rules’, you will always have speed limits.

    When are you going to start thinking for yourself and question the status quo?

  16. Gordon Says:

    But God (by your model) has rules, and the reason we have laws is actually because they existed in Judaism.

    Interestingly Ekklesia have commented on this story here:
    http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/14235

    Its not possible to have laws that favour one religious group over another unless you had a system of state enforced religion as you do in some countries.

  17. Charles Crosby Says:

    Who said anything about laws favouring one religious group?

    I am not talking about religion, following The Lord Jesus Christ is not religion, and Judaism – a religion, is not Christianity.

    I am taking about one universal law or God’s natural law for all mankind. T0 love God with all our heart, mind and strength and to love our neighbours as ourselves.

    Within this law man retains his unalienable rights – his freedom, anything else is otherwise known as liberty or a granted freedom, as in soldiers being given leave.

    Liberty is a benefit privilege given to slaves.

  18. Jill Says:

    The stupid people at Ekklesia say that some Christian institutions are demanding special rights and privileges for themselves which is of course absolute rubbish.

    They seem to have overlooked the fact that it is Christianity, operating through Christians, in the public square, which has given people the very rights and freedoms of belief which they have today.

  19. David Says:

    @Gordon
    “this case was about respite fostering not adoption so nobody is being deprived of a permanent family life by this ruling.” – I think you’re wrong about this. Whenever a precedent is set by court judgements, these have a tendency to not only become enshrined in law, but to influence wider aspects of the subject ruled upon. If this is then applied to adoption, the effect will be to deprive children of loving Christian families. We are already facing a crisis of families from black and asian communities, not coming forward to adopt. Now we ‘want’ to dismiss genuine loving Christian families as inappropriate for providing homes for children whose only crime has been to have been born in adverse circumstances.

    “There are quite a lot of things taken into account for adoption and fostering. Its not just the political and moral beliefs of the prospective foster carer, but how that would be likely to affect any placement of a child.” – whilst it is clearly appropriate to vet and assess prospective foster/adopters, it is ridiculous, to be applying fashoinabl,e prejudicial, political restrictions, on genuine faithful Christian families whose conscience before the Lord, cannot embrace homosexuality as something to ‘teach’ children. The minority of children who are old enough to claim to be homosexual, can be cared for by people with special skills for this minority. There is no need to be indoctrinating all children with politically driven ideas that homosexuality is ‘normal’ or a lifestyle to ‘choose’ that is ‘equal’ to marriage etc. Children have a difficult enough time growing up and learning who they are as a young man or woman, without the confusion of being forced to ask themselves ‘am I homosexual?’.

    “not all Christians hold the same position on homosexuality as this couple, so to paint it as an anti christian decision is over egging the pudding slightly.” – well, that is what the newspapers headlines are portraying it as.

    “What it does do, however, is show that the law is not good at dealing with religious issues. With so many different religious opinions its impossible to give them all equality.” – Would you mind listing for me, the ‘religions’ which promote homosexuality to be taught to young children?

  20. Gordon Says:

    My last sentence was not about the gay issue at all, just a general observation that the law is not good at dealing with religion.

  21. Gordon Says:

    And i assume people know the case was brought by the council, not the prospective foster carers.

  22. David Says:

    @Gordon,
    “My last sentence was not about the gay issue at all, just a general observation that the law is not good at dealing with religion. ” – then its inclusion lacks relevence except that it falsely (and I suspect, deliberately), gives the impression that some religions promote homosexuality, and that therefore, there is no appropriate answer to this except those espoused by liberal crusades who promote it.

  23. Gordon Says:

    No. That was not my intention.

  24. Charles Crosby Says:

    “And i assume people know the case was brought by the council, not the prospective foster carers.”

    And who now controls our councils? The politically driven so called charity called Common Purpose, real name Communist Purpose.

    Google Brian Gerrish for all the corrupt sordid details.

  25. Alathia Says:

    I am no fan of Peter Ould, but he provides a very good breakdown of the judgement (see: http://www.peter-ould.net/). I think what is interesting is that nobody has applied to be a foster carer and nobody has been refused! It seems to me that the Christian couple fulfilled the words of Ned Flanders, in that it is a Christian duty to think the worse. A social worker voices concerned about the couple’s views on homosexuality when they first discuss the possibility of becoming foster carers; the couple (as seems to be the vogue at present) decided to see themselves as martyrs for Christian orthodoxy. Off then went to Christian legal charity claiming discrimination, when no overt discrimination had taken place. As the judge noted both parties – the council and the Christians – have wasted the court’s time and a good chunk of money on legal fees. The council didn’t bother to explain that the formal application hadn’t been made… What could have been sorted out by people listening to each other just cost a lot of money, but moreover, has added fuel to the ‘anti-homosexualist’ cause.

    Jesus noted that you will know them by their fruit… Since the fruit of this couple’s desire for martyrdom has been discord and the furthering of homophobia; and the council’s fruit has been distrust and the alienating of Christians; I think we can conclude that in no way can we see this has a victory for Christianity – or secularism for that matter!

  26. Gordon Says:

    Brian Gerish and the “truth movement’ have a lot in common with Christian fundamentalists as I wrote about recently.

