By Elizabeth Kendal
The West today is hurtling down the road towards repressive authoritarianism. For, as Peter Hitchens observes in his fantastic book, The Rage Against God (Zondervan, 2010), "the new anti-theism [that is taking hold in the West] is emphatically not just an opinion seeking its place in a plural society. It is a dogmatic tyranny in the making." (p 206)
IMPLEMENTING IDEOLOGY
In September 2003, I wrote a Religious Liberty News & Analysis report for the World Evangelical Alliance on Belarus, entitled "Resuscitating the Soviet Machine".
The first part of the posting was devoted to a 27 March 2003 speech by Belarusian dictator Aleksandr Lukashenka, in which he declared: "Ideology for a state is what the immune system is for a living organism. If the immune system grows weaker, any infection, even the slightest one, turns deadly."
Lukashenka maintained that the inculcation of an official state-controlled ideology into the country's citizens was essential in order to protect Belarus from "infection".
To this end, Lukashenka recommended that an "official Belarusian ideology" be taught in schools, universities and workplaces, and promoted through the media and the Orthodox Church. Maintaining that dissidents could not be permitted to hold positions of authority or influence, he advised rectors of both state-run and private universities to get rid of professors and lecturers who oppose government policies or are "wavering" in their opinions regarding the government's course. "If you do not accept the ideas declared by the government and the president, do not apply to a state university for a job," Lukashenka said explicitly. "Before the end of the year [2003], the state of ideological work in colleges, both state and private, should be changed drastically, or else we are going to lose our youth. I could say the same about vocational schools and general-education schools, especially those in Minsk."
Today when I read reports from the UK (example) and USA (example) of Christian educators, health care professionals, service providers and carers being expelled from their positions and dragged through the courts, I can only think of Lukashenka. For these British and American Christians are not being dismissed, expelled, sued, fined, struck off and closed down because of anything they have done. Rather, it is because of what they could not do: generally they could not affirm that all cultures, beliefs or lifestyle choices are equally good.
No Western state has, as yet, moved Belarusian/Soviet-style to formerly codify to implement an official state ideology. However, it is clear that forces with ideological agendas are comprehensively and aggressively yet subversively leading the West in that direction. Their success can be attributed to skilful organisation and propaganda with savvy use of media; and most critically, their devious hijacking of human rights.
Unless there is an awakening and returning, then the day will surely come when the Western world will follow the Belarusian/Soviet model, where no person may qualify for or gain employment as a teacher, professor, nurse, counsellor, doctor, service provider, administrator, supervisor, carer etc, unless they can affirm the official state ideology.
Individuals unable to do so will be deemed unsuitable for certain roles on the grounds that they do not comply with "minimum standards" (example). Institutions that cannot sign up to the state ideology -- something that will doubtless be determined through a registration process -- will likewise be penalised. At the very least they will lose government funding. At worst, they will be deemed illegal and forced to close or move "underground".
To justify the repression, dissenters will be vilified: made the objects of mockery, slander, vitriol and outright disinformation. This in turn will trigger an escalation in crippling discrimination and increasingly violent persecution. And if protecting the human rights of those vilified as backward, hateful, everythingaphobic dissenters is ever deemed politically unviable, then impunity will become the order of the day.
---------------------------------
UK debates teaching same-sex marriage in schools
E-mails between the Home Office and the Department of Education suggest that teaching materials may have to be rewritten to cover same-sex marriage if the law changes to recognise same-sex marriage.
Anna Davis, Education Correspondent for the London Evening Standard reports: "In March a Home Office official asked the Department for Education whether schools have a legal responsibility to teach about marriage, and how the introduction of same-sex unions would affect this.
"The DfE responded: 'Under section 403 of the Education Act 1996, the Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools, they learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, there may be a need for the Sex and Relationships Education guidance to include some additional material in respect to same-sex marriage.' "
James Chapman, reports for the Daily Mail (UK): "Officials at the Home Office and the Department for Education concede that teachers may be under a legal obligation to inform children about same-sex marriage once it has passed into law.
"Under the Education Act 1996, pupils must learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life in sex education classes. . .
