Church of England expected to revise Civil Partnership Guidelines

It now looks almost certain that the Church of England's bishops will next year be forced to revise their pastoral guidelines on civil partnerships. The latest to enter the debate is the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, who in a private pastoral letter to a number of his concerned parishes has made some extremely frank statements about his views on the matter. In the letter he describes the 1991 Issues document as "incoherent" and "demeaning to the laity". He notes that the bishops' pastoral statement on civil partnerships was drafted at a time when the Government was officially giving assurances that they did not intend to introduce same sex marriage by another name. He says: "Subsequently the situation has changed and Government spokespersons have undermined the official line..." The full text of the letter can be seen on Anglican Mainstream. It is also on Titusonenine with some good comments. You can also read my own news story on this and also the suspension of a retired Canadadian Archbishop's licence to carry out marriages after he blessed a newly-married lesbian couple. (Slightly off topic, you might also for amusement like to read Saturday's piece on what young people think about Jesus, which has already prompted some comment below. Just two tasters. In response to the question, What does the Bible say about the birth of Jesus that makes Christians believe he is special?, one child responded: "Jesus is the prophet of Allah." And to the question: Why is the cross an important symbol for Christians? Another rpelied: "Because Jesus was crusified on one to replenish our sins." One, asked what Christians celebrate at Easter, replied "Christmas". To the same question, another said: "Chocolate." The research was done at Exeter University who sent me the report after I saw it reported in the Church Times.)

In his letter, sent to some but not all London parishes, Chartres is hesitant to create an impression of "disunity" among the bishops, fearing this would further fuel the revisionist agenda. But his own views are clear: "The Church assists all its members to a life of faithful witness in chastity and holiness, recognising two forms or vocations in which that life can be lived: marriage and singleness [Gen II:24; Matt XIX: 4-6; I Cor. VII passim.] There is no place for the Church to confer legitimacy upon alternatives to these."

This is timely because top of the list of General Synod private members' motions at present is one from Mary Gilbert, affirming the life of lesbian and gay Christians in the Church of England and seeking reassurance that their experience is heard, as envisioned by Lambeth 1.10. And just behind it, at number two, is another from Reform's Paul Perkin criticisng the pastoral statement as producing a "recipe for confusion" and urging the bishops to study how the discipline is being applied and report back to Synod in July. Both motions can be expected to be on the agenda in February.

The CP issue is significant for the established church, which has of necessity, due to its legal status, found itself in what many evangelicals believe to be a compromised position, leaving it open to attack from Akinola and others in the Global South who see its position on CPs as placing it in the same camp, as it were, as the US and Canada.

It might indeed the case that England might not directly be affected by what has been happening in the US and GS recently and indeed, as some keep telling me, that nothing will really happen until Lambeth 2008. (Invitations will go out next summer and, thanks to George Carey who expanded it to include assistants and suffragans as well as diocesans, we can expect to see nearly 900 bishops from the communion on the campus at Kent University.) But nevertheless, February synod will make clear how live this debate is for the Church here.

And even if nothing is decided at Lambeth, there is ongoing drama in the failed New York meeting, Camp Allen, the GS comminique, Ndungane's attack on his fellow GS primates, John Chew's response and Frank Griswold's extraordinary letter warning of impending chaos. Links to all these and more via Thinking Anglicans. Griswold's growing anger is revealed in his penultimate paragraph: "I end these reflections with a quotation from one of our great Anglican spiritual guides and teachers of prayer, Evelyn Underhill. The coming of the Kingdom is perpetual. Again and again, freshness, novelty, power from beyond the world break in by unexpected paths bringing unexpected change. Those who cling to tradition and fear all novelty in God's relation to the world deny the creative activity of the Holy Sprit, and forget that what is now tradition was once innovation; that the real Christian is always a revolutionary, belongs to a new race, and has been given a new name and a new song."

Goodness I don't really know where to start with that. For the first time in my (too) long unacquaintance with this poor primate, I start to feel sorry for the man. We really are starting to see the grizzly in Griswold.

But things are going get really fun across the Atlantic. Next year, with the pending retirement of Andrew Hutchison, the Canadians will elect a new primate and reliable sources tell me the favourite is none other than the orthodox, catholic, beautiful Victoria Matthews. It is just such a crying shame that she won't be elected in time for the Primates' Meeting in Tanzania in February. Between them, these two such gifted women at the table as Matthews and Katharine Schori, could with barely a question be able to sit down and argue from their neighbouring provinces and opposite premises in a fine, civilised fashion and indeed get it all sorted out before Lambeth 2008. But as it is we are just going to have to wait until July 2008 to see those particular fireworks get lit.

In the meantime, the Church of England will be getting to grips with the issues in its own imitable way, by working out how to pass through General Synod both of those private members' motions while coming up with something on CPs that puts it neither at odds with the State nor the orthodox wing of the Communion.

Update: In the light of this blog, a reader has corrected me on my definition of Bishop Victoria. In fact she does have some "revisionist" leanings, the reader has noted, pointing out that she was Canadian patron of Affirming Anglican Catholicism until 2004.

A recent AC document has this to say on same-sex relationships, contrasting its view to that of the American Anglican Council, the other AAC across the Atlantic: 

"While they "repudiate the 74th General Convention's confirmation of a non-celibate homosexual to be a bishop of the Church, and its acceptance of same-sex blessings as part of our common life," we "affirm that genuine Catholicism means full inclusion of members of the Church in the three-fold ministry, regardless of gender or sexual orientation."

While they "repent of (their) part in the sins of the Episcopal Church, and... pray for all those who are being hurt and led astray by these actions," we continue our regular practice of "encouraging catholic spirituality and discipline in the contemporary world."

While they "call the leadership of the Episcopal Church to repent of and reverse the unbiblical and schismatic actions of General Convention," we continue to affirm that "The Episcopal Church is part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church throughout the world."

While they "declare (their) commitment to the Lord's life-giving teaching about sexuality and marriage, embraced by Christians throughout all the ages..." we aim in addition to "reappropriate the fullness of catholic doctrine...to encourage the full insights of a catholic feminism (and) to refashion a catholic social praxis for our time" which addresses the issue of human sexuality and much, much more.

This still doesn't change my view that she would be an excellent, catholic primate.

Meanwhile, she has as noted below suffered recently from breast cancer, which forced her withdrawal from the primatial elections in 2004.

So slightly off-topic, can I please ask readers to pray for Victoria's continued recovery from this devastating disease.

But also please pray for one of my closest friends Sylvan Mason, admitted to the Royal Marsden today with breast cancer. Her operation takes place tomorrow, Tuesday and she will learn at the end of the week how far the cancer has spread. Sylvan has been an umoving rock of support to me for many, many years and she believes in the power of prayer, and has indeed often offered them up on my behalf I believe. So requesting your prayers is something I can perhaps offer in return.

And also, please pray for Bishop Michael Hill of Bristol his wife Anthea.  They were involved in a serious road accident on Sunday on the M4 on the way back from speaking in Slough. Mrs Hill's neck is broken and she is in hospital in Oxford. Bishop Mike's shoulder is broken and he has been discharged.