    Having come in from an evening working with some lovely Christian people in Glasgow I find it hard to reconcile their faith with this kind of Christianity.

    They even had me singing a hymn….

  27. Gordon Says:

    Ref. Gerish

    http://www.ecalpemos.org/2011/02/similarity-of-christian-fundamentalists.html

  28. Charles Crosby Says:

    “This court deliberation was brought about not because the Johns (the couple in question) were refused as foster parents, but rather because during the application process an issue around the acceptability or otherwise of the Johns’ Christian views was raised.”

    An ‘application’ is an act of begging. The behaviour of a slave, not the behaviour a free born living soul or sentient man/woman with unalienable rights.

    Who decided there was an issue? Who set themselves up as Judge and Jury over this to create an issue in order to make a decision and thereby infringe upon their unalienable rights of these people to foster as Christian foster parents?

  29. Simon Says:

    Has anybody read the judgement? It’s here:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

    It is quite specific and reads to me to be deliberately avoiding setting a precedent (paragraphs 31 and 108). Furthermore, it makes no judicial order, merely noting that consideration of attitudes to sexual orientation is reasonable, and probably necessary given the Council’s duties under the National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services (paragraph 106). It does not say what the conclusion of that consideration must be.

    It repeatedly makes the point that for this to be considered religious discrimination, the Johns would have to show that someone expressing the same views on homosexuality but without the religious motivation would have been treated differently.

    The final thing to note is that the judges basically kicked the whole case out as undecideable in law. The council had made no decision, so there was nothing to challenge. The statements the two parties wanted the judges to endorse (paragraphs 27 and 28) were too broad (paragraph 30) and more a matter for parliament than the judiciary.

    My own editorial comments follow. The judges do not stop the Johns from applying. There is a note that people may be approved for fostering only certain groups. I think that this could be used to work around the Johns’ problems with non-Christian children (what to do with them on Sunday if they can’t come to church; won’t take them to other religions’ services) by simply only giving them reasonably devout children. I’m not so sure that it would work with sexual orientation because there is no known way to be certain of a child’s orientation (or future orientation) so no way to be certain that the children placed with the Johns are all straight.

    The judgement notes that the council claims to have foster carers on its books who have similar views to the Johns’. If true, this does suggest that the council is not discriminating on grounds of religion, or even of belief. The ‘what if…’ questions that the council posed do rather suggest to me that they are concerned with actions, not beliefs. The Johns’ answers strike me almost as if the possibility of a gay caree had simply not occurred to them. I’m not surprised that the council have doubts. Blowing off a job interviewer with ‘it’ll be fine‘ is never a good idea.

    The last thing I’ll say is do not believe everything you read in the papers. For example, the ‘must take precedence’ line quoted in webmaster’s original post does appear in the judgement (paragraph 93), but is prefaced by about 200 words defining the narrow circumstances that the sexual equality rules must take precedence. I advise everyone to sit down, make a cup of tea and read the judgement. It is sober, considered and very specific, unlike the media coverage quoted.

  30. Robert Highfield Says:

    I feel very sorry for he Johns, decent people who want to help disadvantaged children. How can it be shown that telling a child that one doesn’t believe homosexuality is a good thing is wrong? I tell my own children that, and I am an atheist. I do believe that some people become homosexual through natural tendency, but I believe most are either instinctively hetero-sexual or are vulnerable to influence one way or another. It is this latter group who really should not be encouraged to think homosexuality is an equally good choice. It is not, it has many disadvantages. Of course homosexuals can be happy and fulfilled, but not if they want natural children, not if they want the sort of family that evolution equippped us for, nor if hey wish to functionin other societies overseas which are less tolerant. Indeed, I can’t see any circumstance where homosexuality is better than heterosexuality. It may be equal for some people, fair enough, but never obviously better.
    Don’t we have the right to point this out to children? To say, if homosexuality is an inevitable path for you, then look to me for support, but if its not inevitable, and you won’t be denying your basic instincts, then don’t choose that route. I also respect that Christianity teaches homosexuality to be wrong. I have no argument with Christian parents or carers telling their children this, provided they are not bigoted about it. To prevent somebody being a carer over this is outrageous, and another example of the unfortunate direction society in UK is taking. Its not just this issue but many others, and that’s why I live in Hong Kong, an altogether more rational society where homosexuality is permitted, and homophobia banned, but homosexuality is not encouraged.
    I think you could compare it to being left-handed. You should not be discriminated against if you are, but it is better avoided if you have the option.

  31. Simon Says:

    Gak. ‘Reasonably devout Christian children’, in my last-but-two paragraph above.

  32. Tom Says:

    Was I sleeping when we held the referendum to change this Sovereign Christian Democratic Monarchy we live in, to a Secular Republic?

    In their judgment Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beeston said “…We live in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy. ……”

    This is what the Queen said at her Coronation when she took the Coronation Oath –

    Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
    Queen: I will.
    One of these men is a peer of the Land and has sworn allegiance to the Crown, Her Majesty – Is he in fact attempting to re-write our laws and constitution? – Has he broken his oath to the Queen? – Can someone tell me is this a form of treason?