"Tory MP David Burrowes questioned whether schools will be able to exercise discretion on the subject. 'The issue of same-sex marriage is not just one about equality, but what happens in our school classrooms as well,' he said. 'Teachers should be able to exercise their consciences according to their own views on marriage, but that could well be constrained by these proposals. As much as I am sceptical about the Government being able to exempt churches from conducting same-sex marriages, I also doubt whether it will be possible to construct exemptions for teachers. They would be open to legal challenges. Is the Government really going to order primary school teachers to go against the views of the churches that run them?'
"Colin Hart, campaign director at the Coalition for Marriage, said: 'Marriage appears more than 3,000 times in law, affecting every aspect of our lives. It is simply impossible to redefine it without many serious unintended consequences, not least forcing schools to teach children about gay marriage, even if this goes against the wishes of the parents, children and teachers.' "
According to a senior lawyer, QC Aidan O'Neill, if the law is extended to include same-sex unions, then schools will be forced to promote same-sex marriage to their pupils, and parents with traditional and religious views who oppose same-sex unions, will be "hard-pressed" to remove their children from the classes.
Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern expressed her fears teachers would lose their jobs if they did not want to promote same-sex unions.
Conservative MP Peter Bone has also previously expressed concern for freedom of belief in schools, commenting that: "It is simply inconceivable in today's world where political correctness runs amok in our institutions, that there would not be profound consequences for those who hold traditional views.
"Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts . . . discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for 2,000 years.
"And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same-sex marriage? Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers?"
----------------------------------------------------
In a brilliant article entitled, The new intolerance (April 2012) -- an article that serves as a perfect introduction to her book, The World Turned Upside Down (Encounter Books, 2010) -- commentator Melanie Phillip's writes: "Unlike Soviet Communism, the mass movements of today are not so much political as cultural: anti-imperialism and anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, environmentalism, scientism, egalitarianism, anti-racism, libertinism and multiculturalism. These are all not merely quasi-religious movements — evangelical, dogmatic, fanatical and with enforcement mechanisms ranging from demonisation to expulsion in order to stamp out any heresies. They are also millenarian and even apocalyptic in their visions of the perfect society and what needs to be swept aside in order to attain it.
". . . With both Communism and fascism defeated, however, the West has fallen victim to a third variation on the theme: not religious or political but cultural totalitarianism. . . . Moral and cultural relativism are the order of the day. Any attempt to prioritise any culture or lifestyle over any other is illegitimate. Subjective individualism is the one revealed truth, the old order of Western civilisation has to be destroyed and any dissent is to be stamped out. "
Phillips wonders "what causes militant atheists to hate religious belief so much".
For an answer, she looks to the slogan that atheists promoted in 2009: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
"I think this fatuous slogan gets to the heart of why people have turned away from biblical religion," says Phillips. It's "not because it is irrational but because it puts constraints on their behaviour."
Peter Hitchens concludes his book, Rage Against God, along the same lines. "A new and intolerant utopianism seeks to drive the remaining traces of Christianity from the laws and constitutions of Europe and North America. This time, it does so mainly in the cause of personal liberation, born in the 1960s cultural revolution, and now inflamed into special rage by suggestion that the sexual urge should be restrained by moral limits or that it should have any necessary connection with procreation. This utopianism relies for human goodness on doctrines of human rights derived from human desires . . . These must then be policed by an ever more powerful state." (p 213-214)
In his March 2003 speech, Belarusian president Aleksandr Lukashenka denied that ideology was an invention of the Soviet-era Communist Party. "In Western states, the very system of ideological work is concealed from the general public's eye," he stated. "However, it is as comprehensive and aggressive in Western states as Soviet standards, or even more so."
And he is right!
-----------------------
To follow these issues visit:
UK:
The Christian Institute
Christian Concern
The Christian Legal Centre
USA:
Alliance Defending Freedom (previously known as Alliance Defence Fund), in particular, watch the ADF video (2:36 mins): "In A World Where Marriage Is Redefined Religious Freedom Does Not Survive." (18 June 2012)
Showing posts with label homosexual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexual. Show all posts
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
USA: Three more precedent-setting cases of discrimination
It appears we are entering days when Western Christians, like their brothers and sisters in the non-West, will increasingly find their education and employment options greatly limited purely on account of their faith. Only faith that conforms to prescribed government standards will be considered legitimate.
CASE I
On 9 July, the University of Illinois sacked Professor Kenneth Howell -- a respected teacher and Christian who holds 2 masters degrees and 2 Ph.D.s -- after he was accused of "hate speech". Professor Howell, who had been teaching at the University for nine years, offended a student from his class, "Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought".