Comments

[Wedding Favors]

Wedding is a ceremony that celebrates the beginning of a marriage or civil union.

[alistair mcbay]

Careful, Alan, we Celts stick together!

My English pals, particularly the rugby-oriented ones, seemed to think it is more of a priority for England to rebuild Offa's Dyke before Hadrian's Wall. Looks like the Dean of Bangor might agree with that too.

[Alan Marsh]

Racial profiling, Alistair? And I had thought all along that you were Welsh.

[alistair mcbay]

Pastor Rob

“So in a nut shell you and Alistar believe that giving legitimacy to religious arguments in the public square will automatically lead to some sort of theocracy. One should make the same point about atheistic arguments in the public square. It will automatically lead to Fascist and Soviet Communist agenda which will ultimately mean the destruction of liberty and the dehumanizing of the population. You are practicing the same scare tactics which you condemn; and those tactics can be used against you as well. It seems to me that you want freedom and power for yourself, but not for others who don't think like yourself.”

That’s nonsense, Pastor Rob, and you know it. I am perfectly happy for you to argue your beliefs in the public square, as I have said many times before. But when your freedom to manifest your religion is used to teach new earth creationism in school science classes, for example, then I’m afraid you will find not only me arguing to curb that liberty, but many, many Christians as well.

Theocracies are also totalitarian. Does atheism lead to facism? In Spain, the Catholic Church supported Franco in the civil war and continued to do so for many years afterwards. There is still a considerable controversy over the extent to which members of Opus Dei held positions of power in the Franco’s spain.

And you seem to argue that the Soviet Union was atheist, ergo all atheists are evil. You might as well argue that because Hitler was a vegetarian, all vegetarians are Nazis. If you think the USSR’s atheism is a refutation of all things atheist, then you are leaving yourself open to the counter thrust that the Crusades and the Inquisition refute Christianity.

You think the Christian message licks everything hollow. I disagree. So do Muslims, who think Islam licks everything hollow. What do you mean by ‘level playing field?’ And saying I have an argument grounded in fear is rich indeed coming from someone who uses fear to tell children they will burn in hell “in the afterlife” if they aren’t good little boys and girls and do what you tell them!

How are your political leanings relevant?
“This is how God made things, with freedom as a means to an end...the end of either obedience or disobedience.”
I disagree. My position is that I have no belief in God, so what you say above is meaningless. Do you agree with the Muslim position too, that this is how Allah made things? Or Brahma? In which case, which are we to choose, and on whose say-so, in the complete lack of any evidence other than one passionately held 'belief' over another?

In stating my lack of belief in God, and arguing from this standpoint, the believers who contribute to this blog are the ones who seem to me to be afraid of open debate. It is Geoffrey Smith who calls for me to be banned, whereas I continue to welcome him to contribute, for example. It is believers who see this blog as exclusive to believing Christians and try to close it down to all others, whereas it is a blog about the phenomenon of religion in all manifestations.

But I leave you for the weekend with that wonderful exchange in the sitcom Father Ted, when the Catholc priest Ted is accused of being a facist.

Ted: That's wrong, I’m not a facist. Facists wear black and go around telling people what to do, while priests….er…more drink, father?”

[alistair mcbay]

“I am very happy with the ECHR, provided secularists like you are not permitted to abuse section 9.2 in order to limit the freedoms of believers”

No, Alan, 9.2 is there to prevent religious believers abusing each other and those who do not believe. Only the modern victimhood culture of organised faith turns that around to what you suggest, that it is used as a tool by secularists to limit the freedoms of believers. Not much evidence of that, is there? How could there be - you say I am in the minority and I have to get used to it.

“ - as it seems always happens in avowedly secular states like China, N Korea, the old USSR, Albania, etc. “

These are four are/were avowedly communist states, not secular states, and none are currently in the EU.

"The very fact that you choose to hang around here to harangue believers is perfectly sufficient evidence of your mindset. You and Dr Paisley would do very well together on a desert island!"

Plain rudeness, Alan. I don’t hang around to harangue believers. I think given your abusive posts that you hang around to abuse those who disagree with you, believers included. I try to discuss the phenomenon of religion in all that phenomenon’s manifestations – militant athiesm to eye-balls out fundamentalism and everything in between. You appear to abuse, insult and throw cheap shots.

“Section 9.2 of the ECHR envisages a democratic society. The statistics in the UK speak for themselves: as a secularist you are in a tiny minority, and you will simply have to get used to it. “

Ah yes, democracy, seen through your eyes as two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch! I think that you confuse democracy with theocracy, and that's what I should get used to. But then persecution of minorities is something of a feature of theocracies, as much as the communist states you mention above.

I think if Dr Paisley and I were on that desert island, I’d be interested in existing, while he would first be interested in converting me.

“Try setting up a private academy for secularist parents and their children."

No, I oppose exclusive schools that segregate on grounds of belief or lack of it, anywhere along the spectrum I have outlined above. If I did, though, then we would doubtless get lots of Christian and Muslim applicants, because there are a great many Christian and Muslim secularists who are also aginst faith schools.

"Avert your eyes when you pass churches. Remember to take a dram occasionally so that you can't be accused of being a teetotaller. Go stand on a soapbox outside your local supermarket on Sunday morning and denounce the local Minister. Whatever takes your mind offirstf it.”

The supermarket move might be too late, as religion has beaten me too it. Vicars now patrol supermarket isles on Sundays - more people in those than in church, you see ;-)

As for the rest of the post, well I'd call that gratuitous abuse tinged with racial profiling. I wonder if Mr Geoffrey Smith will write to the editor to complain about you?

Have a good weekend, Al.

[alistair mcbay]

Christopher, the stats given at www.hellescape.com are pretty frightening, certainly. No-one would deny the problems of alcohol and drugs.

But interestingly, these stats, and the phenomenon of hell houses, come to us from a country that professes itself to be 'one nation under God', with some pretty staggering figures for the number of its citizens who believe in the bible as the literal true word of God. A country inspired, allegedly, by Christian zeal that some bloggers here would wish to see instilled in the UK to give us back morality.

Yet Keith's argument about the dangers of secularism on another thread suggests we should not find this problem in a God-fearing Christian society at all, but a secular one.

Or am I missing something?

[Robert Buechler]

Alistair wrote: " Do not bear false witness, Alan."

Interesting. I don't for a moment see Alan doing this, but let us examine this statement for a moment.

Not bearing false witness is a God given commandment. It goes against our instincts for survival and the whole evolutionary model.

Yet Alistair wants Alan to obey the Lord and go against his human instincts.

This would suggest that not only is there a moral law the none of us can get away from; and a moral law that comes from outside of nature (since it goes against the evolutionary model of survival); this would also suggest that Alistair knows that this law must be applied to everyone (hence a universal morality).