  33. Simon Says:

    Tom: I think we changed the constitution when we invited Charles II to take the throne after Cromwell’s rule. The monarch has had next to no actual power since then. So formally, you are correct, and we live in a state whose head is also defender of the faith. However, practically, we are governed by parliament. That has historically been a christian institution, but is no longer so. Pluralistic and secular is probably the best description. Divided and schizophrenic also springs to mind.

    So, no, the judge’s statement is highly unlikely to be considered treasonous. It would seem to be equivalent to the statement that the monarch must do the will of parliament or provoke a constitutional crisis. That is a simple statement of fact.

    I am not a lawyer, so take with a pinch of salt. For what it’s worth, however, my understanding is that treason, in relation to the monarch, requires a personal attack on the monarch, as distinct from the institution of the monarchy. Swearing at the queen is treasonous, I believe; republicanism is a perfectly legal political position.

    As a matter of interest, does anyone know if the monarch is at all involved with the running of the church, or is it done in a synod-proposes-monarch-assents kind of way?

  34. Charles Crosby Says:

    @Simon

    You’re wrong about the Monarchy. Judges swear to an Oath of Office under Her Majesty. If challenged when asked if they are operating under that Oath they will either refuse to answer or avoid the question. It is after all Her Majesty’s Court Service. If they are operating under that Oath they should not practise Law from the Bench, hence they refuse to answer the question.

    All our Courts apart from Jury Courts are de-facto for profit only Courts. HMCS is a corporation not a public institution. All part of Blair’s Corporate Communist Third Way. No one can expect to receive justice in these courts as profit is king.

    Monarchy lost it’s power over Parliament in 1911 when Asquith and Churchill ‘persuaded’ George V to sign away the Royal Assent. Edward VII previously had refused to sign it and conveniently died a few weeks later. Go figure.

  35. Simon Says:

    @Charles Crosby: The 1911 Parliament Act allows the Commons to override the Lords, not the monarch. Royal Assent is still required to this day. And if it were not, that would only make the case that we are effectively a secular state stronger as the monarch-and-defender-of-the-faith would not be involved in law making at all.

    Regarding the judicial oath, I think your point only makes sense if you are right about the effect of the Parliament Acts, and I don’t think you are. The monarch signs bills into law. Judges take their authority from the monarch. No problem, except for republicans.

    Wikipedia on the 1911 Parliament Act:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949

    Regarding judicial corruption, it’s irrelevant here even if true, because there were no fines imposed for the judiciary to profit from. Unless you’ve some evidence that the judges were bribed? I doubt it as they made no order when they could have done – perhaps they’re so dishonest they won’t stay bought?

    WAY off topic. I won’t post about the British Constitution again on this thread.

  36. Charles Crosby Says:

    @Simon

    “The 1911 Parliament Act allows the Commons to override the Lords, not the monarch. Royal Assent is still required to this day.”

    Not so. It is now known as Letters Patent i.e. The Monarch has to sign – she has no option. The Royal Assent in effect no longer exists and the Monarch is powerless.

    We are a Communist State bar being named as such. The Central Bank, The Graduated Income Tax, State controlled Judiciary and State controlled Education are four of the Major Planks of the Communist Manifesto.

    Two more planks are the abolition of the family and abolition of privately owned property which they are now working on.

    Homosexuality is one of the weapons they are using to destroy the family, hence the pro-homosexual decision of this Judge. None of this is off topic BTW – it’s all part of the bigger picture that’s all.

    I am definitely right about the Judicial Oath, I have put it to the test myself. It has nothing to do with fines, for all cases are bonded and have a value and are sold on the markets. Our courts are there to make a profit and nothing else. To them justice is an irrelevance.

  37. Simon Says:

    @Charles Crosby: All of it is off-topic. Have you read the judgment? The judges did not make a decision, so I really cannot see how you can construe it as a “pro-homosexual decision”. They say it is not their place to try to interpret the law for all possible scenarios, and tell the Johns and the council to sort it out amongst themselves. The constitutionality or not of the judiciary is irrelevant when they choose to say nothing legally binding.

    They do not stop the Johns from completing their application to be foster parents.

    They do not tell the council how it must decide that application.

    They do not forbid the Johns from bringing a fresh complaint to court if they do not like the council’s decision.

    Regarding a possible pro-homosexual bias in the case, I suggest you look for the lawyers’ names in the document. The judges scarcely comment on Mr Weston (for the council), but do comment at length on Mr Diamond (for the Johns). In summary, they tell him that he placed the exact same arguments before them (plus one case, Thlimmenos v Greece, which they see as adding nothing) as he used in the Ladele and MacFarlane cases, both of which he lost. They are telling one of the lawyers (the anti-homosexual one, as you cast it) that his strategy would have failed for a third time, and that he will need to come up with something new if he wants to win in a potential round two. They give no hints to the supposedly pro-homosexual council lawyer. Why do you think they are favouring the council?

    Finally, I’ll just re-iterate what I said before. The Johns’ answers to the council’s questions (paragraph 7 of the judgment) are “somewhat superficial” according to the council’s interviewer; I would have left out the “somewhat”. The meaning I read into that is that they are unprepared to deal with a gay foster child, or a violently homophobic one. If they can give at least a skeleton of an answer, they’ll have better luck.