In an e-mail to students during the spring semester, Professor Howell explained that according to Catholic doctrine, "A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong."
A student complained and the professor was sacked.
See:
Ill. prof. fired for teaching about Catholic beliefs in class on Catholicism
ADF urges restoration of Kenneth Howell’s First Amendment rights, teaching position
Alliance Defence Fund, Monday 12 July 2010
Kenneth Howell Firing Reviewed By Univerity of Illinois Faculty: Lecturer Fired for Saying Homosexual Acts are 'Morally Wrong'.
Huffington Post 15 July 2010
ADF issues deadline to reinstate Dr. Kenneth Howell
Examiner, 21 July 2010
US University bars prof for teaching RC beliefs
Christian Institute, 22 July 2010
CASE II
Meanwhile, Jennifer Keeton (24), a graduate student pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University, was being officially warned that she will be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct".
Miss Keeton, a Christian, has been ordered into a "remediation" program. She must undergo "diversity training" and "sensitization". Part of what is required of her is that she attends a Gay Pride parade and write a report on it (presumably it has to be a favourable report).
See:
Augusta State Univ. to counseling student: change your beliefs or get out
ADF attorneys file suit after university officials require counseling student to abandon her beliefs to get a degree
Alliance Defence League, 22 July 2010
Jennifer Keeton in her own words. 22 July 2010
Can a Christian Who Believes Homosexuality Is Wrong Become a Qualified Counselor?
Queerty, 24 July 2010
ASU student says gays have 'identity confusion'
By Stephanie Toone, Staff Writer Augusta Chronicle, 24 Aug 2010
Lawsuit Claims College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed
By Joshua Rhett Miller, FoxNews, 27 July 2010
Keeton is not the first Christian student to be threatened with expulsion purely on the basis of her religious beliefs concerning homosexuality.
UPDATE:
Jennifer Keeton, Anti-Gay Counseling Student Who Refused Remedial Training, Lawsuit Dismissed
Huffington Post: Gay Voices, 27 June 2012
CASE III
On Monday 26 July 2010, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division upheld the expulsion of Christian student Julea Ward, who had been expelled from Eastern Michigan University's counselling program in March 2009 after she respectfully denied instruction to counsel a homosexual man on his homosexual relationship because she could not affirm his homosexual activity.
See:
Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality
By Todd Starnes, FoxNews, 28 July 2010
EMU officials: Change your beliefs or leave the Counseling Program
YouTube interview 3 Aug 2009
EMU sued for booting student over views on gays
By Justin Miller, the Michigan Messenger, 7 April 2009
ADF to appeal ruling that allows Eastern Michigan U. to expel Christian students for holding to beliefs
University banished graduate counseling student for not affirming homosexual behavior
27 July 2010 (article contains a link to the court's decision.)
The court ruled against the plaintiff (Ward) on the grounds that the Amercian Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics requires counselors respect diversity and refrain from discrimination. Referrals cannot be made on the basis of a counsellor's values, although there is an exemption for counsellors not wishing to assist clients seeking euthanasia.
According to the ruling, the "plaintiff had violated the ACA Code of Ethics by imposing her own values on a client, which is 'inconsistent with the counseling goal of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation'." Therefore: "Dismissal from a training program is appropriate 'when those supervisees are unable to provide competent professional services'." (pages 6-8 of court decision)
The Alliance Defence Fund is appealing the ruling.
CASE I
On 9 July, the University of Illinois sacked Professor Kenneth Howell -- a respected teacher and Christian who holds 2 masters degrees and 2 Ph.D.s -- after he was accused of "hate speech". Professor Howell, who had been teaching at the University for nine years, offended a student from his class, "Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought".
In an e-mail to students during the spring semester, Professor Howell explained that according to Catholic doctrine, "A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong."
A student complained and the professor was sacked.
See:
Ill. prof. fired for teaching about Catholic beliefs in class on Catholicism
ADF urges restoration of Kenneth Howell’s First Amendment rights, teaching position
Alliance Defence Fund, Monday 12 July 2010
Kenneth Howell Firing Reviewed By Univerity of Illinois Faculty: Lecturer Fired for Saying Homosexual Acts are 'Morally Wrong'.