Wow! I see the Lord working here! Praise the Lord! I pray that in the not too distant future the Lord will prod Alistair to the fold and the Shepherd of his soul.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather, ND

[Robert Buechler]

Christopher wrote: "In response to the comments on freedom from Rob and Alan may I suggest you go to Listen Again on the BBC website to hear a feature broadcast today on Kate Adie's Crossing Continents : "

So in a nut shell you and Alistar believe that giving legitimacy to religious arguments in the public square will automatically lead to some sort of theocracy.

One should make the same point about atheistic arguments in the public square. It will automatically lead to Fascist and Soviet Communist agenda which will ultimately mean the destruction of liberty and the dehumanizing of the population.

You are practicing the same scare tactics which you condemn; and those tactics can be used against you as well.

It seems to me that you want freedom and power for yourself, but not for others who don't think like yourself.

I for one am all for the ballot box. The public square is open to all voices. I think the Christian message licks everything hollow. You however, seem to think that if there is a level playing field, the people won't go along. Probably true, since you really don't have an argument grounded in anything other than fear. (kind of like the minister you were directing us to)

Of course, there are a couple other issues I want to bring up before I go. First, being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage and anti-lottery and so forth is not "republican or democrat" in its core. I will have you know that I am a member of the Democratic party and was (until recently) a card carrying member of the ACLU. However, to insist on the sanctity of human life; the sanctity of marriage; the injustice and greed of what amounts to a tax on those least able to pay; is a Christian position. Being Democrat or Republican has nothing to do with the matter.

Secondly, these are public issues on public ballots. All arguments must be heard about the morality of these things. However in the end it is up to the people to decide what will happen. We have a private ballot system, so I don't know how anyone votes. I can't control that nor would I. I believe that people must be free to do the right thing. That means they must also be allowed the freedom to reject the right thing. This is how God made things, with freedom as a means to an end...the end of either obedience or disobedience.

So now, why are you so afraid of open debates on the issues that include religious conviction? Seems to me the only reason you give is fear that the people will see through you and yours and reject your grounds.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweathe,ND

[Alan Marsh]

Alistair, you again presume to know what I think, and then proceed to labour away at a feeble response. I am very happy with the ECHR, provided secularists like you are not permitted to abuse section 9.2 in order to limit the freedoms of believers - as it seems always happens in avowedly secular states like China, N Korea, the old USSR, Albania, etc.

The very fact that you choose to hang around here to harangue believers is perfectly sufficient evidence of your mindset. You and Dr Paisley would do very well together on a desert island!

Section 9.2 of the ECHR envisages a democratic society. The statistics in the UK speak for themselves: as a secularist you are in a tiny minority, and you will simply have to get used to it.

Try setting up a private academy for secularist parents and their children. Avert your eyes when you pass churches. Remember to take a dram occasionally so that you can't be accused of being a teetotaller. Go stand on a soapbox outside your local supermarket on Sunday morning and denounce the local Minister. Whatever takes your mind off it.

[Christopher]

In response to the comments on freedom from Rob and Alan may I suggest you go to Listen Again on the BBC website to hear a feature broadcast today on Kate Adie's Crossing Continents : http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/radio4/fromourowncorrespondent/fromourowncorrespondent_20061102-1100_40_st.mp3

It seems a pastor Russell Johnson of Lancaster, Ohio's Fairfield Christian Church is using the Hell House - he calls his Hellescape http://www.hellescape.com/ - to scare people into voting Republican.

A Hell House consists of a group of horrific scenes designed to create terror and revulsion in the onlooker. The last scene may be a portrayal of heaven. Visitors are given the choice of one of two exits: the door to salvation (passable by accepting the agenda of the church and its political message, naturally) or otherwise the other only way out is to hell.

Hell Houses are a relatively new American evangelistic technique to proselytise the unsaved public. They promote conservative (Republican) values and certain trademark christian beliefs:
e.g. that abortions kill human babies; that sexual orientation is a matter of choice and can be changed; that everyone who is not saved will go to hell when they die; that underground Satanic cults engage in widespread sacrifice of humans. More info at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hallo_he.htm

If you want to see how American preachermen want to scare the **** out of people to make them conform - all in the name of freedom, don't you know - you can see it for yourself in an award-winning film by George Ratliff called Hell House, now on DVD from Amazon.co.uk

[alistair mcbay]

"In response to your remarks, it IS a free society, but you seem determined to restrict that freedom in the case of religion."

I am not in any way restricting your freedom to believe. Religious believers are free to argue their case and promote their beliefs in the public marketplace. I have never, ever suggested that is not the case, and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. Do not bear false witness, Alan.

I am however working to prevent you thinking your freedom of belief gives you the right to restrict my freedom not to believe, which in some cases has religion determined to achieve this my killing me, and justifying it 'morally', ie because it says so in a holy text!

I uphold Articles 9.1 and 9.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 9.1 says everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change it or manifest it. Recognise that, Alan? The NSS view entirely. Not the view held by some religions, but let that pass for the moment.

Article 9.2 says that "Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief enshrined in Article 9.1 shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

That's what I buy into 100% Alan - do you? No, you don't - you think 9.2 should allow religious rights to trump human rights every time. Without 9.2, we would have all sorts of religious zealots running riot, justifying their belief in "god" as the sole arbiter of their actions and getting away with it.

Pastor Rob defines freedom as all of us doing what he interprets for us from his version of the supernatural. In his world, freedom and religious tolerance are derived from the notion that every individual should be free to believe what he wants about God, providing of course Pastor Rob has conveniently interpreted it for us. That interpretation - oddly enough - is that his God lays down the rules on what freedom and religious tolerance should be. A virtuous circle? Hardly. It is precisely this sort of human interpretation of religion that HRH Prince Charles was talking about in Pakistan this week. Those darned theologians again, Alan!

I have answered the nonsense of the 72% claim on another thread. You really are desperate if you believe this at face value, Alan.

[Alan Marsh]

Alistair, you remind me of that wonderful scene in Fawlty Towers, where Basil's car breaks down at the critical moment...have you never thumped your desk when your computer freezes just as you are about to save a piece of work?

In response to your remarks, it IS a free society, but you seem determined to restrict that freedom in the case of religion.

People are free to market all kinds of politics, theories, books, music, art, products etc etc etc in a free society, and religious believers in a free society (not your kind of free society) are free to argue their case and promote their beliefs in the public marketplace.

The latest census reveals that the Christian faith commands a 72% vote among respondents, which makes it a pretty hefty majority among the population at large, who are entirely free to choose what religion or none they prefer.

Logically 72% of taxpayers describe themselves as Christian. If the nation decides to provide for the needs of the 72% by part-funding Church schools (about a quarter of the total number of schools) then this is not forcing dogma upon anyone (in your quaint phrase) but responding to the desires of the large majority. But I assume you don't believe in democracy, either?

[Robert Buechler]

Christopher wrote: "You are free to believe what you like but that freedom stops at the limits of my freedom."

Let us speak briefly about freedom.

Freedom, from your point of view appears to be an end.

Freedom from a Christian point of view is a means to an end.