  38. Charles Crosby Says:

    @Simon. “All of it is off-topic. Have you read the judgment? The judges did not make a decision, so I really cannot see how you can construe it as a “pro-homosexual decision”.”

    No I have not read the judgement, nor do I need to, and none of what I am saying is off topic unless you cannot see or are choosing not to see.

    How too can it be a judgement if the Judges didn’t make a decision? An oxymoron here me-thinks.

    What I am saying is that the council and/or any court have no right(s) to poke their noses into the affairs of this couple and their wish to foster. As I said earlier on in this thread, the act of ‘applying’ is begging i.e. the act of a slave. It is not the act of a free man and free woman.

    As for pro-homosexual bias I was speaking generally not just for this case. Many judges are homosexual or bisexual with some being paedophiles too.

    I also said that the Johns did not handle this case properly and have allowed criminals posing as those with an assumed authority to infringe and trample on their unalienable rights.

    If I were them I would arrange privately to foster and ignore the Common Purpose Stasi/Nazis at the council and the courts and fight them on Commercial grounds thereafter if they came interfering.

    “The meaning I read into that is that they are unprepared to deal with a gay foster child, or a violently homophobic one. If they can give at least a skeleton of an answer, they’ll have better luck.”

    Your thought processes here are those of someone who is subservient to a system that has no right to do what it does. You also seem to think these people have no right to choose who they foster. How has this denial of our and their unalienable rights come about?

    What btw is homophobia? I’ll tell you, it’s a propaganda term designed and used to attack the heterosexual family loving people of this country and also designed to make them think they have a problem, whilst all the while it’s the homosexuals that have the problem, homosexuality being a developmental disorder to say the least.

  39. Jill Says:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs here, the practical outcome is the same. The Johns know that they will not be allowed to foster and a clear warning has gone out to all other councils that anybody with the Johns’ views on homosexuality will not be allowed to foster either.

    Another victory for homosexualists, I would say.

  40. Gordon Says:

    “the council and/or any court have no right(s) to poke their noses into the affairs of this couple and their wish to foster.”

    I assume you would apply that same rule to a gay couple who wanted to foster or adopt?

  41. Simon Says:

    @Charles Crosby: I apologise that I misread ‘the pro-homosexual decision of this judge’ as talking about this case. May I ask which decision you were talking about?

    Do paedophiles, child abusers and sex trafficcers have an inalienable right to foster children?

    @Jill: I really think you are reading defeat from a no score draw. The judges assert that neither religious discrimination nor sexual discrimination is always paramount. The only thing they do say is that Mr Diamond’s arguments did not fly twice before, and simply repeating them does not make them stronger. Nothing in the judgment prevents the Johns from fostering; particularly if their lawyer stops banging his head against the same brick wall in the same way.

  42. Simon Says:

    @Charles Crosby: One more thing. The judgment is that the courts have no authority to decide the case set before them. No oxymoron; they might have made the opposite call and entered an order.

  43. Charles Crosby Says:

    @Jill Only if the Johns continue to live as slaves, but I agree, on the surface, it is a victory for homosexuals and the homosexual lobby.

    @Gordon “I assume you would apply that same rule to a gay couple who wanted to foster or adopt?”

    I don’t make or apply any rules – only men make and apply rules. I apply the Law of God which is the only Law i.e. to love God with all my heart, mind and strength and to love my neighbour as myself. I cannot force anyone to keep that Law, e.g. the Puritans tried that and failed miserably.

    As for gay couples they already do adopt/foster don’t they hence the wretches Elton John and Furness?

    Did anyone, including, but not limited to local councils, make any objections to that? Not a chance nor a whimper.

    @Simon “May I ask which decision you were talking about?”

    If there is an order the Judge has made a decision.

    If the Judge has made a Judgement he has made decision.

    Why are you splitting hairs?

    The issue here, in effect, is not the decision or non-decision it’s the outcome which they no doubt planned from the start and which Jill sums up very well.

    “The judgment is that the courts have no authority to decide the case set before them.”

    Thank you for confirming that we really do not need de-facto for-profit only courts. No jury, no court.

  44. Charles Crosby Says:

    @Simon
    “Do paedophiles, child abusers and sex trafficcers have an inalienable right to foster children?”

    Inalienable rights are granted by men. Unalienable rights are granted by God. I trust this answers your question.

  45. Simon Says:

    @Charles Crosby:

    You said “Homosexuality is one of the weapons they are using to destroy the family, hence the pro-homosexual decision of this Judge.”

    I said “The judges did not make a decision, so I really cannot see how you can construe it as a “pro-homosexual decision”.”

    You said “As for pro-homosexual bias I was speaking generally not just for this case.”

    I said “I misread ‘the pro-homosexual decision of this judge’ as talking about this case. May I ask which decision you were talking about?”

    You said (with some paragraph breaks that I have removed) “If there is an order the Judge has made a decision. If the Judge has made a Judgement he has made decision. Why are you splitting hairs?”

    Are we talking different languages? It turns out that you are talking about this judgment. The judgment does not include an order (the last three paragraphs, summarised, say “not our place to make an order at this stage”). The only decision the judges have made is not to intervene at this point, which is the exact opposite of what I would expect if all of your assertions about their corruption and self-interest were true. They were handed a golden opportunity to declare once and for all that sexual equality trumps religious equality always and forever, and they declined for good reasons that they put forward themselves.