Huffington Post 15 July 2010
ADF issues deadline to reinstate Dr. Kenneth Howell
Examiner, 21 July 2010
US University bars prof for teaching RC beliefs
Christian Institute, 22 July 2010
CASE II
Meanwhile, Jennifer Keeton (24), a graduate student pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University, was being officially warned that she will be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct".
Miss Keeton, a Christian, has been ordered into a "remediation" program. She must undergo "diversity training" and "sensitization". Part of what is required of her is that she attends a Gay Pride parade and write a report on it (presumably it has to be a favourable report).
See:
Augusta State Univ. to counseling student: change your beliefs or get out
ADF attorneys file suit after university officials require counseling student to abandon her beliefs to get a degree
Alliance Defence League, 22 July 2010
Jennifer Keeton in her own words. 22 July 2010
Can a Christian Who Believes Homosexuality Is Wrong Become a Qualified Counselor?
Queerty, 24 July 2010
ASU student says gays have 'identity confusion'
By Stephanie Toone, Staff Writer Augusta Chronicle, 24 Aug 2010
Lawsuit Claims College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed
By Joshua Rhett Miller, FoxNews, 27 July 2010
Keeton is not the first Christian student to be threatened with expulsion purely on the basis of her religious beliefs concerning homosexuality.
UPDATE:
Jennifer Keeton, Anti-Gay Counseling Student Who Refused Remedial Training, Lawsuit Dismissed
Huffington Post: Gay Voices, 27 June 2012
CASE III
On Monday 26 July 2010, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division upheld the expulsion of Christian student Julea Ward, who had been expelled from Eastern Michigan University's counselling program in March 2009 after she respectfully denied instruction to counsel a homosexual man on his homosexual relationship because she could not affirm his homosexual activity.
See:
Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality
By Todd Starnes, FoxNews, 28 July 2010
EMU officials: Change your beliefs or leave the Counseling Program
YouTube interview 3 Aug 2009
EMU sued for booting student over views on gays
By Justin Miller, the Michigan Messenger, 7 April 2009
ADF to appeal ruling that allows Eastern Michigan U. to expel Christian students for holding to beliefs
University banished graduate counseling student for not affirming homosexual behavior
27 July 2010 (article contains a link to the court's decision.)
The court ruled against the plaintiff (Ward) on the grounds that the Amercian Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics requires counselors respect diversity and refrain from discrimination. Referrals cannot be made on the basis of a counsellor's values, although there is an exemption for counsellors not wishing to assist clients seeking euthanasia.
According to the ruling, the "plaintiff had violated the ACA Code of Ethics by imposing her own values on a client, which is 'inconsistent with the counseling goal of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation'." Therefore: "Dismissal from a training program is appropriate 'when those supervisees are unable to provide competent professional services'." (pages 6-8 of court decision)
The Alliance Defence Fund is appealing the ruling.
Friday, April 30, 2010
UK: Landmark ruling leaves Christians with no right to conscientious objection
Below are some selected quotes from some selected articles on the Gary McFarlane case.
Gary McFarlane: the counsellor whose case led to warnings of 'civil unrest'
By John Bingham, Telegraph, 30 April 2010
When Gary McFarlane, 48, a father of two from Bristol, began working for Relate, the counselling organisation, in 2003, he did not allow his traditional evangelical Christian beliefs stop him from giving advice to homosexual couples.
It was only three years later, when he qualified as a psychosexual therapist – a role which required him to give intimate sexual advice to couples – that he raised concerns about a potential clash between his work and his moral views.
Sacked Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane's appeal bid dismissed
By Stephen Howard, Press Association, 29 April 2010
A marriage guidance counsellor's bid to challenge in the courts his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexuals led to a serious clash between Christians and the judiciary today.
In a powerful dismissal of the application to appeal, Lord Justice Laws said legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds cannot be justified.
The judge's ruling continued: "We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs.
"The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.
"If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.
"The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments.
"The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself. [. . .]
". . . the conferment of any legal protection of 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 long its culture, is deeply unprincipled."
He said this would mean that laws would be imposed not to advance the general good on objective grounds but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion since faith, other than to the believer, was subjective.
"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."