With regards to the public square then, freedom is a tool for the ends of showing love to God and neighbor. Love to God means obedience to him. Love to neighbor means to work in such a way that we do nothing to put stumbling blocks towards their salvation, and do everything we can to ensure their good both temporally and spiritually (understanding of course that temporal "wants and desires" must be put aside when they conflict with the greater, eternal needs of humanity outlined by our Lord).

One reason I think you have a problem with religious talk in the public square is precisely this difference.

Freedom cannot be an end in itself; and really would mean tyranny and anarchy if it was.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Christopher]

"And why are you trying to make me answerable for the actions of one Scottish woman?"

Jill, the woman in question isn't just 'one Scottish woman', she's running a movement 'Catholic Truth' on a par with the Christian Institute, Christian Voice, Concerned Women of America and many other self-appointed bodies with a religio-political agenda. Patricia McKeever seems to think she is a super-christian who is entitled to speak and act on behalf of other christians (as well as having an exemption from the prohibition against casting the first stone).

So, Alistair, we see it isn't just muslims who are slow to condemn the fanatics in their midst...

[Christopher]

"He attempts to find out what is wrong and set it right."

But Alistair, don't you know Alan is an Anglican, a parent and a school governor who has studied theology to a postgraduate level of qualification, so if the car WON'T go when he tells it to, what shall he do - blame it for being a car and not a heavenly chariot ?

[Robert Buechler]

Christopher,

First, let me thank you for your honesty.

Now to business. Since what the church does or does not do within her community is of no import to you, let us move on to the public square. That, I believe, is your purpose.

Your posts (as well as that of others) indicates a hostility towards religious constructs and arguments being a part of any public debate on issues pertaining to governance of the state.

The level of hostility shown indicates as well that you believe that "your side" (ie, the secularist, atheistic view of things) has first place in the public arena, and religion is at best quaint, at worst a hostile adversary to the public good.

As you have said though, your freedom stops at my freedom. That is to say, if the state is debating creating laws and granting permission to things that are immoral; that according to the teaching of the gospel will lead many to lose out on the kingdom of heaven; and in fact will bring about great harm to those who practice this or that behavior meaning that my tax dollars will be going to support, endorse, and comfort those who act immorally and thereby tacticly endorse the behavior,then I have a duty towards the public good to speak out against the atheistic and secularist agenda. That is simply good citizenship. I cannot allow the "freedom" of the secularists to infringe on the health and freedom of others, nor can I allow the "freedom" of those with an anti-religious delusion to force those who do believe to shut up and pay for that which is decidely sinful.

Freedom works both ways in the public square. Someone's freedom is always working in some way against another's. This debate really should be about what is morally responsible; for ultimately we are talking about sexual behavior here, not a minority group.

This is about one side or the other making the best case and letting the democratic process work. But make no mistakes about it, someone's freedom to do or think whatever is going to be infringed. You would have believers be infringed upon, and have them support at least financially what is impossible for them to accept.

This is why you find resistance to your beliefs. That is why you will always find beliefs of this kind (concerning moral issues) resisted by the faithful.

That doesn't mean by the way that I think the believers have "lost" the argument if the state decides to endorse that which is sinful. This doesn't mean either that the believers of Christ should stop standing on the truth of the Scriptures, even if the whole country moves away. There are any number of laws in my country that are un-Christian (abortion, many forms of gambling, etc). The Church must still stand for her Lord and his Scriptures. The Christian must still act for the good as Christ has made it know in the public arena, even if he or she is not listened to.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Christopher]

"Since this is so, why would you bother with this conversation?"

Fair question, Rob. I don't generally take to the streets to seek out believers to disabuse them of their delusions, unlike door-tapping religionists who do come round with their tracts and their bibles trying to disabuse me of my disbelief. That is not to say I am not very interested in the *phenomenon* of religion and think Ruth's blog does a great service for people to be able to discuss it on a public forum; sometimes to the disappointment of those who want this to be a specifically christian blog, it has to be pointed out that the forum is open to all who have a point to make, whether they are believers or not, whether they are buddhists or muslims.

Today on BBC Radio 4 John Humphreys start a series of three conversations with religious believers (christian, muslim and Jewish). His challenge is for them to rekindle his lost faith. Should be interesting listening - you can get it on Listen Again on http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/humphrysinsearchofgod/ to hear Rowan Williams this week.

If I take issue with you Rob it is because you appear to be siding with an agenda which has social consequences - trying to deprive minorities of just treatment and using religious dogma to do it. You are free to believe what you like but that freedom stops at the limits of my freedom. You will never agree that you should not try to impose your ideas on me - that is the nature of missionary zeal - but I and others on this blog believe you have to be resisted. It is important to let people labouring under a religious delusion to know that not everyone faces the same way as them or swallows their dogmas or will lie down under their diktats. The fact that Dawkins's book is in the Wall Street Journal's Top Ten Best Sellers' list suggests that maybe, just maybe the American public is beginning to come to the conclusion that the religious right in America is the emperor with no clothes. Anyway, you and I will never agree, I can see that, so let's agree to differ for the sake of other readers.

[alistair mcbay]

"And why are you trying to make me answerable for the actions of one Scottish woman?"

Oh come on, cut the paranoia, Jill! You were merely asked for your opinion. If you don't want to give one, then fine, but don't confuse being asked to express your opinion (presumably the reason most of us blog) with being somehow set up to be answerable for the actions of one Scottish woman! I could have responded to your question to me about whether I supported Tatchell, by asking whether you were trying to make me answerable for the actions of one gay activist, but that would not have developed the discussion anymore than a refusal to reply on the grounds that the conversation was getting silly!

"By the same token, do you seriously propose that religion is somehow invalidated because people have different opinions?"

Alan, what I do think is that the attempts by adherents of many different religions to advance theirs alone above all others and force its dogma on a free society, are invalidated by the fact that there are so many religions, and so many denominations (schisms?) within religions, and that as and between these there are so many contrary and conflicting views about "god".

I like your motor car analogy though. It reminded me of Bertrand Russells' remark in 'Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?':

"No man treats a motor car as foolishly as he treats another human being. When the car will not go, he does not attribute its annoying behaviour to sin, he does not say, "You are a wicked motorcar, and I shall not give you any more petrol until you go." He attempts to find out what is wrong and set it right."

[Jill]

Sorry, Alistair, I don't understand the question. I thought I had already answered it twice. And why are you trying to make me answerable for the actions of one Scottish woman? Nothing to do with me, old chap. It's not the sort of thing I think anybody should do. (Third time.)

This conversation is getting extremely silly.

[Alan Marsh]

Alistair, nothing causes trouble quite so effectively as those who set out to do so with malice aforethought, in any sphere of human activity.

I do not think you really believe that everyone is an instant expert on religion, irrespective of previous study or knowledge. Are you an expert on car mechanics just because you drive a car? Are you an authority on computer programming just because you use one to send email?

By the same token, do you seriously propose that religion is somehow invalidated because people have different opinions?

Can you not go on some kind of NSS course so that they can teach you some better arguments?

[alistair mcbay]

"How about you making it clear to us whether or not you support Peter Tatchell’s ‘outing’ of gays?"