    I said “The judgment is that the courts have no authority to decide the case set before them.”

    You said “Thank you for confirming that we really do not need de-facto for-profit only courts.”

    I’m beginning to think that we really are speaking different languages. Try as I might, I cannot construe my sentence to refer to anything other than THIS judgment in THIS case. Therefore, I cannot understand how you can take my sentence to support your sweeping generalisation. Would you mind explaining how you are reading my original sentence?

    I said “Do paedophiles, child abusers and sex trafficcers have an inalienable right to foster children?”

    You said “Inalienable rights are granted by men. Unalienable rights are granted by God. I trust this answers your question.”

    Not really. Do paedophiles, child abusers and sex trafficcers have an unalienable right to foster children, then? If your answer is yes, then I have nothing more to say. If your answer is either “I don’t know – ask God” or no, could you expand on how a fostering agency (state run or otherwise) is to determine whether a potential foster carer has that unalienable right without going through some form of application process?

    By the way, why do you keep saying “judge”? There were two of them on this case.

    @Alathea: Thanks for the link to Peter Ould. It’s interesting to read a very similar analysis to mine from someone with a rather different starting position. He carries it into an argument for disestablishment, which is intriguing.

  46. Charles Crosby Says:

    @Simon “I’m beginning to think that we really are speaking different languages.”

    Absolutely Correct. You live inside the box and have a view restricted by the sides, top and bottom of the box.

    I live outside the box.

    Which means I think our conversation is over.

  47. Simon Says:

    @Charles Crosby: Fair enough. But how am I ever going to get out of my box if you don’t answer questions about what you can see in terms that make sense to me?

    I can’t say I’ll agree with you if you do answer, but I can promise to be slightly less combative. I have spent today with tonsillitis while caring for a toddler with a tummy bug, posting while he sleeps, and have probably been a bit grumpy, for which I apologise.

  48. David Says:

    @Gordon,

    Out of interest Gordon re: “I assume you would apply that same rule to a gay couple who wanted to foster or adopt?” – are you contented and happy for your children to be fostered or adopted by two men in a house who kiss and have ‘sex’ with each other? Have you considered the possible consquences that your child could suffer being in such an environment? …wake up call! the ‘political’ liberal tosh that is being espoused here, is very disturbing, since it bears no relation to the reality (unless it only concerns someone else’s children of course!)

  49. Robert Highfield Says:

    Charles Crosby, I think Simon has been entirely too patient with you. Why don’t you do as he asks and read the actual judgement? I have and it has changed my view. In your case you seem determined to believe that this issue confirms your conspiracy theories, and you won’t believe anything else. Your arguments are not rational, and despite Simon’s efforts to explain logically, you just plough on. I suppose your Christian views are just as dogmatic?
    To move on, whilst the number of practicing Christians continues to fall, I suspect that if you include those like me who support Christian values of morality, then that would be a sizable percentage of the population. Together with Moslems you would be ruling out more than half the population if those who don’t believe homosexuality is the equal of heterosexuality are ruled out as caters. The judgement doesn’t make such a ruling. Common sense would suggest that the decision in each case should be more subjective. There is already a great deal of subjectivity when choosing caters and adopters. You hope they are decent people who have the best intentions of the child at heart and are capable of caring for them properly. The various interviews and background checks are for this purpose. It works most if the time and occasionally fails. The same should apply to religious and sexual beliefs. Are the applicants reasonable and balanced? Will they try to brainwash the child? Trouble is, there are bigots on both sides, as an adopter myself, I have met bigots in the social services, in my case ‘racial equality’ bigots, who somehow seem to think that a Chinese child should not be placed with European parents on the grounds of ‘equality’. Some of these people push their agenda regardless of the law. So we need the courts occasionally to get things back on track the way the law intended. It just seems after reading this judgement that this was NOT one of those occasions.

  50. dennis Says:

    let me start by saying that they were asked,if a child at 8-10 years old came up to them and said they think they were gay and was it ok for them to be gay what would they say,they said that they would tell the child that they are not gay and it’s not ok to be gay…(let’s be clear they said they will still love and care for the child) now as parents you have the right to say what ever you want (within reason) as a parent if my child said to me daddy are boys allowed to kiss boys i would say no…boys are made for girls and girls are made for boys…the sad thing is with perfectly normal views like that i wouldn’t be allowed to foster myself

  51. Gordon Says:

    @ David

    I was asking Charles is his libertarian views would be equally applicable to those he does not agree with. I suspect not, but he has not answered the question.

    Charles is a conspiracy theorist, hence his regualr mentions of Common Purpose. I did some work for them a couple of years ago. Definitley not trying to take over the world. Barely capable of doing what they do and like all conspiracy theories it rather disproves itself (the people doing the cover up are discovered through freedom of information or data protection legislation, yet they are supposed to be running the show).

    Maybe it makes the world simpler to understand holdiong these sort of views. Certainly there is a close corelation between people who hold to conspiracy ideas and those who are fundamentalist Christians. The ideas are often very similar indeed and the psychology is identical – that there has to be some force outside society directing it.