Christian sex therapist Gary McFarlane loses appeal bid
BBC 29 April 2010
Gary McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, was sacked by Relate Avon in 2008. He claimed the service had refused to accommodate his Christian beliefs.
Lord Justice Laws said legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds cannot be justified.
He said it was irrational and "also divisive, capricious and arbitrary".
'Strongly-held'
Mr McFarlane said after the hearing that the decision not to let him appeal against the ruling left him "disappointed and upset".
"I have the ability to provide counselling services to same-sex couples," he said.
"However, because of my Christian beliefs and principles, there should be allowances taken into account whereby individuals like me can actually avoid having to contradict their very strongly-held Christian principles."
[. . .]
Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: "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."
Judge rules Christians have NO special rights as he throws out case of sex therapist who refused to work with gay couples
By Steve Doughty, Daily Mail, 30 April 2010
A senior judge ruled yesterday that Christian beliefs have no place in the law and no right to protection by the courts.
Lord Justice Laws said that Britain would become a religious dictatorship if the views of a single faith were given a priority over others in legal matters.
In a landmark case, the appeal judge told relationship guidance counsellor Gary McFarlane, a Christian, that he had no right to refuse to give sex therapy to gay couples.
And the judge delivered a scathing criticism of former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who spoke up for Christians who try to follow their beliefs. . .
The Appeal Court judgment is a resounding rebuff for Christian workers who had hoped to persuade employers that they should be allowed to exercise their religious rights by not recognising the legitimacy of homosexual partnerships or by wearing crosses with work uniforms.
And it means that gay equality legislation, however controversial, will in future take precedence over individual conscience.
. . . former Bishop of Rochester the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, said the judgment allowed no room for people to act according to their conscience.
He told the BBC: 'I think if we reach a stage where there was a kind of tyranny of legislation without conscience it would be a very sorry stage.'
(The above article includes a very interesting profile of Lord Justice Laws, described as a "legal 'activist'', as well as a section entitled: "Does the law really treat all faiths equally? Other Christians have run into trouble with the courts or their employers when they stood up for their beliefs, but some Muslims have fared better. . .")
Gary McFarlane: judge's assault on 'irrational' religious freedom claims in sex therapist case
A senior judge has launched a dramatic assault on religious faith, dismissing it as “subjective” with no basis in fact.
By John Bingham, Telegraph, 30 Apr 2010
Last night there were warnings that the judgment could enshrine the “persecution” of Christians in modern Britain and sideline religion in public life.
Lord Justice Laws ruled that while everyone had the right to hold religious beliefs, those beliefs themselves had no standing under the law.
Mr McFarlane said that his treatment was “without a doubt” an example of Christians being persecuted in modern Britain.
“This is a sad day for our society which I believe is on a slippery slope in terms of balancing competing interests,” he said.
“I represent the Christian faith but I suggest that all other faiths will be concerned about this judgment.”
Last night Lord Carey described the ruling as “deeply worrying”, continuing a move by the courts to “downgrade” the right of religious people to express their faith.
“The judgement heralds a ‘secular’ state rather than a ‘neutral’ one,” he said.
“And while with one hand the ruling seeks to protect the right of religious believers to hold and express their faith, with the other it takes away those same rights.”
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said that the ruling had “driven a coach and horses” through the ancient ties between Christianity and British law.
Gary McFarlane: the counsellor whose case led to warnings of 'civil unrest'
By John Bingham, Telegraph, 30 April 2010
When Gary McFarlane, 48, a father of two from Bristol, began working for Relate, the counselling organisation, in 2003, he did not allow his traditional evangelical Christian beliefs stop him from giving advice to homosexual couples.
It was only three years later, when he qualified as a psychosexual therapist – a role which required him to give intimate sexual advice to couples – that he raised concerns about a potential clash between his work and his moral views.
Sacked Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane's appeal bid dismissed
By Stephen Howard, Press Association, 29 April 2010
A marriage guidance counsellor's bid to challenge in the courts his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexuals led to a serious clash between Christians and the judiciary today.
In a powerful dismissal of the application to appeal, Lord Justice Laws said legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds cannot be justified.
The judge's ruling continued: "We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs.
"The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.
"If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.
"The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments.
"The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself. [. . .]
". . . the conferment of any legal protection of 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 long its culture, is deeply unprincipled."
He said this would mean that laws would be imposed not to advance the general good on objective grounds but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion since faith, other than to the believer, was subjective.