No problem, Jill. I don't. And I don't believe he should have stormed the pulpit when George Carey was delivering a sermon either.

Now, how about you answering the real question I posed, which was that, acknowledging as I did previously you do not accept the way Catholic Truth are going about things, what you do think of one group of Christians openly persecuting another in this way by process of Inquisition, and which road do you think that takes society down in the longer term - renegade groups of believers appointing themselves as accuser, prosecutor, judge and jury to attack people they don't like?

"And did Jesus really say men should stone their wives to death if they found out they were not virgins on their wedding night? I don’t think he did!"

No, but he did say he would uphold all his father's laws, so.....well, work it out whichever way fits your bias, I guess. And work this one out too - he didn't say anything about vilifying and demonising gays either, but if he intended to uphold all his father's laws...... Hmm, interesting.

"If I remember rightly, I think it is only those without sin who can cast the first stone. Not that I am accusing you of hand-picking bits of the Bible to suit your purpose, Alistair!"

Come on, Jill, we are all original sinners, isn't that what you believe? None of us is without sin, are we?

And why should I not choose bits from the bible to suit my purpose, since that's what all Christians do? All Muslims do it too in reference to the Koran. That's why we all need doctorates in theology as Alan says, but then again Alan and David have been quoting bits from the bible to suit their individual purpose on another thread, and have now fallen out as a result, each screaming "bitch" at the other in their own polite ecumenical way.

See the trouble religion causes?

[Robert Buechler]

Christopher wrote: "What makes you think I want that, Rob? Sinning is in your vocabulary."

I found this comment very important. Obviously, since you don't believe in God (as you said later on), then the issue of whether or not the church should bless anything is of no real concern to you.

Since this is so, why would you bother with this conversation?

It would appear to me that such insistance by you on something you admittedly don't care about is worthy of deeper investigation. Repressed anger, etc.

What you have made clear to me is that you would like the church to bless sin (it is real whether you like it or not, as God is), for in so doing they would deny the authority of God and perhaps make you feel a little better about your abandonment of the Lord. That by the way would be blessing your sin, which I stated before.

So I pose the question: Why do you continue to desire the church to do that which it ought not do? Why do you care?

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Christopher]

"What many like yourself seem to want is one of two things: Excuses to keep on sinning, or even better, a blessing of sinful behavior."

What makes you think I want that, Rob? Sinning is in your vocabulary. Why do you think I am seeking your approval for anything when I'd have thought it clear that I am not? Because someone takes issue with a preacher doesn't mean that person is secretly seeking affirmation. I had a visit from a Jehovah's Witness once just as I had found a hedgehog in my garden being eaten alive by blowfly maggots from the inside out, laid while it was in hibernation. I said I didn't believe in God. He said 'How can you say that with all this beauty around'. I showed him the hedgehog 'Is this part of God's beauty?' 'No, that is the work of Satan'. I assured him that they are one and the same, constructs of the human imagination.

A blogger commenting on an article in the Guardian by Dawkins and Jerry Coyne (and quoted in his book) speaks for many when he said:

"Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It's not - it's a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulder, an 'I dunno' dressed up in spitituality and ritual. If someone credits something to God, generally what it means is that they haven't a clue, so they're attributing it to an unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from, and odds are you'll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing."

So I say back to you Rob, 'Now I hope I have been clearer!'

[Jill]

Yes, Christopher, I can quite see why you don’t like ‘salacious exposés’, as you put it, but I would point out that anyone with half a brain would know there is a lot more money to be made out of promoting porn than there is in fighting against it. And there is no shortage of material to fight against, either – they don’t need to do much digging, do they? If you think any of the material is untrue or biased, then I expect you know the appropriate channels for complaint. However, as all of this material is gleaned from Government Guidelines, I don’t think you will have much success.

Alistair, I notice you are lumping right-wing fascists together with Christians and Muslims who are living out their beliefs. Surely you are doing what you are accusing others of doing, and using them to bolster up your arguments against religious believers. It’s no use saying it’s not faith itself you are opposed to, because faith is not just a set of theories to Christians; we have to live the life as well, as best we can.

I was actually on the point of apologising to you for misunderstanding your previous post, but when I looked back at it I see that your actual comment was ‘So, here we have catholic Christians outing homosexuals “whether they wanted it or not, in complete violation of their human rights”, as you put it re the apparently “odious” Tatchell.’ This sounds to me very much as if you support Peter Tatchell, so it is hardly surprising that I jumped to that conclusion. What I was in fact doing when I posted the remark about Peter Tatchell’s behaviour in that regard was providing an illustration against Christopher’s rather rash assertion that there was ‘no gay agenda’.

And I certainly have answered your ‘question’ about human rights – I said that nobody should ‘out’ people against their will. My exact words were ‘I think it is totally unacceptable for anyone to do such a thing’. I think that covers it. You must have missed that bit. So I don’t think I will apologise on this occasion, especially as you have ‘form’ on this issue. How about you making it clear to us whether or not you support Peter Tatchell’s ‘outing’ of gays?

And did Jesus really say men should stone their wives to death if they found out they were not virgins on their wedding night? I don’t think he did! If I remember rightly, I think it is only those without sin who can cast the first stone. Not that I am accusing you of hand-picking bits of the Bible to suit your purpose, Alistair!

[Christopher]

"More trolling, Alistair." "(since you are obsessed with the subject) to you it means what some people call "cruising"."

I think Alan's attributing to me obsessions (i.e. trolling meaning cruising) tells us more about the state of his id than mine; nothing was further from my thoughts than the sexual connotation that came so readily to him. I simply thought he was misapplying the cyber-term trolling. A troll is surely someone incognito or using an alias who pretends to hold an extreme position on a website to get people going. For example many thought James was a troll because no christian would really want to put people off christianity the way he did, would he? So James might be a troll or a plant, someone out to discredit his 'cause' by driving the argument to insane conlusions.
(Some people think Ann Coulter might fit that description since what sane person would vote Republican after listening to her?)

Alistair cannot be a troll because we know who he is, the Scottish representative of the NSS, whose cause he argues so clearly to the chagrin of Alan.

I was also surprised to see Alan quote from the Wikipedia since he rubbished it when I quoted from it some time back. But there you go, the Wikipedia definition is incomplete...

[J Pearce]

"I'm rather cooler than my grandchildren, Christopher."

I KNEW you were a Granddad, Alan...

(oh no! trolling! the horror!)

Rob B, I have seen your future and it is made of gold. You should start a "Forgiveness-by-correspondence" course, whereby lonely, sinful blog contributors such as myself and Christopher can email you our sins in return for you emailing us back a note of forgiveness, signed by The Lord (c) himself.

Of course, there would be a sliding scale of sin, which you could charge for. Something like:

Picking your nose in public : $1
Scratching your neighbours car: $5
Extra marital nookie: $50
Gayness: $100

Think how much money you could make! Go on, you know its a winner!

[Alan Marsh]

I'm rather cooler than my grandchildren, Christopher. No doubt (since you are obsessed with the subject) to you it means what some people call "cruising". But the SOED provides a 16/17C definition of "entice, allure" and that is what a troll is on the internet - someone attempting to lead the discussion astray. I quote from Wikipedia:

"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate messages."