    Just wait till we get closer to 2012, thats all I can say. On one side the Mayan calendar people and on the other the fundamentalists like harold Camping predicting the second coming for 2012. Its all the same phenomenon.

  52. Charles Crosby Says:

    @Simon “But how am I ever going to get out of my box if you don’t answer questions about what you can see in terms that make sense to me?”

    You have to acknowledge first that you have been conditioned from birth to believe that the world around you i.e. The System is real, when it is nothing but an illusion. Which includes Governments, Finance, The Education System, The Courts, Local Councils, The Media etc. etc.

    I have been saying from the start that the Johns have handled this case badly by acting as slaves to the system instead of acting as free people with their own sovereign authority – God given unalienable rights. This would mean just getting on with fostering a child or children and telling the illusionary PTB to go take a hike. If threatened they could then fight their cause on a Commercial basis i.e. via Admiralty Law which is how the courts operate, only they don’t tell you this.

    @ Robert Highfield “I think Simon has been entirely too patient with you.”

    I think the opposite is the Truth, I have been more than patient with him.

  53. Alathia Says:

    On of the biggest victims in all this is the integrity of Christians themselves. Below is a post a left on another blog. I think it is relevant here.

    “A blogger has provided a very good discussion of the issues and arrived at similar conclusions (see: http://www.peter-ould.net/).

    There is an episode of the Simpsons, where Ned Flanders presumes Marge’s black eye is the result of domestic violence, although he doesn’t have a shred of evidence for this. Yet he reports Homer to the police. When Chief Wiggum realises Homer is innocent he confronts Flanders and asks him why he filed the report.

    Ned replied:

    “I’m a Christian, it is my duty to think the worst!”

    And of course this is true for many of the nasty blog entries and Christian media commenting on the case at present. It is almost as if there is a collective decision to WANT to believe Christians are the victims. In a sense it is a species of inverted pride ‘only we Christians can be treated so shamefully!’ they mutter as they jostle for their place in the hierarchy of oppression that has become an essential part of the whining culture of Britain today.

    As you rightly note, the mendacious pronouncements of some ‘official’ Christian organisations concerning the case is what is really shameful about the whole episode. It is ironic that so much is made of Lev 18:22 by many ‘conservative’ Christians and yet Exodus 20:16 & 23:1 are happily bypassed in the effort to ensure opprobrium is apportioned to a tiny proportion of the population, while the rest can sit back and delight in this less costly (to the self) appeal for moral living that concerns itself with other people’s behaviour. It is a pity as much effort has not gone into promoting Matt 5, 6 & 7; perhaps if there had, today Christians would find their voices being heard over the din of scorn and its more potent ally: apathy!

    What I think many vehemently anti-gay Christians forget, is that in everyday life, with exception of the odd camp celebrity or a walk down Old Compton Street, in Soho, or the through the Gay Village in Manchester, most homosexual women and men are remarkable for their ordinariness! And so when these Christians make so much out of something that is alien to the experience of most people – in that your typical homosexual is not running around dressed in more leather than an Aberdeen Angus, trying to jump into bed with all and sundry (despite vicious and deliberately defamatory descriptions of ‘homosexuals’ within certain sections of the Christian media); but is a neighbour, friend, brother, sister, father, mother or colleague. Many non-Christians are aware of this remarkable fact and become distrustful of Christians. I must also add that the issue of homosexuality rarely crops up in many churches, even Evangelical churches, unless there’s a minister desiring to whip up a bit of cheap righteousness.

    So what is the result of these high profile ‘Christian Victim’ cases and the hyperbole, hysteria and – as we have noted today – on occasion, downright lies that follows in their wake? Does it result in honour for the Gospel; or its distrust and ridicule? I think the Gospel survives pretty well: the real causality is the perceived integrity of Christians. I just hope one day the Christian Institute and its allied organisations and the Christians so eager for “professional” martyrdom realise this. Perhaps it is time to stop these charades of moral indignation and the masochistic delight in victimhood and ponder Christ’s words on forgiving one’s enemies, waxing in humility, rejoicing in persecution and turning the other cheek? In short ditching the idea there is anything special about being a Christian and remember: “So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’” (Lk 17:10). Perhaps then Christians will be afforded honour by the very fact they eschew it – at present, it seems honour is being sought for its own sake and as Jesus noted, those who do so receive their reward (cf. Matthew 6:2); but alas not the reward they intended.

    Thanks again for this!

    Alathia.

  54. Charles Crosby Says:

    @Gordon

    I have answered, but you do not understand and my views are not libertarian.

    I am a conspiracy revealer, not a theorist. A conspiracy theory is precisely that until it is met with lies and obfuscation by the so called powers that be and then by default it becomes a conspiracy.

    “People always lie badly” – Professor Roger Dommergue

    Furthermore, you cannot have ‘worked for’ Common Purpose unless you had become one of their programmed graduates. If you worked for them, as an agent, then you would not have attended their courses. I know how they work so don’t tell me otherwise.

    One of their slogans is: Training leaders for the post democratic era.” Would you care to enlighten us as to what that slogan means seeing as they claim to be a charity?

    2012? Thank you for revealing how limited your knowledge is.

  55. Reggie Perrin Says:

    As a lawyer, the striking thing about this case is how little it decided.