"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."
Christian sex therapist Gary McFarlane loses appeal bid
BBC 29 April 2010
Gary McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, was sacked by Relate Avon in 2008. He claimed the service had refused to accommodate his Christian beliefs.
Lord Justice Laws said legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds cannot be justified.
He said it was irrational and "also divisive, capricious and arbitrary".
'Strongly-held'
Mr McFarlane said after the hearing that the decision not to let him appeal against the ruling left him "disappointed and upset".
"I have the ability to provide counselling services to same-sex couples," he said.
"However, because of my Christian beliefs and principles, there should be allowances taken into account whereby individuals like me can actually avoid having to contradict their very strongly-held Christian principles."
[. . .]
Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: "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."
Judge rules Christians have NO special rights as he throws out case of sex therapist who refused to work with gay couples
By Steve Doughty, Daily Mail, 30 April 2010
A senior judge ruled yesterday that Christian beliefs have no place in the law and no right to protection by the courts.
Lord Justice Laws said that Britain would become a religious dictatorship if the views of a single faith were given a priority over others in legal matters.
In a landmark case, the appeal judge told relationship guidance counsellor Gary McFarlane, a Christian, that he had no right to refuse to give sex therapy to gay couples.
And the judge delivered a scathing criticism of former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who spoke up for Christians who try to follow their beliefs. . .
The Appeal Court judgment is a resounding rebuff for Christian workers who had hoped to persuade employers that they should be allowed to exercise their religious rights by not recognising the legitimacy of homosexual partnerships or by wearing crosses with work uniforms.
And it means that gay equality legislation, however controversial, will in future take precedence over individual conscience.
. . . former Bishop of Rochester the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, said the judgment allowed no room for people to act according to their conscience.
He told the BBC: 'I think if we reach a stage where there was a kind of tyranny of legislation without conscience it would be a very sorry stage.'
(The above article includes a very interesting profile of Lord Justice Laws, described as a "legal 'activist'', as well as a section entitled: "Does the law really treat all faiths equally? Other Christians have run into trouble with the courts or their employers when they stood up for their beliefs, but some Muslims have fared better. . .")
Gary McFarlane: judge's assault on 'irrational' religious freedom claims in sex therapist case
A senior judge has launched a dramatic assault on religious faith, dismissing it as “subjective” with no basis in fact.
By John Bingham, Telegraph, 30 Apr 2010
Last night there were warnings that the judgment could enshrine the “persecution” of Christians in modern Britain and sideline religion in public life.
Lord Justice Laws ruled that while everyone had the right to hold religious beliefs, those beliefs themselves had no standing under the law.
Mr McFarlane said that his treatment was “without a doubt” an example of Christians being persecuted in modern Britain.
“This is a sad day for our society which I believe is on a slippery slope in terms of balancing competing interests,” he said.
“I represent the Christian faith but I suggest that all other faiths will be concerned about this judgment.”
Last night Lord Carey described the ruling as “deeply worrying”, continuing a move by the courts to “downgrade” the right of religious people to express their faith.
“The judgement heralds a ‘secular’ state rather than a ‘neutral’ one,” he said.
“And while with one hand the ruling seeks to protect the right of religious believers to hold and express their faith, with the other it takes away those same rights.”
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said that the ruling had “driven a coach and horses” through the ancient ties between Christianity and British law.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
UK. Amendment to Equality Bill threatens church's liberty. 3 March 2010
At 11 pm on 2 March 2010, the House of Lords voted 95 to 21 in favour of amending the Equality Bill so that homosexual civil partnerships may be legally performed in churches.
The amendment was moved by openly gay Labour Peer Lord Waheed Alli.
According to the amendment, churches will be allowed, but not compelled, to register homosexual civil partnerships. However, critics fear the change in the law could open the way for litigation under the Equality Bill or Human Rights Act against churches that refuse to register such unions.
The Telegraph quotes Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary, who warned: "'. . . it would only be a matter of time before it was argued that it was discriminatory for a church incumbent to refuse to allow a civil partnership ceremony to take place when the law allowed it.' And, that a clergyman 'prepared to register marriages but not to register civil partnerships would be accused of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of services and pressure would be brought to bear on him to pocket his principles and do what he believed to be wrong'."
Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out ‘gay marriages’, traditionalists fear
By Martin Beckford and Heidi Blake. 3 March 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7361378/Clergy-could-be-sued-if-they-refuse-to-carry-out-gay-marriages-traditionalists-fear.html
Indeed, religious liberty advocates will be watching and waiting for the test case which will set the precedent for the future. It will be case to decide whose "rights" will prevail. It will determine whether churches will retain their right to conscientious objection, or whether Gay Rights lobby groups will win the right to dictate to the church in the name of equality, human rights and non-discrimination.
The amendment was supported by Stonewall, a leading Gay Rights lobby group.
From the Christian Institute:
"Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary, argued: 'If this amendment were carried, it would only be a matter of time before it was argued that it was discriminatory for a church incumbent to refuse to allow a civil partnership ceremony to take place when the law allowed it.'
"And if legal challenges in the courts failed, Lord Waddington added, 'it would not be long before Stonewall was back, demanding repeal of this permissive provision and for a clear duty to be placed on churches to register civil partnerships.
" 'Is that not the way Stonewall has always worked? And was not Mr Ben Summerskill of Stonewall hinting just that when recently he said that right now faiths should not be forced to hold civil partnerships although in 10 or 20 years time things may change.' "
Homosexual unions allowed in churches
3 March 2010
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/homosexual-unions-allowed-in-churches/
As Pink News commented: the amendment "has yet to be approved by the House of Commons but MPs are unlikely to oppose it".
Lords back religious civil partnerships for gay couples
By Jessica Geen. 3 March 2010
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/03/lords-back-religious-civil-partnerships-for-gay-couples/
See also:
House of Lords vote to allow Civil Partnerships to take place in Church
3 March 2010
http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=1006
(Christian Concern for our Nation is a sister organisation to the Christian Legal Centre www.christianlegalcentre.com.)
The amendment was moved by openly gay Labour Peer Lord Waheed Alli.
According to the amendment, churches will be allowed, but not compelled, to register homosexual civil partnerships. However, critics fear the change in the law could open the way for litigation under the Equality Bill or Human Rights Act against churches that refuse to register such unions.
The Telegraph quotes Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary, who warned: "'. . . it would only be a matter of time before it was argued that it was discriminatory for a church incumbent to refuse to allow a civil partnership ceremony to take place when the law allowed it.' And, that a clergyman 'prepared to register marriages but not to register civil partnerships would be accused of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of services and pressure would be brought to bear on him to pocket his principles and do what he believed to be wrong'."
Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out ‘gay marriages’, traditionalists fear
By Martin Beckford and Heidi Blake. 3 March 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7361378/Clergy-could-be-sued-if-they-refuse-to-carry-out-gay-marriages-traditionalists-fear.html
Indeed, religious liberty advocates will be watching and waiting for the test case which will set the precedent for the future. It will be case to decide whose "rights" will prevail. It will determine whether churches will retain their right to conscientious objection, or whether Gay Rights lobby groups will win the right to dictate to the church in the name of equality, human rights and non-discrimination.
The amendment was supported by Stonewall, a leading Gay Rights lobby group.
From the Christian Institute:
"Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary, argued: 'If this amendment were carried, it would only be a matter of time before it was argued that it was discriminatory for a church incumbent to refuse to allow a civil partnership ceremony to take place when the law allowed it.'
"And if legal challenges in the courts failed, Lord Waddington added, 'it would not be long before Stonewall was back, demanding repeal of this permissive provision and for a clear duty to be placed on churches to register civil partnerships.
" 'Is that not the way Stonewall has always worked? And was not Mr Ben Summerskill of Stonewall hinting just that when recently he said that right now faiths should not be forced to hold civil partnerships although in 10 or 20 years time things may change.' "
Homosexual unions allowed in churches
3 March 2010
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/homosexual-unions-allowed-in-churches/
As Pink News commented: the amendment "has yet to be approved by the House of Commons but MPs are unlikely to oppose it".
Lords back religious civil partnerships for gay couples
By Jessica Geen. 3 March 2010
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/03/lords-back-religious-civil-partnerships-for-gay-couples/
See also:
House of Lords vote to allow Civil Partnerships to take place in Church
3 March 2010
http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=1006
(Christian Concern for our Nation is a sister organisation to the Christian Legal Centre www.christianlegalcentre.com.)