Tell that to YOUR grandchildren.....

[Robert Buechler]

Christopher wrote: "You said "Christopher, stop trying to tinker with God's estate." If you say so, Rob but I think the subtext of that is: "How the **** do I shut someone up in a religious argument?"

I doubt you get many people challenge you in your church in America"

Actually, if there is a subtext to what I said, it wouldn't be "How the bleep do I shut someone up in a religious argument?" I would have thought the subtext was clearer than that. I was actually calling you to repent, not simply to shut up. Sorry you missed that. I should have been clearer! My bad! :)

Now as to being challenged in the church. I have been challenged by a number of people. What I find in every case though, is that when such people don't like the teaching, they are really looking for an excuse or blessing for their sinful behavior as opposed to forgiveness.

This should ring a bell Christopher (I am trying to be more direct so you don't have to go looking for sub-texts). What many like yourself seem to want is one of two things: Excuses to keep on sinning, or even better, a blessing of sinful behavior. This is not offered by our Lord. Forgiveness is what is offered, which in my humble experience is a much greater treasure than being excused or blessed in sin.

Now for the last bit. If you want the blessing of that behavior which the Church through Scripture calls sin; then it would be my suggestion that you and others do one of two things. Either repent, ask forgiveness, and seek to live in obedience to the Word of God; or you can take it outside the church and form a group more to your liking.(Of course you must realize that if you do that won't stop the Church from seeking you out and trying to bring you to faith and obedience in Christ) The church must not follow where you want them to go however.

Now I hope I have been clearer! :)

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Christopher]

"More trolling, Alistair."

Alan, when you use street-slang (or argot as you would more properly call it) you'd better use it right otherwise your grandchildren will think you are very uncool. I am afraid the OED will be no use to you in this.

[Christopher]

"I would agree with that, but not on a religious basis. I am not aware of primary school children being taught anything about sexuality; therefore, it seems wrong to me to be "educating" them about a subject which should not be part of their lives (or education) until they are older. "

I would also agree with that too, J Pearce, but the Christian Institute has to justify its existence from somewhere and must be longing for further solacious exposés to keep them in business and the money from punters like Jill rolling in.

I went to see Être et Avoir yesterday (when I should have been answering Jill's last). This lovely film about 6 months in the school year in the Auvergne shows a wonderful teacher who teaches 13 pupils ranging from 4 to 10 in the same class. It was the most uplifting and heart-warming film - and sex didn't come into it!

[alistair mcbay]

"Alistair, I don’t find it easy to see why you think it is acceptable for Peter Tatchell to ‘out’ gay people but not for anybody else to do so. I think it is totally unacceptable for anyone to do such a thing."

Jill, you really are turning into James!I never at any stage said that I approved of Tatchell's campaign, and it is malicious of you to infer that I did. No doubt you think I do because I am one of these ghastly non-believers who thinks homosexuals should be allowed to live their lives free of persecution and hate from Christians, Muslims and right-wing facists.

In case you missed it first time, I pointed out to you that a group of devout Christians were employing exactly the same tactic that Tatchell used, and further were using it on other devout Christians, namely Catholic priests. The basis they claim for doing this is Christian scripture and "charity". I invited you to comment on that, and you have avoided it by trying to divert attention away to something else. You may indeed say you do not accept the way Catholic Truth are going about things, but I want to know what you think of one group of Christians persecuting another in this way, and which road that takes society down in the longer term.

[Alan Marsh]

More trolling, Alistair. Why do you keep insisting that Christians must all be fundamentalists? Is it because you prefer to attack demons of your own imagining? Or simply that you think religion is an easier target if misrepresented?

Why do you feel the need to pursue the issue at all? If as you say you are happy for believers and atheists to coexist, why do you need to impose conditions on public expressions of faith, and to engage in childish outbursts on a religious blog against those who are discussing religious issues?

Fairies and spaghetti monsters? Is that really the best you can manage?

[alistair mcbay]

"Why do you insist that Christians have to be fundamentalists, when the vast majority (probably 99.5%) are not? Who says so? You? the NSS?"

In short, I don't, and neither does the NSS. You consistently misrepresent this Alan, to your lasting discredit.

You troll out the tired old mantra that society without religion means Christians die, based on........well, what? Nazi Germany, run by lifelong Catholic Hitler, whom you consistently try to portray as either an atheist, or satanist?

It is you who misprespesent all atheists as "secular fundies" who would ban all religion and kill all its adherents. This is garbage and entirely and wilfully misrepresents my position.

You seem determined "to make all kinds of assumptions and insinuations" about atheism, as well as religion, but you get to I suppose because you know better than the rest of us, as you have frequently indicated to us from your lofty pedastal.

I fear that if anyone is guilty of failing to realise the consequences of their motives and actions, it is you.

I repeat my view again, and that of the NSS, that there is room for all of us to rub along fine together but religion has to be kept in the home or place of worship, not in public or government institutions where it is proven to bring injustice, discrimination and inequality.

[J Pearce]

"Christopher, I hope you have read the pdf file I posted on the school books. It may be that you think the explicit homosexual material is acceptable for five-year-olds to read, but I can assure you that the majority of parents will not."

I would agree with that, but not on a religious basis. I am not aware of primary school children being taught anything about sexuality; therefore, it seems wrong to me to be "educating" them about a subject which should not be part of their lives (or education) until they are older. However, I would take you to task Jill on the point that the material you reference is Christian propoganda pure and simple, therefore its inevitable that its going to be a bit hysterical about anything related to homosexuality.

Peter Tatchell obviously has a thyroid issue and to be honest, I find him bloody annoying, regardless of his sexuality. The man has no class. Outing gay people is wrong, it’s a violation of their private life, regardless of whether they happen to act hypocrtically about their own sexuality or not.

Rob B. said:
"The belief that all moral values are human creations, the result of evolutionary processes, and therefore are relative to time and place is a myth. Get over it."

Ah, the Socratic argument. Sorry Rob, we've moved on a little bit since the ancient Greeks, I would have hoped you'd noticed that. Most social anthropological studies indicate the development of a moral nexus in regards to human endeavours, parallel to the development of human societies over thousands of years since primitive man first started forming tribes for protection against natural predation. In much the same way as religion - another entirely man-made concept - has developed, in fact.

However, I understand your need to deny any form of scientific understanding of human development, seeing as it tends to eviscerate most of the irrational theological concepts that you hold most dear. I'm sure the holy orders of the middle ages were also most agitated, when that Copernicus fellow came along and started messing with their ideas about the Universe...

[Alan Marsh]

Here we go again, Alistair! Why do you insist that Christians have to be fundamentalists, when the vast majority (probably 99.5%) are not? Who says so? You? the NSS?

It's that totalitarian mindset again, so typical of atheist regimes, which even today are routinely executing Christians because of their religious faith.

I would have thought you would put some energy into opposing that kind of thing, if you genuinely sought equality in society, but your determination to make all kinds of assumptions and insinuations about religion suggests that you fail to realise the consequences of trying to extirpate religion from the public domain.