    Right or wrong, there was nothing in the judgment that was not supported by earlier precedents going back at least to the early 1990s and in some respects to the 1917 case of Bowman v Secular Society.

    Whole sections of the judgment were lifted almost word-for-word from Mr Justice Munby’s earlier judgment in Jewish Free School a couple of years ago.

    Whether you like or loathe the decision that the court reached, it was not in any sense surprising or ground-breaking.

    I’ve written more on these issues here: http://religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/christianity-and-law-of-england.html

  56. Gordon Says:

    Not going to get into any silliness as you are not open to discussion.

  57. Simon Says:

    @dennis: Nothing in the judgment says you would be forbidden to foster. The council even claims to have people on their books who do share your views. But what would you say to this child if you found out he was bullying another child because the other child was gay? The Johns don’t know what they would say. That alone gives me pause – surely bullying is wrong, whatever the reason?

    @Charles Crosby: The concept that society is an illusion – or rather, a shared mental creation with no reality separate from us, it’s creators – is not news to me. It’s even in popular fiction – Night Watch by Terry Pratchett for example. I believe that you are using that illusory nature to claim that none of it matters. What I don’t understand in that case is why you think Admiralty Law matters, why judicial oaths matter, why royal assent matters. It’s all equally illusory. Since these things do apparently matter to you, I presume I misunderstand you.

    Also, my understanding of Admiralty Law is that it only applies on land to matters of a maritime nature, which I don’t think fosterage is, so I’m not sure I see the relevance. I also don’t understand how you think the Johns are to get on with fostering without applying to an agency – state or private – that is going to have to do some vetting to keep the paedophiles out.

  58. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Apologises to Christians | eChurch Blog Says:

    [...] Know View Results  Loading … Recent CommentsSimon on Christian foster carers Eunice and Owen Johns lose high court judgementGoy on Christianity the reason for West’s success, say the ChineseGordon on Christian foster [...]

  59. Charles Crosby Says:

    @Simon

    It is not a concept, it is a Truth. The World, The System, The Matrix, call it what you will is an illusion. Matter is an illusion . Spirit is the only reality and in particular the Holy Spirit.

    The System only matters whilst we live in the flesh, once flesh is done away with we will then experience the reality of Spiritual Life.

    Christians, if they are True Born are IN the World (system), but NOT OF the World (system) hence I said that I live outside the box.

    Furthermore, I make no claims, I just tell you the Truth which you can either accept or reject – there are no compromises or half way houses as Gordon has now discovered.

    Admiralty Law is the Law of the planet i.e. International Commercial Law and it overrules any other law, such as the mickey mouse laws of England & Wales. Which in reality is not Law at all. It is legalese or things legal or illegal, but none of it is Lawful. It is made up of Acts (the illusions of theatre) Statutes (The Rules of a status driven society) codes and their subsisting regulations, again, all part of the illusion. These acts and statutes only have jurisdiction over those who are silly enough to give their consent to be governed by them. In effect they are the laws of The Law Society of which, I am glad to say, am not a member. This means they have no jurisdiction over me as a living soul and sentient man.

    “What I don’t understand in that case is why you think Admiralty Law matters.”

    It matters because I still live on this earth in the flesh and I use it in courts to protect my unalienable rights against corruption within those same courts. Courts that exist to make money and nothing else. It’s just a tool whilst I attempt to live out the rest of my life on this earth in peace.

    “Why judicial oaths matter.”

    Judicial oaths matter because again they are a tool that can be used to neuter corrupt judges. Once a Judge is under his oath he cannot practise law from the bench.

    “Why royal assent matters.”

    It matters because The Monarch is God’s anointed and those who have undermined her authority are traitors and will pay a heavy price in the resurrection.

    I trust I have made myself clear.

    “I also don’t understand how you think the Johns are to get on with fostering without applying to an agency – state or private – that is going to have to do some vetting to keep the paedophiles out.”

    As I have already stated ‘applying’ is begging. Who is doing the good works here? Who is the master and who are slaves, The Johns or the council?

    And why are you associating the Johns with paedophiles. Is it their responsibility act as the police or do the council’s job for them? Whose problem is it – The John’s?

  60. Simon Says:

    @Charles Crosby: You’ve made some things clear, but there is a lot missing.

    First off, I don’t understand why you accept Admiralty Law as valid given your antipathy to (all?) other forms of law. They’re all written by people.

    Secondly, I would love to know what Admiralty Law says about fostering children.

    Thirdly, I’d like to track down an instance where you have successfully used Admiralty Law in a non-Admiralty Court. Perhaps you could provide me with court and date; I am sure I can find a transcript from there.

    Returning to this case, I wasn’t attempting to associate the Johns with paedophiles. I admit it wasn’t my best bit of writing, but I was restating a question I asked in my March 3rd 1.29pm post. You keep saying the Johns shouldn’t ‘apply’ to be foster parents, but I don’t understand what else they can do. Someone (be it a government agency or a private individual or something else) has a child that needs fostering. How do they determine that someone (e.g. the Johns) is interested in fostering without inviting applications? Once someone shows up wanting to foster the child, do you think that the agency/person/whatever has a responsibility to consider the possibility that the prospective foster parent does not have pure motives? Do you think that they have a responsibility to ascertain whether or not the prospective foster parent is competent to look after the child? If you do think either of those things, could you explain how this assessment – and potential refusal – is not an infringement of the prospective parent’s “unalienable right” to foster?