[Robert Buechler]

Alistair wrote: "The story of Adam and Eve is a myth, Alan. Get over it."

Alistair,

The belief that all moral values are human creations, the result of evolutionary processes, and therefore are relative to time and place is a myth. Get over it.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Alan Marsh]

Christopher, I am delighted to see that you have discovered the 1559 Prayer Book. If the English is a little quaint, the doctrine is the same: marriage is the union of one man and one woman, for the purposes stated.

[alistair mcbay]

"it comes as no surprise to learn that you do not believe in the teaching of the Bible about human sexuality"

Alan, I don't believe the teachings of the bible, period! Or, incidentally, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics, the vedas, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster....

But if you want to believe that you can stone a woman to death if you discover on your wedding night that she's not the virgin you thought she was, you go ahead, Alan.

At least I am honest enough to not believe any of the Bible. You on the other hand appear to pick and choose the bits that suit your purpose.

As for "Marriage and procreation are the bedrock of Christian anthropology", that may or may not be the case, but marriage and procreation existed long before christianity, so you can't claim invention or ownership of it, any more than you can claim ownership of December 25 as the birth of Jesus. We all know how that came about!

[Christopher]

Rob, it goes on as long as you, Jill and Alan want it to:-Q I know as a preacherman you are used to having the last word.

You said "Christopher, stop trying to tinker with God's estate." If you say so, Rob but I think the subtext of that is: "How the **** do I shut someone up in a religious argument?"

I doubt you get many people challenge you in your church in America where people are so respectful. Theoretically I suppose they could but here in England we have the 1860 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act which protects the Church of England (only).

Despite that, in 1966 Nicolas Walter heckled Harold Wilson when speaking in a church, to protest at the support given by the UK government to US behaviour in Vietnam. He got as far as shouting "Hypocrite!" before being bundled out. He was arrested and charged with "indecency in church" - Harold Wilson got protection under the 1860 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act. Mr Walter got two months in jail. The Act was used again to prosecute Peter Tatchell when he interrupted Archbishop (George Carey) of Canterbury's Easter sermon in 1998. That time Peter was only fined £18.60 by a magistrate as a nicely leveled homage to a 19th-century relic of religion's privileged protection against dissent.

[Jill]

Christopher, if I did indeed need to get out more (which I don’t) it would be rather a long way for an English Anglican like me to go to hear stuff I didn’t want to listen to. As far as I know, this person doesn’t have anything to do with the Christian Institute, or NARTH, or the Daily Telegraph, although it is possible that I am mistaken.

Alistair, I don’t find it easy to see why you think it is acceptable for Peter Tatchell to ‘out’ gay people but not for anybody else to do so. I think it is totally unacceptable for anyone to do such a thing. If gay people want to ‘out’ themselves, that is an entirely different matter. However, if they want their sexual practices to be accepted as normal by the majority, then they must expect to have a torch shone upon them, and must not be surprised if people don’t like what they find, especially when people discover that the cleaned-up version they are presented with is far from the truth.

I hoped I had made my position clear in the past, but I don’t think I can have, as I keep getting these comments, so I will just reiterate that I think people’s sexuality is their own business and nobody else’s – in the case of priests, it is a matter between themselves and God - and none of us is in a position to pass judgment. However, when they make it other people’s business by telling them about it and trying to force them to find it acceptable against their conscience and religious belief, that is a different matter.

No, I do not need any further information about inquisitions; the whole thing is wrong. However, I think some discipline needs to be enforced from above (no, I don’t mean THAT high above, but by the Bishops). In what other profession could a person make a two-fingered gesture to their boss (in this case I DO mean that high above) and get away with it? No chance of that happening, though, as far as I can see, as many Bishops are colluding with them. The best solution that I can see would be a moratorium on openly practising homosexual or CP ordinations. But I don’t suppose that will happen either, as there doesn’t seem to be any authority in the Anglican Communion; not from this side of the world anyhow.

When the inevitable backlash against gays comes (and I suspect this will be when people discover what is being forced upon their children) I don’t doubt that it will not be Peter Tatchell who will be blamed, but probably Christians. (As in the recent Gay Police Association ad.)

Christopher, I hope you have read the pdf file I posted on the school books. It may be that you think the explicit homosexual material is acceptable for five-year-olds to read, but I can assure you that the majority of parents will not.

[Robert Buechler]

Christopher wrote:
"The third reason is splendid and is not gender-dependent, so why should gay people be excluded from that? Do you need all three reasons in place for the marrige to contracted? Clearly not, since christian marriages can be childless and some people don't get married for the sex."

Christopher, the third reason is connected to the male/female component of marriage, as are the other two. If you desire to separate the divine mandate of male/female complementarity, then you desire to separate marriage from its foundation.

Again, marriage is a divine estate, defended by Jesus himself. If you do not support this, you are defying the Lord directly. As our Lord said, "What God has joined together, let no one put asunder."

Christopher, stop trying to tinker with God's estate.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

P.S. I thought I was done with this conversation, but I am on coffee break. Why not have a go, right?!:)

[alistair mcbay]

“I’ve heard of Peter Tatchell, though, the supposed ‘human rights’ campaigner, whose ‘outing’ of prominent gay people whether they wanted it or not, in complete violation of their human rights, was totally in support of a gay agenda.”

Oh dear Jill. Please go to:
http://www.catholictruth.co.uk/html/newsflash.html

and scroll down to read about its Heavenly Witness Protection Programme. This is a group of conservative Catholic laity in Scotland dedicating itself as a vigilante group to “out” homosexual priests in the RC Church in Scotland. They are also on record in the Scottish press over many years as calling Cardinal Keith O’Brien and Archbishop Mario Conti “heretics” unworthy of leading catholics.

See this article in last weekend’s Sunday Herald about their first victim, Fr Hone, a Redemptorist at St Patrick’s in Edinburgh.

http://www.sundayherald.com/58676

So, here we have catholic Christians outing homosexuals “whether they wanted it or not, in complete violation of their human rights”, as you put it re the apparently “odious” Tatchell. I have much more background on this new 21st century Inquisition if you would like it.

Don't Catholic priests have human rights too, Jill?

[Christopher]

My, Jill, not heard of Pat Robertson! You should get out more. He is a Southern Baptist TV Preacherman who runs a multi-million dollar empire and has links with the White House and his own christian TV show, the 700 Club. He said God sent the hurricane to punish New Orleans for godlessness but withdrew when President Bush expressed displeasure at his ravings.

But it is hardly surprising if you limit your reading to the Christian Institute's fact sheets and what you can glean from NARTH's website, and otherwise that balanced organ the Daily Telegraph. Enough there for a worldview and not much danger it is going to be rocked.

The term Gay Agenda was first used in America (where else?) as the title of a video produced by some right-wing politicos called Ty and Jeanette Beeson. The idea caught on and thus was born a convenient shorthand way of rubbishing the aims of people who simply want to be treated equally and seek to do it through legal democratic channels and not by bombing and terrorising anyone. If Peter Tatchell threatens to out people it is only those who side with discriminatory practices on the face of it but are secretly practising homosexuals. Not every gay person agrees with these tactics, but Peter is not an odious person, he just had a religous upbringing as a pentecostal and at times it shows.

No doubt you saw the report the other day that the Polish media have outed the Prime Minister of Poland, one of the pair of ultra-catholic twins. Marc Shoffman reports:
"Mr Kaczynski, who is known for his opposition to gay rights since attacking same sex marriage earlier this year, was investigated in 1992 as officials aimed to establish his sexual orientation, the documents reveal.

The papers, exposed by Polish newspaper Rzeczpolita, document a discussion on the leader’s sexuality, in the files, Colonel Jan Lesiak is reported to have said: 'It is advisable to establish if Jaroslaw Kaczynski remains in a long-term homosexual relationship and, if so, who his partner is'...."
They go on to say "Prime Minister Kaczynski is a confirmed bachelor who lives with his mother." Open and shut case, then!

So the biter is bit and not many will weep any tears for him since he and his twin have done so much to hurt gay Poles.

[Christopher]

Here is some even more old-fashioned language for you, Alan, part of the SOLEMPNIZACION OF MATRIMONYE from the Booke of Common Prayer 1559:

".....consideryng the causes for the which matrimony was ordeined. One was the procreation of children, to be brought up in the feare and nurtoure of the Lorde, and praise of God. Secondly, it was ordeined for a remedy agaynste sinne and to avoide fornication, that suche persones as have not the gifte of continencie might mary, and kepe themselves undefiled membres of Christes body. Thirdly, for the mutual societie, helpe, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, bothe in prosperity and adversitye, into the whiche holy state these two persones present, come nowe to be joyned. "

Quaint, isn't it? The primary purpose of sex isn't just to people the planet or to denote the mystical marriage between Christ and his church, but specifically to make little christian boys and girls (child-abuse in Dawkins's book). I have always thought the mystical marriage with Christ, even as a rather strained metaphor, ought to make heterosexual men feel uneasy, but let's not go there.

The second reason, what Paul grudgingly allowed for those who were unable to be celibate - "for a remedy agaynste sinne and to avoide fornication, that suche persones as have not the gifte of continencie might mary" - is not available to gay men. Just saying they *can* get married...to a woman...is a case of keeping-head-in-sand. How is that going to help them when they are burning for someone of their own sex, not a woman.? "Tough tits" I hear you cry, because there isn't a better answer.

The third reason is splendid and is not gender-dependent, so why should gay people be excluded from that? Do you need all three reasons in place for the marrige to contracted? Clearly not, since christian marriages can be childless and some people don't get married for the sex.

[Alan Marsh]

Alistair, it comes as no surprise to learn that you do not believe in the teaching of the Bible about human sexuality.

[alistair mcbay]

"Christopher, the accepted Christian anthropology revolves around marriage and procreation as exemplified by Adam and Eve in Genesis."

The story of Adam and Eve is a myth, Alan. Get over it.

[Jill]

Dear me, Christopher – no gay agenda? What a porkie! I’ve never heard of Pat Robertson. Who is she? I’ve heard of Peter Tatchell, though, the supposed ‘human rights’ campaigner, whose ‘outing’ of prominent gay people whether they wanted it or not, in complete violation of their human rights, was totally in support of a gay agenda.

It might not have occurred to you that a great deal of infertility has been caused by sexual promiscuity, but oh no, don’t say the Bible is right again!

Don’t be fooled, anybody. Not only has there been a gay agenda going for decades, but we have been financing it. Here is a nine-year-old document produced by the Christian Institute (wait for squeals of ‘homophobes’). Of course a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, and a lot of their fears have in fact come to pass, as they say in the Bible.

http://www.christian.org.uk/scotland/pressreleases/1999/november_11_1999b.htm

Gay proselytizing is of course no longer illegal in schools, in fact it will soon be enforceable under the Sexual Orientation Regulations.

In another link, for those not of a squeamish disposition, showing what is soon likely to be inflicted on the Nation’s children. And there will be bu**er all you can do about it, apart from teach your children at home or take the Local Authority to court.

http://www.christian.org.uk/soregs/sor_booklet_sept06.pdf

The Christian Institute has lots of other information on the forthcoming SORs and how it will affect us, especially schoolchildren, promoting homosexual teaching under the disguise of ‘anti-bullying policy’. Another example of special treatment being demanded for gays. All sorts of people are bullied, and bullying should be tackled wholesale.

At last the BBC has come clean about its liberal bias and owned up to employing disproportionate numbers of gay people. ‘At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.’ Well, there’s a surprise. Perhaps the rest of the liberal media will follow suit and come clean now. Not to mention local councils, some of which had a deliberate policy of employing gay people to run children’s homes, then throw up their hands in horror when they get sued by former residents who were abused by them. Or the Church of England’s theological colleges, one of which (St Stephen’s House, Oxford) owned up to 90 per cent of its ordinands being gay before the former Archbishop of York (whose own sexuality he described to be ‘a grey area’ after the odious Peter Tatchell tried to ‘out’ him) made them clean up their act. No gay agenda? Perhaps it would better be called ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of gays.

[Alan Marsh]

Christopher, Elizabeth Stuart is part of the problem as a leading gay activist engaged in deconstructing Christian morality. I don't know whether you quote her accurately, but if so then it is evidence of the mindset at work.

Marriage and procreation are the bedrock of Christian anthropology, and attempts to undermine it are producing the worldwide conservative response in Anglicanism matched by a series of conservative statements from the Vatican and from Orthodox church leaders.

The language is somewhat old-fashioned, but you will find a superb Anglican statement of the meaning of marriage in the preface to the service of Holy Matrimony in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

[Christopher]

"It's no good ignoring the facts"

It is a simple biological fact that most conceptions happen through sexual intercourse. Mine did - I don't know about yours - but increasingly women who are unable conceive in the normal way, or whose husbands/partners are impotent have resorted to IVF treatment. Sometimes women have to rely on surrogates or on sperm donors in order to have a child. I take it from what you have said that you are entirely against these medical interventions to help the infertile because it does not conform to your paradigm of the "Christian teaching about sexuality and marriage". Don't get me wrong, Alan, I also think there is no right to have a child. The theologian Professor Bishop Elizabeth Stuart has said, based on arguments from St John Chrysostom, there is only one reason that allows christians to have a child and that is to welcome the stranger into their midst. No other reason is valid, neither wanting to found a family, fulfil your biological role, keep the race going, pass on your genes, keep the family name going, give your parents grandchildren, nor any other reason, however natural the urges might be, is sufficient for christians.

[Alan Marsh]

It's no good ignoring the facts, Christopher. There is a growing lobby which wishes to detach the biological process of procreation from parenthood, and an already strongly established lobby both in the USA and in the UK which is promoting a sexual equality agenda strongly opposed to Christian teaching about sexuality and marriage. I will strongly resist any attempt to impose this kind of enforced gay equality syllabus in our local education authority.