  61. Simon Says:

    @Charles Crosby: I keep forgetting things. Could you also provide a reference that explains how Admiralty Law trumps all others? Every single reference I can find says that Admiralty Law covers the seas and certain matters on land of a maritime nature, and that it is contested in Admiralty courts, not any others. They do not say that Admiralty Law trumps all other systems in all cases. I’d also point out that it seems to me that if it did, all other forms of law would fall into disuse.

  62. Ima Says:

    It is too bad that the homosexual groups (& possibly homosexual judges) are allowed such power – even to the extent of robbing innocent children of the opportunity of a safe & loving home where they will be taught truth!

  63. Charles Crosby Says:

    @ Simon

    “You’ve made some things clear, but there is a lot missing.”

    That’s because you have a lot to learn and this blog forum is certainly not the place for your education. Google Commercial Remedies and Winston Shrout and start learning.

    With regard to Admiralty Law I have already stated that it is The Law of The Planet so it’s not a matter of what I accept. It’s just there and I use it. Nearly all the nations on the earth subscribe to it and abide by it – it’s International Law or the Uniform Commercial Code and/or The Unidroit Principles. Everything is Commerce, including our Parliament and the Courts – they are both corporations

    HMCS is a corporation, not a public institution for the benefit of the people. It is there purely for profit and that is very likely why the Judges washed their hands of The John’s case for there was no money in it for the Judges.

    Admiralty Law is as old as The Phoenecians of ancient times, older than Babylon. Commerce has never stopped, and two world wars didn’t stop it. It controls everything on this earth.

    “Secondly, I would love to know what Admiralty Law says about fostering children.”

    It doesn’t, and you’re missing the point. Study up on Commercial Remedies and then you will gain some basic understanding.

    It’s all about piracy and we the people are just here to be plundered and the only way you can restrain the pirates is by and through Admiralty Law. The Law of the Land or the Anglo-Saxon Common Law has been usurped and swallowed up into the counterfeit law of England & Wales – acts and statutes – so called Civil Law.

    Remember when HMRC was called The Inland Revenue? That’s just to tell us they come in off the sea to take our money via unlawful taxes.

    The Law Lords is the Highest Court IN the land, not OF the land i.e. again from off the sea – Admiralty Jurisdiction.

    “Returning to this case, I wasn’t attempting to associate the Johns with paedophiles.”

    No, but the authorities were by making the John’s prove amongst other things that they weren’t, via an application and you with the others were going along with it by accepting them as an authority when in Truth they have no authority. It’s all about consent and if the Johns had chosen not to consent to that authority under their God given unalienable rights they could have just got on with their fostering.

    You and they are all victims of the subtle conditioning that has gone on over the last fifty years or so – the ever invasive nanny state or Communist Orwellian Big Brother politics including Cameron’s Big Society – it’s all part of it.

    “Once someone shows up wanting to foster the child, do you think that the agency/person/whatever has a responsibility to consider the possibility that the prospective foster parent does not have pure motives?”

    You’re still inside the box with a Thought Police mind set. Why would the Johns need an agency. Let them advertise their service and let those bringing the child to them do their own checks. All the Johns would have to do is give them some referees or people who could vouch for them and that’s it – not a single Stasi council jobsworth in sight.

    You really do need to shift that paradigm of yours, if you don’t mind me saying so.

  64. Gordon Says:

    What can I say? Over the past week I have spent: an evening with Christian Aid staff and local campaigning volunteers – clearly motivated by their faith in trying to help others; A morning with some Jesuits who are committed to environmental issues; Two days with reformed church leaders from Hungary who are some of the nicest people you could hope to meet even though they have lived under real persecution; lunch with the leader of one of the UK’s largest protestant denominations – an incredibly down to earth man committed to trying to help others less fortunate than he is then a day with 100 christians from across the country from liberal and evangelical backgrounds who are concerned about the effect climate change is having on the supply of food in developing countries.

    All of these encounters had one flavour – people motivated by their journey of faith to care about other people, even when doing so meant personal sacrifice and even when they don’t agree with everyone about everything. Then I come back to this thread and see a display (from some of the posters) of a narrow and enclosed attitude where getting your thoughts correct inside your own head takes priority over engaging with the real world on the outside. As one of my Hungarian friends described it, Christians are increasingly living in a “virtual world” of their own making, inside their own heads and also on the internet.

    I will leave this thought with you: Yesterday I was stacking chairs in a church hall with a Jesuit priest, a methodist minister; a member of a very evangelical charismatic baptist church and a member of a congregation that has a gay minister. I doubt that any of us could order our ethical positions to align all our head thoughts to line up nicely, but we are all capable of putting that aside to work together to reduce human suffering and fight injustice.

    I find it impossible to reconcile some of the attitudes I see in this, and other similar discussions, with the person of Jesus described in the new testament.

  65. webmaster Says:

    Thanks Gordon.

    I’m going to make your contribution the final thought on this matter and close the discussion.

Switch to our mobile site